Creationism?

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:19 pm

Mickey should be more like this parrot

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:15 am

Mickiel;1347609 wrote: Well I understand this to be what your mind has to offer this debate, I offer this: Reason.

Now on to " Mutations", which many people believe offers the best explination for evolution. I offer a quote from Darwin himself, on page 233 of the " Blind Watchmaker". " The more " Macro" a mutation is, the more likely it is to be deleterious, and the less likely it is to be incorporated in the evolution of the species. As a matter of fact, virtually all the mutations studied in genetic labs , are deleterious to the animals possessing them.

In further fact, " Alfred Russell Wallace", Darwins co-founder of the theory of evolution, his partner, recanted the theory as false soon after he saw the results of these experiments. Further disproof of the theory, and it is STILL a theory.

Peace.

Have you ever been in a plane mickiel? Why does it stay in the air? Do you believe in the theory of flight, which is after all still just a THEORY rather like the theory of evolution. Where in the bible does it say mankind can fly?

For the sake of arguement, lets imagine the Atheist are right and life somehow sprang to life in self-replicating form and spawned all life as we know it. And lets also imagine this was at least somehow represented in the fossil record. Explain to me how would creatures be able to evolve and change into different ones? Well there are two ways; Crossbreeding and mutation. I do not dispute that " Horizontal Variation" ( Microevolution) exist. All species have a certain range of differences. But " Vertical Transformation ( Macroevolution) where one kind of species transforms into another, is so rare that it is not allowed. Imagine an Amoeba turning into a man, or an Amoeba turning into an Ape. So we try " Crossbreeding", but when abnormal lines are crossed, sterility is the result. A horse and a Donkey can mate and produce a new animal, the Mule, but the mule is always sterile and unable to procreate. The fact that " Hybrid Offspring" do not have the ability to reproduce is strong evidence against evolution.

All species have a certain range of differences. But " Vertical Transformation ( Macroevolution) where one kind of species transforms into another, is so rare that it is not allowed. Imagine an Amoeba turning into a man, or an Amoeba turning into an Ape.

So you don't believe then that god became christ, a human and a mortal then because it's not allowed? Pity then the poor catholic who is required to believe in transubstantiation, protestants hold to Consubstantiation but they are anthema anyway and so don't really matter in the great scheme of things but I don't want to go in to that. After you opine it is a load of cobblers and not worth arguing about what else is there to say?

Mankind didn't evolve in to a different species from apes, we still are apes. much the same way as a dalmation or a yorkshire terrier evolved from wolves. Unless you are going to argue they are different species. The offspring of a yorkshire terrier and a wolf would be fertile, if a bit surprising.

You don't offer reason, you can't, reason is the enemy of faith and the faithful have been trying to stamp out reason for centuries, you can't afford to think because you fear might come to the "wrong" concluscion about religion and find yourself losing your faith.

For the sake of arguement, lets imagine the Atheist are right and life somehow sprang to life in self-replicating form and spawned all life as we know it.

Let's assume for a moment that the religious are right and some supreme being went shazan and created everything. You are a plaything of god brought in to existence at a whim and will be snuffed out on a whim so you live your life in fear of upsetting god. An atheist doesn't believe in a supreme being as the creator of all things. That's it, there is no set of mysteries and beliefs you need to follow to be an atheist, no need to kill someone because they are the wrong kind of atheist. You do have to work out your own moral code because you are resposnsible for your own actions, no one will tell you a type of lifestyle is a sin or you should despise this or that person you take responsibility for yourself and your actions, no one will pat you on your head and say I forgive you because you passed some religious test. But at least you won't be living in fear all the time. You decide what makes you happy and gives you a fulfilling life not someone else.

The religious fear atheists because they are free while they are enslaved by their faith. I know from your post in another thread you won't bother reading this. But you're a miserable sod and I wish you could be happy. Try thinking about what you reading ratherv than just copy and paste.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:02 am

gmc;1347673 wrote: The religious fear atheists because they are free while they are enslaved by their faith. I know from your post in another thread you won't bother reading this. But you're a miserable sod and I wish you could be happy. Try thinking about what you reading ratherv than just copy and paste.

I see no reason to resort to name calling in this thread, and I willnot respond to it. I don't attack anyones personage.

