Questions for Evolution-Deniers

[rossum]

The bacteria is degrading; should be improving.

What do you mean by “degrading”? How far is the bacterium allowed to degrade? Does there come a point where it has degraded so far that it cannot degrade any further? Will it stop evolving when it reaches this point?

Just based on your population models; your theory cannot be correct, there would be many many more fossils,

Please show your calculations and the model behind your calculations. Fossilisation is a rare event, most dead animals get eaten and recycled.

Not a single Christian would agree with that statement

Which statement? Surely not the statement by Saint Thomas Aquinas?

I have gone to the AIG site once during this conversation, what you call the “lying creationist” is from the “lying Bible” that you have such disregard for, which one day you will know the truth; let just hope you are still breathing.

I have often called creationists liars. I have said that some interpretations of the Bible are incorrect - such as YEC. I have said that the Bible is not a science textbook. I have never used the words “lying bible”. Can you show me a post where I have used those words?

H.G. Wells, another atheist, said: “There is no way out or around or through, it is the end.”

How is this relevant to me? I am Buddhist so you are closer to being an atheist than I am - you are only one God away from atheism while I am tens of thousands of gods away from atheism. Death is not the end for a Buddhist any more than it is the end for a Christian. You would do better to be more aware of your audience when putting your posts together.

Pretty bleak life, isn’t it?

Yes, that is why Buddhists strive for enlightenment, because we understand the First Noble Truth - life is suffering.

You seem to have as little understanding of Buddhism as you do of biology. I strongly suggest that you avoid the subject of Buddhism until you have learned more about it. For example, for most Buddhists the problem with death is that it leads immediately to another life as we are reincarnated, and life is suffering. The only way to avoid death is to avoid being reincarnated and that means attaining enlightenment before we die for the last time.

Buddhism is not Christianity, and you should avoid assuming that what is true for Christians is also true for Buddhists:At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?”

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the death of a daughter… loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard to wealth… loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

“Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on. Long have you thus experienced suffering, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.”

• Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3
  The idea of an eternal life in the Christian heaven would be hell for Buddhists.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Wrong. You can’t choose to have a particular genuine emotion.

Then you do not understand love. Love is the sacrifice you choose to make for someone else.

The Four Loves is a good book to help understand the distinctions.

 

[Thing]

Wanstronian’s law: If there’s a gap in scientific knowledge, a theist will fill it with superstitious nonsense

Is it 98% or so of the universes’ mass and energy that is missing, unknown, unknowable. Dark energy, dark matter, call it what you want. Its Dark because science can shed no light on its nature or whereabouts.
Thats a big gap filled I’m sure by lots of superstitiousesque theories about multiple universes for which there is 0 evidence. I would’nt fall too quickly into the trap of thinking science has the answers and that the answers are atheist; you may find someday the answers turn out to be theist.

 

[rossum]

Is it 98% or so of the universes’ mass and energy that is missing, unknown, unknowable.

No. How do you know that it is “unknowable”. “Currently unknown” may be acceptable, but you have no idea what may or may not be discovered in future.

Once upon a time the cause of thunder was unknown and the gap was filled by Thor and Zeus. Once the gap was filled by science look what happened to Thor and Zeus. Do you really want to try to fit your God into a gap that is limited by the boundaries of science? That is a very dangerous position to put your God in, just ask Thor and Zeus.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

No. How do you know that it is “unknowable”. “Currently unknown” may be acceptable, but you have no idea what may or may not be discovered in future.

Once upon a time the cause of thunder was unknown and the gap was filled by Thor and Zeus. Once the gap was filled by science look what happened to Thor and Zeus. Do you really want to try to fit your God into a gap that is limited by the boundaries of science? That is a very dangerous position to put your God in, just ask Thor and Zeus.

rossum

There is quite the difference between God and Thor and Zeus.

 

[StAnastasia]

Wrong. You can’t choose to have a particular genuine emotion.

Good point. James Royce, a Catholic philosopher I’ve met, describes emotions as our “constitutive judgments on the world” – they make up or constitute our judgments on the world about us. Emotions are our immediate response to situations we encounter. We don’t choose our emotions when we see a freight train heading toward our car parked on the tracks, any more than a heterosexually-oriented person chooses her or his our emotions when an attractive member of the opposite sex appears. Emotions as constitutive judgments are beyond our conscious, rational control. What we do with those emotions and how we act on them – that is the locus of rational reflection and moral action.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Patronising, ignorant and arrogant - a loathsome combination.

Loathsome indeed. When I first joined CAF I thought questioning another poster’s spiritual or religious integrity was off limits. I was quickly disabused of this assumption.

