You really take that serious??? Buahahahahahahahahahaaaa....

No wonder Jafo has thrown you out. All hope is lost with you. Go study mathematics and then read that stuff again.

And be careful to use sites as proof that quote Göbbels. Nazis had some other ideas you might take comfort in but are utterly horrible to the rest of us.

-

Only believes you are postulating. I come to the understanding that you do not yourself believe in all the things you say but just want to get some reaction from us.

Here is your reaction: Science is a snapshot of our understanding of the universe, evolving as we gather more information and are able to interconnect more data. (Your) religion was an understanding of our environment at a time when we had very limited data (not wholly true as some stupid blasphemous Greek could calculate the diameter of earth before the birth of your Christ, while your RCC threatened and tortured people for saying that the earth is not the center of the universe and its not a disc). We just have gathered more and more information as time passed but you stayed in that snapshot of 500 AD.

Science can never be the ultimate truth as science always strives to better its understanding of the universe. It is an asymptote getting ever nearer the truth without ever touching it.

Religion has no such principles. It just is because once somebody said so and from there on no one ever evolved it.

So the fundamental problem religion has with evolution is that sciences evolve, religion does not. I is created, stays static/stagnant for a while (even a long while) and then vanishes.

So please, Lulapilgrim, if you really truly believe what you state here, have the decency to search for another playground for your postings and accept this thread as dead to you because when you do not want to further your own understanding you will never be able to comprehend another's ideas.

If you read the part of the Humani Generis which she posted earlier you will see that the pope, and the Teaching Authority of the Church forbids Catholics to admit anything that may contradict the idea of monogenism. That point is extremely important. Some Catholics don't believe in evolution. Others do and simply do and say what they will depending on whether they think their current understanding of evolution theory does or doesn't contradict monogenism. Most Catholics that I know do not deny evolution theory, mostly because they believe that there is nothing in the current science of evolution that proves or disproves monogenism.

 

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/evolution/impossible.htm

Yes, I really take what Michael Baker says about Evolution seriously.  I think Michael Baker is telling the truth to the point I said what I believe about it.

Well, you've come to the wrong understanding because I actually do believe everything I said I believe. 

As far as a reaction to Baker's article or what I believe, I expected either agreement (that indeed Evolution has a real credibility problem) or disagreement in the form of a civil rebuttal.

Therein lies the problem then. I am not sure your science is up to date though. But I am not playing this game of ‘how stupid can one sound’  anymore especially with people who are intellectually dishonest … to me (us) … and to themselves

 

If you carefully read the linked article you posted you will (or not) realise that the postulated principles are just believe with closed circle reasoning.

A person who states

"This is the fundamental logical principle.  If a man refuses to acknowledge its truth he cannot speak.  For every acceptance or rejection of a proposition presupposes it."

cannot be taken seriously, because it hinders discussion. To refute somebody a different opinion to ones "truths" because he says them irrefutable is arrogant and has no base in reality.

Some of the "fundamental principles" are formulated to give them scientific appearance but the examples hereto are child-like and false.

Conclusions to 1 and 2 are explanations that an evolutionist would give. Yes, chance is just another name for chaos. Chaos means that the influencing forces are too numerous to calculate the end result because it is impossible for someone to comprehend them all.

Time is a measurement, whats the problem with that? Its a descriptive measurement of an amount of processes taking place between two points of measurement.

 

3. yes, but Darwinism tries not to give an explanation of how the first matter came into existence. Nor how the first primitive life forms (single cell organisms) came into being. These have been explained (or tried to) by others.

4 and 5 - Utter bullshit. It's no logic at all. Its like the old japanese riddle:

A black horse is a horse. A white horse is a horse. so black is white or there is no horse.

Thats no logical reasoning at all, it's a mind game for people not witted enough to see the false presumption.

The other following "arguments" are based on these false presumptions and twist them even further. There is no science in it at all, but a nice mind game. When studying informatics I had a professor who could easily proof the 2+2 is not 4 using deduction. But that doesn't mean it was right. It was just possible if you used the wrong basis for your calculations.

As for the cause as to wherefore mankind would evolve, thats not one to answer as we are just one step in this evolution and that would be like to ask a child at the age of 1 what the destiny of their great great grandchildren will be. Perhaps there is none but that is where the understanding of most common minds fail - they need a cause for their being alive. It would hurt their ego too much to have none.

