20
   

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

 
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2017 03:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The guiding information is the existence of chemistry (protein) and the proper environment.

Just view the video I provided.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2017 05:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
For ID supporters, they first need to produce evidence of their god. All else is nonsense.
Not all ID supporters believe in the same God and don't have to because the evidence to support ID is a statitical analysis of scientific data. This analysis can be done using various interpretations of the data.

I believe in ID. I believe the God that created the universe became a man and was born into the universe he created as Jesus. I believe the evidence is nearly irrefutable and is widely accepted by historians and scientists. To be an atheist is to deny the historical and scientific evidence that a majority of Americans accept as acceptable evidence. I have very little faith. I just believe the evidence. Matter is order and every time I see order being created today intelligence created it. Therefore I am going to assume that pattern held true in the distant past. That doesn't take faith, it is logical.

There is no evidence that the big bang created matter by chance except the fact that matter exists. Believing matter came into existance spontaneously out of nothing by a gravity driven explosion in the big bang takes a lot of faith based on little evidence. When we see matter being produced now it is coming from matter that already existed. That means we have no pattern that we can compare the big bang to leaving an atheist to base their belief on faith without a pattern.

Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2017 05:52 pm
@brianjakub,
brianjakub wrote:
Matter is order and every time I see order being created today intelligence created it. Therefore I am going to assume that pattern held true in the distant past. That doesn't take faith, it is logical.


You have failed at logic.

It is silly to suggest that there was a highly ordered being that exists based on nothing. That this highly complex being has always existed and has no creation of itself.

You are starting from a basis of HIGHLY complex order to give rise to something with less order. Which is fine in of itself but it doesn't explain how something so complex can just exist without any explanation.

If you suggest that a highly complex (high order) being can simply exist without a cause. Then by all means you MUST logically grant the same thing to everything and anything else.

If a god can exist or has always existed.

Then by all means highly complex systems can as well.

You can't have your cake in your left hand and then reject your same theory by suggesting it CANT occur in your right hand.

You call it logic, but you haven't expressed any logic here. All you are doing is making a claim and then saying it must be this way because I want it to be that way.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2017 05:59 pm
@brianjakub,
brianjakub wrote:

Matter is order and every time I see order being created today intelligence created it.


God is order, so does that suggest god was also created?

You will reject this, I don't even have to ask. You will give a special case exemption. God is exempt from your attempt to make your statement true. You will say god wasn't created but matter was therefore god is exempt.

So it is incredibly laughable that you call yourself logical. You couldn't get any further from logic.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2017 06:47 pm
@brianjakub,
pretty, very pretty, but of what use?
If you dont accept that variety "overload" perhaps has been natures way of evolving to fit all these separate niches all over the world. From individual caves to the many seas, from unconnected mountains to deserts separated by thousands of miles.

Each unique niche develops unique species that may only hqave a home range of a few miles (or in some cases like the pupfish, tens of feet.

The only way that can happen, as I see it, is by micro adaptation.

Ive seen cave insects from Mammoth cave totally different and speciated separately from those in Lechagilla Caves. Or, Ive seen photos of perch and catfish,foundation populations of which were separated in the Connecticut River by dams that were constructed during the Revolution. These two local parent species evolved, over the last 300 years into 4 or 5 separate species having new forms an feeding habits and even mating times into separate species above and below
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 05:32 am
@farmerman,
There are many examples of rapid evolution and adaptive transmutation like Darwin proposed in his mention of it in one of his later editions of "The Origin..."
Seeing evolution in action is no longer an unfulfilled wish for biologists. Evolution in the space f a prsons life or at least several human generations have been seen and studied (Like the breakthrough work of speciation in the changing climatic environments of several Galapogos Islands, all done by the Grants, a husband and wife team from Princeton, who, for over 40 years were able to record the speciation of finches in desertifying islands in the Galapogos chain.

