Research on Belief in God

[Descender]

There is a distinction between macro and micro science - you just won't admit it. You can in science observe micro science, but you can not give any example of macro science. For example a whale becoming an elephant....there are no examples of such.

There is no "macro" and "micro" science. That is creationist jargon, unknown to the scientific world.

As to your last sentence, that is not how evolution works... evolution deals with slow, gradual change over time.

 

[Jspear]

There is no "macro" and "micro" science. That is creationist jargon, unknown to the scientific world.

Call it creationist jargon if you like, but the concepts are true....and they are used by scientist. Maybe not secular, but they are stilled used by good qualified scientist.

As to your last sentence, that is not how evolution works... evolution deals with slow, gradual change over time.

Slow gradual changes which you have never observed! I know that evolution doesn't say it's immediate. That is not what I'm saying (sorry if it came across that way.) They do say however that species evolve into different species over time, and that is 100% scientifically false.

 

[Christian]

Sorry Jspear but what you say is complete bullsh*t Note how I finished that with a smiley so it means I am not mad at you! It just means that I have access to a higher truth that you cannot comprehend Until you open yourself for it, and then you will understand

 

[Jspear]

Sorry Jspear but what you say is complete bullsh*t Note how I finished that with a smiley so it means I am not mad at you! It just means that I have access to a higher truth that you cannot comprehend Until you open yourself for it, and then you will understand

Enlighten me. What is this "higher truth."

 

[Descender]

Call it creationist jargon if you like, but the concepts are true....and they are used by scientist. Maybe not secular, but they are stilled used by good qualified scientist.



Slow gradual changes which you have never observed! I know that evolution doesn't say it's immediate. That is not what I'm saying (sorry if it came across that way.) They do say however that species evolve into different species over time, and that is 100% scientifically false.

You know? You're the first hardcore creationist I've met. I'd heard about them, of course, but you're the first one I've actually talked to.

I don't know why, but I somehow kind of thought people like you didn't actually exist.

 

[King Boonen]

They do say however that species evolve into different species over time, and that is 100% scientifically false.

Err... What?

 

[Jspear]

You know? You're the first hardcore creationist I've met. I'd heard about them, of course, but you're the first one I've actually talked to.

I don't know why, but I somehow kind of thought people like you didn't actually exist.

Oh there's droves of us....you just got to look in the right places. Ya see you guys aren't so rare, you're easy to fine.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

evolution is easy to prove. Just look at Froome. Donkey to race horse in just a couple of years

 

[Jspear]

evolution is easy to prove. Just look at Froome. Donkey to race horse in just a couple of years

Lol! I'm converted...no more need for conversation folks!

 

[The Hitch]

Jspear seems stuck in the idea that all species that ever lived are present right now (understandable if one believes god created the world the way it is now). So he uses this bizarre example of wake into elephant and probably thinks that evolution says humans will 1 day transform into a different species that is also currently around.

I winder if he taking it from another angle he understands the concept of tectonic plates and how they move. Is that theory also 100% scientifically false? If not, why would god make earth 6000 years ago then make the plates move and cause earthquakes?

 

[The Hitch]

evolution is easy to prove. Just look at Froome. Donkey to race horse in just a couple of years

Well doping is itself an example of evolution since one can observe how the competing forces of doping and anti doping have forced eachother over time to evolve and evolve and evolve from steroids and steroid tests to epo and epo tests to other drugs....

Like predator and prey.

Same concept

 

[Jspear]

Jspear seems stuck in the idea that all species that ever lived are present right now (understandable if one believes god created the world the way it is now). So he uses this bizarre example of wake into elephant and probably thinks that evolution says humans will 1 day transform into a different species that is also currently around.

I winder if he taking it from another angle he understands the concept of tectonic plates and how they move. Is that theory also 100% scientifically false? If not, why would god make earth 6000 years ago then make the plates move and cause earthquakes?

I do not believe that all species that ever lived are present right now. I'll try to be a little more clear once again. Listen to the word evolution....what is the word in and of itself saying? It's talking about things evolving (Yes over large amounts of time.) All I'm simply saying is that concept (as Evolution describes it) is false. We don't see animals or humans evolving (the way Evolution describes) over time. And if you disagree please give me an example of over time species changing.

