Speechless

[Thumpalumpacus]

He's either completely disconnected from the english language or he's simply being dishonest.

False dichotomy. It's entirely possible that he's both uneducated and lying.

[bennyboy]

Sorry, natural selection was mentioned, but I didn't notice the change.   I would agree, that "natural selection" is fairly well supported.

About evolution.

I think it shows a horrible lack of faith in God to argue against science.  God made the Universe, and I would assume since the Christian God is not represented as a trickster god, that learning more about how the Universe is exactly to learn more about how God thinks.

The problem with Christians isn't that they believe in God, it's that they have to limit themselves with the Bible-- a collection of documents written thousands of years ago by relatively uneducated desert-dwellers.  They may have had spiritual ideas that they felt were of value, but their knowledge of the universe was clearly inferior to ours.

If you REALLY believe in God, then stop taking the word of Man, as writ in the Bible, and start taking the intent of God, as writ all over the practically infinite Universe, as your starting point.


For me personally (and I know I don't speak for others here), I wouldn't really be surprised to find that some kind of creative intelligent force underlies all the workings of reality. If we could get closer to that, I'd really be excited. But the backward views of Christians are a real cock-block in the search for anything really mystical or important in the Universe.

[J a c k]

Maybe the dude who can't make up his mind between atheist or theist is actually a deist?

[robvalue]

He could well be. Deism is the most rational form of theism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Maybe the dude who can't make up his mind between atheist or theist is actually a deist?

... or a politician.

[GrandizerII]

Sorry, natural selection was mentioned, but I didn't notice the change.   I would agree, that "natural selection" is fairly well supported.

Natural selection implies micro- and macroevolution is true. This is the natural flow, logically speaking. If this is not true, then something is in the way of preventing evolution from being true. But what evidence do we have for this "thing"? And why is it that the collective evidence clearly suggests there isn't any such "thing" actually?

[robvalue]

I find it hard to understand how anyone can think natural selection doesn't happen, in its simplest form.

It's like... that's what happens, that's what must happen. What else could possibly happen? It's like a tautology.

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry, natural selection was mentioned, but I didn't notice the change.   I would agree, that "natural selection" is fairly well supported.

Natural selection implies micro- and macroevolution is true. This is the natural flow, logically speaking. If this is not true, then something is in the way of preventing evolution from being true. But what evidence do we have for this "thing"? And why is it that the collective evidence clearly suggests there isn't any such "thing" actually?

I'm curious about your statement I bolded above.   How did you come to that conclusion?   My understanding of natural selection is that it is a filtering mechanism not a creative one.  That variations which are more likely to cause death or reduce reproduction are removed from the gene pool.  There are some who deal in population genetics who question the limits of natural selection.  How much of a role does the size of the population affect natural selection?   And also, how much of an advantage, is required in order for natural selection to become a contributing factor in the non-diversification of genetic information.

[vorlon13]

Sorry, natural selection was mentioned, but I didn't notice the change.   I would agree, that "natural selection" is fairly well supported.

About evolution.

I think it shows a horrible lack of faith in God to argue against science.  God made the Universe, and I would assume since the Christian God is not represented as a trickster god, that learning more about how the Universe is exactly to learn more about how God thinks.

The problem with Christians isn't that they believe in God, it's that they have to limit themselves with the Bible-- a collection of documents written thousands of years ago by relatively uneducated desert-dwellers.  They may have had spiritual ideas that they felt were of value, but their knowledge of the universe was clearly inferior to ours.

If you REALLY believe in God, then stop taking the word of Man, as writ in the Bible, and start taking the intent of God, as writ all over the practically infinite Universe, as your starting point.


For me personally (and I know I don't speak for others here), I wouldn't really be surprised to find that some kind of creative intelligent force underlies all the workings of reality.  If we could get closer to that, I'd really be excited.  But the backward views of Christians are a real cock-block in the search for anything really mystical or important in the Universe.

well . . . .


the Bible has anticipated your idea there, and among other verses, there is Revelations 22:18-19

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



so, the challenge is, how do you get to where you are without committing heresy ??   There will be religious folks that might feel strongly you might be right, but you're not a prophet or a (or the) deity, and they are not going to sign on as bennyboyites because your 'interpretation' not only wasn't anticipated positively in Scripture, it's actually forbidden. And forbidden in several places.

You're advocating the bible buffet, dogma cafeteria-ism and scripture cherry picking.  So how does an otherwise faithful and pious adherent get on to your way of thinking?  What's special about your selection of verses over the set picked by Pat Robertson ??   Or the Pope ??   Or Westboro Baptist ??  Or Martin Luther ??   Or Jim and Tammy Bakker ??

This is where scripture cherry picking gets the faithful; somewhere where it isn't religion any more, it's about turning away from having God in charge to having, for lack of a better word, an imposter in charge, someone who is SURE they know better than God (or Jesus if you want to go there) and is entirely comfortable with offering their "New and Improved" faith over that which was ordained by God.

[RoadRunner79]

About evolution.

I think it shows a horrible lack of faith in God to argue against science.  God made the Universe, and I would assume since the Christian God is not represented as a trickster god, that learning more about how the Universe is exactly to learn more about how God thinks.

The problem with Christians isn't that they believe in God, it's that they have to limit themselves with the Bible-- a collection of documents written thousands of years ago by relatively uneducated desert-dwellers.  They may have had spiritual ideas that they felt were of value, but their knowledge of the universe was clearly inferior to ours.

If you REALLY believe in God, then stop taking the word of Man, as writ in the Bible, and start taking the intent of God, as writ all over the practically infinite Universe, as your starting point.


For me personally (and I know I don't speak for others here), I wouldn't really be surprised to find that some kind of creative intelligent force underlies all the workings of reality.  If we could get closer to that, I'd really be excited.  But the backward views of Christians are a real cock-block in the search for anything really mystical or important in the Universe.

Have you ever heard of the idea of the two books of God? One of God's revelation, and one of God's work.

And I don't argue against science.... I like science, I think it is a good and useful tool. I am against scientism or the those who limit themselves to science alone as a source of knowledge. I also think that we can misinterpret either of the two books of God.