So take this idea (and no more it is) as an example for why live could evolve:

Some day, may it be very very far away, the sun will go dark. Or go supernova. Or our planet core will go cold. Either way, life on earth will become impossible. If live wants to go on and has this alone as its single cause it necessary for life to evolve to a point where it can propagate itself to other worlds/galaxies/universes.

 

Well, it can apply to Christian lies too... take a look at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter4.html for a list of some method used for support Christian lies...

Human are not ape... it is say human and ape have a common ape-like origin...

The evidence for human evolution is overwhelming. This includes thousands of fossils, which show the progressive straightening of the spine, the increase in brain volume, and change in facial features. Humans inherited their tail bone, a remnant of what was once a human tail, from primate ancestors. All animals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. Humans have a non-functional third eyelid, the plica semilunaris. Humans also have external ear muscles, which animals use to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have remnants of such muscles, but they are now feeble and now are capable only of slightly wiggling the ear. DNA comparisons also show that humans share approximately 96% of their DNA with their closest cousin, the chimpanzee. However, there are very distinct differences between Homo sapiens and Pan DNA. Chimps have 24 chromosomes while humans have 23. About 18 of these chromosomes are nearly identical while there are significant differences in chromosomes 4, 9, 12, 21, and Y. The Y chromosome in Pan is smaller and only about 60% of that of humans.

Well, it is not a god who "knit" a human in his mother's womb... all start with a sexual relation where a spermatozoid meet a ovule... from the single cell created from sex, a full human is created following the DNA code... raw material used is from the mother body...

As for the Psalm book, it is filled with non realistic thing ( like all the bible )... by example, at 147:4, it is wrote that "God tells the number of stars and calls them all by their names" ... let say that God was taking 1 single second for call the name of one single star... and with around 10000000000000000000000 stars in the universe... it will have taken God 317097919 million years for call all the star name to his follower... it is about 10 x more that the actual age of the universe !!! The real one, not the 8000 yo thing... seem that God don't really know how much star and have not calls them by their names... that in the bible, the level of knowledge of God is somehow equal to these of people living at these time, in these area... somehow a pretty stupid God when compare to a actual 6yo kid...

If God truly is the inspiration behind this purportedly divine declaration to the world ( bible, he shows absolutely no interest in its understandability or accuracy in astronomy, cosmology, zoology, botany, anthropology, geology, ecology, geography, physiology, and several other disciplines

I don't say that God don't exist... everything is possible... but any real God who is the creator of our know universe will not be stupid like any God depicted in any religious book...

I think that your main mistake is too read the "sacred text" like some scientific text... for me, these "sacred text" are more like the writing from Jean de La Fontaine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_la_Fontaine )... you need to find the education in morals hidden in these text... if you look at "The tortoise and the Hare", it is about overconfidence ... read the "holy text" in the same way and never try to use them as scientific truth...

Now, as for the opening post about atheist, i will make a single comment... everybody is born atheist, it is the influence of parents, friends, church, educational system, tradition who transform the atheist baby in a grow up who believe in some God... At personal level, i think that i am agnostic :

"an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities"

"agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist"

 

 

 

I had never thought of Evolution as chaos in quite this way, but it is absolutely true. Instead of "evolving" as Evolution Theory suggests, the universe and all that's in it, including all life is de-volving, towards it's end. 

This is true from both a scientific and religious viewpoint. 

Scientifically, 

Evolution is built on 2 foundational pillars. One---Evolution teaches that matter is not conservative, but self originating; that it can arise from nothing and increase. But the first Law of thermodynamics annihalites this error.

 Two---Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex and continually evolve to greater perfection. Cosmic or Stellar Evolution teaches that inorganic matter becomes more ordered and perfect and Darwinian Evolution teaches living creatures are always evolving into higher planes of existence. But the second law of thermodynamics devestates this theory. 

Absolutely true, but Evolutionists don't/won't let true facts get in the way of their faith in and promotion of Evolution.

Me too. And the best way to do that is to have schools teach both sides (or as Smoothseas would say, "opposite sides") of the Origins debate. 

Certainly not in the case of teaching both sides. 

Amen

(I'm atheist, by birthright, never baptized)

Lula posts:

I said:

BT posts:

Let's start with what your Evolutionary science teaches. Evolution is a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors. e.g. by random chance processes over eons of time reptiles supposedly changed into birds. 

