Evidence for God from Science

You arent qualified to comment on evolution and have no right to do do.

Audie said do do!

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You're head is down the sewer I think.
Maybe that's why you keep seeing kites there.

You arent qualified to comment on evolution and have no right to do do.

Your thread about "evolutionary" arguments illustrates this, consisting as
it does of "flammer" (aka flim flam).

But that is all my problem not yours.


(What the heck is "bearing nostrils"? Is it anything like
bearing frankincense?)

I didn't know you needed to be "qualified" to discuss evolution.
Please, if you can, pull out something of mine where I've misunderstood evolution.
You never seemed to care to debate, but rather just like to perform sledging it seems.

And, what do you think people see when you always turn your nose up at them?
You're obviously too educated and learned for us dumb folk Audie.

So silly because all we want here for you is to help.
There is absolutely no need to always attack everyone and try kick them in the guts.
You get so frazzled at the mere mention of any supporting argument for God.

Here's a song for you Audie.

RickD wrote:

You arent qualified to comment on evolution and have no right to do do.

Audie said do do!

I am so childish!

Why is toilet humor* so funny?


*Please note, I especially used your weird American spelling - do I get a prize?*

RickD wrote:

You arent qualified to comment on evolution and have no right to do do.

Audie said do do!

Your pal K said it first, Im just giving it back to him. But from him it was groovy?
Prease exprain.

Also, if you're going to comment on what the Bible says, then you should at least be qualified to comment.

But, until you are familiar with the issues then you have no right to comment.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You're head is down the sewer I think.
Maybe that's why you keep seeing kites there.

You arent qualified to comment on evolution and have no right to do do.

Your thread about "evolutionary" arguments illustrates this, consisting as
it does of "flammer" (aka flim flam).

But that is all my problem not yours.


(What the heck is "bearing nostrils"? Is it anything like
bearing frankincense?)

I didn't know you needed to be "qualified" to discuss evolution.
Please, if you can, pull out something of mine where I've misunderstood evolution.
You never seemed to care to debate, but rather just like to perform sledging it seems.

And, what do you think people see when you always turn your nose up at them?
You're obviously too educated and learned for us dumb folk Audie.

So silly because all we want here for you is to help.
There is absolutely no need to always attack everyone and try kick them in the guts.
You get so frazzled at the mere mention of any supporting argument for God.

Here's a song for you Audie.

You are the one who introduced the idea that people are not qualified, by your arbitrary standards, to discuss something, and that they had no right to do so.

Im aware that my sense of humour, to the extent that it exists, is on the dry side.

Its evident you dont like your own words coming back to you, but that hardly calls for making up some insulting lies to attack me with. I thought you were better than that.

I see you again side stepped and didn't point anything out in particular.
So I will just ignore your dry sense of humour then.

The idea of not being qualified enough and/or sufficiently knowledgeable to warrant a viable opinion has been thrown around on here long before this particular post.
It's a bit cringe worthy no matter who is making the claim and regardless to whom it's directed.

If we don't like it being said to us, we shouldn't say it to others.
It's disqualifying everything the person says regardless of merit or content based on an arrogant assumption.

melanie wrote:The idea of not being qualified enough and/or sufficiently knowledgeable to warrant a viable opinion has been thrown around on here long before this particular post.
It's a bit cringe worthy no matter who is making the claim and regardless to whom it's directed.

If we don't like it being said to us, we shouldn't say it to others.
It's disqualifying everything the person says regardless of merit or content based on an arrogant assumption.

Just so its clear that k is the one who introduced those terms, "not qualified" and,"no right".

Yes, ok then.

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, ok then.

you are called on to do better than that.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, ok then.

you are called on to do better than that.

Oh sorry, ok I'll try do better.

That Audie, she's one feisty, rebellious child . But she really must like us , as she is here every day arguing with her believing G&S brothers and sisters - which is what siblings often do.

