jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (131 posts)

evolution??

  1. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    Just a thought..

       IF you believe in evolution of physical aspects of life.
       And if you believe in evolution of the intellect.

       Why would you exclude the possibility of evolution of the spiritual aspects of life?

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Understanding a concept does not equate to believing it. smile

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Which of these concepts do you understand but not believe.

        Physical evolution ?
        Intelectual evolution?
        or
        spiritual evolution?

          Why does it have to be either OR.

          Is evolution segrated within certain areas of life  and not others?

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Believing and understanding are different concepts, Jerami, one can exist without the other. It all depends on which concept you embrace to rule your worldview. smile

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So true ...  and regardless of what that belief is? ...  collectively, we sometimes cause a false belief to become reality.  Every spoken word has a certain amount of constructive or destructive power.

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Embracing only beliefs without any understanding is delusional. smile

      2. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, anyone who believes a concept before understanding it, is in for a big surprise. Hey, Beel, Do you really understand? See what I mean....SURPRISE!!! smile

        1. Dave Barnett profile image60
          Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hey, Druid! I think you're right. BEELzedad doesn't really understand much. That is what he tries to hide. BUT, all three of us agree. He'll really be confused at this point.

    2. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is nothing to believe or disbelieve about physical evolution (of which intellectual capacity is part).  All one can do with evolution is understand the rational explanation of what may have occured.

      Spiritualness requires belief.  We cannot show that a concept called spirit is factual, so we can only believe it is factual and may have then evolved.

      As an aside, I'm never quite sure why theists try so hard to marry rationality with irrationality, realism with surrealism.   It's certainly O.K. to believe in god or gods - there's just no way to show that it is rational to believe.

    3. 0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      what do you mean by spiritual evolution?  I think religion and theology has evolved; so has language; science and practically everything else

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I am not sure of what I believe spirit, soul, consciousness to be. They may all be the same thing or different aspects of a single thing.

           I do think that everything is in a state of becoming.
        What ??   we do not know until we get there. 
          And maybe some of us have a better understand of what that is than others. Who knows,...  Not Me.

        1. getitrite profile image79
          getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          So why did you start a thread about it?
          Seems to me like you already have a presupposition.

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I do not think that your reasoning in the above statement is valid.
               
               Have you ever seen something and thought to your self ...   "What the heck is that?"

               Does the fact that you do not know what it is mean that it doesn't exist.
               There is a hole in that reasoning.

            1. getitrite profile image79
              getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              Jerami, you are well versed in wishful thinking.

    4. kirstenblog profile image79
      kirstenblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      When I consider reincarnation as being one possibility in relation to the concept of soul I definitely figure that the point there is exactly one of evolution, each life moving to a higher state of being spiritually speaking smile

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I have considered the possibility of reincarnation and that makes perfect sense to me too.
          But I see the concept working in both directions  you know ..  One step forwards and two steps backwards sometimes.

          In relationship of scripture there are a few problems with that concept.  BUT  that is true even in relationship with itself.

           Religion can not make up its mind if when we die, we go to be with God,  and yet we have to wait for the resurrection???

    5. thisisoli profile image63
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Why belieeve in the spiritual at all, because it makes you feel better, safer?

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You ask   This is my answer.

            There is a oneness that is interwoven among all living things.  Something that we can not see with our eyes, feel with our hands and face or hear with our ears. But we are all connected in a way that we can not understand properly.
           But the communication continues with or without our acknowledge of it.
           
           We do have a sixth sense but we have learned to ignore it.
        Our ignoring it does not cause it to cease to exist.  Our ignoring it simply diminishes our ability to access it.

           Many people surmise that if   "I"  can not access it; It doesn't exist.  That simply isn't true in many cases, and spirituality is one of these instances.

          What, where, how this spirituality is, I don't know.  But I know that it is.

           How do I  know?  I don't know?  But I do.

           If this is crazy?   OK

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, it's nice to imagine such things, Jerami, although it's nothing but pure philosophical claptrap. smile

        2. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You don't know. You imagine. You pretend. You fantasize.

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            LOL! Well said, in a nutshell. smile

          2. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That is all that any of us can do.
              imagine.  pretend.  fantasize.