Edit to be extra clear. I do believe things change. The word evolution is in my vocabulary.

 

[rhubroma]

I do not believe that all species that ever lived are present right now. I'll try to be a little more clear once again. Listen to the word evolution....what is the word in and of itself saying? It's talking about things evolving (Yes over large amounts of time.) All I'm simply saying is that concept (as Evolution describes it) is false. We don't see animals or humans evolving (the way Evolution describes) over time. And if you disagree please give me an example of over time species changing.

Edit to be extra clear. I do believe things change. The word evolution is in my vocabulary.

An example? Primates to humans.

Your saying it's false doesn't discredit the work in evolutionary scientific theory since Darwin though, however Biblicists since the 19th century have had to deal with the fact that such a work can no longer be taken literally. Most are beyond even that and if there are droves of creationists in the US it is not a comforting fact, either in terms of the status of primary education especially in the rural zones, or for the global "leadership" role the nation has taken upon itself.

What you propose is so beyond any acceptable means of knowledge as to be right from the Dark Ages, in being willfully circumscribed wishful thinking. Although it must be said that your capacity to be so fanatically intransigent before all the compelling evidence is impressive. Christians once thought that the world was flat too, even if they had the works of the gentiles telling them it was spherical. Evidently such sectarianism then comes with the territory, though it is hardly a sign of intelligence. To be fair, however, Aristotle asserted that the world was at the center of the universe, but what did it take for Copernicus' theory to be accepted by Christendom? Giordano Bruno's life and Galileo’s confinement. At any rate the darkness has slowly been lifted from humanity's eyes.

By the way evolutionary theory is just that, but it permits us to get a grounding on the complexity of life beyond that of the mere logos and mythos, which, as I have said, were primitive means that flights of the mind thousands of years ago imagined how things came to pass.

For the last several centuries though hypothesis, investigation, examination and conclusion have usurped pure imagination as the basis for our civilization, which is itself evolutionary (cultural I believe Descender said), though evidently the desire for ignorance and the confort of immortality are not so easily entirely overcome.

 

[Jagartrott]

I appreciate you all trying to make Jspear see the light, but frankly, there is no way to convince people who adjust everything to match their belief-of-choice. People like this have no sense of scale and very little imagination. They are extremely rigid and talking more to them and coming up with sensible arguments may even strengthen their feeling that they are right.

Jspear may be a really nice guy, don't get me wrong.
But he is extremely unlikely to shift positions on this.

 

[Echoes]

Thus making the current geopolitical debacle to be the product of atheism is merely science fiction.

It's pure reality and indeed has been so for about a millenium.

Atheists believe in the over-consumption society. They buy and sell. Muslims out of ethics don't want to buy their sh*t goods. They don't believe in material pleasure. Hence atheists have to figure out a way to get rid of Islam. Formerly Catholics were equally as much an enemy to this New World Order but since Vatican II they have accepted that.

That is why Islam is so much despised to today ...

 

[rhubroma]

It's pure reality and indeed has been so for about a millenium.

Atheists believe in the over-consumption society. They buy and sell. Muslims out of ethics don't want to buy their sh*t goods. They don't believe in material pleasure. Hence atheists have to figure out a way to get rid of Islam. Formerly Catholics were equally as much an enemy to this New World Order but since Vatican II they have accepted that.

That is why Islam is so much despised to today ...

You conveniently neglect the fact that most Catholics are just as consumeristic. Muslims don't believe in material pleasure? Ask those of Riad or Dubai. Whereas the Church of Rome, since the forged Donation of Constantine, has embraced power and luxury wholesale, for which Vat II finally got around to "addressing" the matter, however spuriously. Hence current capitalism is hardly the product of the non-religious, but human shortsightedness and greed of which the religious have not been without blame. And where do we place the masonic plunderbund of homme d'affairs that is Opus Dei?

The truth is that it has been the great monotheistic cults themselves, which having desacralized nature from the Ancient Greeks, have thus placed man above it, making it merely instrumental for his use and abuse. The incipient praxis of our famous Free Market system has its psycho-emotive basis ultimately there.

 

[aphronesis]

It's pure reality and indeed has been so for about a millenium.