Peace.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:10 am

Mickey, if you don't mind, would you please respond to my post#50. Thanks in advance.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:17 am

Ahso!;1347682 wrote: Mickey, if you don't mind, would you please respond to my post#50. Thanks in advance.

Sure, I'll get to it, I have to make a run for a few hours, then I'll be back.

Peace.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 7:59 am

Mickiel;1347680 wrote: I see no reason to resort to name calling in this thread, and I willnot respond to it. I don't attack anyones personage.

Peace.

You do not respond to anything anyway.

From another thread

Well as I have said before, if you think I need help or am bananas, why are you reading what I write? Don't bother with it, I don't read what you write, but not because I think rudely of you two, I am just not interested in how you think. The way certain men and women think, is just not interesting. Its bland and dull, and not because of society, but because of their consciousness and how they have " Fed their consciousness." And I will be going into the feeding of our consciousness.

If you do not find what others think interesting why bother posting in a discussion forum? If it is not to encounter those who do not think as you do and don't share your point of view it is a pointless exercise. You are right I should not have called you a miserable sod and I apologise. I let your arrogance and disdain for others niggle me and that is not something I should allow.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:54 am

Mickiel;1347606 wrote: I am not a Monkey, and theres nothing you can say or do to turn me into one. Now you can live your life believing that you are one, which I consider a belief that is close to maddness, such is your illusion of life.

And one more thing, I parrot nobody, I walk alone in my belief, I don't care who you compare me to.

Peace.

Don't feel bad about comparing mick to a sod or anything remember this post

We are all the ones who with a "madness" anyway, but we should not submit to him

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:37 am

Ahso!;1347615 wrote: See what I mean, Mickey? You are simply parroting religious right-wing propaganda.Quote

I don't even read religious right wing propaganda.

Where did you get the notion that Darwin said this? He didn't. You can read the entire page here: The blind watchmaker: why the ... - Google Books

Where did you get this information, Mickey?[/url]

I got it from Darwin, its what he meant as I read it.

Peace.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:39 am

gmc;1347689 wrote: You do not respond to anything anyway.

From another thread

If you do not find what others think interesting why bother posting in a discussion forum? If it is not to encounter those who do not think as you do and don't share your point of view it is a pointless exercise. You are right I should not have called you a miserable sod and I apologise. I let your arrogance and disdain for others niggle me and that is not something I should allow.

I honor and accept your apoligy, I don't let your arrogance force me to call you names personally.

Peace.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:40 am

littleCJelkton;1347693 wrote: Don't feel bad about comparing mick to a sod or anything remember this post

We are all the ones who with a "madness" anyway, but we should not submit to him

I said " The belief is close to maddness", I spoke of no ones personage, I attack beliefs.

Peace.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:55 am

Mickiel;1347696 wrote: I got it from Darwin, its what he meant as I read it.

Peace.He never said it, Dawkins did. Re-read the page of the book you claimed to have read, I provided it in the other post. Here it is again.

Link: The blind watchmaker: why the ... - Google Books

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:57 am

Mickiel;1347699 wrote: I said " The belief is close to maddness", I spoke of no ones personage, I attack beliefs.

Peace.

Your talking about the difference between Bananas and Pointed sticks again I see

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:59 am

How about the other part of post#50 on Albert Russell Wallace, Mickey?

Where are you getting all this incorrect information?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:04 am

Mickiel, just to clarify, creationism is the theory that God created all organisms in their final form (as they appear today). Young Earth Creationists believe this all occurred in a literal 6 day window.

If you've compared wolves and small toy dogs it's pretty obvious this is not the case. There is no "final form" of an organism... it's constantly in flux. Even the cold virus is constantly mutating its outer shell. That's why you can catch it over and over again. Or why HIV jumped from apes to humans, and why some humans have naturally evolved an immunity to it (by the same mechanism that protected against the black death). If creationism were true, none of these things could happen.

You are creating a false dichotomy by pitting science against religion. But you don't need to reject a cornerstone of science to be religious or believe in God. You can equally view evolution as the process or mechanism in which God created the world. Promoting the hostility between science and religion will ultimately damage religion more than it does science. Because it sets up a brain-drain from a religion, where people who are able to understand the science will just reject any such religion.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:07 am

Ahso!;1347703 wrote: He never said it, Dawkins did. Re-read the page of the book you claimed to have read, I provided it in the other post. Here it is again.