              If you believe otherwise you are living in denial.

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Some of us deal strictly with reality, you are free to join us in the endeavor. smile

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Everyone imagines, pretends  and fantasizes about what they thinks reality is.
                   You say tomato , I say fruit.  And if someone says vegetable, that doesn't change the taste one tiny bit.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  We know what reality is. We fantasize about what COULD be, but we are very clear about what actually is. You are not.

                  1. Jerami profile image78
                    Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    If I were to make a list of all that is real and you made your list; there would be little difference between the two lists.

                       You seem to be fixated on a very small portion that is different.

                  2. Jerami profile image78
                    Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You can not....   That is what everyone said to the wright brothers.
                       Turned out ....   They didn't know as much as they thought that they did.

                2. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No, just believers do that. The rest of us accept reality for what it is.



                  No, you say reality and reality says fantasy.  smile

    6. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      For one, according to your belief system and your idea or concept of god, it doesn't change...ever.  It doesn't evolve.

      According to your belief system, you regard a spirit as being the same as god in the monotheistic/triad/god/spirit/ghost and you believe those things do not change...ever.

      SOOOOooo, it's your belief that holds you back from understanding the evolutionary process and it's your belief system that perverts the understanding of evolution and assumes that people who believe it or understand it, don't also accept that we also evolve spiritually. 

      Your bs (belief system) insist that people who believe in change or evolution lack any spirituality because it assumes that only people who believe in god or the holy spirit, can be spiritual.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You sound as though you know me better than I do!

        I wish that I knew as much about me as you do!!

        1. stilljustwonderin profile image61
          stilljustwonderinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I know you!  You use to be a monkey!  hahaha

          No, I think that is bs.  We weren't monkeys.  Any one who wants to believe their ancestors were monkeys can, but I don't buy it.

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yea if anything???   I was a lion ...  like you are

            1. 60
              exorterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I was a little ameba on the sun til it came time for me to become human

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                In reality I was a tree....   A MIGHTY tree.   I was kidding a while ago about the lion.

    7. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I just now noticed the title: evolution??

      So the second question mark indicates a question whether or not the initial question should have been used?  So, in essence the title is evolution and we can just forget the ???

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol lol

      2. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If that pleases you go for it.??? or not!

  2. 68
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    First there was creation; then the evolution took place. Am I right?

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.

  3. 68
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    Once we agree

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps, but I doubt we agree on the creation part of it.

  4. 68
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    It is big bang. Am I right?

  5. kirstenblog profile image79
    kirstenblogposted 6 years ago

    BTW, I don't so much have 'beliefs' as I have 'ideas' and I do think there is a big difference smile

  6. skyfire profile image73
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    Because you have to give empirical evidence for "spirit" before making further stories of spiritual evolution.

    1. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is a difference between expressing an opinion and pushing that belief as irrefutable fact.

         If I am trying to convince others that my belief is irrefutable fact?? ...  then .. Proof is required.

      1. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Jerami,

        It helps to define terms. 
        Irrefutable fact=physical existence=object+location=Objective.
        Anything other than above Irrefutable fact=belief=Opinion=Subjective

        Proof=convincing= altering the perception of=Opinion
        Therefore, Opinion=Proof=Subjective=Opinion

        The Law of Non-Contradiction: If P then not-P.  If Irrefutable fact, then not Opinion, If Objective, then not Subjective.

        Proof has noting to do with it.  Fact is always objective.

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You can not logical anticipate the actions of the illogical mind.

             You can not use normal rules to prove the paranormal.

             Therefore the paranormal does not exist???    NOT!

            When attempting to prove the non normal;  other than normal methods  must apply!

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Jerami,

            The issue is not to prove anything - as proof is subjective.  The issue is whether or not you can give a rational explanation for your hypothesis that the paranormal exists.

            First, you have to define what you mean by exist, and that definition must be unambiguous else no one will have a clue as to what you mean.

            Second, you then have to explain how the paranormal then fits with your definition of existence  - in a manner that is consistent with natural laws.

            Otherwise, you  are just spouting your religious beliefs from a soap box, are you not?

