If atheists get accused of taking verses out of context, how do we know fundamentalists making those accusations aren’t doing the same as well?

[Illuminator]

@Illuminator said:



Psalm 93:1 says:


If I understand your point about phenomenological language correctly the above reflects the perspective of persons living on earth. From the point of view of a person standing on the surface of the earth, there is no wind blowing constantly in one direction-- so it would appear that the earth is not spinning on its axis. From the point of view of someone looking up into the sky the sun and the moon and the planets move across the sky independently of the fixed ground below. So from that perspective the Psalm isn't at odds with the scientific observation that the earth does in fact move, since it only reflects the apparent immobility of the earth, not its actual motion in 3D space.

OK, so let's see how this works with respect to the story of the creation. Following is a table that compares the timeline of the creation as derived from the studies of science to the timeline in the bible:

Year	Event	Bible Day
0	Big Bang	N/A
100,000	Recombination: The universe has sufficiently cooled that the first atoms are formed	N/A
100,000	The newly formed atoms emit the Cosmic Background Radiation	1
< 1 billion	Creation of the first stars	4
1 - 2 billion	Creation of the Milky Way galaxy	N/A
9.12 billion	Creation of the sun	4
9.18 billion	Creation of the earth	N/A
9.22 billion	Creation of the moon	4
11.62 billion	First eukaryotes	N/A
12.52 billion	First multi-celled organisms	N/A
13.085 billion	First complex (marine) life	5
13.287 billion	First land plant	3
13.282 billion	First land animals	6
13.565 billion	First bird	5
13.71985 billion	First Homo sapiens	6
13.72 billion	Present day	N/A

As I read the above table I discern the following:

a) The time periods as derived from science for each of the key events listed above are nowhere near a 24 hour period of time.
b) The science time periods aren't even of a consistent time span.
c) The sequence of events as listed in the Bible Day column is all jumbled up.

I interpret these observations to mean that the story of creation could not possibly be true, regardless of one's geographical perspective. So phenomenological language is irrelevant. This I think clearly proves that it is indeed possible for statements in the Bible to be completely at odds with known scientific facts.

What exactly is your interpretation?

Only when we confuse philosophy and science do we find a contradiction.

***
Science has made progress during the last couple centuries. This troubled many people especially the religious. Some of what they have been taught might not be true because "science proves otherwise." One example is evolution. Christians and Jews have been taught that God created the world in six days and made man from dirt. Then evolution popped up onto the scene. It seems like it contradicts what they have been taught from the beginning.

Should a person reject evolution because it "contradicts" his faith? Should a person reject the Bible because science has "proven" it to be wrong? Is religion compatible with science? The answer of course, is that religion is compatible with science. One can accept and be faithful to both. Even atheist philosopher Michael Ruse agrees:

"I see no reason why one should not be a scientist in my sense and also believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, the belief that the water and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ during the Catholic mass." (Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, Chapter 2)

How can one accept evolution and still believe in God? The answer is that they answer different questions. Evolution tells us what happens and God tells us how and why it happened. God could have created man through evolution. One does not have to take an extreme literal interpretation of Genesis as St. Augustine suggested (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis). Only when we confuse philosophy and science do we find a contradiction.

For example, when we look at something, we should ask four things:

(1) What is it or made to be?
(2) What is it made of?
(3) What is it made by?
(4) What is it made for or what is its purpose?

Let's say I see a house. How would we answer the questions above? We might answer as "The house is (1) a summer cottage, (2) made of wood, (3) by a carpenter, (4) to live in during the summer." (A Refutation of Moral Relativism by Peter Kreeft, pages 125-126).

These four things are called the four causes of Aristotle.

1. The first is called the formal cause, (1) What is it or made to be?) (1) a summer cottage
2. the second the material cause, (2) What is it made of?) (2) made of wood
3. the third efficient cause, (3) What is it made by? (3) by a carpenter
4. and fourth, the final cause. (4) What is it made for or what is its purpose? (4) to live in during the summer.

Science usually looks at the material cause and sometimes the efficient cause. A scientist can say, "Evolution happened." However, he cannot say, "It happened without an Intelligent Designer" without putting on a philosophical cap. Why is this? Again, because an Intelligent Designer would fall into a different question, a different science.

There are three different kinds of "sciences." The difference between them is the degree of abstraction that is involved. The mind might just focus on the physical by experimental observation.