Link: The blind watchmaker: why the ... - Google Books

Well your right, I think I got Dawkins confused with Darwin. But I agree with Dawkins, Darwin was simply wrong about his theory, Dawkins was at least honest enough to acknowledge all the problems with the theory, which Wallace also acknowledged was faulty.

Peace.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:19 am

yaaarrrgg;1347708 wrote: Mickiel, just to clarify, creationism is the theory that God created all organisms in their final form (as they appear today). Young Earth Creationists believe this all occurred in a literal 6 day window.

If you've compared wolves and small toy dogs it's pretty obvious this is not the case. There is no "final form" of an organism... it's constantly in flux. Even the cold virus is constantly mutating its outer shell. That's why you can catch it over and over again. Or why HIV jumped from apes to humans, and why some humans have naturally evolved an immunity to it (by the same mechanism that protected against the black death). If creationism were true, none of these things could happen.

You are creating a false dichotomy by pitting science against religion. But you don't need to reject a cornerstone of science to be religious or believe in God. You can equally view evolution as the process or mechanism in which God created the world. Promoting the hostility between science and religion will ultimately damage religion more than it does science. Because it sets up a brain-drain from a religion, where people who are able to understand the science will just reject any such religion.

I am not religious. And fossil technology totally disproves evolution, as does Crossbreeding and Mutation, as does carbon-14 technology, and biblical archaeology disproves evolution. Consciousness disproves evolution, as does the Laws of Conservation, as does Saturns cooling off, as does the earths rotation, as does the Moon receding, all these disproves evolution. And the Laws of biogenesis disproves it, as does " Heat Death", as does the Law of noncontridiction, as does Cambrian explosion..

All these disprove evolution, as does Language, as does science itself, as does the human anatomy, as does civilization, as does agriculture.

Peace.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:26 am

Mickiel;1347709 wrote: Well your right, I think I got Dawkins confused with Darwin. But I agree with Dawkins, Darwin was simply wrong about his theory, Dawkins was at least honest enough to acknowledge all the problems with the theory, which Wallace also acknowledged was faulty.

Peace.Mickey, Mickey, Read it again, that's not what Dawkins said. You're causing yourself to not be taken seriously if you can't correctly comprehend what you read.

Again, what about the Albert Russell Wallace thing, Mickey, would you like to withdraw what you've said regarding his relationship with Darwin?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:30 am

Mickiel;1347710 wrote: I am not religious. And fossil technology totally disproves evolution, as does Crossbreeding and Mutation, as does carbon-14 technology, and biblical archaeology disproves evolution. Consciousness disproves evolution, as does the Laws of Conservation, as does Saturns cooling off, as does the earths rotation, as does the Moon receding, all these disproves evolution. And the Laws of biogenesis disproves it, as does " Heat Death", as does the Law of noncontridiction, as does Cambrian explosion..

All these disprove evolution, as does Language, as does science itself, as does the human anatomy, as does civilization, as does agriculture.

Peace.But only you and members of the religious right (which you claim to have no agreement with), come to those conclusions. How do you square that?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:41 am

Ahso!;1347711 wrote: Mickey, Mickey, Read it again, that's not what Dawkins said. You're causing yourself to not be taken seriously if you can't correctly comprehend what you read.

Again, what about the Albert Russell Wallace thing, Mickey, would you like to withdraw what you've said regarding his relationship with Darwin?

No I wouldnot.

Peace.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:44 am

Ahso!;1347714 wrote: But only you and members of the religious right (which you claim to have no agreement with), come to those conclusions. How do you square that?

I couldcareless abot the religious right, just as I couldcareless about Atheist doctrine, both groups have things I agree with. I am not Atheist, I am not christian, but there are views from both groups I agree with.

I walk alone in my belief.

Peace.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:59 am

Ahso!;1347711 wrote: Mickey, Mickey, Read it again, that's not what Dawkins said. You're causing yourself to not be taken seriously if you can't correctly comprehend what you read.

Again, what about the Albert Russell Wallace thing, Mickey, would you like to withdraw what you've said regarding his relationship with Darwin?