  7. kess profile image59
    kessposted 6 years ago

    Belief is inevitable.
    No belief is actually false belief and that is death in totality.

    to beieve something one does not understand is false belief.
    to understand something and believe it not is also false  belief.
    or better said, you believe the false of that which is true or you believe the true of that which is false.

    In this age both truth and false are a reality.
    You can know the truth by the false, but you cannot know the false unless truth is with it.

    evolution is only possible because of the spiritual.
    evolution in the material world is impossible without spirituality.

    evolution is a positive, constant, indefinite process of the spiritual.

    The upper limit of spiritual evolution is perfection and this perfection is unlimited.

    The upper limit of material evolution is spiritual, that too is perfection.

    1. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think that I agree.
        Sometimes people can be trying to say the same thing but expressing it differently which seems to be contradictory when it actually is not.

  8. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    AKA Winston
    wrote:
     

       There is nothing to believe or disbelieve about physical evolution (of which intellectual capacity is part).  All one can do with evolution is understand the rational explanation of what may have occured.

    - - - - -

    Many people believe that Evolution has a mind of its own and travels in a single direction, which isn't  true.  Our technological advancements are but one factor that determines its direction.  Making all things possible depending upon the conditions on earth which we do have some influence upon.                                                               We choose to follow the path of the physical understand .. OR .. that of our  Spiritual. If the Spiritual aspects are unknown to us, it is because we chose not to pursue advancement in that direction.   

       When society as a whole focus in one direction, that eliminates any possibility of us evolving in another.
       We truly do have free will in every arena.
      This is my thoughts on the matter.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Jerami,

      Belief and rationality are oil and water.  To continue to try to mix them only results in irrationality. 

      A) You must believe in the spirit before anything spiritual can occur.
      B) The sun was there before man inhabited the earth.

      A is belief; B is a rational statement. 

      C) To speculate on the spirit of the sun is irrational, but you are welcome to bellieve the sun has a spirit..

  9. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    AKA Winston wrote..
       Belief and rationality are oil and water.  To continue to try to mix them only results in irrationality. 
    - - - - - - -

       Belief and rationality are one and the same. 
    It is rational to believe that the earth revolves around the sun.  Why do we believe that the earth revolves around the sun?

       I haven't had the vantage point to actually see this happen.
      I believe it because I read about it in a book.
      And a whole lot of others have read many different books that their beliefs agree with ours.
       I believe it cause I read it and that makes sense to me and many others.
    =====================================================
    AK .... 
    A) You must believe in the spirit before anything spiritual can occur.
    - - - - -
        Do I have to believe in snakes before one can bite me?
        After one bites me is it OK to believe in it.
        What if it is a species that has never been seen before;

       
         Everything that we KNOW is standing upon the sands of belief. 
       Seems like to me!
    ============================================================

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      (It is rational to believe that the earth revolves around the sun.)

      Jerami,

      You have a lot of misconceptions that are particular to philosophy and hence religion.  The purpose of rationality is to explain.  The purpose of belief is to assume. 

      Belief would be the hypothesis to rationality's theory.     No one "believes" the earth revolves around the sun.  We simply understand that it is so in order to explain why it occurs.

      Belief is inductive and subjective - an opinion.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I often get busy and miss comments such as this time, didn't simply ignore the conversation.  Sorry!

           When we see a turtle one day and it is over here and today it is over there, it is logical to suppose that someone moved it of it moved itself. If we then sit and watch it? But it some how moved when we were not looking at it for only a minute. We can logically assume that it moved by itself. We can then say that we BELIEVE that it moved by itself.
           Then one day, we see its legs come out of the shell and see it walking; We now have faith in the conclusion that it moves  upon its own power.
          BUT we do not understand HOW the legs work, or what triggers this action.

           The point I'm making is that belief is a stage in logical thinking, and faith is another, and knowing soon follows.
          Do we not have to dissect the poor little creature and learn all of the muscular,neurological and chemical aspects before it can be said that we KNOW that it moves on its own power?

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Jerami,

          You are confusing observation and inductive reasoning for rational thinking.  Rational thinking is simply explanatory based on the nature of physical realities.  It is never assumed to be true, right, absolute, or gospel.