1. This science is called physics or natural science (this is what the modern mind knows as "science").
2. He can also move toward a higher degree of abstraction dealing with quantity and number which can be distinguished apart from the material things. This is called mathematics.
3. The highest abstraction is when the mind deals with being or reality itself as being. This is called metaphysics.

What the modern mind needs to remember is this: all three sciences are different and one method of science cannot be the method of another. This has been the error of both the modern and the ancients. As Dr. Kreeft said, "the ancients used a philosophical method to do science and the moderns use a scientific method to do philosophy." One cannot say that since relativity is true in physics, morality and truth are relative. Physics is also mathematical. Does this mean we need a mathematical morality? If relativity is true in physics, does this mean that mathematics ought to be relative?

A new science does not necessitate a new religion or a new philosophy. To mix them is committing what the scholastics call the fallacy of uniform method of science. As Fulton Sheen said,

"Here we call it the 'Fallacy of the Uniform Method of Science' -- the fallacy of taking one science as the norm, and making it the measure, the guide, the interpreter, and the inspiration of every other science." (Philosophy of Religion, 185)

Physics should be treated as physics, mathematics as mathematics, and especially, metaphysics as metaphysics. One should not use a scientific or mathematical method to do metaphysics and vice versa. As Etienne Gilson said,

"Theology, logic, physics, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, are fully competent to solve their own problems by their own methods…no particular science is competent to either solve metaphysical problems, or to judge their metaphysical solutions." (The Unity of Philosophical Experience, page 249)

This should answer the question of should we should allow evolution and/or creationism in a science class. The answer is evolution should be taught as long as it does not imply philosophical naturalism/materialism and creationism should not be taught since it mentions God and the problem of God which is a metaphysical problem.

At the same time, we should not limit all knowledge to science. First, because it cannot be scientifically proven that everything should be scientifically proven or limited to science. It is self-contradictory. Second, because there are many things which are true but cannot be proven scientifically such as mathematics, love, aesthetics, morality, and the laws of logic.

To be faithful in science does not mean one ought to be an empiricist. A religious person ought not to look down upon science and a scientist ought not to look down upon a religion. Both persons need to look up and thank God for making a beautiful universe; so beautiful that it makes them wonder about that universe, especially their place and purpose in it.

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/articles/creationism-and-evolution/science-and-religion/

Only when we confuse philosophy and science do we find a contradiction
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOUR LITERALIST CHART IS DOING!!!
Are you getting any of this???

 

[Wrangler]

Also worth pointing out that the "natural laws" mentioned in the article are merely the laws that humans have been able to observe and study. No human has seen the entire universe and so no human actually knows what laws apply elsewhere.

Appeal to Ignorance. Rather than shed light, you shed doubt on what we know. You do this based on a speculation; it could be different elsewhere.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Only when we confuse philosophy and science do we find a contradiction.

{Remainder deleted to save space}

Thanks for giving a direct and non-dismissive answer to my question.

You:

The answer of course, is that religion is compatible with science.

I would agree that some religions are compatible with science, but decidedly not all.

You:

How can one accept evolution and still believe in God? The answer is that they answer different questions. Evolution tells us what happens and God tells us how and why it happened. God could have created man through evolution. One does not have to take an extreme literal interpretation of Genesis as St. Augustine suggested (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis). Only when we confuse philosophy and science do we find a contradiction.

The appearance of Homo sapiens is found in specific portions of the fossil record, just as are fossils of trilobites, ferns, spiders, dinosaurs... So from the point of view of science, the appearance of humans follows precisely the same path that every species has ever followed. Therefore science can discern no distinguishing characteristics of the emergence of the human species. Religion may claim that humans were specially created by God, but I know of no actual observable evidence that would support that claim. It sounds like the lack of evidence doesn't trouble you. Okay-- that's your interpretation. But I hope you understand that other interpretations of the physical record, the stories of the Bible, and the many centuries of philosophical discourse are perfectly possible. I guess I'm just more accepting of differences of opinion than are you.

You:

1. This science is called physics or natural science (this is what the modern mind knows as "science").
2. He can also move toward a higher degree of abstraction dealing with quantity and number which can be distinguished apart from the material things. This is called mathematics.
3. The highest abstraction is when the mind deals with being or reality itself as being. This is called metaphysics.

Well, first of all the foundational theories of physics-- Electricity and Magnetism, Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, The Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics-- are all based on systems of partial differential equations. That's mathematics. So I would say that physics and mathematics are inextricably intertwined. In fact many advances in mathematics happened because of developments in physics. A classic example is the Dirac delta function. Dirac needed a function that was zero for all real values of its independent variable EXCEPT at the origin-- AND his function needed to have an integral over the entire number line of 1. There was no such function available in the storehouse of mathematical knowledge-- so Dirac just invented one. And it worked.