Darwin and Wallace comminucated constantly. In Chapter XV of " On the Orgin of Species" Wallace advanced his views to Darwin. The famous " Linuean Papers", are really two essays, one submitted by each men. Darwin wrote Wallace in 1857 reguarding his Publication in 1855 " The Annals", and said he agreed with almost every word of it! Darwin was the one who eventually wanted to keep the relationship secret, because he knew Wallace was changing his own views. He then wanted to distance himself from that, and made efforts to distance Wallace from the scientific community.

Peace.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:01 am

Mickiel;1347710 wrote: I am not religious. And fossil technology totally disproves evolution, as does Crossbreeding and Mutation, as does carbon-14 technology, and biblical archaeology disproves evolution. Consciousness disproves evolution, as does the Laws of Conservation, as does Saturns cooling off, as does the earths rotation, as does the Moon receding, all these disproves evolution. And the Laws of biogenesis disproves it, as does " Heat Death", as does the Law of noncontridiction, as does Cambrian explosion..

All these disprove evolution, as does Language, as does science itself, as does the human anatomy, as does civilization, as does agriculture.

Peace.

Although in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[3][4][5]

from:

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:20 am

yaaarrrgg;1347726 wrote: Although in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[3][4][5]

from:

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well when you consider that 64% of scientist are either Atheist ( 34%) or Agnostic ( 30%) then one can understand why you call that" Essentially Universal", but it is not Universal, 36% of scientist do accept creation as our orgin and not evolution. And in a sense, that 36% is the majority opinion.

Peace.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:31 am

Mickiel;1347721 wrote: I couldcareless abot the religious right, just as I couldcareless about Atheist doctrine, both groups have things I agree with. I am not Atheist, I am not christian, but there are views from both groups I agree with.

I walk alone in my belief.

Peace.
I think I figured it out you believe in believing in the opposite of whatever this person or that person happens to be believing in right now. So I am going to try this and see how it works probably come out really confusing and make no sense but I think that is the point

I care alot about the religious right, and the atheist doctrine, both groups have things I disagree with, I am an athiest, I am a christian, but there are views from both I disagree with.

I walk with everyone in my belief.

War.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:38 am

littleCJelkton;1347732 wrote: I think I figured it out you believe in believing in the opposite of whatever this person or that person happens to be believing in right now. So I am going to try this and see how it works probably come out really confusing and make no sense but I think that is the point

I care alot about the religious right, and the atheist doctrine, both groups have things I disagree with, I am an athiest, I am a christian, but there are views from both I disagree with.

I walk with everyone in my belief.

War.

I believe what I believe, if I had to name a group that I agree with the most, I would say " Some factions of Universalism", but I don't totally agree with even the Universalist. The groups I disagree with the most in Spiritual matters, is Atheist and Christians. But I do agree with some things in all of these groups.

I see absolutely nothing strange about this, or " Hard to figure out." I am a Loner, I make and shape and believe in my own views, my own mind, I place high value in my own consciousness.

I like being able to think for myself.

Peace.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:39 am

Mickiel;1347710 wrote: I am not religious. And fossil technology totally disproves evolution, as does Crossbreeding and Mutation, as does carbon-14 technology, and biblical archaeology disproves evolution. Consciousness disproves evolution, as does the Laws of Conservation, as does Saturns cooling off, as does the earths rotation, as does the Moon receding, all these disproves evolution. And the Laws of biogenesis disproves it, as does " Heat Death", as does the Law of noncontridiction, as does Cambrian explosion..

All these disprove evolution, as does Language, as does science itself, as does the human anatomy, as does civilization, as does agriculture.

Peace.

Just how old do you think Biblical Archaeology is Mickiel, and how specifically does it disprove Evolution?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:43 am

Mickiel;1347731 wrote: Well when you consider that 64% of scientist are either Atheist ( 34%) or Agnostic ( 30%) then one can understand why you call that" Essentially Universal", but it is not Universal, 36% of scientist do accept creation as our orgin and not evolution. And in a sense, that 36% is the majority opinion.

Peace.

You are conflating belief in God with belief in creationism (that species are static). They are two different ideas.

