thesometimesaint Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Evolutionists on the other hand hide out in caves, hear things that go bump in the night then invent ways to explain them. You do have to be careful where you get your information. Evolutionists have this atheist approach where they somehow have proven that God is some supernatural being that defies all laws in nature and has a magic wand that "poof" things into existence. Thus, they then kindly dismiss him and continue on with the atheist mantra and continue to hide out in caves inventing explanations for the things going bump in the night. Evolution makes no such claims. Evolutionists are free to believe any religion, or not, as they want. ALL that evolutions says is that living things change over time, and that those changes that get passed down by reproduction win. As I have repeatedly told you some of the best evolutionary biologists are Theists. Including Roman Catholic, Anglican, and LDS. Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.Galileo the Theist
katherine the great Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Evolutionists on the other hand hide out in caves, hear things that go bump in the night then invent ways to explain them. You do have to be careful where you get your information. Evolutionists have this atheist approach where they somehow have proven that God is some supernatural being that defies all laws in nature and has a magic wand that "poof" things into existence. Thus, they then kindly dismiss him and continue on with the atheist mantra and continue to hide out in caves inventing explanations for the things going bump in the night.You know what? Just stop. It's getting tiring for you to continually call me (and every other Latter day Saint who embraces evolution) an atheist. I am NOT an atheist. I have as much faith in God as you do and your continued insults are getting really annoying. 1
cdowis Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 An LDS can accept evolution as one of the natural laws, similar to gravity and the Lord uses natural laws in the creation process, including evolution.
thesometimesaint Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 You know what? Just stop. It's getting tiring for you to continually call me (and every other Latter day Saint who embraces evolution) an atheist. I am NOT an atheist. I have as much faith in God as you do and your continued insults are getting really annoying. You say it Sister Katherine.
Rob Osborn Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 You know what? Just stop. It's getting tiring for you to continually call me (and every other Latter day Saint who embraces evolution) an atheist. I am NOT an atheist. I have as much faith in God as you do and your continued insults are getting really annoying.Yet I find it annoying that you guys wont even recognize our side and how God does fit into science. It goes both ways.
Rob Osborn Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Tell you what, find me some Darwinian evolution model that includes God into the equation and I will stop calling the theory atheist. How does that sound?
Grudunza Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Tell you what, find me some Darwinian evolution model that includes God into the equation and I will stop calling the theory atheist. How does that sound?All scientific theories, including the ones you believe in and accept, are atheist. You no-good atheist, Rob!
katherine the great Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Yet I find it annoying that you guys wont even recognize our side and how God does fit into science. It goes both ways. Present a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Tell you what, find me some Darwinian evolution model that includes God into the equation and I will stop calling the theory atheist. How does that sound? Find me a widely accepted scientific theory that is boldly and blatantly theistic and we'll talk.
Stone holm Posted November 15, 2014 Author Posted November 15, 2014 Tell you what, find me some Darwinian evolution model that includes God into the equation and I will stop calling the theory atheist. How does that sound?Why would we exclude the possibility that God uses evolution as a recipe to prepare Earths and humanoids to become human? I mean do we really know what was in the fruit? And didn't we actually only become human in any meaningful sense after the Fall?
katherine the great Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Tell you what, find me some Darwinian evolution model that includes God into the equation and I will stop calling the theory atheist. How does that sound?Show me a darwinian evolution model that specifically says that God does NOT exist. Then you can use the word atheist. Science is agnostic. Not atheistic.
thesometimesaint Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 (edited) Yet I find it annoying that you guys wont even recognize our side and how God does fit into science. It goes both ways. I recognize the Church side of the argument. A belief in God is neither consistent nor inconsistent with science. However when LDS person makes a claim that God acted in a specific scientific way they have to follow the rules of science. Scientists are free to believe or not believe in one of more Gods as they choose.SEE Articles of Faith #'s 9 and 11. 9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. 11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. Edited November 15, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Find me a widely accepted scientific theory that is boldly and blatantly theistic and we'll talk. Why does it have to be widely accepted?
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Why does it have to be widely accepted?Otherwise I may get pointed to a "creationist" website and told that this theory disproves me.
ERayR Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Otherwise I may get pointed to a "creationist" website and told that this theory disproves me. Are all forms of creationism automatically wrong?
The Nehor Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Are all forms of creationism automatically wrong?No, but they are batting zero so far.
Rob Osborn Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Life coming from non-life. Talk about batting zero. 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Life coming from non-life. Talk about batting zero. He is talking about the Theory of Evolution, not the origin of life. Have you ever seen God create life literally out of the dust?
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Are all forms of creationism automatically wrong? No, but we are still waiting for the evidence. Are you certain that Macro-Evolution is false? Will you ever change your mind?
ERayR Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 No, but they are batting zero so far. A forgone result if you have already defined them out of the conversation.
The Nehor Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 A forgone result if you have already defined them out of the conversation. While I am flattered I am not the source or the arbiter of scientific consensus and philosophy.
ERayR Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 While I am flattered I am not the source or the arbiter of scientific consensus and philosophy. I didn't think or say you were.
thesometimesaint Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 A forgone result if you have already defined them out of the conversation. Science can neither exclude nor include so called "cdesign proponentsists".SEE The Missing Link http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html
ERayR Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Science can neither exclude nor include so called "cdesign proponentsists".SEE The Missing Link http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html Would you say evidence of ancient technologically advanced civilizations would be evidence against a uniformitarian theory like macro-evolution?
Recommended Posts