Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Telltale signs you have had too much religion
Soul_Builder101 - you have no case to rest
You simply do not know anything about the science you are attempting to refute.
Your arguments are against a mish mash of religious gibberish masquerading as the actual scientific theories and have virtually nothing to do with the real science. That is typical however, it plays well amongst religious folks who are just as ignorant, you will find lots of agreement there. I wouldn't try to pull that con on a real person of science however, unless you want to be laughed at profusely.
posted by
gomedome
on November 20, 2008 at 9:09 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Soul_Builder101 - almost everything in your comment is completely untru
You had a ringside seat when I did those posts on 'scientific' evolution. Twisting and turning and denying and confusing.....that is no way to demonstrate evolution. A result of Big Bang was a primordial soup on an accomodating rock, from which life arose.... to complexify into mammals, apes then man! I rest my case!
posted by
Soul_Builder101
on November 20, 2008 at 7:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Soul_Builder101 - almost everything in your comment is completely untrue
Evolution is demonstrable and has been proven. Evolution does not in any way propose the beginning of life. You have to get at least those two things straight before you attempt to refute the scientific theory of evolution.
I have always suggested that there is room within evolutionary theory for God as first cause, simply because no one has a better answer. But spare me what you do not know about evolution, it does not equate with atheism, that is simply another nonsensical construct by religious folks. Most of whom couldn't define the scientific theory of evolution to save their lives and of whom . . . I do not exempt present company.
posted by
gomedome
on November 20, 2008 at 1:55 PM
| link to this | reply
mousehop - Re: Smart Theists
I agree with that completely. It seems that anyone who is insistent upon the existence of a God by any definition which has consciousness, must create things to bridge inconsistencies and ignore some realities. The one aspect I have the most problem with is the complete silence on the part of this mythical character pertaining to what he/it/she is and what he/it/she wants from us.
There is no reasonable explanation which could possibly reconcile how so many different versions of God have been created by mankind, which have caused so much strife and bloodshed over history, with this being's perpetual silence. One manifestation would fix a whole lot of problems, surely a supposed omnipotent being could muster one on behalf of mankind?
posted by
gomedome
on November 20, 2008 at 1:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Gravity and convection are demonstrable and so are not theories. Evolution a la Atheism is a fanciful array of postulates that cannot be demonstrated. Nobody alive was present at creation or the onset of evolution. Neither can be proved decisively. So it ends up as... believe what you want! Creationism assumes God's existence plus nothing. Evolution assumes the presence of a material egg but no God. How did that material egg come into existence? It is better for man to cease this kind of squabble and simply admit that the world just exists. Spirituality is a reasonable course to follow. Physical tools measure physical things. They cannot measure God or spirit. Only soul can do that kind of detection....if it honestly wants to find out the truth. If not, then is lying to itself and telling people that it traveled down that road and found nothing. In fact, it assumes that no such road exists.... to be consistent with the evolutionary paradigm.
posted by
Soul_Builder101
on November 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Smart Theists
My experience with smart theists, (and I agree, they exist) is that they create sophisticated variations on interpretation of Sacred Writ. In other words, they make excuses for God, because God doesn't fit with reality, and doesn't come forward with His own explanation for the discrepancies. I see this as the same sort of hypocrisy practiced by politicians, but less acceptable, because at least politicians claim to represent the fallible.
posted by
mousehop
on November 20, 2008 at 7:16 AM
| link to this | reply