According to the link I sent, only 5% of scientist thought species were static in 1997, and if you did a poll of relevant specialists now (biologists particularly) you'd see this number close to 0%.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:46 am

Mickiel;1347725 wrote: Darwin and Wallace comminucated constantly. In Chapter XV of " On the Orgin of Species" Wallace advanced his views to Darwin. The famous " Linuean Papers", are really two essays, one submitted by each men. Darwin wrote Wallace in 1857 reguarding his Publication in 1855 " The Annals", and said he agreed with almost every word of it! Darwin was the one who eventually wanted to keep the relationship secret, because he knew Wallace was changing his own views. He then wanted to distance himself from that, and made efforts to distance Wallace from the scientific community.

Peace.Merely because two people communicate on a particular subject does not make a partnership. They were two scientists concurring on certain things.

Your last sentence is incorrect.

When Wallace returned to the UK, he met Darwin. Although some of Wallace's iconoclastic opinions in the ensuing years would test Darwin's patience, they remained on friendly terms for the rest of Darwin's life.

...

After the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Wallace became one of its staunchest defenders. In one incident in 1863 that particularly pleased Darwin, Wallace published the short paper "Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's Paper on the Bee's Cell, And on the Origin of Species" in order to utterly demolish a paper by a professor of geology at the University of Dublin that had sharply criticised Darwin’s comments in the Origin on how hexagonal honey bee cells could have evolved through natural selection.[70] Another notable defence of the Origin was "Creation by Law", a review Wallace wrote in 1867 for The Quarterly Journal of Science of the book The Reign of Law, which had been written by the Duke of Argyll as a refutation of natural selection.[71] After an 1870 meeting of the British Association, Wallace wrote to Darwin complaining that there were "no opponents left who know anything of natural history, so that there are none of the good discussions we used to have."[72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:55 am

Mickiel;1347731 wrote: Well when you consider that 64% of scientist are either Atheist ( 34%) or Agnostic ( 30%) then one can understand why you call that" Essentially Universal", but it is not Universal, 36% of scientist do accept creation as our orgin and not evolution. And in a sense, that 36% is the majority opinion.

Peace.That is a total misrepresentation of data. There are many, many scientists who accept evolution and are also theists. The difference is that those scientists can seperate thology from science, which is a difficult task for many other religious people.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:03 pm

Lon;1347735 wrote: Just how old do you think Biblical Archaeology is Mickiel, and how specifically does it disprove Evolution?

I believe biblical archaeology is anywhere between 14,000 to over 30,000 years old, but its still not a defined data because they unearth data each year, so its progressive and will get older in time.

I believe it disproves evolution because its based on creationism, the more it is accepted as true fact based information of our history, the more that conversely proves creationism.

Peace.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:13 pm

yaaarrrgg;1347736 wrote: You are conflating belief in God with belief in creationism (that species are static). They are two different ideas.

According to the link I sent, only 5% of scientist thought species were static in 1997, and if you did a poll of relevant specialists now (biologists particularly) you'd see this number close to 0%.

I disagree with that link. I am speaking of disbelief in God, which is automatically disbelief in creationism. And most likely then a belief in evolution, give or take a few percentages. Here is a graph of disbelief in God by most " Academics."

Physics- 40.8

Chemist- 26.6

Biologist- 41.0

Sociologist- 34.0

Economist- 31.7

Political Scientist- 27.0

Psychologist- 31.2

Overall it averages out to about 34% of Academics do not believe in God, still, by far, a minority.

Peace.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:15 pm

Mickiel;1347739 wrote: I believe biblical archaeology is anywhere between 14,000 to over 30,000 years old, but its still not a defined data because they unearth data each year, so its progressive and will get older in time.

I believe it disproves evolution because its based on creationism, the more it is accepted as true fact based information of our history, the more that conversely proves creationism.

Peace.

there you go with the: I think, you think, you know, I know, she knows , he knows, they think, that I believe what that is. nonesense again.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:19 pm

Ahso!;1347738 wrote: That is a total misrepresentation of data. There are many, many scientists who accept evolution and are also theists. The difference is that those scientists can seperate thology from science, which is a difficult task for many other religious people.

It is not misrepresentation, 40% of Theistic scientist believe God created evolution, which leaves 60% who do not accept that view. They are still a minority.

Peace.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:20 pm

littleCJelkton;1347743 wrote: there you go with the: I think, you think, you know, I know, she knows , he knows, they think, that I believe what that is. nonesense again.

I don't consider the way I think as nonsense, it makes sense to me.

Peace.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:24 pm

Mickiel;1347745 wrote: I don't consider the way I think as nonsense, it makes sense to me.