And such ad hominem attacks are not only wrong, but they are fruitless. I am one of two Christians (and the only Roman Catholic) in a large department. Most of my colleagues are agnostics of one stripe or another; one is a convinced atheist. But they are a delightful group pf human beings to work with, because we are respectful of each other. For the most part I find them are far more kind and charitable and compassionate than many self-righteous posters on these fora. I would rather spend the afterlife (such as that state might be) with them than with bigoted, self-congratulatory Christians and the God whom they imagine casts people into hell for asking probing questions about the universe and how it works.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Once upon a time the cause of thunder was unknown and the gap was filled by Thor and Zeus. Once the gap was filled by science look what happened to Thor and Zeus. rossum

They became “Thursday.”

 

[edwest2]

Good point. James Royce, a Catholic philosopher I’ve met, describes emotions as our “constitutive judgments on the world” – they make up or constitute our judgments on the world about us. Emotions are our immediate response to situations we encounter. We don’t choose our emotions when we see a freight train heading toward our car parked on the tracks, any more than a heterosexually-oriented person chooses her or his our emotions when an attractive member of the opposite sex appears. Emotions as constitutive judgments are beyond our conscious, rational control. What we do with those emotions and how we act on them – that is the locus of rational reflection and moral action.

StAnastasia

We are aware of our emotions. And we can choose to control them. Talk to any police officer who works on the street or any veteran who’s been in combat.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Thing]

No. How do you know that it is “unknowable”. “Currently unknown” may be acceptable, but you have no idea what may or may not be discovered in future.

Once upon a time the cause of thunder was unknown and the gap was filled by Thor and Zeus. Once the gap was filled by science look what happened to Thor and Zeus. Do you really want to try to fit your God into a gap that is limited by the boundaries of science? That is a very dangerous position to put your God in, just ask Thor and Zeus.

rossum

It is unknowable. If instruments cannot detect it it is unknowable. It is unknowable now, I mentioned that the future may hold unexpected surprises.

And I am arguing that it is science itself which is filling this massive gap in its own knowledge with superstitious theories which have 0 scientific evidence.
For science 0% scientific evidence beliefs must surely be superstitions or else science believes in a God.
Christianitys’ God does not fill gaps he creates everything, everything lives in God.

 

[rossum]

It is unknowable. If instruments cannot detect it it is unknowable. It is unknowable now, I mentioned that the future may hold unexpected surprises.

Are you really willing to bet the existence of your God on what those “unexpected surprises” turn out to be? That is a very dangerous position to take.

And I am arguing that it is science itself which is filling this massive gap in its own knowledge with superstitious theories which have 0 scientific evidence.

There is evidence for dark matter, we can observe its gravitational effects. We already know that it reacts normally to gravity but does not react to electromagnetic forces. We do have some scientific evidence and are working to get more. Already your God is getting smaller as science works to close the gap. Do you really want to follow a shrinking God?

Christianitys’ God does not fill gaps he creates everything, everything lives in God.

Then I suggest that you stop trying to fit God into a gap.

rossum

 

[Thing]

Are you really willing to bet the existence of your God on what those “unexpected surprises” turn out to be? That is a very dangerous position to take.

There is evidence for dark matter, we can observe its gravitational effects. We already know that it reacts normally to gravity but does not react to electromagnetic forces. We do have some scientific evidence and are working to get more. Already your God is getting smaller as science works to close the gap. Do you really want to follow a shrinking God?

Then I suggest that you stop trying to fit God into a gap.

rossum

hahaha … rossum. Talk about twisting ones post. Somebody *else *was saying Christianity had a God-of-the-gaps; I am saying it does not. God created eveything, everything lives in God. But I feel that ‘science’ does have a god of the gaps, if somebody has to have one. Particularly when scientists go off on those spectacular flights of fancy about multiple universes…

 

[ricmat]

Well ricmat, it seems to me that “falling in love” and “working to love” or “learning to love” are two sides of one coin. I agree with rossum that to some extent “falling in love” is a matter of hormones and other factors beyond our conscious control. But growing in love is obviously a matter of conscious choice and commitment that escapes many in the Hollywood crowd, for whom (if one believes the tabloids) “falling out of love” is a natural sequel to “falling out of love.”

StAnastasia

“Falling in Love” as a “matter of hormones and other factors” is not love, it is lust. Lust has a part in God’s plan to initially attract us to each other, and lust is not a choice. However, we can choose to love even if there is no lust, or attraction.

Wrong. You can’t choose to have a particular genuine emotion.

I agree. But love is not an emotion. Lust is an emotion, which we can’t totally control, which is why the idea of avoiding temptation is so important.

Absolutely. I may have implied in my previous post that I don’t believe in working to improve and maintain a relationship. Of course you must, and that must be a conscious choice. However, the emotion (love) is the end result, not the choice itself. You can choose to do your best to maintain your relationship, but you can’t just choose to love someone and call it job done.