          Rationality is non-contradictory. 

          Sir Francis Bacon screwed up everyone in science with his ideas of a scientific method based on observations and falsifiability.  Observation is by its nature subjective, and has no explanatory purpose - the best it can do is offer an assumption (prediction) of what might occur but cannot explain why it occurs.

          I am not knocking the current scientific method, as there is value in the human existence to be aware that a hot burner on a stove is likely to burn your hand tomorrow as it was today in the "burning hand" experiment, but to think that finding as some kind of "proof" is disingenous thinking, as what if tomorrow we evolve to have thicker skinned, silicon-based hands that do not so easily burn and the test results are altered - is that then a "new truth" or was the previous experimental result not really "true" but "probable", a position of inductive reasoning?

          There is another type science, although not as popular.  It is based on rational explanations and its sole purpose is to explain natural phenomenon by rational methods.   It offers no proofs, only rational reasoning.

  10. 68
    paarsurreyposted 6 years ago

    First there was creation; then the evolution took place.

    1. skipper112 profile image59
      skipper112posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      that might be true, but it was nothing to do with Allah

      1. libby101a profile image61
        libby101aposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LOL!

      2. getitrite profile image79
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Don't tell me....GODDUNIT!

  11. J.R. Smith profile image60
    J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago

    Has anyone done the research on evoloution? It's full of false information. Piltdown man was a fraud, based on a pig tooth. Fact. Cro-magnon discoverer admitted he placed a monkey skull on a human jaw. fact. The world's leading expert on "lucy" has proclaimed her a monkey.fact. That's just the anthropologists. Chemists have ruled against chemical birth, although they agree on chemical process of death.fact. Geneticists can trace the x chromosome to one woman. fact.They can trace the y chromosone to one man. fact. Mathematicians have figured that the "random" chances of our proteins lining up is 10 to the 40,000 power.fact.There wasn't even enough evidence to win in the scopes monkey trial in 1925.look it up,evoloution was convicted and fined,yet swept under the rug in perhaps the greatest press slant in American history.Darwin himself said his work was speculative in the absence of the missing fossil records.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's quite obvious you have not. smile

    2. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Here are some more facts for you:

      1 The sun was created before the earth.
      2 The earth is around 4.5 billion years old.
      3 The stars are actually far-off galaxies.
      4 There is no evidence to support resurrections of the dead.
      5 As of this date, people have never been transformed into salt.
      6 There is no evidence of a god.
      7 There is no evidence for Intelligent Design.
      8 Even if there was ID, then that is no proof that it was the nonsensical version in one book of priimitive myths, because, as we know, there are others with the same claim.
      9 The earth is round.
      10 Whales are mammals, a fact that has been proven, and firmly supports the theory of evolution.
      11 Birds share DNA with the maniraptoran dinosaur, further support of the theory of evolution.
      12 Humans share 95 to 98% of DNA with chimpanzees.

      It seems that you insist on rigidly logical irrefutable proof of the theory that is more probable, but require nothing more than hearsay and blind faith to believe in the most absurd and improbable premise.

      This is called willful ignorance.

      1. J.R. Smith profile image60
        J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Everything I said was researchable fact. Your reply is against God, not necessarily pro-evoloution. The "facts surrounding the study are falling apart daily. I encourage you to look up anything I stated. Whether you believe in God or not, these scientists have been chasing a dream. Start with cro-magnon, You'll like that. Can't find facts? make them.
        On a side note, Clouds are 98% water, watermelons are 98% water and jellyfish are 98% water. Are they equal? According to evolutionists,they must be.

        1. getitrite profile image79
          getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'll check it out, and get back to you.

        2. 0
          Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol  A scientist would never pick something simple and common like water to distinguish between things!

          DNA molecules are more like fingerprints and have a unique pattern.  So 98% similar DNA is a very very big thing.

    3. Woman Of Courage profile image61
      Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      J.R, I have done research on evolution, and I have read that Darwin's work was speculative in the absense of the missing fossil records.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I read believers making that claim all the time, but the truth of the matter is they never have and probably never will understand let alone research evolution. If they did, they would actually gain an understanding of it and wouldn't constantly be making extraordinary claims about it. smile

    4. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Willful biased ignorance is still ignorance - fact.

