Can God love? (Part 1)
+15
agoodman
tlttf
astra
trevorw2539
Ivan
astradt1
blueturando
sickchip
polyglide
Phil Hornby
Adele Carlyon
bobby
Shirina
oftenwrong
Greatest I am
19 posters
Page 20 of 25
Page 20 of 25 • 1 ... 11 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 25
Can God love? (Part 1)
First topic message reminder :
Can God love?
We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.
Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.
Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.
Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.
It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.
You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity. You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.
Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you. See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.
Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.
We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.
Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?
Have you seen God express his love for us lately?
Regards
DL
These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.
[youtube]
Can God love?
We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.
Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.
Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.
Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.
It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.
You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity. You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.
Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you. See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.
Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.
We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.
Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?
Have you seen God express his love for us lately?
Regards
DL
These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.
[youtube]
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Psychologically is there any difference between believing the universe revolves around the earth and the universe revolving around us humans.
I prefer the humble spirituality of humanism to the self-centred spirituality of religion.
I prefer the humble spirituality of humanism to the self-centred spirituality of religion.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke's being the author is strong enough that the author is unknown. The Book of Acts contradicts the letters of Paul on many points, such as Paul's second trip to Jerusalem for an apostolic council. Paul placed an emphasis on Jesus' death while the author of Luke instead emphasizes Jesus' suffering, and there are other differences regarding eschatology and the Law. Paul described Luke as “the beloved physician”, leading Hobart to claim in 1882 that the vocabulary used in Luke-Acts suggests its author may have had medical training. However, this assertion was contradicted by an influential study by Cadbury in 1926, and has since been abandoned; instead it is now believed this language reflects merely a common Greek education.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
The real problem we have is that man thinks everything revolves round him.
In fact man in consideration of the universe is in a catagory so minute that there is not a possible means of expressing his significance, insignificance being a better example.
There may be others within the universe of all descriptions and that is a probability rather than a possibility.
The fact is we do not know and we may live in a part of what exists that is entirely different to other parts of the universe which may involve matters even more beyond our understanding.
What we should be doing is doing the best we can with what we actually know and have.
As far as I am concerned, there would be everything available for a long and fruitful life were we to accept the offer made by God through Jesus and accepted the advice given rather than think we know better which has resulted in the present state of the world.
In fact man in consideration of the universe is in a catagory so minute that there is not a possible means of expressing his significance, insignificance being a better example.
There may be others within the universe of all descriptions and that is a probability rather than a possibility.
The fact is we do not know and we may live in a part of what exists that is entirely different to other parts of the universe which may involve matters even more beyond our understanding.
What we should be doing is doing the best we can with what we actually know and have.
As far as I am concerned, there would be everything available for a long and fruitful life were we to accept the offer made by God through Jesus and accepted the advice given rather than think we know better which has resulted in the present state of the world.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
As far as I am concerned, there would be everything available for a long and fruitful life were we to accept the offer made by God through Jesus and accepted the advice given rather than think we know better which has resulted in the present state of the world.
They are up to their necks in God and Jesus in the bible belt and they are in the same state as the rest of the world.
It seems your little piece of wisdom is woo-woo.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Never in the field of human conflict was so much offense gratuitously offered to so many to so little purpose.
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
They are up to their necks in God and Jesus in the bible belt…
Perhaps you have chosen1st choice to place Texas in what you have chosen2nd choice to label “the bible belt”; perhaps you have not so chosen. In either case, both choices are yours, endowed unto you by your Creator (“… all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”), as you were created by your Creator into freedom of choice (“And Elohim said, ‘Let us make ha adama in our image, after our likeness… So Elohim created ha adama in his own mage, in the image of Elohim created he him, male and female created he them”).
Presuming that you have so chosen (I request correction if my presumption is in error), your “point of view” third person pronouns “they” and “their” have been replaced by “we” and “our” (my “point of view”) in the slightly altered rendering of your text below. Alterations are underlined.
With RockOnBrother’s alterations, Tosh wrote:
We are up to our necks in God and Jesus in Texas…
As a citizen of the Great Sovereign State of Texas, I am included amongst “we” and my neck is included amongst “our necks.” I am not up to my neck in God and Jesus.
Tosh wrote:
… they are in the same state as the rest of the world.