Micro-evolution done over and over yields macro-evolution.
Helloandgoodbye
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 08:27 am
@farmerman,
Such a statement that microevolution over and over again can lead to macro evolution is A religious belief/false teaching. ,(Not a scientific fact or statement) Just as stating that: in a chemical soup deep in the ocean chemicals bumping into each other over and over again will eventually lead to microscopic life forms.

Microevolution over and over again leads to Micro evolution. That’s it! The designer and creator of life made it possible for life to adapt, sure, just as a designer may create a car with sensors so that it can raise and lower sunroofs ‘automatically.’

Please do not even respond Farmerman, as this post is for others.
I have concluded that the reason you are not convinced evolutionism is bankrupt is because the condition of your ‘heart.’
Just as I would not bother trying to logically convince fallen angels that they can actually overthrow God (Because the condition of their heart, they will not see that they are wrong in believing what they do......ever)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 08:48 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
Quote:
Such a statement that microevolution over and over again can lead to macro evolution is A religious belief/false teaching. ,(Not a scientific fact or statement) Just as stating that: in a chemical soup deep in the ocean chemicals bumping into each other over and over again will eventually lead to microscopic life forms.


Were you able to present any evidence by now Im sure you would have. All I can assume is you have nothing but your own "feelings" strait from the bible. Ive patiently presented evidence and Im not even a decimal point of the way in. Lets face it, you have NOTHING CREDIBLE on which to base your beliefs

Quote:
Microevolution over and over again leads to Micro evolution. That’s it!
repeating this same CREATIONIST bullshit over and over again doesnt make it right, it just makes you sound really ignorant and defiantly so. When you get something of an education in science maybe then your opinions will be worth something (BUt nonetheless,If you do get some education, Im certain your worldview will change vastly from your Evangelical beliefs)Even if you dont "believe" them, at least you will know what youre up against.

Quote:
Please do not even respond Farmerman, as this post is for others.
When you post something polar in a "debate" you should be able to take on all comers.Dont hide if you feel put upon, challenge me with some information that will stop my blathering facts. Still, it would be nice if you could present some real facts in evidence, rather than sounding like some West Virginia "Rattlesnake Christian".

Quote:
Just as I would not bother trying to logically convince fallen angels that they can actually overthrow God (Because the condition of their heart, they will not see that they are wrong in believing what they do......ever)
I was raised in the Jewish traditions, Russian Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and thats the kind of bullshit that you thumpers use to try to claim some "High Grounds". If you have nothing with which to respond, try calling thie that have fact based evidence in hand. "Fallen Angels"

You know what Bugs Bunny would call folks like you.
Helloandgoodbye
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 10:04 am
@farmerman,
John 3:12 ‘For I have told you of earthly things and you do not believe, how then will you believe in the heavenly things I tell you about.’

In other words, if I cant I get you to wrap your head around the fact that evolutionism is bankrupt, How then will I get you to see the truth of fallen Angels or other things you cannot see with your eyes? (Bacteria excluded, for we can now observe such ‘invisible’ life forms.
Helloandgoodbye
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 10:06 am
@Helloandgoodbye,
Love you brother! Always love a good ‘debate’ (even tho there is no debate) lol
0 Replies
 
jerlands
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 01:05 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
When you post something polar in a "debate" you should be able to take on all comers.

Debate is oppositional; two opposing sides try to prove each other wrong.
In dialogue, one listens to understand, to make meaning, and to find common ground. In debate, one listens to find flaws, to spot differences, and to counter arguments.

Is this a "discussion forum" or a "debate forum?" If your purpose is only to create opposition to then it's like talking to a either a brick wall.. or an image of oneself. My.. how pretty I am...
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 02:39 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
It is silly to suggest that there was a highly ordered being that exists based on nothing. That this highly complex being has always existed and has no creation of itself.

You are introducing religious dogma into the discussion.
Brianjakub said he was speaking from the standpoint of just logic, not religious faith.

Logic nor all theists hold with the uncaused cause dogma concerning the creation of life and the universe.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 02:56 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
It is silly to suggest that there was a highly ordered being that exists based on nothing. That this highly complex being has always existed and has no creation of itself.