      1. J.R. Smith profile image60
        J.R. Smithposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        any one of these points can be researched.you should. But, then your entire philosophy dissolves...maybe you shouldn't.

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Willfully researched biased ignorance is still ignorance - fact.

    5. 0
      Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol
      Some of the "facts" you quote are actually support of evolution.  The mitocondrial DNA of female ancestory goes back to a common ancestor(s) with similar DNA in Africa; and this female did not live at the same time as the last common ancestor that has been traced back for males (also from Africa).  These are not the first ever humans. 

      The Scope's monkey trial was over a teacher that had broken the law by teaching evolution. Scopes was fined a minimum of $100 as "guilty" and then didn't have to pay it as the verdict was disallowed.  The whole thing was a joke.   There have been many courtroom battles (because creationists didn't want evolution taught).  In the end, it was deemed that evolution belongs to science, creationism to religion.

      Darwin didn't have a huge number of fossils in his time, but in the 150 years since, there have been numerous fossils found since, plus huge advances in understanding gained in medicine, genetics, microbiology etc. 

      I have listed a few of the "transitionary" fossils in my hub:  evolution: unintelligent design.

      Get your facts straight.

  12. kazemaru2 profile image60
    kazemaru2posted 6 years ago

    Scientific theories are subject to constant revision. The concept of evolution is very simple organisms change over time. This is a process but it doesn't entirely explain life.

    1. mom101 profile image59
      mom101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You are right.

      One day scientists may actually "discover" God. 

      Mom used to tell me something and I was so stubborn, so determined to prove her wrong. Sad thing was, most of the time she was right. She would get a kick out of me doing all this stuff just to prove her wrong. She passed in 03 and sometimes I still try to prove her wrong. Never works. But even though she is not here for me to hug or be hugged or smell her near, i know she exists.

      Common thread. Common sense.

      Simple.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, common sense would dictate that one day believers may actually discover reality. smile

        1. mom101 profile image59
          mom101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          you lil preacher you

        2. 0
          sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Or perhaps it implies that 'god' is being covered...up.

          1. getitrite profile image79
            getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If scientist do, one day, actually discover God, I am sure it won't be the God of the bible, quran, torah, or any other insane religious books.

            1. 0
              sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              My thoughts are similar. smile

      2. Woman Of Courage profile image61
        Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        mom101, There are scientists who have discovered the God of the bible.

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          In a book?

          1. mom101 profile image59
            mom101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            In a book? Science? Never. ........

        2. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Why is that Christians feel the need to fabricate stories to support their belief system? Can they not find support within that system adequately, they must resort to tall tales?

        3. getitrite profile image79
          getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good!  Now let's see the evidence of their discovery.

          If there are no corroborating evidence, then you should refrain from making knee-jerk, unsubstantiated statements as this.

          Just saying.

        4. mom101 profile image59
          mom101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          womanofcourage, you are so right, and the unbelievers do not like to admit it.

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Mom:
            I'm sure you are a very nice person!
            No insult intended, I'm just typing what I'm thinking after I read what you replied to WOCourage.
            Neither of you "KNOW" WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! lol
            Respectfully, Pls challenge me in ref to this reply to you.   :-)

            1. Woman Of Courage profile image61
              Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Have a blessed day.

          2. getitrite profile image79
            getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



            Then, I suppose YOU have the corroborating evidence to validate her claim?  Good!  Let's see it!

            If not you should never make emotive knee-jerk confirmations as such. If you did the same in a court of law, you would be the best witness for the other side.

            Your testimony, unfortunately, lacks integrity, therefore it will do nothing but hurt the witness and ultimately the case.

            It just doesn't look good.

            Why should we admit she is right with no convincing evidence whatsoever?  How can you justify treating us with this terrible inconsideration? Really. Does that even make sense...even to you?

          3. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Mom,

            I don't know if you are nice or not, but I am certainly confused by the language you endorse.  What exactly does "discovered" mean?   Is this a claim of "uncovered", as in "the scientific dig uncovered the fossil of God in the Garden" or do you mean these scientists "discovered" the graffiti "God of the Bible" painted on their garage door in orange paint and signed by triple x or are you saying the more credible "some scientists have come to believe in God"?