Atheists believe in the over-consumption society. They buy and sell. Muslims out of ethics don't want to buy their sh*t goods. They don't believe in material pleasure. Hence atheists have to figure out a way to get rid of Islam. Formerly Catholics were equally as much an enemy to this New World Order but since Vatican II they have accepted that.

That is why Islam is so much despised to today ...

Oh, Muslims are upright now: your standards slide around more quickly than the most facile postmodernists'. Yours is a cliche with some element of truth to it, however, I'm guessing you haven't been to a mall in the Gulf States lately--or checked in with their rulers. Try a little harder please.

 

[rhubroma]

I appreciate you all trying to make Jspear see the light, but frankly, there is no way to convince people who adjust everything to match their belief-of-choice. People like this have no sense of scale and very little imagination. They are extremely rigid and talking more to them and coming up with sensible arguments may even strengthen their feeling that they are right.

Jspear may be a really nice guy, don't get me wrong.
But he is extremely unlikely to shift positions on this.

I'm not trying to convince him of anything. What one chooses to believe is ones own business, however, everyone is called to take responsibility for it. This necessitates having to deal with rebuttles supplied to ones own outrageous absurdities.

 

[frenchfry]

It's pure reality and indeed has been so for about a millenium.

Atheists believe in the over-consumption society. They buy and sell. Muslims out of ethics don't want to buy their sh*t goods. They don't believe in material pleasure. Hence atheists have to figure out a way to get rid of Islam. Formerly Catholics were equally as much an enemy to this New World Order but since Vatican II they have accepted that.

That is why Islam is so much despised to today ...

This is exactly the kind of judgmental, condescending, self-righteous comment that makes me despise those who consider themselves morally superior because of their religious beliefs. As if you have some sort of monopoly on "good" values.

I also reject being lumped in some category "atheist" or "agnostic" simply because I don't think like you. As if my identity can be conveniently defined because I don't believe in God, that this means that I must share the same values (only the bad ones, never the good!) as those who don't think like you.

Only "atheists" believe in the over-consumption society! Only "atheists" buy and sell! Only "atheists" believe in material pleasure! What a joke, do you really believe in this BS or is this some sort of perverse provocation?

 

[Jspear]

An example? Primates to humans.

And were is the evidence that primates existed in the past? If they were around at some point in time it should be in the fossil record right? Over the years evolutionary scientist have claimed to find the "missing link" but it has always be proven to be hogwash.

Your saying it's false doesn't discredit the work in evolutionary scientific theory since Darwin though, however Biblicists since the 19th century have had to deal with the fact that such a work can no longer be taken literally. Most are beyond even that and if there are droves of creationists in the US it is not a comforting fact, either in terms of the status of primary education especially in the rural zones, or for the global "leadership" role the nation has taken upon itself.

This first list is a list of "older" scientist who weren't all Christians, but they did not hold to an evolutionary mindset, and they seemed just find when it came to contributing to science.

Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson Kelvin
Max Planck
Albert Einstein

Here are just several modern Christians Scientist who have contributed greatly to modern education.

Raymond Damadian - Invened the MRI scanner
Danny Faulkner - PhD in Astronomy
Stuart Burgess - Biommetics, Engineering

And there are many more. It is a myth that young earth Christian scientist have not and can not contribute to education in our "modern" world.

What you propose is so beyond any acceptable means of knowledge as to be right from the Dark Ages, in being willfully circumscribed wishful thinking. Although it must be said that your capacity to be so fanatically intransigent before all the compelling evidence is impressive.

No compelling evidence has been brought to the table. If you have it bring it.

Christians once thought that the world was flat too, even if they had the works of the gentiles telling them it was spherical. Evidently such sectarianism then comes with the territory, though it is hardly a sign of intelligence. To be fair, however, Aristotle asserted that the world was at the center of the universe, but what did it take for Copernicus' theory to be accepted by Christendom? Giordano Bruno's life and Galileo

 

[The Hitch]

Jspear may be a really nice guy, don't get me wrong

I don't see how someone who's idea of a just and bright future is 99% of mankind burning for all eternity, can be a nice guy.

 

[MarkvW]

I don't see how someone who's idea of a just and bright future is 99% of mankind burning for all eternity, can be a nice guy.

The present isn't so sweet either--at least for slaves (who are directed to honor their master).