Peace.

So you do believe that is what they think, he knows, she knows, I know, you know, you think, what I think.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:30 pm

Mickiel;1347742 wrote: I disagree with that link. I am speaking of disbelief in God, which is automatically disbelief in creationism. And most likely then a belief in evolution, give or take a few percentages. Here is a graph of disbelief in God by most " Academics."

That goes back to my previous point though. If you set up a religion that attacks science, you'll just see a brain-drain where the best scientists leave the religion. However, many prominent scientists believed in God (e.g. Newton and Einstein) and saw natural science as a way to learn about God, not as a threat to their religious beliefs. The only groups that see science as a threat are the religious cults, because they require a top-down control of all information. Allowing people to look at the real world evidence pokes a hole in that closed information system.

Non-religiouis people can still accept that some "intelligent design" has occured, but just not have God play the role of the designer. IMO we are to some degree responsible for designing ourselves as a species, actively selecting better qualities for survival, and breeding ourselves. We are self-designed to some degree.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:31 pm

littleCJelkton;1347746 wrote: So you do believe that is what they think, he knows, she knows, I know, you know, you think, what I think.

I believe that if I can keep my head when all about me are loosing theirs and blaming it on me, and trust my thinking when all others doubt me, then my head is screwed on right!

Peace.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:43 pm

Mickiel;1347744 wrote: It is not misrepresentation, 40% of Theistic scientist believe God created evolution, which leaves 60% who do not accept that view. They are still a minority.

Peace.

There's an old expression: "figures don't lie, but liars know how to figure."

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:44 pm

Mickiel;1347749 wrote: I believe that if I can keep my head when all about me are loosing theirs and blaming it on me, and trust my thinking when all others doubt me, then my head is screwed on right!

Peace.

so you belive I and/or Ahso, and/or Yaaarrrg lost our heads OH NO! what ever shall we doo. We better find our heads that is an important thing and I think he thinks, they know, you would agree, I know your your previous thread shifted gears in your head, and now your screwing it on too. Do you use phillips, flathead, or a torque wrench?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:47 pm

yaaarrrgg;1347747 wrote: That goes back to my previous point though. If you set up a religion that attacks science, you'll just see a brain-drain where the best scientists leave the religion. However, many prominent scientists believed in God (e.g. Newton and Einstein) and saw natural science as a way to learn about God, not as a threat to their religious beliefs. The only groups that see science as a threat are the religious cults, because they require a top-down control of all information. Allowing people to look at the real world evidence pokes a hole in that closed information system.

Non-religiouis people can still accept that some "intelligent design" has occured, but just not have God play the role of the designer. IMO we are to some degree responsible for designing ourselves as a species, actively selecting better qualities for survival, and breeding ourselves. We are self-designed to some degree.

Well I am not religious myself, but I believe in God and Science. I accept science for what it is, an incredible knowledge. Yet many religious people do not like science, and I have found no data as to the percentages of them that reject it or simply fear it. In my view, science has helped proved to me that God designed this universe. Its academic to me.

Peace.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:52 pm

littleCJelkton;1347752 wrote: so you belive I and/or Ahso, and/or Yaaarrrg lost our heads OH NO! what ever shall we doo. We better find our heads that is an important thing and I think he thinks, they know, you would agree, I know your your previous thread shifted gears in your head, and now your screwing it on too. Do you use phillips, flathead, or a torque wrench?

I retract this part of post.

Peace.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 12:55 pm

Mickiel;1347759 wrote: You know, just getting into your head for a minute, I just don't understand your fundness for satire, sarcasm, jokes and cartoons during serious debate. I mean I quess its how you really think, but I just can't get to it often, it just seems kidergarden-like to me. You know, elementary response to adult questions.

If you are a kid, please excuse this remark, I don't know how old you are and have no intent to insult your way of communication.

Peace.

Thank you

I was thinking the same thing about you.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:00 pm

littleCJelkton;1347760 wrote: Thank you

I was thinking the same thing about you.

I offer you an apoligy, I just looked and saw you are a young person of 27 years. Please excuse my last post.

Peace.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:03 pm

Mickiel;1347764 wrote: I offer you an apoligy, I just looked and saw you are a young person of 27 years. Please excuse my last post.

Peace.