            I don't mind admitting anything - but I'd like to know what you mean, first.

            1. mom101 profile image59
              mom101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              AKA Winston

              I would really like to think that there have been scientists that have come to believe in God.

              1. 0
                AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yep.  You could be right.  Personally, to me it doesn't matter.

                But it was a nice, reasonable answer so I will now side with Quark and assume you are a nice person, after all.  :-))

          4. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm happy to admit some scientists have found god. I hope others are willing to check the background of those scientists.
            Every single one I have looked at was an indoctrinated from birth or soon after religionist.

            Truth is, they have had a belief then set out to prove it. Hardly scientific method is it?

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hey! welcome back Earn!!! We missed ya!

            2. pylos26 profile image77
              pylos26posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah Earnest…Hope it don’t take long for you to return the flavor to these bland threads…your return has made my day.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks for the encouragement. smile

                My "flavor" seems to get me banned all the time. I will be more aware of who the trolls are who live to ram their junk down others throats and then get them banned when they disagree.

                From now on I will report all personal assaults on non believers. I never bothered before unless it was really bad, but if hair splitting is the game. Game on!

                1. 0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  fair enough!

            3. mom101 profile image59
              mom101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Glad to see ya back at it Earnest.  Go easy on me?

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I will treat others as they treat me as always. smile

            4. 0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I know a few scientists that are christians.  One I recently quizzed about it, and he basically admitted that he realised there were plenty of unanswered questions in christianity that he is hoping to find answers for, and that it was the "knowing in his heart" subjective thing.  Also his father is a minister!

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Same with every single post in these hubs that has been about the support of so-called "science" I have not seen one exception in 2 years here. smile

                1. 0
                  Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  this scientist is no longer talking to me - when he realised he wasn't going to succeed in re-converting me, he said "I'd rather have the girl of my dreams than a scientific discovery anyday!" (he's a 40 year old virgin waiting for god to provide, yet he wants infatuation as a 'sign').  I said, "yes, I'm sure she will just be in your dreams too." (ie figment of imagination).  Never heard back!

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    He sounds like a right tosser! smile

            5. Woman Of Courage profile image61
              Woman Of Courageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hi earnest, How are you today? I hope others are willing to check the background of those scientists also.

  13. getitrite profile image79
    getitriteposted 6 years ago

    Following religious books is actually having no real imagination.
    This is the imagination of someone else.  How dull.

    1. mom101 profile image59
      mom101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have a dogwood tree in my yard, A bird lands on it and eats a seed thereof, flies 10 miles down the road, takes a crap, seed from my dogweed are now 10 miles down the road, a dogwood tree later grows.

      Dang, I did not know i was a rocket scientist. Everything DOES evolve from something. 

      I agree with all your findings except 4 thru 7. 8 an 9 are purely opinion.

      Genesis, the first book in the Bible expalins  the order of Creation which is by the way from which all has evolved.

      Why is it so surprising that people continue to shout dna of apes? They came from the same place as we did. Why wouldn't they all show traces of the same DNA?

      1. getitrite profile image79
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                     This analogy is absurd...

        It appears that you have no real interest in understanding evolution or anything that crumbles the foundation of your beliefs.

        This forces believers to accept willful ignorance over common sense, then declare, emphatically, that they are searching for the truth.

        1. mom101 profile image59
          mom101posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Where am I wrong? Everything does evolve from something. Period. Easy.. Common sense.  No brainer.

          Seeds are spread in such ways.

          genesis does describe the entire creation.

          All of the above is truth. What else is there to prove?

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If you believe this then you must also believe that god also changes.

            1. getitrite profile image79
              getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



              Hey Sandra,

              See there is still some excitement in the forums, unlike someone said on FB.

          2. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So many words; so little said.

            (Where am I wrong?)

            Mom,

            Right and wrong have nothing to do with nature - you can't use the priest as a referee because nature won't hear the whistle and doesn't understand the game, anyway.