 

[rhubroma]

And were is the evidence that primates existed in the past? If they were around at some point in time it should be in the fossil record right? Over the years evolutionary scientist have claimed to find the "missing link" but it has always be proven to be hogwash.



This first list is a list of "older" scientist who weren't all Christians, but they did not hold to an evolutionary mindset, and they seemed just find when it came to contributing to science.

Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Isaac Newton
Robert Boyle
Michael Faraday
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson Kelvin
Max Planck
Albert Einstein

Here are just several modern Christians Scientist who have contributed greatly to modern education.

Raymond Damadian - Invened the MRI scanner
Danny Faulkner - PhD in Astronomy
Stuart Burgess - Biommetics, Engineering

And there are many more. It is a myth that young earth Christian scientist have not and can not contribute to education in our "modern" world.



No compelling evidence has been brought to the table. If you have it bring it.

You probably believe that the world is just about 6,000 years old right? But we know it is approximately 6.5 billion years old.

You probably believe that Adam and Eve existed before dinosaurs right? Well we know that dinosaurs roamed the earth tens of millions of years ago and that homo sapiens sapiens subsequently evolved over several million years through a series of primate stages to finally walking upright on two legs, with sufficient brain mass and protein to become sentient.

Read the appropriate studies and chart the various anthropological remains. The compelling evidence is all there, though it is only the intransigence of the sectarian that keeps the box that governs your viewpoint tightly closed. Never underestimate the audacity of an anti-evolutionist.

The evolutionary mindset could have hardly persuaded most on your list, because it had not been theorized at the time. Thus you are being anachronistic and hence irrational.

Although Einstein did indeed say that God does not play dice, his statement had nothing to do with evolution. Einstein was reacting to the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics as posited in the standard interpretation of the theory by such physicists as Niels Bohr (Bohr, incidentally, responded that Einstein should stop telling God what to do). Evolution, however, is compatible with any interpretation of quantum mechanics, whether deterministic or indeterministic, so Einstein's words by no means imply a denial of the evolution.

As regards to Christian scientists: where was it written that people of faith cannot contribute to the field? At the same time one can invent something through a brilliant use of techne, though at the same time believe humanity descended from Adam and Eve and be wrong.

You thus use a particular brand of intelligence to thereby justify a proven absurdity, which is itself a logical fallacy.

 

[Jspear]

You probably believe that the world is just about 6,000 years old right? But we know it is approximately 6.5 billion years old.

You probably believe that Adam and Eve existed before dinosaurs right? Well we know that dinosaurs roamed the earth tens of millions of years ago and that homo sapiens sapiens subsequently evolved over several million years through a series of primate stages to finally walking upright on two legs, with sufficient brain mass and protein to become sentient.

Read the appropriate studies and chart the various anthropological remains. The compelling evidence is all there, though it is only the intransigence of the sectarian that keeps the box that governs your viewpoint tightly closed. Never underestimate the audacity of an anti-evolutionist.

The evolutionary mindset could have hardly persuaded most on your list, because it had not been theorized at the time. Thus you are being anachronistic and hence irrational.

Although Einstein did indeed say that God does not play dice, his statement had nothing to do with evolution. Einstein was reacting to the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics as posited in the standard interpretation of the theory by such physicists as Niels Bohr (Bohr, incidentally, responded that Einstein should stop telling God what to do). Evolution, however, is compatible with any interpretation of quantum mechanics, whether deterministic or indeterministic, so Einstein's words by no means imply a denial of the evolution.

As regards to Christian scientists: where was it written that people of faith cannot contribute to the field? At the same time one can invent something through a brilliant use of techne, though at the same time believe humanity descended from Adam and Eve and be wrong.

You thus use a particular brand of intelligence to thereby justify an absurdity, which is itself a logical fallacy.

You do not know that the world is 6.5 billion years old, you are assuming that. It's funny you talk about these different things that you know, but you can't bring evidence. You mentioned various studies and charts of anthropological remains. Please point me to a link, because I have seen and read some, but it was all pure speculation....none of it was sound science. Could you send give me a link? More could be said.... gotta go for now.

 

[MarkvW]

Seems to me that when a religion starts to tell you that the exploration of a line of scientific inquiry is "wrong," then it's about time to remodel or abandon that religion.