Secondly, I hope you will acknowledge that metaphysics has a pretty poor record over the last 3,000+ years of correctly comprehending the world around us. There was a time not so very long ago when Astrology was considered a "metaphysical science." Same goes for Alchemy. I suppose it might be possible to view the identification of those two pursuits as "metaphysics" as the result of some sort of category error. But there were plenty of people in the past who were very insistent about their understandings of what constitutes metaphysics and what does not. It is definitely a fact that the definition of metaphysics has evolved over the last several thousand years.

Over time studies that used to be considered metaphysics have been supplanted by studies that we would now call science. Astrology gave way to astronomy. Alchemy gave way to chemistry. What will the panorama of what we consider science look like in 3,000 years? I have no idea. I can only assume that it will be even more broad and comprehensive than what constitutes science today.

I would also be interested in hearing your definition of reality. Here's mine: Reality is that which can be experienced by any sentient being.

You:

One cannot say that since relativity is true in physics, morality and truth are relative. Physics is also mathematical. Does this mean we need a mathematical morality? If relativity is true in physics, does this mean that mathematics ought to be relative?

The physical theories of Special and General Relativity have been tested thousands and thousands of times. No one should doubt the truth of the theory of Relativity. It is the absolute foundation of all of modern physics. The Special theory is about relative uniform motion. The General theory is about relative uniform acceleration. Neither theory has anything whatsoever to do with human moral systems-- only with relative motion.

You:

This should answer the question of should we should allow evolution and/or creationism in a science class. The answer is evolution should be taught as long as it does not imply philosophical naturalism/materialism and creationism should not be taught since it mentions God and the problem of God which is a metaphysical problem.

Hmmm... I guess I'm unclear as to what you mean by philosophical naturalism/materialism. Biology is inextricably intertwined with chemistry; and chemistry is in turn inextricably intertwined with physics. And physics is the absolute quintessence of a science based on the principles of what I understand to be philosophical materialism. So I'm afraid I don't agree. The teaching of biology must necessarily involve physics which necessarily entails philosophical materialism-- unless your understanding of philosophical materialism is different from mine.

 

[Wrangler]

Religion may claim that humans were specially created by God, but I know of no actual observable evidence that would support that claim.

Then you are not very observant. Humans are the only species that wear clothes or need to.

 

[Wrangler]

Well, first of all the foundational theories of physics-- Electricity and Magnetism, Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, The Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics-- are all based on systems of partial differential equations. That's mathematics. So I would say that physics and mathematics are inextricably intertwined.

This reminds me that you never responded to my post about how math proves the existence of God. The question that Atheists cannot answer is why does the natural world obey mathematical laws?

 

[Wrangler]

Over time studies that used to be considered metaphysics have been supplanted by studies that we would now call science.

No, not supplanted but built upon. Science - the study of - is built upon philosophy, of which metaphysics is 1st branch. The 2nd brach is epistemology and all science branches from this. The truth of this is seen in the fact that the highest level of educate is called a PhD, which is short for the French phrase meaning Doctor of Philosophy.

In college, my science professors were a Doctor of Philosophy in one discipline of science or another.

 

[Wrangler]

Here's mine: Reality is that which can be experienced by any sentient being.

Math is real. Can one experience such abstract concepts?

 

[Wrangler]

The physical theories of Special and General Relativity have been tested thousands and thousands of times. No one should doubt the truth of the theory of Relativity.

Yet, it breaks down at the quantum level. Hence, Physicists since the time of Einstein have searched for the Grand Unifying Theory or the Theory of Everything.

 

[Wrangler]

Neither theory has anything whatsoever to do with human moral systems-- only with relative motion.

Agreed. Yet, history shows people over-rely on history as they have done exactly that and continue to do so. Evolution was abused to apply to human moral systems. And today Capital-S, Science, has become a near universal IDOL in being the code word used to bludgeon political opponents.

The "science" is settled and there is "consensus" regarding global warming, the claim goes. So, therefore, don't oppose the new world order of socialist utopia - or you will be shamed with language like being a Capital-S, Science "denier."

 

[Illuminator]

Thanks for giving a direct and non-dismissive answer to my question.

You:


I would agree that some religions are compatible with science, but decidedly not all.