I said I believe the empirical science of molecular genetics disproves what your Evolution science teaches.  

 

The molecular structure of DNA proves that man cannot be the end of an evolutionary process. The molecular structure of DNA proves Darwinian Evolution is impossible. The fantastic complexity and orderliness and workings of the DNA code cannot be the work of random chance processes. 

Molecular genetics shoots down postulated evolutionary sequences. Because of their DNA, there are no progressive changes from fish to amphibians, to reptiles to mammals, to man. Molecular genetics confirms systematics, not phylogeny. Molecular genetics confirms Linnaeus, not Darwin.

 

 

Not only that but it also boils down to the matter of the immortal soul. Right reason, Scripture, and CC teachings rule against matter giving birth to the soul. Gen. 1:27 states that God made man in His own image, male and female. Mankind therefore being composed of body and soul has a material (physical) and spiritual nature. So each and every human body being produced from pre-existing matter by human generation, is therefore subject to the laws of growth and decay. But according to Gen. 2:7, man has a soul, "The Lord formed man of the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

The human soul being a spiritual substance is therefore indestructible destined for immortality. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the soul may be defined as the ultimate principle by which we think, feel and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term "mind" usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while soul denotes the source of our vegative activities as well.

So, the likeness of man to God lies in the conscious principle which animates the body with understanding and free will.

So as far as evolution is concerned, the chief distinction which separates mankind from all other creatures is his immortal soul..the life principle...the animal soul is generated with the body and perishes when the body dies. It's impossible to imagine that a perfect spiritual entity, a soul made directly by God when He made man, could ever have come from a body of an animal, like an ape.

Why on earth would God fall back on an animal species in order to borrow a body for a human person? God made the whole man all at once, self contained, cpmplete and independent of all antecedents.

This is essentially what I'm saying about our DNA..that by it we now know one kind of species cannot evolve into a completely different one. 

As an aside, your mention of not proving the world was round got my attention. 

Actually more than a couple thousand years ago, people knew the earth was a globe  thanks to the writings of Isaias, one of God's prophets.  He lived in the time of Hezekiah, King of Judah in 716-687 BC. God knew the earth was a globe; after all, He created it that way. God inspired Isaias to write His prophecy.

Isaias 40:21-22 states, "Do you not know? Hath it not been heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Hath you not understood the foundations of the Earth? It is he that sits upon the globe of the earth....."

Some translations have "globe" as "circle" of the earth. 

So there you have it...sometime between 716 and 687 BC when Isaias penned God's prophecy, they knew the earth was a globe.

And this knowledge that the earth was a globe wasn't lost to the subsequent generations. The medieval scholars and scientists (Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme for example) never doubted the earth is a globe or sphere and by the 15th century the fact the earth was a globe was fully grasped. 

Christopher Columbus was a devout Catholic and he knew the earth was not flat becasue he knew the Scriptures.

I refuse to take evolutionary studies under your tutelage ... don't you think. As a short world believing Catholic you are going to explain evolution to me … NOT. It is obvious from your posts that your professed knowledge of evolution is bogus and demonstrates that you do not even know how to use the work of others in a proper manor. Unfortunately, you are stuck with their conclusions … and then it all falls to pieces because you don’t know enough to defend your case. So you look for some other Christian to provide your rebuttles too … usually in the scripture form. At some point when addressing atheists … you are going to have to try and understand that with god removed from the atheist picture … everything associated is out too. You cannot disprove evolution any more than you can prove god’s existence. These kinds of terms are meaningless to most atheists … immortal, souls, in the likeness of god, scriptures, RCC-Crap, biblical narratives, priestly narratives, Christian pseudo-science, the Pope and Christianity (Islam, whatev), etc. Keep using these terms and keep yourself confused it is your life.

Science is not out to disprove anything and has no problem changing its mind as the data promotes and it has no real direction but forwards … wherever the data takes us. I am still hoping for little green men myself. All you and your ilk are want to do is try to discredit everything and anyone not of the church or the religion. Even though evolution has nothing at all to do with religion or the bible … you perceive it other than it really is and you try to PROVE NOTHING … all you do is try to disapprove shit … everyone’s shit … and that is not science any way you (others) look at it … that is how religions work.