Same alteration protocol:
With RockOnBrother’s alterations, Tosh wrote:
… we are in the same state as the rest of the world.
As a citizen of the Great Sovereign State of Texas, I am included amongst “we.” I am not in the same state as the rest of the world. In Norway, for instance, a beast that systematically stalks and exterminates more than sixty children faces up to twenty-one years in a country club prison. In Texas, a beast that ambushes and exterminates a peace officer gets the needle.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Never in the field of human conflict was so much offense gratuitously offered to so many to so little purpose. .
Hey fruitcake, if you wish to bite my ankles you better put your teeth back in.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
.In Norway, for instance, a beast that systematically stalks and exterminates more than sixty children faces up to twenty-one years in a country club prison. In Texas, a beast that ambushes and exterminates a peace officer gets the needle.
The devout Christian who massacred those children will never be released, instead of wasting time pretending to be clever you should do a bit of research.
My research uncovered Texas executed a mentally retarded man this year, now there is civilisation for you, Jesus would be so proud.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I always admire good manners - on those all-too-rare occasions on which they are displayed...
Phil Hornby- Blogger
- Posts : 4002
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I always admire good manners - on those all-too-rare occasions on which they are displayed... .
Me too, why is everone so nasty to me ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
How long do you have...?
Phil Hornby- Blogger
- Posts : 4002
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
How long do you have...?
My polemic style ruffles a few feathers but its worth it.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Ah! So that's what 'polemic' means...
Phil Hornby- Blogger
- Posts : 4002
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Drifting on Easy Street
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Ah! So that's what 'polemic' means... .
po·lem·ic/pəˈlemik/Noun:
1.A strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.
2.The art or practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute.
Yep.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
… your malfunctiong brain…
… repetitive drivel…
… spamming troll…
… someone with the IQ of a lettuce…
Complete drivel…
… religious wackos…
… primitive mindsets…
… any educated person in the 21 st century who believes one out of hundreds of ancient mythological tales is needing a psychiatrist.
… are you typing with your toes ?
… fruitcak…
… if you wish to bite my ankles you better put your teeth back in.
… flatulence…
… liars…
… flatulence…
… getting your ass whipped…
Tosh wrote:
… I have every right to ridicule those whose beliefs deny standard first grade common khowledge.
Your avowed right and implied intent to ridicule those whose beliefs do not meet your approval is again noted.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:08 pm; edited 2 times in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
With RockOnBrother’s alterations, Tosh wrote:
Tosh did not write:
We are up to our necks in God and Jesus in Texas…
This was altered by Texas out of pure flatulence, he has it down to an art form.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
.Your avowed right and implied intent to ridicule those whose beliefs do not meet your approval is again noted.
I do not like liars, if the cap fits.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
See my message, posted today, Friday, 14 September 2012 at 21:19, for inclusion therein of “flatulence”, posted today, Friday, 14 September 2012 at 21:26, and “liars”, posted today, Friday, 14 September 2012 at 21:28.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
.See my message, posted today, Friday, 14 September 2012 at 21:19, for inclusion of “flatulence”, posted today, Friday, 14 September 2012 at 21:26, and “liars”, posted today, Friday, 14 September 2012 at 21:28
Nope, your flatulence and repetitive spamming is of no interest to me, you have ran away from the debate because you were getting your ass whipped, such is the lfe of a creationist in the modern world, you can run from the facts but you cannot hide from them.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Let us remind ourselves how many life scientists accept Common Descent as a scentific theory and fact.
99.9 %......................................WOW.
or we can believe Texas with his Hebrew, his alterations and his verbal tics.
99.9 %......................................WOW.
or we can believe Texas with his Hebrew, his alterations and his verbal tics.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
See my message, posted today, Friday, 14 September 2012 at 21:19, for inclusion therein of “flatulence” and “getting your ass whipped”, posted today, Friday, 14 September 2012 at 21:49.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
Let us remind ourselves how many life scientists accept Common Descent as a scentific theory and fact.
99.9 %......................................WOW.
Let us remind ourselves how many mariners aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria, mid-Atlantic Ocean 1492, accepted flat earth as fact.
All but one. Wow!
Let us remind ourselves how many mariners aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria, mid-Atlantic Ocean 1492, accepted the nonexistence of North America, South America, and the Caribbean Islands as fact.