You:


The appearance of Homo sapiens is found in specific portions of the fossil record, just as are fossils of trilobites, ferns, spiders, dinosaurs... So from the point of view of science, the appearance of humans follows precisely the same path that every species has ever followed. Therefore science can discern no distinguishing characteristics of the emergence of the human species. Religion may claim that humans were specially created by God, but I know of no actual observable evidence that would support that claim. It sounds like the lack of evidence doesn't trouble you. Okay-- that's your interpretation. But I hope you understand that other interpretations of the physical record, the stories of the Bible, and the many centuries of philosophical discourse are perfectly possible. I guess I'm just more accepting of differences of opinion than are you.

You:


Well, first of all the foundational theories of physics-- Electricity and Magnetism, Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, The Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics-- are all based on systems of partial differential equations. That's mathematics. So I would say that physics and mathematics are inextricably intertwined. In fact many advances in mathematics happened because of developments in physics. A classic example is the Dirac delta function. Dirac needed a function that was zero for all real values of its independent variable EXCEPT at the origin-- AND his function needed to have an integral over the entire number line of 1. There was no such function available in the storehouse of mathematical knowledge-- so Dirac just invented one. And it worked.

Secondly, I hope you will acknowledge that metaphysics has a pretty poor record over the last 3,000+ years of correctly comprehending the world around us. There was a time not so very long ago when Astrology was considered a "metaphysical science." Same goes for Alchemy. I suppose it might be possible to view the identification of those two pursuits as "metaphysics" as the result of some sort of category error. But there were plenty of people in the past who were very insistent about their understandings of what constitutes metaphysics and what does not. It is definitely a fact that the definition of metaphysics has evolved over the last several thousand years.

Over time studies that used to be considered metaphysics have been supplanted by studies that we would now call science. Astrology gave way to astronomy. Alchemy gave way to chemistry. What will the panorama of what we consider science look like in 3,000 years? I have no idea. I can only assume that it will be even more broad and comprehensive than what constitutes science today.

I would also be interested in hearing your definition of reality. Here's mine: Reality is that which can be experienced by any sentient being.

You:


The physical theories of Special and General Relativity have been tested thousands and thousands of times. No one should doubt the truth of the theory of Relativity. It is the absolute foundation of all of modern physics. The Special theory is about relative uniform motion. The General theory is about relative uniform acceleration. Neither theory has anything whatsoever to do with human moral systems-- only with relative motion.

Relative "human moral systems" is why we see the horrors we do today, but I don't think that is what your suggesting.

You:

Hmmm... I guess I'm unclear as to what you mean by philosophical naturalism/materialism. Biology is inextricably intertwined with chemistry; and chemistry is in turn inextricably intertwined with physics. And physics is the absolute quintessence of a science based on the principles of what I understand to be philosophical materialism. So I'm afraid I don't agree. The teaching of biology must necessarily involve physics which necessarily entails philosophical materialism-- unless your understanding of philosophical materialism is different from mine.

Biology, chemistry fall under the first summary,

1. This science is called physics or natural science (this is what the modern mind knows as "science").

"biology intertwined with physics" makes a quantum leap from the first summary to the second. Physics is a higher degree of abstraction dealing with quantity and number than natural science. Physics is a sub-category to mathematics, the second summary. It's not relative to biology; it's a different kind of science. Taking " biology intertwined with physics" as the norm, and making it the measure, the guide, the interpreter, and the inspiration of every other science, is a fallacy, as previously explained.

Let's get on the same page of "philosophical materialism" and try and speak the same language.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Math is real. Can one experience such abstract concepts?

Certainly-- just as one can experience dreams, hallucinations, colors, physical sensations, religious revelations... Maybe my notion of "experience" is more broad than yours.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Then you are not very observant. Humans are the only species that wear clothes or need to.

Humans have no need to wear clothes in hot climates. Our earliest ancestors originated in Africa at a time when that region was emerging from a long drought. The Boxgrove cite in southern England, dated to 500,000 years ago, has lots of beautifully fashioned stone hand axes, with abundant evidence of animal butchery. But there's no evidence of clothing, or of clothe making tools (such as needles). The manufacture of clothing is a complicated technology that was likely developed over a very long time. After all needles don't grow on trees.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Yet, it breaks down at the quantum level. Hence, Physicists since the time of Einstein have searched for the Grand Unifying Theory or the Theory of Everything.

Well actually the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is based on the principles of relativity. Bohr noted that Heisenberg had actually used Einstein's own theory in his derivations!

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

This reminds me that you never responded to my post about how math proves the existence of God. The question that Atheists cannot answer is why does the natural world obey mathematical laws?