            (Everything does evolve from something)

            Could you please explain to me how the bicycle evolved by recreating itself along with any mutation it inherited from a previous bicycle generation?  How many genes are there in the bicycle genome?

            (Period.)

            I don't know why women always have to go there - your mood really isn't relevant. 

            (Seeds are spread in such ways.)

            Exactly - the seed of your procreation was carried into your mother's womb on the wings of a snow white dove.  Right?

            (genesis does describe the entire creation.)

            No.  It leaves out the part where God was created and then it leaves out how space (nothing) was created when nothing had to already be there. 

            (All of the above is truth.)

            Yes.  You believe it so it is your truth.  It is not everyone's truth, though.

            (What else is there to prove?)

            Nothing.  You believe it, so why prove it again to yourself?  Now, if you would like to explain rationally how an immaterial being could have interacted with nothing to cause the formation of matter and space I am all ears.

            Just don't try to prove anything to me, o.k.?

      2. 0
        AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Chapter 1 of Genesis or chapter 2?  They don't follow the same progression.

  14. 61
    ChristianSoldierposted 6 years ago

    Evolution is still a THEORY. It can still be disproven. I dont believe in evolution.

    Evolutionist believe that they come from Monkies.

    I believe that I come from God.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Did you have parents? Or were you made from nothing? hmm

    2. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Therefore, God is a monkey?

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I realize that I do not understand all of these modern day technical phrases that have scientific undertones.

          Back almost six decades ago I was splitting my britches, eating dirt falling outa trees discovering gravity, hemitomas and bla bla bla for myself.  If we didn't know what it was ???  we tasted it first, that is if it was a wiggling.  We figured out what it was by what it tasted like. 

          And whatever it was...  if we could catch it and if it was big enough we'd see if we could put a saddle on it and ride it.

           We didn't need a book to tell us that it was going to taste like or if it would hurt us.  We found out. 
           We tasted it and depending upon how loud our bloowey was and how far we spit it out  that is how bad it tasted.  We didn't need no stinking book to tell us,  don't put that in your mouth!!! ...     it isn't going to taste good!   I suggest  put in your mouth and see if ya like it.  If it bites spit it out. 

           Now that is scientific study on a down home level!!!
           Just kidding ...  but too many people gotta read a book before they can tell ya what they think.
           And that is true among the educated and the uneducated.

           There is a such thing as an illiterate fool    AND   an educated idiot..   simple wisdom and intricate knowledge of complicated things.

        Each of us are on our own journey to investigate and learn for our selves.   You caint tell nobody what you learned.. they gotta lernit for dem selfs

        1. 0
          AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So, you are saying, Go chew on a monkey?

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What ever ya are wanting to figure out?

               Do your own reasearch.  And then you will KNOW.

            1. 0
              AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't understand.  How will I know?  What if I chew on a monkey and like it, but you chew on the same monkey and don't like it - which one of us will "know" if the monkey tastes good or bad?

              Or are you saying knowledge is subjective, that each of us by our own experience decides what we know and don't know.  Well, if that is right then there can be no absolute, universal knowledge of God - it would depend on whether or not we liked the taste when we chewed on him.

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well if I said it must be true. 
                    But there are no absolutes.

                   I always have truble chewing on mashed potatos and not chewing on suckers.  I'm confused???

                1. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I'll take that as a "No Comment".  :-))

  15. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    Christian:
    lol...evolutionists don't believe man evolved from the monkey.
    My goodness!
    Aren't you embarrassed to make such an unlearned pronouncement publicly?
    Thy ignorance preceeds thy typing!
    Oh and by the way, micro evolution has been proved. it is no longer a theory. Macro? Nope, not yet. Given time, it will be.
    lol.....