All (100%). Wow!
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Let us remind ourselves how many mariners aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria, mid-Atlantic Ocean 1492, accepted flat earth as fact.
The flaw in your comparison is that the 99% of scientists who agree upon Common Decent do so based on what they actually know. The sailors aboard those three ships believed in a flat earth based on what they didn't know.
That is a massively important distinction. Take alien life, for instance. Anyone can offer up speculation on what an alien looks like or how it might behave ... and there's no right or wrong answer because we don't have any facts one way or the other. No matter how bizarre the speculation, all we can do is shrug and say, "Who knows? Maybe." In the same way, the sailors who made that trip can offer up an infinite number of guesses about what lies over the horizon in uncharted waters because their theories are predicated upon their ignorance.
Those 99% of scientists who believe in evolution do so based on their knowledge gained in over 150 years of constant study.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Shirina wrote:The flaw in your comparison is that the 99% of scientists who agree upon Common Decent do so based on what they actually know.Let us remind ourselves how many mariners aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria, mid-Atlantic Ocean 1492, accepted flat earth as fact.
The “99% of scientists who agree” with macro-evolution do so based upon their shared speculative conjecture as to the application of bones in dated dirt (evidence of something, including itself, but proof of nothing), various advances in DNA, micro-evolution (evidence of itself), and other data.
The entire company save one of mariners aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria who agreed with flat earth did so based upon their shared speculative conjecture as to the earth’s flatness and the application of this perceived flatness upon their survival.
Neither scientists nor mariners possess/possessed proof/disproof as to the validity of their speculative conjectures.
More on this later in this post.
Shirina wrote:
The sailors aboard those three ships believed in a flat earth based on what they didn't know.
The mariners (save one) aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria also believed in flat earth based upon (a) what they did know, and (b) an incorrect conclusion therefrom; insofar as they could perceive, the earth upon which they stood and sailed was flat.
Shirina wrote:
Those 99% of scientists who believe in evolution do so based on their knowledge gained in over 150 years of constant study.
Unfortunately for the speculative conjecture which these “99% of scientists who believe in evolution” believe, their knowledge based upon more than one hundred fifty years of study has failed to prove macro-evolution. Anyone who wishes to posit macro-evolution as informed speculative conjecture will do so with my blessings, as all of us in our shared nation are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to so posit, as “mentioned” in the Bill of Rights (non-enumerated rights are not to be disparaged).
In the preceding paragraph, certain text has been placed within quotation marks because I’ve neither personal knowledge nor research findings verifying the quoted percentage. I will, however, willingly stipulate as uncontested fact that the preponderance of biological, geological, archaeologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists believe that, although unproven, macro-evolution is fact. In fact, as has been stated hereon, the only proven evolution is micro-evolution, compelling evidence of which was observed by Charles Darwin on his voyage aboard the Beagle.
In most respects, my chosen comparison is logical and legitimate. The sole inapplicable area involves proven/unproven in both directions. The following “lists” should make things clear.
- In their belief in flat earth, the mariners aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria believed that which had not been proven correct; thus, their assertion that the unproven was proven was incorrect.
- In their belief in macro-evolution, scientists of various disciplines believe that which has not been proven correct; thus, their assertion that the unproven is proven is incorrect.
- Flat earth has been proven wrong (Apollo astronauts viewed and photographed a nearly perfect ball from two hundred twenty plus thousand miles away); thus, the mariners aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria have been proven wrong.
- Macro-evolution has neither been proven right nor proven wrong; thus, scientists of various disciplines have neither been proven right nor proven wrong.
Jury’s still out. Remember, in a criminal court, eleven jurors voting for conviction plus one juror voting for acquittal equals hung jury.
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
The entire company save one of mariners aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria who agreed with flat earth did so based upon their shared speculative conjecture as to the earth’s flatness and the application of this perceived flatness upon their survival.
Actually, no. Those mariners simply accepted the most popular guess, the most popular fairy tale about what lies beyond the horizon. Remember, too, that these mariners also believed that you could sail off the edge of the earth. Now, why assume there is an edge at all? Perhaps the earth is infinite. Yet they chose to believe in an assertion that didn't have a shred of evidence to support it. None of those sailors actually studied the earth, because if they had, they would have come to the same conclusion as Pythagoras, Aristophenes, and others who actually conducted experiments to show that the earth was, in fact, a sphere. Because they were operating from a standpoint of ignorance rather than knowledge, they were completely wrong.