Excellent question. Einstein once said "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." If you wish to take that as a point of departure for a belief in God, I certainly have no objection. I'm not trying to convert anyone on this forum to atheism.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

It’s time for me to wrap up my participation in this thread. But first an FYI. This is a NON-Christian forum for NON-Christians. Christians are welcome to participate, but the NON-Christian subscribers of this forum have no obligation to reply to their questions or concerns. Several of the responses from Christians have sounded dismissive and/or accusatory to my ears. Maybe that’s not the spirit in which they were submitted, but that’s how they came across. I am far less inclined to respond to such missives.

I joined this forum on Tuesday the 25th by posting my response to the question posted by @Romanov2488 about the way in which fundamentalists interpret the Bible. I said that Christians don’t actually believe much of what the Bible actually says, and as evidence of that claim I cited the very first paragraph of the Bible. Here’s a link to my original post: #824. I was arguing that the first paragraph of the creation story clearly proves that the substance of the earth and the waters preexisted, and that is the exact opposite of what every Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sect claims.

But after a lengthy exchange with @FlySwatter I have softened my position. He argued in this posting #856 that he interprets the story of creation so as to read passages 1 through 5 as describing actions God took on Day 1. We had what I regard as a healthy exchange of ideas that culminated in my offer of the following compromise in posting #874:

I'll offer this compromise-- that my reading of the text is no less valid than the view that God created the universe from nothing.

@FlySwatter accepted my compromise in his posting #882. So we have agreed to disagree.

My interpretation of the creation story is identical to that of the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition. I wasn’t even aware of the existence of that translation until @FlySwatter forced me to do some research. So thank you, @FlySwatter-- I’ve learned something, and the NSRVue is now my new favorite translation. I’ve ordered a hardback copy that should arrive today. Here’s a link to some background information on the NSRVue:

New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com​

As far as I’m concerned the NON-Christians of this forum have reached an understanding about the general nature of the creation story in the Bible. That’s really all I was hoping to achieve. I’m not inclined to answer any more questions from Christians as many such postings have simply repeated points that have previously been discussed. @Flyswatter’s analysis of the creation story was, by my judgment, the clearest and most concise of any others submitted. Most of what Christians have argued concerning the creation-from-nothing interpretation were said most clearly by @FlySwatter.

So I’m going to stop watching this thread. I’ll give the NON-Christians watching or participating one or two more days to convince me that we need to continue the discussion. But after that I’ll stop watching.

I’m going to start up some new threads on other topics. I’ll probably do one every couple of weeks, depending on how much interest they generate. As a result of my discussion with @FlySwatter I’ll take more care to consider other translations than just the RSV. I hope to highlight issues with fundamental Christian beliefs that are common to all of the major translations. By “major” I mean KJV, NKJV, RSV, NSRVue, and NIV.

Again, I view my audience as being the Non-Christian participants. To any Christians who find my postings unpleasant, perhaps it would be best for you to retreat to the safety of the “Christians Only” forum.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Relative "human moral systems" is why we see the horrors we do today, but I don't think that is what your suggesting.

Biology, chemistry fall under the first summary,

1. This science is called physics or natural science (this is what the modern mind knows as "science").

"biology intertwined with physics" makes a quantum leap from the first summary to the second. Physics is a higher degree of abstraction dealing with quantity and number than natural science. Physics is a sub-category to mathematics, the second summary. It's not relative to biology; it's a different kind of science. Taking " biology intertwined with physics" as the norm, and making it the measure, the guide, the interpreter, and the inspiration of every other science, is a fallacy, as previously explained.

Let's get on the same page of "philosophical materialism" and try and speak the same language.

Biological traits are propagated via Deoxyriboneucleic Acid. That's a molecule. Molecules are comprised of atoms. The behavior of atoms is described by physics. So yes, biology and physics are necessarily intertwined. If you don't agree with that then I'm afraid I will never be able to speak the same language about philosophical materialism.

 

[FlySwatter]

But after a lengthy exchange with @FlySwatter I have softened my position. He argued in this posting #856 that he interprets the story of creation so as to read passages 1 through 5 as describing actions God took on Day 1. We had what I regard as a healthy exchange of ideas that culminated in my offer of the following compromise in posting #874:

@FlySwatter accepted my compromise in his posting #882. So we have agreed to disagree.

Thanks for your comments and for bringing your Genesis interpretations to the table. I had not heard your interpretation of pre-existing matter before so that was something learned for me too.

