Did God create Dogs?

Users who are viewing this thread

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
Science is not only a method of studying change. It can study everything, anything.

If there is no creator there can't be a product. For making a 'product' you ought to start with some raw material. The raw material once shaped into a 'product' may go change and this is all about God, science and evolution. thanks to the divine force which gives science the room to stretch its legs!

And BTW it ain't no nonsense. The topic is God and Dog not evolution.

Science is not only a method of studying change. It can study everything, anything.
No, science is not capable of studying God.

If there is no creator there can't be a product. For making a 'product' you ought to start with some raw material.
If you're baking a cake, or manufacturing a car, yes.
But creating existence is creating something from nothing.

The raw material once shaped into a 'product' may go change and this is all about God, science and evolution.
Like primitive life 4 billion years ago evolving through time till we see the present results of life.
From a primitive single cell to complex organisms like man.
But when I point out that dog wasn't created as dog, but evolved to that form, you present an argument otherwise:
............... the glass of water you are holding in your hands didn't 'become' a glass on its own.Someone must have made it.
That is a weak 'watchmaker' argument. It's a logical fallacy because it doesn't explain the origin of the watchmaker ( man ). It only explains the existence of the watch as a mechanism. Creation is about existence. Creationism is about 'poof magic' logic that argues everything that exists was created as such.
Title of this thread:
Did God Create Dogs?
I agreed by theistic evolution.
Apparently you didn't bother to read it.
Your question really asks, was there instantaneous creation of dogs.


The topic is God and Dog not evolution.
All scriptures say dogs were also created by God. Can science prove they weren't?

This thread is obviously about faith versus evolution. You just aren't good enough at sophistry to hide it well ;)
 
  • 206
    Replies
  • 3K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

mazHur

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
66
Tokenz
0.04z
There is no sophistry in my question. I asked whether or not God create Dogs. I didn't ask if the Dogs became so through evolution.

Science is NOT capable of Understanding God. It does try to study God.\

Nietzsche's Dog might have been dead but not God. He lives on.
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
There is no sophistry in my question. I asked whether or not God create Dogs. I didn't ask if the Dogs became so through evolution.

Science is NOT capable of Understanding God. It does try to study God.\

Nietzsche's Dog might have been dead but not God. He lives on.


I think you make my point very well.
 

mazHur

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
66
Tokenz
0.04z
Quote ..
'Most people form their beliefs and live their lives somewhere in the middle of the so-called "culture divide" that outspoken atheists and believers shout across. The more these shouters shout, the more public discourse veers away from the subtle struggle of the average person's attempt to be human.''
Emma Green on 'The Age of Atheists'' by Peter Watson

Adam Gopnik, concludes : What the noes, whatever their numbers, really have now … is a monopoly on legitimate forms of knowledge about the natural world. They have this monopoly for the same reason that computer manufacturers have an edge over crystal-ball makers: The advantages of having an actual explanation of things and processes are self-evident.
This is a perfect summary of the intellectual claim of those who set out to prove that God is dead and religion is false: Atheists have legitimate knowledge, and those who believe do not. This is the epistemological assumption looming in the so-called “culture war” between the caricatures of godless liberals and Bible-thumping conservatives in America: One group wields rational argumentation and intellectual history as an indictment of God, while the other looks to tradition and text as defenses against modernity’s encroachment on religious life.''
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
Quote ..
'Most people form their beliefs and live their lives somewhere in the middle of the so-called "culture divide" that outspoken atheists and believers shout across. The more these shouters shout, the more public discourse veers away from the subtle struggle of the average person's attempt to be human.''
Emma Green on 'The Age of Atheists'' by Peter Watson

Adam Gopnik, concludes : What the noes, whatever their numbers, really have now … is a monopoly on legitimate forms of knowledge about the natural world. They have this monopoly for the same reason that computer manufacturers have an edge over crystal-ball makers: The advantages of having an actual explanation of things and processes are self-evident.
This is a perfect summary of the intellectual claim of those who set out to prove that God is dead and religion is false: Atheists have legitimate knowledge, and those who believe do not. This is the epistemological assumption looming in the so-called “culture war” between the caricatures of godless liberals and Bible-thumping conservatives in America: One group wields rational argumentation and intellectual history as an indictment of God, while the other looks to tradition and text as defenses against modernity’s encroachment on religious life.''


So....this was your attempt at a shouting match as I first asked.

Gopnik's article 'Bigger than Phil' can be found here:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2014/02/17/140217crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all

Cutting to the last paragraph, he asks:
Yet the wondering never quite comes to an end. Relatively peaceful and prosperous societies, we can establish, tend to have a declining belief in a deity. But did we first give up on God and so become calm and rich? Or did we become calm and rich, and so give up on God? Of such questions, such causes, no one can be certain. It would take an all-seeing eye in the sky to be sure.


It was an interesting rant, though, and quite cynical.

In reality, fundamentalism simply doesn't sell as well as it once did.
 

mazHur

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
66
Tokenz
0.04z
But others may not understand...as seen by the yes votes in the poll thread.


why don't you try your 'science' to comprehend its meaning or just google to find out??

There is nothing but everything....what do you say about this?
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
Dogs did not evolve in the Darwinian sense of Evolution. They theistically 'transformed' into varieties...just like humans.

More sophistry.

Dogs did not evolve in the Darwinian sense of Evolution.
The old theory about dog evolution is that domestication of wolves brought about artificial selection rather than natural selection as the evolutionary mechanism because it was by man's influence.
There's a new theory out that challenges the early aspects of selection by arguing that the wolf saw advantage to domestication for survival and conspired to allow it's own evolutionary change, making early domestication a process of natural selection.
Correct or not, the dog still evolved from a wolf.



They theistically 'transformed' .......
What is your definition of "theistically transformed"?
I don't recognize it from fundamentalist jargon I've read before.
Is that Kent Hovind terminology?
 

Stone

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
54
Tokenz
0.00z
Ahhh...but does everything contain nothing?


It's called being played.
The thread starter is trying to use sophistry to win a debate and he's just not manipulative enough to pull it off.

For instance.
He presents terminology of a faith in almighty God while previously claiming science can bring God to his knees to be scientifically investigated. Think that isn't flip flopping 'a little'?

It seldom works well for the fundamentalist that tries to define reality by using their religious faith as a scientific model.
 


Write your reply...
78,878Threads
2,185,408Messages
4,961Members
Back
Top