I agree that the choice to love is not the same as love. But you can choose to love someone, independent of lust. I don’t think anyone said anywhere that one should choose to love someone and call it job done. To put it a bit differently, we must continue to choose to love someone, in good times and bad, in good health or bad, till death do us part. That “continuing to choose to love” is not based on lust which diminishes after our spouse becomes bald or fat or depressed, etc. Choosing to love (or maybe it is better put “choosing to always love”) does not diminish because our hormones diminish, or “honey” isn’t quite so good looking as before. Choosing to always love is based on the will, which we have total control over.

Love grows through shared experiences, shared adversity (in many cases), and a decision by both parties to “continue to choose to love, no matter what.”

This is more for Dr. StA since Wanstronian is not theistic - God calls us to be perfect as the Father is perfect, to love as God loves. God does not “fall in love because he couldn’t help himself.” Neither does God fall out of love. God loves us by the choice of his will. God continues to love us by the choice of his will. We love God not because we are emotionally tied up in it, because we couldn’t help ourselves. We should, and can love God and his children (even our enemies) the same way he loves us - through the force of our wills, by choice.

Note: I’m still working on doing this, and I’m not very good at it.

 

[buffalo]

hahaha … rossum. Talk about twisting ones post. Somebody *else *was saying Christianity had a God-of-the-gaps; I am saying it does not. God created eveything, everything lives in God. But I feel that ‘science’ does have a god of the gaps, if somebody has to have one. Particularly when scientists go off on those spectacular flights of fancy about multiple universes…

Let’s refer to this as “chance of the gaps”.

 

[StAnastasia]

We are aware of our emotions. And we can choose to control them. Peace, Ed

That’a just what I said. Did you read my post?

 

[StAnastasia]

This is more for Dr. StA since Wanstronian is not theistic - God calls us to be perfect as the Father is perfect, to love as God loves. God does not “fall in love because he couldn’t help himself.” Neither does God fall out of love. God loves us by the choice of his will. God continues to love us by the choice of his will. We love God not because we are emotionally tied up in it, because we couldn’t help ourselves. We should, and can love God and his children (even our enemies) the same way he loves us - through the force of our wills, by choice.

ricmat, I quite agree!

 

[StAnastasia]

Is it 98% or so of the universes’ mass and energy that is missing, unknown, unknowable. Dark energy, dark matter, call it what you want. Its Dark because science can shed no light on its nature or whereabouts. Thats a big gap filled I’m sure by lots of superstitiousesque theories about multiple universes for which there is 0 evidence. I would’nt fall too quickly into the trap of thinking science has the answers and that the answers are atheist; you may find someday the answers turn out to be theist.

No, you don’t understand. It’s dark because it doesn’t emit light. And the theories proposed to explain it are not superstitious. Creative theorizing can lead us in interesting directions, like pulmonary circulation and elliptical orbits, evolution and plate tectonics. Even when the evidence has repeatedly failed to substantiate a theory it’s not “superstitious” to hold it; it’s just pointless and counterproductive.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

The idea of an eternal life in the Christian heaven would be hell for Buddhists.rossum

Rossum, with all due respect, you write here as though there is only one – or one official – theology of the eschatological state. There are in fact plural theories about a possible afterlife.

StAnastasia

 

[Thing]

No, you don’t understand. It’s dark because it doesn’t emit light. And the theories proposed to explain it are not superstitious. Creative theorizing can lead us in interesting directions, like pulmonary circulation and elliptical orbits, evolution and plate tectonics. Even when the evidence has repeatedly failed to substantiate a theory it’s not “superstitious” to hold it; it’s just pointless and counterproductive.

StAnastasia

For those few people who argue against christianity from an atheistic scientific viewpoint their view is; that which cannot be observed or proven is superstition. Multiple universes etc are just that, a scientific superstition every bit as unknowable as God.

It is dark matter and energy because it needs to exist for the universe to exist but it is undetectable, but listen to NASA, its fun;

Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein’s theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a “cosmological constant.” Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein’s theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don’t know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.

What Is Dark Energy?
More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe’s expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn’t be called “normal” matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

It is a mystery…

 

[buffalo]

No, you don’t understand. It’s dark because it doesn’t emit light. And the theories proposed to explain it are not superstitious. Creative theorizing can lead us in interesting directions, like pulmonary circulation and elliptical orbits, evolution and plate tectonics. Even when the evidence has repeatedly failed to substantiate a theory it’s not “superstitious” to hold it; it’s just pointless and counterproductive.

StAnastasia

\

What are your thoughts as to this mysterious matter being plasma?