    1. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Oh and by the way, micro evolution has been proved. it is no longer a theory. Macro? Nope, not yet. Given time, it will be.
      lol....." (emphasis mine) cool

      Now THAT'S a faith statement, if I've ever heard one. lol lol lol

      And you ridicule faith! hmm  NICE move. lol lol lol

      1. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        AKA;

        Yep it sure is a leap-of-faith. for once ya got it right!
        The concept "Evolution" has already been proved!
        I have "faith" (hope, guess, conjecture) that if man exists long enuf, unlike the concept of supernatural hero divinities, man will prove that "complex life"  fits into the proven concept evolution. There is no epistemological limit to mans mental abilities.
        Yep! I sure do have "faith!"...:-)
        Oh, and by the way, I also have faith that the sun will rise from the East tomorrow morning.
        ....and here ya thought I was a "faithless" being! See how wrong ya can be?
        Qwark

        1. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry qwark, the sunrise example does not fit the faith criteria. (But thats ok).

          I never thought you were "faithless". You just focus your faith on this world system. Your whole life is bound by the senses and rationality etc. Though you are a "spiritual" being, you live in the flesh, not the Spirit. I understand that.

          However, Thomas (like you) demanded physical proof (of Jesus' resurrection). Jesus did indeed give him an physical encounter. Thomas was able to put his fingers into the wound in Jesus' side. Then Jesus told him, "now, be not FAITHLESS (emphasis mine)". So, to Jesus, faithless requirers physical proof (sound like anyone?).
          Then He taught the following, "because you have seen, you believe, but BLESSED are those who HAVE NOT seen, yet they believe". (emphasis mine)
          So, in the above sense, I guess you ARE faithless.

          You probably doubt Jesus ever existed, too, this whole post will be meaningless to you.

          BTW my lovely little granddaughter is over for a visit, and has made my day. big_smile:

          1. 0
            AKA Winstonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            @ aka-dj
            (However, Thomas (like you) demanded physical proof (of Jesus' resurrection). Jesus did indeed give him an physical encounter. Thomas was able to put his fingers into the wound in Jesus' side. Then Jesus told him, "now, be not FAITHLESS (emphasis mine)". )

            Why do you quote this as if it were proof?  All the gospels differ in their stories - what makes you think this is a literal claim of an event that happened when it is mentioned no where else but one gospel?

            The book of Mark portrays Jesus as an Apocalyptic Messiah, while the book of John paints the picture of a divine Jesus - what you cannot do is combine those two pictures into a third, the theology of let's try to reconcile the differences by claiming Jesus was a divine, Apocalyptic Messiah.

            This is like saying,  "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, for Scarlett and Rhett."

            And like A Tale of Two Cities and Gone With the Wind, the gospels are unique and individual books, not meant  to be combined to tell a competelty different story.

            Claiming  the Doubting Thomas story as factual based on one account that is not shared is like claiming that Twelve Oaks was real because it was mentioned in Gone With the Wind though no other writing about he civil war mentions this plantation by name.

            Come on, man, you can't keep using bible quotes as inerrantly factual when anyone with even a quarter of a brain who has looked into the history of the bible knows it is a very human book and not inerrant in any possible way.

            It's not your belief that annoys - it is those silly claims of inerrancy by quoting bible as authoritative fact that is so trying.

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks winston.
              I actually wasn't talking to you, so, not sure what you are saying to me.?
              I did not offer the story of Thomas as any kind of proof. Merely as a example, and Jesus' teaching on faith, in that instance.
              The rest of your discourse is irrelevant in my mind.
              Along with you biases contained in it. hmm

      2. 0
        Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        macro has a lot more evidence than the bible has.  And how do young earth creationists explain fossils etc?  One giant flood event that somehow layered everything?

        1. aka-dj profile image79
          aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds good so far. lol

          1. 0
            Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            fill it out for me then, your version - did god put the dinosaurs etc on this supposed ark (despite that whole story being a complete joke), or did god decide to drown them all?  And the not trusting dating of fossils/rocks etc...why exactly not?

            1. 0
              Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              http://ask.metafilter.com/35658/How-doe … l-evidence
              maybe one of these "answers"?  BTW, how did the dinosaurs die after going on ark?

  16. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Most scientists beleive in God, just like most people do (rates of atheism are a little higher than average in the life scientists and a little lower than average in chemisty bench sciences and variable all over--sceintists are just people too).

    The fallacy is in thinking religion and science are incompatable.  It is like the church is picking fights for no reason.  genetic variation and natural selection exist.  Ergo evolution exists.  No reason to think God didn't intend it that way.

 
working