And those with such confidence in those mysterious, miraculous, suddenly appearing, BEYOND science things that necessarily preceded ANY of one's precious evolutionary processes, typically only want to argue about the (supposed) middle of the movie, and (conveniently) never about the pivotal opening scenes that the entire plot is built upon and that makes the entire movie rationally fit together. So if there is a rational, non-theistic reason for the universe's beginning, it most certainly is pivotal to any evolutionary mechanisms. But WHAT, pray tell, might THAT be? Belief in these key things simply popping into existence, uncaused, is what Geisler calls "Pop Metaphysics." So while one might pretend that the universe's beginning had nothing to do with much later, unproven processes, and yet it had EVERYTHING to do with it. You just can't credibly pretend as if that is irrelevant. And that GATEWAY to processes must be answered, as THAT is the real question. Because processes - even evolution - could well be God-driven. It's rich to see people criticizing others about the supposed ignorance of the minutia of unproven processes about which there are no certainties and that are the subject of considerable and constant academic debate, as their is no ONE consensus on the theorized nuances. But the disconcerting thing here is the oft-derisive comments about a God cause vs. acceptance of the only alternative: Pop Metaphysics - also known as the "we just don't/can't know/it's not really terribly important" casual dismissal or their glaring problem and omission concerning such an important foundational issue.

Philip,

I do appreciate the argument from design can be made without recourse to biology. Much of your reply to myself is regarding the truth, proven or unproven nature of evolution which doesn't really mesh with my understanding of it, it's a reasonable working model subject to change just as we find in other areas of science. I don't expect it to provide satisfying metaphysical explanations, if all life on earth being one big happy family isn't enough.

Proinsias wrote:

Philip wrote:The allegorical vs literal interpretations of creation amongst the Abrahamic faiths far pre-dates Darwin and stretches back further than Christianity itself

This has nothing to do with evolution theory.

Why are there people, in this very thread, attempting to combine evolution to varying degrees with the creation model of Hebrew Scripture if they have nothing to do with each other? Bippy mentioned a few pages back "I could live with either interpretation as lomg as it's in line with genesis" and from yourself also in this thread "And if one believes evolution was God's process, typically, they have a low view of key, foundational parts of Scripture, seeing it as either inaccurate or mostly allegorical."

Kurieuo wrote:Also, if you're going to comment on what the Bible says, then you should at least be qualified to comment.
It isn't as easy to paint as "literal" vs "allegorical". I bet many who use the term "literal" don't even know the true meaning of it.
What do most Evangelical Biblical scholars mean by it? (these are after all the ones who advocate taking the Bible "literally").

I'd encourage you read over my posts here.
I know that I often loose people when talking, but happy to clarify anything there if you do wish to try and gain understanding of these matters.
But, until you are familiar with the issues then you have no right to comment on what is/isn't literal or interpretations really.
Nor you Audie. It's no different than YECs commenting to you about scientific matters.

I was not intending to draw a strict dichotomy of literal/allegorical, I appreciate there are a myriad of opinions. I read the thread linked a while back, but admittedly skimmed parts. Reading Genesis I find myself rejecting what I would consider the view of most Evangelical Biblical scholars, It doesn't particularly stand out as any more inspired than the texts of other traditions and I don't see much point in trying to harmonize a literal reading of the text with current scientific models.

Proinsias wrote:
I was not intending to draw a strict dichotomy of literal/allegorical, I appreciate there are a myriad of opinions. I read the thread linked a while back, but admittedly skimmed parts. Reading Genesis I find myself rejecting what I would consider the view of most Evangelical Biblical scholars, It doesn't particularly stand out as any more inspired than the texts of other traditions and I don't see much point in trying to harmonize a literal reading of the text with current scientific models.

Just my opinion, as well as Rich Deem, Hugh Ross, and others, that a literal reading does harmonize with science. I suppose if you mean harmonize with "current scientific models" is the same as evolution, then you're probably correct. Evolution, even Theistic Evolution, doesn't harmonize with a literal biblical interpretation.