Scientists are not conjuring up theories from thin air like the sailors of those three ships were doing. Today's scientists have measurable, testable results born from a century and a half of experimentation. One simply cannot dismiss it all as "speculation" merely because it contradicts religious belief. People have been doing that for thousands of years and they have been proven to be wrong each and every time. Placing your bet on a horse that has never won a race seems awfully reckless.Neither scientists nor mariners possess/possessed proof/disproof as to the validity of their speculative conjectures.
The fact is ... they didn't know *anything* about that area of the planet, and if they had made even better visual observations, they would have realized they were wrong. For instance, if you go to the Niagara River, the current is extremely strong as the water is pulled over the falls. If there was an edge, the ocean should have a strong current pulling the water away from land. But there isn't. Essentially, those who believed the world was flat were making stuff up. All they had to go on was that the earth appears flat to a human standing on the surface, but there are other observations that would have contradicted that, specifically the fact that the oceans are not being pulled toward the edges as one example.The mariners (save one) aboard Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria also believed in flat earth based upon (a) what they did know
Actually, my original point wasn't to suggest that anyone has proven anything. I was pointing out that evolution is based on actual testing, including mathematical formulas that hold up under pretty rigorous scrutiny. The mariners aboard those ships did not experiment upon the earth such as measuring shadows at different latitudes to find out whether or not the earth was flat. They simply made a simplistic visual observation and thus they were arguing from ignorance. "We don't know something as fact, therefore, it is X."Unfortunately for the speculative conjecture which these “99% of scientists who believe in evolution” believe, their knowledge based upon more than one hundred fifty years of study has failed to prove macro-evolution.
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. (LINK)In the preceding paragraph, certain text has been placed within quotation marks because I’ve neither personal knowledge nor research findings verifying the quoted percentage.
So you have three possible figures:
a) 0.001% who reject evolution (700 as a percentage of 480,000) or 99.999% who accept it (only including Americans)
b) 99.9% as per the findings of Brian Alters
c) 95% as per the findings of a Gallup Poll (which only includes American scientists, some of whom have no expertise in biology)
A jury is a grouping of random people which may or may not have any expert knowledge about the matter being presented. Hence the need for expert witnesses to make or break a case. If 99.999% or 95% or even 51% of expert scientists took the stand in support of evolution, the jury SHOULD rule in favor of evolution. However, religious belief gets in the way. In America, at least, an innocent man would go to jail if his freedom was contingent upon proving evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Far too many would ignore the testimony of those 99.9% of pro-evolution experts and resort to faith and superstition to decide the case.Jury’s still out. Remember, in a criminal court, eleven jurors voting for conviction plus one juror voting for acquittal equals hung jury.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I do not know which institutions was visited to gain the figures you quote but it certainly does not represent the average person.
Just look at the state of the vast majority of the world's reaction to just a simple film being made, do you think those involved believe in evolution?
Stastistics can be manipulated in so many ways as to make them totally irrelevent.
There are, as I have stateed previously, just as many intelligent scientists directly opposed to evolution as those in favour and the actual numbers involved does not prove matters one way or another.
You can have millions believing the world is flat and just one who thinks it is round etc;
The thread is can God love? the answer fortunately for the human race is a resounding YES, and I hope he has also a sense of humour because this thread at times with all the nonsense about evolution must have him in stiches but also in despair, at the stupidity of mankind in nearly every aspect of life.
Just look at the state of the vast majority of the world's reaction to just a simple film being made, do you think those involved believe in evolution?
Stastistics can be manipulated in so many ways as to make them totally irrelevent.
There are, as I have stateed previously, just as many intelligent scientists directly opposed to evolution as those in favour and the actual numbers involved does not prove matters one way or another.
