DigitalScout Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh It can be very difficult when one's religious beliefs seem to conflict with science. But humans are pretty smart at resolving such challenges. The Roman Catholic Church subscribes to the belief of "Theistic Evolutionism" which basically states that humans may have evolved from a more primitive species but that it is the hand of God which imbued us with a soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh I'm Christian, not Catholic. (Take that anyway you want.) There are a lot of main-line Christian denominations that subscribe to humanistic/atheistic heresies to satisfy their constituents. It's been going on for centuries. It doesn't come as any surprise. It's all part of the attempt to package their product in a wrapper that will please the market. It doesn't mean their product is any good. To an atheist there is no soul, it's just a contrivance used by the Catholics to package their product. As evidenced over and over again by even science, humans have a tendency to make mistakes. Some bigger than others. Some Christians subscribe to the Bible as the word of God, others simply use it as a guide to be interpreted as humanly they see fit. As with any religion of faith, everyone has a choice as to how they want to believe. Just because the Catholic Church says something doesn't mean I have to buy into it. They haven't had a very good track record over the past 2,000 years in my estimation. I'm trying not to be Catholic bashing, but I'm not making rash statements that counter what they believed from the beginning. That whole issue of "Theistic Evolutionism" counters what they taught for 1800 years and just the past 200 years offered up some disastrous results. Stosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosetracker Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 99% of what our government does in the area of the nanny state is a Ponzi.... always has been always will be until the people call them on it. They won't though, they like the check coming in each month. It's free money anyway. Stosh Sorry, if the unemployment rate were low, then I end up siding more with the idea that those not finding work are slackers. But, when unemployment is high I no longer see those not finding work as slackers, but people hurt by the economy.. So I guess I end up being more upset if government took 25 cents from my dollar during good times to help others, when there are tons of "Help Wanted" signs hanging up everywhere.. I am much more understanding when in hard times the government takes 50 cents to help my fellow man.. "There but for the grace of God go I.." Just the kind of Christian that I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Regarding your claim that evolution is an atheist's creation story, what do you think atheists claim to have been created through evolution? Still waiting for a response to the example of mosquito evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 99% of what our government does in the area of the nanny state is a Ponzi.... always has been always will be until the people call them on it. They won't though, they like the check coming in each month. It's free money anyway. Stosh I don't disagree one bit, but I would think the local governmental agencies would work just fine for this. We don't need a huge wasteful bureaucracy to handle the poor in some small town in central Wyoming. Stosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBob Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 [h=2]CBS Uncovers ‘Serious’, ‘Incredibly Misleading’ ObamaCare Website Price Quotes[/h] The CBS journalist soon detailed the grossly inaccurate price quotes that came out of HealthCare.gov: http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/10/cbs-uncovers-serious-incredibly-misleading-obamacare-website-price-quotes/#.UmgjePmsjTo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Atheists don't claim they created anything, but then Christians don't claim they created anything as well. Atheists simply claim that through a series of whatever, the end result is the world we have today. Kinda like it just happened out of nothing. The only difference is that Christians say there was a God that masterminded the complexities of what we have today, that it wasn't just a series of whatevers. I'm a believer in the mastermind theory not just the "something-out-of-nothing-for-no-reason" theory. And the Atheists think I'm drinking Koolaid? Yeah, right. I gave an explanation for the mosquitoes. All species were created at the same time. Might have been more due to the attrition of extinction, because the world declines, just ask any Global Warming "expert". At the very best, radiocarbon dating might get us back 50,000 years, but then with the formulas and all the exceptions, they have been having problems with dating things from the Egyptian Empire. Not really a good track record for them. And of course we have historical records that we can use to date those items so history, not science is the better measurement. Stosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Atheists simply claim that through a series of whatever, the end result is the world we have today. Some do, but that's not a requirement to be an atheist. All that needs is to not believe in gods. Your uninformed exposition on evolution continues to be the same quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh But of course, if there are no "gods" then you get to be your own god! That's gotta be a great feeling to be able to play god! There are a lot of people that have taken that line of thought to some pretty "questionable" conclusions. That's the one and only reason I'm not an atheist. Stosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh But of course, if there are no "gods" then you get to be your own god! That's a nonsensical statement. That's gotta be a great feeling to be able to play god! That's due to your nonsensical view of atheism, not actual atheism. There are a lot of people that have taken that line of thought to some pretty "questionable" conclusions. The only person I know who takes that line of thought is you, in describing straw atheists. That's the one and only reason I'm not an atheist You don't seem coherent. Whether someone believes in gods or not has nothing to do with any conclusions (however bizarre) they might draw from it. Are you claiming you somehow force yourself to believe that some god exists because you don't trust yourself if you thought none existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh You really don't want to go there. Stosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh We don't need isotopes to date some things much farther than 50,000 years back. Annual layers of lake sediment have been found that go back hundreds of thousands of years. Annual layers of ice in ice caps go back hundreds of thousands of years. And when we compare those manually-determined ages to the isotopic dating, there is agreement. Are you really a young-earth creationist? And where, exactly, is it that Merlyn doesn't want to go? What in the world are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh I feel bad that this thread basically got hyjacked a bit. 46 sub posts on one comment, geesh. There are