Well lookie there you do get some of your info on your own. To quote Ahso! "baby steps". Apology accepted.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:07 pm

littleCJelkton;1347765 wrote: Well lookie there you do get some of your info on your own. To quote Ahso! "baby steps". Apology accepted.

Well thank you for that acceptance.

Peace.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:13 pm

Mickiel;1347754 wrote: Well I am not religious myself, but I believe in God and Science. I accept science for what it is, an incredible knowledge. Yet many religious people do not like science, and I have found no data as to the percentages of them that reject it or simply fear it. In my view, science has helped proved to me that God designed this universe. Its academic to me.

Peace.

Starting with the view that God designed the Universe, isn't it possible that God designed the ground rules which allow the evolution of species? How does the issue of a species being static or changing affect anything other than a literal interpretation of the 6-day creation in Genesis?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:17 pm

Contrary to what you might think, Mickiel, this is not even close to a debate. This is the efforts of 4 people pointing out to one person just how inaccurate what he is stating is. You have misquoted, misrepresented, misunderstood and misinterpreted just about everything you've presented, and that hasn't really been much at all. Anyone who thinks this has been a debate is delirious. Maybe sometime in the future, if you're fortunate, you'll look back on these exchanges and see what is so blatantly obvious to the rest of us involved (and most likely to anyone following). The reason I've been involved in this so long is so I can continue to educate myself through investigating what's been said.

I understand your objection to some of the remarks of some, but it's terribly difficult to converse with a person who only bases his complete position on nothing other than belief, leaving all empirical evidence and accuracy of historical events bleeding in his hands. To top it off, you continue the posture even in that rare case where you admit you've mistaken. It's quite amazing to observe. You are literally calling up - down, and down - up.

littleCJelkton · Post by **littleCJelkton** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:47 pm

Ahso!;1347770 wrote: Contrary to what you might think, Mickiel, this is not even close to a debate. This is the efforts of 4 people pointing out to one person just how inaccurate what he is stating is. You have misquoted, misrepresented, misunderstood and misinterpreted just about everything you've presented, and that hasn't really been much at all. Anyone who thinks this has been a debate is delirious. Maybe sometime in the future, if you're fortunate, you'll look back on these exchanges and see what is so blatantly obvious to the rest of us involved (and most likely to anyone following). The reason I've been involved in this so long is so I can continue to educate myself through investigating what's been said.

I understand your objection to some of the remarks of some, but it's terribly difficult to converse with a person who only bases his complete position on nothing other than belief, leaving all empirical evidence and accuracy of historical events bleeding in his hands. To top it off, you continue the posture even in that rare case where you admit you've mistaken. It's quite amazing to observe. You are literally calling up - down, and down - up.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:09 pm

yaaarrrgg;1347769 wrote: Starting with the view that God designed the Universe, isn't it possible that God designed the ground rules which allow the evolution of species? How does the issue of a species being static or changing affect anything other than a literal interpretation of the 6-day creation in Genesis?

I do not accept the 6 day creation view, I think that is grossly in error. The days that God took to create this universe were thousands of years each, as he would consider a day, not how we consider a day. And God did design certain creatures to evolve, like butterflys, but those who he designed that way, will continue to evolve that way repeatedly, not stop and never evolve again.

Peace.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:11 pm

Ahso!;1347770 wrote: Contrary to what you might think, Mickiel, this is not even close to a debate. This is the efforts of 4 people pointing out to one person just how inaccurate what he is stating is. You have misquoted, misrepresented, misunderstood and misinterpreted just about everything you've presented, and that hasn't really been much at all. Anyone who thinks this has been a debate is delirious. Maybe sometime in the future, if you're fortunate, you'll look back on these exchanges and see what is so blatantly obvious to the rest of us involved (and most likely to anyone following). The reason I've been involved in this so long is so I can continue to educate myself through investigating what's been said.

I understand your objection to some of the remarks of some, but it's terribly difficult to converse with a person who only bases his complete position on nothing other than belief, leaving all empirical evidence and accuracy of historical events bleeding in his hands. To top it off, you continue the posture even in that rare case where you admit you've mistaken. It's quite amazing to observe. You are literally calling up - down, and down - up.

I consider this baseless, I have listed plenty of facts to support my premise, you are simply ignoring them.

Peace.