You can have millions believing the world is flat and just one who thinks it is round etc;
The thread is can God love? the answer fortunately for the human race is a resounding YES, and I hope he has also a sense of humour because this thread at times with all the nonsense about evolution must have him in stiches but also in despair, at the stupidity of mankind in nearly every aspect of life.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
The average person isn't a scientist. Do you go to the average person to decide if you need triple bypass surgery? Then why would you go to the average person to find out whether evolution is scientifically viable? It doesn't make any sense.I do not know which institutions was visited to gain the figures you quote but it certainly does not represent the average person.
No, I'm sure they don't. And, uhmm ... using a bunch of rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth murdering zealots as an example of who doesn't believe in evolution was probably not the wisest argument ever made.Just look at the state of the vast majority of the world's reaction to just a simple film being made, do you think those involved believe in evolution?
This is the standard argument used by people when the statistics don't agree with their conclusions. Sure, they can be manipulated, but there are three different sources represented in my previous post. It's difficult to refute those statistics when all three sources say essentially the same thing.Stastistics can be manipulated in so many ways as to make them totally irrelevent.
I've already shown you that what you just said is false. I've also already shown you the "numbers don't matter" argument in this particular case is also untrue. If 99% of the doctors in this country presented you with scientific evidence that you have cancer, including X-Rays, biopsies, and other tests, would you refuse treatment?There are, as I have stateed previously, just as many intelligent scientists directly opposed to evolution as those in favour and the actual numbers involved does not prove matters one way or another.
Those who believed the world was flat had no scientific evidence on which to base that conclusion.You can have millions believing the world is flat and just one who thinks it is round etc;
The Bible is filled with passages about having faith ... not evidence, faith. In fact, Christians often say that this is the primary reason why God doesn't simply reveal himself. We're supposed to have faith. Well, if this is the case then why would God make knowledge of his existence a certainty simply by asking the question, "Where did we come from?" Perhaps a God who pushed the idea of faith would mask his presence by creating the evolutionary process, hmm? It would be a pretty silly God indeed who left such a massive clue ... but oh, that's right, the Bible doesn't mention evolution, so it can't be true.and I hope he has also a sense of humour because this thread at times with all the nonsense about evolution must have him in stiches but also in despair, at the stupidity of mankind in nearly every aspect of life.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
In most respects, my chosen comparison is logical and legitimate.
It bears no relation whatsoever and this has been pointed out to you many times, no scientific method and no scientific proof supported the flat earth hypothesis.
However there is a suitable comparison between a flat earth and designed creation, both are based soley on a perception and both have no evidence to support them. It seems you are using an incorrect analogy, one that ridicules your own perceptions.
The body of evidence that supports the theory of Common Descent is available to all to view, those with logical minds accept the legitimacy of the evidence, you do not, you still see a flat earth.
There has never been a scientific theory in modern science that has been proven to be false, Common Descent is as true as Gravity.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
There are, as I have stateed previously, just as many intelligent scientists directly opposed to evolution as those in favour and the actual numbers involved does not prove matters one way or another.
Prove this statement, and also explain why every mainstream religion including Christianity accepts evolution as a fact, they simply believe it was directed by God, it called Theistic evolution.
For goodness sake woman, if the Pope and the Catholic Chrurch can accept evolution then so can you.
Last edited by Tosh on Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
I have to say the quality of posts defending creationism on this thread are deserving of ridicule, they consist mostly of lies and denial.
Science is wrong, the evidence is wrong, the proof is wrong, the scientific method is wrong and scientists are wrong, and why is it wrong ?
Because creation scientists believe they are wrong, and they have no evidence nor scientific support.
It doesn't matter what evidence one posts, it is ignored or rejected, Dawkins was right it is a full blown delusion.
Science is wrong, the evidence is wrong, the proof is wrong, the scientific method is wrong and scientists are wrong, and why is it wrong ?
Because creation scientists believe they are wrong, and they have no evidence nor scientific support.
It doesn't matter what evidence one posts, it is ignored or rejected, Dawkins was right it is a full blown delusion.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Anyone who suggests a 99.9% scientific consensus is a hung jury or a manipulation of statistics or some mass illusion is being uneasonable and irrational.
Anyone who suggests the body of evidence that supports Common Descent is insufficient, is not a scientist but a religious zealot.
One of the flood geology stars of young earth creationism( 6-10,000 years old) is a geologist, however he also lectures( for money) about structures that are billions of years old.
How does this work ?