You are introducing religious dogma into the discussion without an invitation.
Brianjakub said he was speaking from the standpoint of just logic, not religious faith.

Logic nor all theists hold with the uncaused cause dogma concerning the creation of life and the universe.



But I am addressing this statement:

Quote:
Matter is order and every time I see order being created today intelligence created it.


It is suggesting that matter itself has been created by some kind of "intelligence". In other words a god.

It does not matter if it is or is not religious dogma. I have seen you attempt this kind of argument over and over again. Attempting to dance around the issue.

"Oh believers don't believe that so you are wrong."

Here is the thing. The things I address, are things I have heard from believers. So I am addressing them. If believers don't believe the aspects that I address then why are they making those statements?

I think it really comes down to is, YOU don't believe that, but other believers do. Since YOU don't believe it, you assume no other believers believe it.

So you object to my statements and want to call them straw men but it ONLY pertains to you.

Now, science has a hypothesis, it is not set in stone. However; the believer believes god created the universe. That IS set in stone. It is what they believe, they don't hold out for any other possibility. That is the difference between a believer and science.

Science is fine with being wrong, but it requires that new information hold up to scrutiny. Something believers never fairly consider. They JUST DEMAND that people accept their nonsense.

What people call highly ordered, are not from my point of view highly ordered.

A planet is just a clump of material, I would not call that ordered. Gravity has squashed the clump into a round shape.

You can say life is highly ordered, but I don't see it this way either. We are made up with dozens of biomes , of bacteria. Without these bacteria we would not be alive. I just see life like a clump that makes up the planet. A hodgepodge of cells all working in tandem. You don't even have control over 99% of these cells. They work without your input at all. You don't need to tell them what to do to maintain your body. They work almost completely independent to what you want. Sure it is you who decides to supply them with food, but ultimately it is them who do all the work. You don't tell your stomach how to digest food.

The point I am making? I don't even see life as highly complex nor ordered.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 03:09 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
The point I am making? I don't even see life as highly complex nor ordered.

That and your other observations are interesting but I still maintain that brianJ stipulated he was speaking about his view from the standpoint of logic, not faith, in the post you commented on. It makes no difference whether he is a believer or not.
Unless of course you too see any whiff of belief in God as an instant disqualifier. THAT truly makes no logical sense.

BTW, did you really mean what you said in that quote?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 03:30 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
The point I am making? I don't even see life as highly complex nor ordered.

That and your other observations are interesting but I still maintain that brianJ stipulated he was speaking about his view from the standpoint of logic, not faith, in the post you commented on. It makes no difference whether he is a believer or not.
Unless of course you too see any whiff of belief in God as an instant disqualifier. THAT truly makes no logical sense.

BTW, did you really mean what you said in that quote?


When it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter to me if a person believes in a god or not. The point though is that it shouldn't be spread around as if it's a fact. Nor should we force a worldview onto people without first establishing that it's a fact.

So when people say, the world is full of sin, and all humans are obligated to quit sinning. Then they suggest pushing legislation to "prevent" people from sinning? That is silly. A law doesn't make a person a good person just because they want to avoid the punishment.

If you were to lift the law about killing other people. For example there is no punishment for killing other people. Does this mean that it is okay or good then? No. But the truly good people would present themselves, they would naturally obtain from killing people. The truly bad people would present themselves by killing people. A law doesn't make a person good.

This is how I see the christian religion, it wants to force an idea of reward and punishment for actions. Which sets up the same situation. A person following the prescribed doctrine behavior is not truly a good person because they are doing it to avoid being punished for not.

A god would be well aware of this fact. So by setting up commandments for believers to follow is in itself not really presenting good people. God would have to know that a certain percentage of people only obey the commandment out of fear of the punishment. Because if he were to lift the commandment or make it non-applicable then would they carry them out without a second thought?