threads out there that don't carry that much weight. Packsaddle, I'll try to address your comments here and maybe jump to the atheist thread that Skeptic started. I really don't know what a young-earth creationist is. All I know is we don't have scientific evidence to indicate how old the earth really is. I don't know if we ever will. We have no way of knowing. If one were to listen carefully to the statements made by scientists, and none ever agree, the age of the earth is estimated. Assuming that the linear model of estimation is used, it doesn't take into account catastrophic events, for example, i.e. asteroids which would put a MAJOR glitch in the estimation process. Whereas the Grand Canyon took "hundreds of thousands of years to erode", might have occurred in one day due to a major earthquake. The sides of the canyon showing erosion of recent history. Two scientific theories, neither can be proven conclusively, both hypothesis and no evidence. There's still an ongoing debate amongst geologists on the Sphinx. It sits in the middle of a long known desert yet shows obvious signs of major water erosion. The debates rage on and on, and no one has answers. So how about a flood as a hypothesis? Heck NO!, that's just a Judeo-Christian MYTH! Well, it explains it just as well as any other guess. The core of the problem and the key to Darwinian atheism is that because it is "scientifically" based it carries more weight. Just isn't true. Natural scientists had a major following back 1000 years ago believing the world was flat. Oops, it just wasn't true. Scientists at one point taught that everything in the universe revolved around the earth. Oops, that wasn't true either. So where does science get it's credibility with a track record like that? But somehow it does, and Darwin, a theologian by training uses this questionable track record of credibility to attack Christianity of his day. Historically that is a fact that can't be denied. Out of that hypothesis, people over the past 200 years, and with the Church buying into the premise compromised away it's teachings. Even the Missouri Synod in it's recent decision shows how easily this can happen. Historically, which is much better at dating things than scientific guestimations, we can see that the civilizations that were not atheistic fared better than those that had no god(s). As a matter of fact most history, including even Norse Sagas all revolve around religion, not science. Up until 200 years ago when the religion of "Darwinism" came into vogue, science was used to understand the existence of God, not disprove it. Natural laws were identified and thus further developed, not with the purpose of disproving God, but to help understand what he had done. Darwin and his teachings is not science, it is a treatise promoting the non-existance of God and does so by using evolution to show that the world was created without any outside (God) involvement. It sounds convincing, but the proof just isn't there. Historically this heresy and anti-god stuff has been around all along and just uses different means other than guestimating science to support it. The "You don't want to go there" comment is because there are some pretty nasty conclusions that were extrapolated out of Darwinism that has caused major negative impact on the world. I'm not saying that Darwin was the anti-Christ or something like that, but there are many out there that have been building a fairly substantial case for it. I'm not in that camp, but there are those who are. I do recognize the problem and speak out on it on occasion. Merlyn just tripped my button otherwise I would have left it alone. But it does raise the question of why he's on the board of traditional principled non-atheistic forum like this Scouting forum unless he is either here to cause disruption or proselytize for his cause. Don't know, don't care, but I'll address his issues and absorb his bullying/personal attack comments. He has already shown his colors quite well. Civility levels are determined by one's morals and faith structure, more of a religious thingy rather than some scientific conclusion. Stosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh All I know is we don't have scientific evidence to indicate how old the earth really is. What you "know", as usual, is completely wrong. YOU don't have scientific evidence, sure. I don't know if we ever will. We have no way of knowing. Of course we do. You could educate yourself, but you seem to just adore ignorance. Natural scientists had a major following back 1000 years ago believing the world was flat. No, they didn't. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth over TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. He was only off by about 16%. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere due to many observations (you know, the things you said weren't part of science) -- seeing that ships hulls went below the horizon before their masts, seeing the earth's shadow on the moon (and correctly deducing it was the earth's shadow), etc. Whereas the Grand Canyon took "hundreds of thousands of years to erode", might have occurred in one day due to a major earthquake. Part of the Grand Canyon has eroded to reveal a petrified forest, which means this forest had to grow, then be petrified by being buried in mud. That by itself doesn't show much ago, but on top of that petrified forest layer is another petrified forest layer that grew on top of the first one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. And another one above that one. Yep, 18 layers of petrified forests. Sorry, one earthquake can't do that. So where does science get it's credibility with a track record like that? Because it's done by competent people, not clownish ignoramuses like yourself. I wouldn't trust you to walk my dog (and I don't have one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleCat Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh I rarely post but comments like these are just silly. Biological evolution simply means that there is genetic change (allele frequencies vary) within a population over time. This has been documented countless times and is not even open for debate. Lots of mechanisms are theorized to cause genetic change within populations. Random events like an extreme weather event or volcanic eruption can cause sudden changes in the overall population allele frequencies because only survivors of the event contribute to genetic makeup of population (this is called genetic drift). Mutation is the source of new alleles and if they are successful they can contribute to allele frequencies in the population. Mating patterns (random vs. non-random) of sexually reproducing species can also affect genetic makeup of a population. What Charles Darwin did was propose another mechanism, natural selection (survival of the fittest), that can account for genetic differences. All of these mechanisms have been documented to cause evolution countless times. "Belief" or "not believing" in evolution is only for those that really don't understand how life works. Those exposed to the biological sciences are not burdened by the "theory of evolution" because it is as factual as the second law of thermodynamics (entropy increases). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now