Anyone who suggests the body of evidence that supports Common Descent is insufficient, is not a scientist but a religious zealot.
One of the flood geology stars of young earth creationism( 6-10,000 years old) is a geologist, however he also lectures( for money) about structures that are billions of years old.
How does this work ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
A Statement by the Geological Society of London
Approved by Council 10 April, and published 11 April 2008
The idea that the Earth was divinely created in the geologically recent past ("Young Earth Creationism"); attempts by Young Earth Creationists to gain acceptance for what they misrepresent in public as corroborative empirical evidence for this view ("Creation science"); and the allied belief that features of the universe and of living things are better explained as the direct result of action by an intelligent cause than by natural processes ("Intelligent Design"), represent such a trespass upon the domain of science.
The Geological Society of London is the oldest national learned society for the Earth sciences in the world, and embodies the collective knowledge of nearly 10,000 Earth scientists worldwide. On their behalf it wishes, during the United Nations International Year of Planet Earth, to place on record the following facts as being long established beyond doubt.
•Planet Earth, along with the other planets in the Solar System, was formed approximately 4560 million years ago.
•Life has existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years. It has evolved into its current form by a combination of genetic variation and natural selection - and is likely to go on doing so for as long as it continues to exist.
•Close study of the structure and organisation of living animals and plants clearly indicates their common ancestry, and the succession of forms through the fossil record, as well as the genetic record contained in every living organism, provides powerful evidence of the reality of evolution.
Further information
•For a statement on this subject by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science, go to http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298
•For a recently updated (2008) version of the US National Academy of Sciences booklet Science, Evolution and Creationism, go to: www.nap.edu/sec. This document will tell you what is and is not science, summarises the scientific evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights repeatedly how leading religious figures have spoken out in favour of evolution as being consistent with their world-view.
•For a statement on Intelligent Design issued by the International Society for Science and Religion, the main academic international society dedicated to the relationship between science and religion, see www.issr.org.uk/id-statement.asp.
•For an account of evolutionary knowledge, see vertebrate palaeontologist Prof. Kevin Padian's evidence, given in trial (Kitzmiller v Dover): http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar. This destroys the bases of young-Earth creationists' assertions regarding critical gaps in the fossil record.
•For a clear account of evolution given by one of the world’s leading geneticists, showing how it is compatible with religious belief, see The Language of God by Francis Collins (Free Press, 2006). Francis Collins is Head of the Human Genome Project.
•Alexander, D. & White, R. S. (2004). Beyond Belief: Science, Faith and Ethical Challenges, Lion, Oxford, 219pp. Gives an accessible account of science and its interaction with religious views, including sections on evolution (with a critique of intelligent design), the age of the Earth and global environmental issues.
•Gould, Stephen J. 1999. Non-overlapping magisteria. A succinct and entertaining exposition of the lack of conflict between science and non-literalist religious thought. Published in: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms. Jonathan Cape, pp269-283.
•Pope Pius XII 1950, Papal Encyclical Humani Generis
Approved by Council 10 April, and published 11 April 2008
The idea that the Earth was divinely created in the geologically recent past ("Young Earth Creationism"); attempts by Young Earth Creationists to gain acceptance for what they misrepresent in public as corroborative empirical evidence for this view ("Creation science"); and the allied belief that features of the universe and of living things are better explained as the direct result of action by an intelligent cause than by natural processes ("Intelligent Design"), represent such a trespass upon the domain of science.
The Geological Society of London is the oldest national learned society for the Earth sciences in the world, and embodies the collective knowledge of nearly 10,000 Earth scientists worldwide. On their behalf it wishes, during the United Nations International Year of Planet Earth, to place on record the following facts as being long established beyond doubt.
•Planet Earth, along with the other planets in the Solar System, was formed approximately 4560 million years ago.
•Life has existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years. It has evolved into its current form by a combination of genetic variation and natural selection - and is likely to go on doing so for as long as it continues to exist.
•Close study of the structure and organisation of living animals and plants clearly indicates their common ancestry, and the succession of forms through the fossil record, as well as the genetic record contained in every living organism, provides powerful evidence of the reality of evolution.