A truly good person does not need rules nor the threat of punishment. They align with what is good naturally. But how do they arrive at being a good person? And what does it even mean to be a good person.

I think it comes down to one simple thing. Empathy. The bible should have been 1 page with one word on it. Empathy. All the rest is garbage.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 04:08 pm
@jerlands,
Quote:
Is this a "discussion forum" or a "debate forum?" If your purpose is only to create opposition to then it's like talking to a either a brick wall.. or an image of oneself. My.. how pretty I am...

I did not start this thread. If you wish to know the OP's mindset, ask him.
The entire set of this thread has been debate. YOU JOINED with several POV's that, while not well evidenced were still counter to the points prior. You dont get a pass just cause you cant present anything compelling. You get inspcted and questioned to see from what depth of knowledge your POVs arise.
AND, by virtue of what you stated before, you did NOT want my opinion. (I can imagine how little things like facts and evidence would tend to shake your worldview, neh?)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 04:14 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
Quote:
if I cant I get you to wrap your head around the fact that evolutionism is bankrupt
When did you win the NObel Prize in Medicine?? Science is quickest to trash earlier science when something better arrives, it doesnt spend time quoting the Bible as evidence. Thats lazy ignorant thinking. Maybe if you spent more time trying to develop some logic and actual science rather than bussing and shoving about Bible quotes, you could have some credibility.
Do you even understand what a fact is? I think not.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 04:33 pm
@Helloandgoodbye,
Quote:
Evolutionism is bankrupt
.

If ya want to cast insults, at lleast use words that are real, not some portmanteau, created by the Creationists to try to "even up the titles"
You silly little minded one.

here, from J. B. Gough

Quote:
the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy
.

In fact, the term was pretty much introduced by the famous science hating web site ANSWERS in GENESIS, a feeble-minded attempt at using silly fake science to make some Fundamental Christian sales pitch.

Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 05:03 pm
@farmerman,
The thing I find interesting about believers taking shits on science is that they utilize other science without even considering it. They want to say there are errors in the theory of evolution but have absolutely no problem consuming other science in their life. If science is so faulty why are they not objecting to all this other science?

So to me it clearly paints a picture that they only complain because it has challenged the silliness of their biblical narrative. They have no problem accepting science as long as it doesn't disprove their faith. As soon as there is a conflict they object to it and just say, science is faulty. It's laughable.

So I have come to the point, any time someone says the theory of evolution is not science, I just put them into the category of idiot. We have so much science bloom out of the theory that can't be denied. Had we NOT had the theory we wouldn't have even been able to develop these side sciences. There would have been nothing to build on. It directly leads to support that the theory is correct simply because if it was not we wouldn't have developed these other sciences.

A believer just desperately wants the bible to be true. They NEED it to be true. So anything that suggests the bible is in error, gets rejected on principal no matter how strong the evidence is.

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Dec, 2017 06:22 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
So when people say, the world is full of sin, and all humans are obligated to quit sinning. Then they suggest pushing legislation to "prevent" people from sinning? That is silly. A law doesn't make a person a good person just because they want to avoid the punishment.

I guess you would rather talk theology & religion rather than the logical case for ID. That's fine if you'd like.

The statement you made is way off the mark about the bible and even religion for the most part (they are not synonymous).

Don't know how familiar you are with the bible but here's the deal about 'the Law' in biblical context. The Law (I assume you mean the 10 commandments) was given to Moses at the request of the people who were following him, not God. People at that time were in the opposite state of mind as today; they were terrified with some of the events surrounding God's direct dealing with man (floods, plagues, fire from heaven destroying cities, etc.), they were afraid and told Moses to give them a simple list of rules and they would follow them (and they were given the chance).

That was man's idea, never God's. Your suggestion of empathy is more in line with the original plan that his Son came later to make clear to man. It's all in the book if it matters to you.

PS: I was really hoping you would tell me if you were serious about life not being complex, etc. You kind of made my jaw drop on that one.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2020 at 03:13:14