Something we didn't tease out and which I did mention but seemed to get lost in the debate was how you were equating the existence of pre-creational matter to god not being omnipotent.

Your argument seemed to run along the lines of "if god didn't create absolutely everything, then he can't be omnipotent"

I'm interested in this purely out of intellectual curiosity. I don't personally believe in the notion of the omnipotent god.

So my points in relation to this were twofold:

1. Is it not possible for there to be more than one omnipotent being?

Surely it is, for any being that is truly omnipotent could if they wish, create another omnipotent being
Or if multiple entities existed why couldn't they all be equally omnipotent and their vast immeasurable knowledge and state of enlightenment result in them working in harmony to create things rather than in opposition to each other.

If this were the case then any of those other entities could have created the pre-existing matter.


2. If there does exist an omnipotent entity then by definition it has the ability to destroy itself, to cease to be

If so is it not possible that pre-existing matter was a left over of a former self-terminating omnipotent entity?


The Bible most certainly refers to multiple Gods in various places and I have no doubt you already know this. It talks of "El" singular and "Elohim" plural and so on.

In turn, if there did exist multiple gods and if they displayed the envious, jealous traits that we read about god in the OT then would they not all vie for contention in regards to humans? Would they not all want to be the ONE god that humans worshipped? Thou shalt have no other gods but me etc etc?

 

[Wrangler]

Math is real. Can one experience such abstract concepts?

Certainly-- just as one can experience dreams, hallucinations, colors, physical sensations, religious revelations... Maybe my notion of "experience" is more broad than yours.

Wow! Your notion of experience is not bound. "Color" is a perception. Math is a concept. Not the same is it?

Your reply implies the notion of subjective meaning of words. There is conception and perception. Experience is perception, what you perceive through your senses. Conception is the process of your mind, integrating perceptions. Experience and conception, therefore are not the same.

If one wants to play words games, one could say they experienced thinking about math but that is not the same thing at all as perceiving it outside the processes of ones mind. You can experience stubbing your toe on a rock but you cannot experience stubbing your toe on pi.

 

[Wrangler]

Religion may claim that humans were specially created by God, but I know of no actual observable evidence that would support that claim.

Then you are not very observant. Humans are the only species that wear clothes or need to.

Humans have no need to wear clothes in hot climates.

My God man! You are completely missing it.

I put before you irrefutable proof of the existence of God AND incontrovertible proof that we were made by God. And your response? Completely and utterly ignoring it.

The idea that clothes are "needed" for climate is completely besides the point.

Try again. Do you deny the evidence I presented, that Humans are the only species that wear clothes or need to? Then how can you claim to not know actual observable evidence?

 

[FlySwatter]

My God man! You are completely missing it.

I put before you irrefutable proof of the existence of God AND incontrovertible proof that we were made by God. And your response? Completely and utterly ignoring it.

The idea that clothes are "needed" for climate is completely besides the point.

Try again. Do you deny the evidence I presented, that Humans are the only species that wear clothes or need to? Then how can you claim to not know actual observable evidence?

It really is quite remarkable the number of vague and abstract things you consider to be proof of god. I swear if you saw a face in the tea leaves at the bottom of your cup you'd claim that was proof of god too.


As ever your logic is terribly flawed here.

Something to note is that EVERY creature upon this good earth is adapted to survive NATURALLY within it's environment.

EXCEPT HUMANS !

Thus near the North pole where temperatures would kill humans within minutes, the polar bear, artic fox and husky dogs have evolved layers of fat and fir to enable them to exist in that environment, NATRALLY, without aid.

In the deserts where scorching heat would kill humans in short measure, the camel and sidewinder snake have evolved to be able to survive, again NATURALLY without aid.

In the deeps of the sea where pressures would kill us, marine life has evolved to survive that environment NATURALLY and thrive in it.

Thus when viewed without the awful baggage of religious conditioning we find that in fact HUMANS are the very poorest creatures on this earth, not remotely adapted to survive the environment naturally. We have to find ways to compensate for our current lack of evolutionary ability.

That tells logical people two things:

1. Humans are going through a phase of evolution and are nowhere near yet properly adapted to survive on this earth. We have only been here a few thousand years and will likely not stay the distance.

2. No perfect intelligent designer could possibly have made such a blunder as to make every living creature perfectly adaptable and then make humans the least NATURALLY adaptable

Hence we can conclude that if there are designers out there who drafted human DNA then they are most certainly not omnipotent or perfect in their nature. We are at best the latest experiment and at worst a "back to the drawing board" mistake.