Further information
•For a statement on this subject by the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science, go to http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298
•For a recently updated (2008) version of the US National Academy of Sciences booklet Science, Evolution and Creationism, go to: www.nap.edu/sec. This document will tell you what is and is not science, summarises the scientific evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights repeatedly how leading religious figures have spoken out in favour of evolution as being consistent with their world-view.
•For a statement on Intelligent Design issued by the International Society for Science and Religion, the main academic international society dedicated to the relationship between science and religion, see www.issr.org.uk/id-statement.asp.
•For an account of evolutionary knowledge, see vertebrate palaeontologist Prof. Kevin Padian's evidence, given in trial (Kitzmiller v Dover): http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar. This destroys the bases of young-Earth creationists' assertions regarding critical gaps in the fossil record.
•For a clear account of evolution given by one of the world’s leading geneticists, showing how it is compatible with religious belief, see The Language of God by Francis Collins (Free Press, 2006). Francis Collins is Head of the Human Genome Project.
•Alexander, D. & White, R. S. (2004). Beyond Belief: Science, Faith and Ethical Challenges, Lion, Oxford, 219pp. Gives an accessible account of science and its interaction with religious views, including sections on evolution (with a critique of intelligent design), the age of the Earth and global environmental issues.
•Gould, Stephen J. 1999. Non-overlapping magisteria. A succinct and entertaining exposition of the lack of conflict between science and non-literalist religious thought. Published in: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms. Jonathan Cape, pp269-283.
•Pope Pius XII 1950, Papal Encyclical Humani Generis
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Official Evolution Statement Approved by Academy Science Council March 28, 2007
Evolution is a central concept in modern science, including biology, geology, and astronomy. The California Academy of Sciences, with its broad mission to explore, explain, and protect the natural world, recognizes that evolution is fundamental to understanding biological diversity and is a critical organizing principle for both scientific research and science museums.
In biology, the basic facts of evolution, including the extinction and emergence of new species over time, were understood and accepted by the end of the nineteenth century. Charles Darwin identified natural selection as a primary mechanism driving evolution (that some organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce, thus their genetic traits will be inherited by future generations while other traits will be lost). Through selection, some life-forms thrive, reproduce, and adapt as conditions change, whereas others disappear. The detailed processes that create variation and drive natural selection became evident during the twentieth century with the discoveries of DNA and molecular inheritance. Twentieth century geologists also learned to use radioactivity to determine the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years), and astronomers discovered the expansion of the universe, measuring its age as approximately 14 billion years. Change is an inherent property of stars, planets, and life.
Scientists in many fields use evolutionary concepts daily in their research. In pharmacology and agriculture, these concepts are central to efforts to overcome the evolution of harmful organisms that have become resistant to antibiotics or pesticides. Evolution as the organizing principle for science museums has transformed the eighteenth-century collections of "curiosities" into modern museums of natural history. The California Academy of Sciences recognizes the importance of understanding evolution for both scientists and the public, and we emphasize that evolution belongs in school curricula and textbooks as one of the fundamental concepts of modern science.
Evolution is a central concept in modern science, including biology, geology, and astronomy. The California Academy of Sciences, with its broad mission to explore, explain, and protect the natural world, recognizes that evolution is fundamental to understanding biological diversity and is a critical organizing principle for both scientific research and science museums.
In biology, the basic facts of evolution, including the extinction and emergence of new species over time, were understood and accepted by the end of the nineteenth century. Charles Darwin identified natural selection as a primary mechanism driving evolution (that some organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce, thus their genetic traits will be inherited by future generations while other traits will be lost). Through selection, some life-forms thrive, reproduce, and adapt as conditions change, whereas others disappear. The detailed processes that create variation and drive natural selection became evident during the twentieth century with the discoveries of DNA and molecular inheritance. Twentieth century geologists also learned to use radioactivity to determine the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years), and astronomers discovered the expansion of the universe, measuring its age as approximately 14 billion years. Change is an inherent property of stars, planets, and life.
Scientists in many fields use evolutionary concepts daily in their research. In pharmacology and agriculture, these concepts are central to efforts to overcome the evolution of harmful organisms that have become resistant to antibiotics or pesticides. Evolution as the organizing principle for science museums has transformed the eighteenth-century collections of "curiosities" into modern museums of natural history. The California Academy of Sciences recognizes the importance of understanding evolution for both scientists and the public, and we emphasize that evolution belongs in school curricula and textbooks as one of the fundamental concepts of modern science.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Tosh wrote:
… no scientific method…
Irrelevant. The “scientific method” is a tool; as such neither “the scientific method” nor its use in scientific inquiry is evidence or proof of the existence or nonexistence of anything. The hammer is also a tool; as such, neither the hammer nor its use in construction is evidence or proof of the existence or nonexistence of a house on Elm Street.
Tosh wrote:
There has never been a scientific theory in modern science that has been proven to be false…
Oh, I don’t know. Professor Hoyle’s pet theory, Steady State, belief in which he took to his grave, comes readily to mind.
Tosh wrote:
Anyone who suggests a 99.9% scientific consensus is a hung jury…
99.9% is nine hundred ninety nine out of one thousand. One thousand minus nine hundred ninety-nine equals one. On a jury of any size, six, twelve, or one thousand, one dissenting vote equals hung jury.
Insofar as macro-evolution is concerned, as of 15 September 2012, amongst scientists of various relevant disciplines, I am aware of more than one dissenting vote.
Tosh wrote:
Anyone who suggests the body of evidence that supports Common Descent is insufficient, is not a scientist…
Incorrect. As of 15 September 2012, I am aware of more than three scientists of various relevant disciplines who have publicly concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support macro-evolution.
Last edited by RockOnBrother on Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:08 am; edited 2 times in total
Guest- Guest
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
.Incorrect. As of 15 September 2012, I am aware of more than three scientists of various relevant disciplines who have publicly concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support macro-evolution.
Name them, and lets have a look at their qualifications and evidence, I assume one is Henry M Morris lolol, he is hilarious.....and from Texas.
The founder of Creation Science had a degree in civil enginering and hydraulic engineering, this of course made him an expert in biology, genetics, geology and cosmology.
LMAO....these people are either charlatans or just barking mad.
Last edited by Tosh on Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:19 pm; edited 2 times in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Design is supported by a plethora of evidence.
I await your evidence of design.
Last edited by Tosh on Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Oh, I don’t know. Professor Hoyle’s pet theory, Steady State, belief in which he took to his grave, comes readily to mind.
Your lack of knowledge of what constitutes an accredited Scientific Theory is mind boggling for an ex-physics student, steady state was a proposed alternative model.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
99.9% is nine hundred ninety nine out of one thousand. One thousand minus nine hundred ninety-nine equals one. On a jury of any size, six, twelve, or one thousand, one dissenting vote equals hung jury.
Unfortunately for your spurious analogy, majority verdicts exist in Law, the scientific consensus is a majority verdict.
Next ?
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
The comparison between scientists of various disciplines who believe in unproven macro-evolution and mariners of the Pinta, Niña, and Santa Maria who believed in unproven flat earth is valid as delimited by me in a previous message hereon.
What scientific evidence achieved by modern scientific methods did the mariners have to support their flat earth hypothesis, and what has this to do with an accredited scientific theory based on incontrovertible evidence using modern scientific methods ?
I will wait here.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
Irrelevant. The “scientific method” is a tool; as such neither “the scientific method” nor its use in scientific inquiry is evidence or proof of the existence or nonexistence of anything.
The scientific method is the tool that establishes what is evidence or not, it is from this evidence we determine what exists or not, may I suggest not only is it relevant but essential to the process of establishing what exists.
Your evidence against Common Descent falls short of acceptable scientific methods, sorry, you lose again.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Can God love? (Part 1)
You have had ample opportunity to destroy the evidence that supports Common Descent, but you seem to be stuck on just repeating ad nauseam it has not been proven and babbling on about gravity, hung juries and a flat earth.
Where is your evidence and where is the scientific case against Common Descent ?
I am not interested in your unqualified or unsupported opinons, or your spurious analogies, they are not evidence and they are not formed using any scientific method.
Where is your evidence and where is the scientific case against Common Descent ?
I am not interested in your unqualified or unsupported opinons, or your spurious analogies, they are not evidence and they are not formed using any scientific method.
Last edited by Tosh on Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Page 20 of 25 • 1 ... 11 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 25
Similar topics
» Can God love? (Part 2)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
» Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)
» Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)
» What now for Labour? (Part 1)
Page 20 of 25
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum