Atheists - A Question...

[Nimos]

So telling someone 2+2 may be 4, is not the same thing as 2+2 is 4. Correct?

That is correct, but that is to oversimplify things I think.

Even though we might not know exactly what or how gravity works, doesn't mean that gravity isn't true and we therefore ought to teach people that gravity is simply us guessing. It has been demonstrated that we can calculate and make predictions with our understanding of it.

I don't know where you came up with aliens from.
I say 4) The rodent was rolled in the paint, or 5) Someone painted a yellow stripe on the rodent and placed it in the road, or 6) the rodent is a plain yellow bellied critter.

I just mentioned 3 examples, yours could be valid theories as well. That doesn't really change anything in regard to what I'm talking about.

Nope. Why is (1) the most likely explanation, and not (4), or (5)? Tell me please. I'm listening.

Because (1) is extremely easy to demonstrate. But you are correct that (4) or (5) might be the right answer. But in that case, you would still have to demonstrate that rodents tend to roll in paint and die like that or that people tend to paint them and place them on the road.
In the case of this example where we do not know how it happened, (1) and (5) might be the most likely candidates, but again as I said science is just as much about figuring out what is definitely not true and given we know that you can't lift paint or crawl under it, we can with reasonable certainty exclude certain explanations given the lack of evidence.

Again, we are not looking for absolute truths, but what explains the evidence or what is observed the best.

Not only science.
We ask this of you as well, but you just disagree.

This is not the same.

Because a claim is made, that God created everything. The majority of atheists (including me) do not claim that God or god(s) didn't do it, simply that I don't think the burden of proof has been met by those claiming it to be the case. My answer to the question of where everything came from, is simply "I don't know and we might never know".

No one is asking you to believe anything. Do you feel that way?
How many people are skeptical about what you believe? More than those who believe.
Why, even scientists don't believe what other scientists believe.
It's a case of what you believe and what you don't.

When a society is designed and highly influenced by religious ideas, you don't really have to ask such questions, because it is built into it. When a lot of people argue against abortion or that women are not allowed to do certain things etc. then that is religious influence on society, without providing any evidence for why such ideas should be considered valid.

Which they often can't... Which is why it's a belief... Theirs, and yours... a case of what you believe and what you don't.

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with believing certain things. But as just mentioned we know for a fact, that religious beliefs go far beyond someone simply believing something, to their beliefs greatly affecting other people's lives.

From what did the seed evolve Nimos?

I'm not a biologist, but from what I can gather this is what they believe:

Heterospory, which probably has been evolved independently in several lineages, is widely believed to be a precursor to seed reproduction. The progymnosperms are regarded as the ancestors of the seed plants.

And if you dig around a bit more you get this:
Trimerophytopsida (or Trimeropsida) is a class of early vascular plants from the Devonian, informally called trimerophytes. It contains genera such as Psilophyton. This group is probably paraphyletic, and is believed to be the ancestral group from which both the ferns and seed plants evolved. Different authors have treated the group at different taxonomic ranks using the names Trimerophyta, Trimerophytophyta, Trimerophytina, Trimerophytophytina and Trimerophytales.

Again, as I said, if you want to know what scientists think and why they believe this is the case, you have to examine the evidence they put forward.

You believe. Glad to hear you admit that.
So you believe eggs evolved from eggs?

No, but one could imagine that the first "egg" might have been very different than what we consider an egg to look like now, it could have been a very thin shell maybe even transparent as we see it with fish, frogs etc. and as animals moved to land, the "egg" might have helped keep the offspring safe and overtime maybe those eggs with a slightly thicker shell survived the best and ultimately gave rise to an egg as we know it. Obviously, that is just me guessing. But I would assume that you could google that as well to see what scientists actually believe the evidence shows.

My general belief is that things evolved from a simple state to something more complex.

You haven't proved that life is unguided. No one has.
So you lean toward unguided, because...? You want to believe it. Thank you. It's a case of what you believe and what you don't.
Is there another reason? I'm listening.

As I said earlier, my answer to that question is that I don't know.

But then we can start adding the claims that religious people make, that God created everything according to their kind, bird kind, fish kind etc. and we can see that is not true. But rather animals and plants seem to evolve to cope with the environment they live in rather than being designed from the top down. Also given the mere amount of animals that have gone extinct over time, seems to suggest that a potential designer is incredibly bad at his job if they were designed.

Obviously, you would have to dig deep into evolution theory to get the full picture of why unguided seems more likely than it was created. Because what evidence is there for a designer?

"we can recognise that it is constructed/designed". Thank you.
How exactly can we recognise?

Because design typically stands out from the rest of the natural environment that it exists in, and as I said you might find evidence of tools having been used and in some cases, you might even know who the designer is.

If we saw something on Mars that stood out, even if it was built by aliens, we would be able to recognize it as having been designed.

 

[Alien826]

You said... The theory of Evolution is now so well supported that it nears proof...
That didn't sound like what you say you were referring to.
Sorry. I'm no good at reading minds.

The article you linked to explained that science doesn't prove things, it just comes nearer and nearer to the truth, or attempts to. That's what I was attempting to imply, while still saying that Evolution was very well supported by scientific standards.

Knowing everything as in knowing all there is to be known already, so that there isn't a need to know?
Or knowing everything, as in having the ability to know anything?

Hmmm, with the proviso that we're talking about some people's definition of God here, I'd say that omniscience refers to knowing everything that there is to be known, but without the "already". I'll leave it to you to fit that into your question, as I find it confusing.

I'm going by the Bible. I leave assumptions for those who don't know the Bible.

If I am to discuss Biblical belief with you I can only adopt a given belief system provisionally. My actual belief would be that the question (of God's knowledge) is moot pending the general answers to whether God exists anyway, and if so what are his characteristics.

I hope you understand the different places we are coming from, which make debate difficult unless we accept what "assumptions" we are working with.

Um... Alien... People read the Bible, and don't know it.
That doesn't mean they are stupid.
I read the Bible for years and didn't know, nor understand it.

People will tell you that you may read verses many times, and read those verses some time later, and understand it different to when you read it previously... or get something new from it.
This is because you are building on knowledge - knowledge increases.

This is what you said:

Says the guy who knows little, if anything about the Bible... since he says "Which had to have been...", and not "Which was...", because he knows he never read it, but is making assumptions - the common atheist' mistake.
Asking for help doesn't hurt, you know.

You plainly stated, with no knowledge of what I have or haven't read in the Bible, that I knew I had never read it. That caused me to reply with sarcasm. Your subsequent backing off from that doesn't change the original intent.

No, that would be you.
I can, ad do support what I say. I don't make assumptions.
If I do, I woul say so.

But you did in that case. You said "Neither of which assumption is correct", with no supporting explanation as to why you think it is incorrect.

 

[Nimos]

People will tell you that you may read verses many times, and read those verses some time later, and understand it different to when you read it previously... or get something new from it.
This is because you are building on knowledge - knowledge increases.

Not that I want to jump in on your discussion with @Alien826. But this only really applies if you look at the bible from a historical point of view.

Simply reading some verses multiple times doesn't necessarily mean that you gain greater knowledge just because you understand it differently, your new understanding might as well be wrong, and neither does it make you get any closer to an answer of whether the claims that God exists or not are true.

Given how many different views people have of God both now and in the past and what is right and what is not. I think it's valid to conclude that despite these people having read the bible countless times, they still don't agree on this so-called "knowledge" each of them has gained.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm going by the Bible. I leave assumptions for those who don't know the Bible.

Meaning what, exactly? The Bible implies that God is both all-knowing and not all-knowing.

Does God know and see everything?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They have been proven?

The scientifically illiterate often asks if a theory was "proven".

Really. Nah. Remember, certain things are blocked from the public. You know this, right?

They also imply some grand conspiracy for just about all scientists, journals and popular science media to "suppress" their superior "knowledge".

The fact is, we have people who are globally active in declaring the message Jesus preached; globally united in love as Jesus said, and in teachings; willing to face death for doing so, and in some cases are - yes, persecuted for righteousness sake, as Jesus said...

Every religion has preachers.
Every religion has people believing so passionately that they are willing to die over it.

If you think that is comparable to actual real tangible empirical results the likes of which science produces, then I don't know what to tell you.

We also have this

From which we get this.

Is this a variation of the juvenile anti-evolution / pro-creationist-religious "argument" of "look at the trees and the birds!!"?

Not sure what you think this demonstrates.

Interesting how you point to physical things to support your belief in theories, but ignore physical things, that support belief in an actual creator.

How does a growing tree support a creator?

 

[joelr]

You too? Proof?
Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”


.

You are misusing this concept. First yes scientific theories become theories after they are tested and demonstrate that they produce results. They are then re-tested by teams all over the world and if consistent results are shown and the equations check out it can become a theory.
This is the opposite of religion where stories are taken to be true. Not one story but many different stories that all say the other is wrong. Then billions of people believe one story and billions believe another. All based on faith.

The reason scientific theories are open is because they may be refined. Newtonian Gravity will never be wrong but Einstein added to it and showed how to calculate more precise situations and combine it with relativity. The 2nd law of thermodynamics will never be wrong but there may be situations found where it reaches it's limits. Maybe it fails at the Planck length?
Science is OPEN to new information.
Religion is not.
Critical-historical methods were not applied to religion until well into the 1900s. So new information has emerged. Apologists are afraid of this and use denial and lies to combat it. The first to use it was a Priest, Raymond Brown. He forced the church to begin acknowledging literal fundamentalism wasn't correct.

Raymond Edward Brown SS (May 22, 1928 – August 8, 1998) was an American Sulpician priest and prominent biblical scholar. He was regarded as a specialist concerning the hypothetical "Johannine community",

Brown was one of the first Catholic scholars in the United States to use the historical-critical method to study the Bible.[5]

In 1943, reversing the approach that had existed since Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus fifty years earlier, Pope Pius XII's encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu expressed approval of historical-critical methods.[6] For Brown, this was a "Magna Carta for biblical progress."[7] In 1965, at the Second Vatican Council, the Church moved further in this direction, adopting the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei verbum, instead of the conservative schema "On the Sources of Revelation" that originally had been submitted. While it stated that Scripture teaches "solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation,"[8] Brown points out the ambiguity of this statement, which opened the way for a new interpretation of inerrancy by shifting from a literal interpretation of the text towards a focus on "the extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God." He saw this as the Church "turning the corner" on inerrancy: "the Roman Catholic Church does not change her official stance in a blunt way. Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time. ... What was really going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvageable from the past and to move in a new direction at the same time."[9]

 

[nPeace]

That is correct, but that is to oversimplify things I think.

Even though we might not know exactly what or how gravity works, doesn't mean that gravity isn't true and we therefore ought to teach people that gravity is simply us guessing. It has been demonstrated that we can calculate and make predictions with our understanding of it.

We don't want to sidetrack from the point.
No one is arguing against what's obviously known. Non scientist knew about gravity even before Newton, and we still aren't sure we really understand it.
Why, we all know about the brain, but they still don't understand it. This is straying from the point though.
What's the point?

I just mentioned 3 examples, yours could be valid theories as well. That doesn't really change anything in regard to what I'm talking about.

What are you talking about?

Because (1) is extremely easy to demonstrate. But you are correct that (4) or (5) might be the right answer. But in that case, you would still have to demonstrate that rodents tend to roll in paint and die like that or that people tend to paint them and place them on the road.

I didn't say the rodent rolled in the paint. did I?
Also, one can easily demonstrate 10 things, but choosing one out of the ten because "it's easier to demonstrate", does not make it better.
Do you go by what is easiest?

In the case of this example where we do not know how it happened, (1) and (5) might be the most likely candidates, but again as I said science is just as much about figuring out what is definitely not true and given we know that you can't lift paint or crawl under it, we can with reasonable certainty exclude certain explanations given the lack of evidence.

...amd (4), if you read what I said correctly.
The point is though, your saying something is more likely the case, and dismissing anything else, but that, does not make it true.
You are free to lve with that belief for the rest of f your life. It is still a case of you choosing what to believe, and what not to believe.
That is the point.

Again, we are not looking for absolute truths, but what explains the evidence or what is observed the best.
What one wants to accept as the best. You still haven't explained why it's the best.

Why is (1) better than (4), or (5)?
That's an important place to start.

This is not the same.

Because a claim is made, that God created everything. The majority of atheists (including me) do not claim that God or god(s) didn't do it, simply that I don't think the burden of proof has been met by those claiming it to be the case. My answer to the question of where everything came from, is simply "I don't know and we might never know".

Do you take the claims made about evolution and other beliefs in the same way.
Do you know that whales came from a wolf-like animal?

When a society is designed and highly influenced by religious ideas, you don't really have to ask such questions, because it is built into it. When a lot of people argue against abortion or that women are not allowed to do certain things etc. then that is religious influence on society, without providing any evidence for why such ideas should be considered valid.

Seriously? No.
Evidence glares us in the face, but are overlooked for the sake of belief. Remember? What one chooses to believe.

I'm not talking about opinions on what women are allowed to do, or not do, here.
There are some things that people wil argue about till the cows come home.

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with believing certain things. But as just mentioned we know for a fact, that religious beliefs go far beyond someone simply believing something, to their beliefs greatly affecting other people's lives.

Science beliefs affect people's lives.
Just look at what happened recently, with the pandemic.

I'm not a biologist, but from what I can gather this is what they believe:

Heterospory, which probably has been evolved independently in several lineages, is widely believed to be a precursor to seed reproduction. The progymnosperms are regarded as the ancestors of the seed plants.

And if you dig around a bit more you get this:
Trimerophytopsida (or Trimeropsida) is a class of early vascular plants from the Devonian, informally called trimerophytes. It contains genera such as Psilophyton. This group is probably paraphyletic, and is believed to be the ancestral group from which both the ferns and seed plants evolved. Different authors have treated the group at different taxonomic ranks using the names Trimerophyta, Trimerophytophyta, Trimerophytina, Trimerophytophytina and Trimerophytales.

So you basically believe whatever scientists believe. Is that what you are saying?

Again, as I said, if you want to know what scientists think and why they believe this is the case, you have to examine the evidence they put forward.

I want to know what you think, I am talking to you, am I not. Are we not in a discussion?
You wouldn't want me to tell you, go read the Bible if you want to know what Christians believe, would you?

No, but one could imagine that the first "egg" might have been very different than what we consider an egg to look like now, it could have been a very thin shell maybe even transparent as we see it with fish, frogs etc. and as animals moved to land, the "egg" might have helped keep the offspring safe and overtime maybe those eggs with a slightly thicker shell survived the best and ultimately gave rise to an egg as we know it. Obviously, that is just me guessing. But I would assume that you could google that as well to see what scientists actually believe the evidence shows.

Notice... "might have"; "could have"; "maybe"; "might have"; "maybe", all in two short sentences alone.
You admitted, you are guessing, but when scientists do the same thing, you don't admit they are guessing. Why not?

My general belief is that things evolved from a simple state to something more complex.

Thank you. Your belief.
It's a case of what you choose to believe and what you don't. Why are you finding it hard to admit that?

As I said earlier, my answer to that question is that I don't know.

Right. You don't know, but you lean toward one side though, because you choose to believe in unguided processes.

But then we can start adding the claims that religious people make, that God created everything according to their kind, bird kind, fish kind etc. and we can see that is not true. But rather animals and plants seem to evolve to cope with the environment they live in rather than being designed from the top down.

May I ask why you say, "seem to"?
Also, adapting is called evolving, and those who believe that God created the base template, do not deny that adaptation happens.
They however do not believe in what most scientists believe, where they extrapolate on those adaptations to claim that a fish becomes, you for example.

So why did you feel the need to mention "animals and plants seem to evolve to cope with the environment they live in rather than being designed from the top down"?
I don't get the comparison.
Are you saying that God could not have designed things which adapt?

Also given the mere amount of animals that have gone extinct over time, seems to suggest that a potential designer is incredibly bad at his job if they were designed.

The bad design argument is like ome saying, I don't like the fact that I have two melons on my chest. Therefore the person that made them should just go crawl under a rock and die."
Because you don't like something, doesn't make it, not designed.

Another thing... Because the driver of the Tesla 420, takes a bat to it, and then drives it into a wall, doesn't mean that Elon Musk doesn't exist, and did not design any car.
That's a terrible argument, Nimos.

Obviously, you would have to dig deep into evolution theory to get the full picture of why unguided seems more likely than it was created. Because what evidence is there for a designer?

See how Atheists are. They ask us to give them evidence, but they can't give us any. They send us to read what we already did.
Well, you do likewise Nimos. Dig deep into the truth about the creator God.

Because design typically stands out from the rest of the natural environment that it exists in, and as I said you might find evidence of tools having been used and in some cases, you might even know who the designer is.

Say again. "design typically stands out from the rest of the natural environment"
design typically stands out from the rest of the natural environment
design typically stands out from the rest of the natural environment

Do you hear yourself?
So here is what you are now saying? You know... You know... Let that sink in. You know that there is no design in nature. You know this.
Is this what you are saying for real, Nimos?
If you know this, you know there is no creator, or designer. Is that so?

If we saw something on Mars that stood out, even if it was built by aliens, we would be able to recognize it as having been designed.

stood out?

So nothing is designed if it does not look like what you think is designed. Is that it?
I think you are trying to take the underground way out of answering the question in a coherent way.
You have not explained how we recognize design. You basically said, if it looks designed to me.
Dawkins and others used the term "having the appearance of design", regarding things in nature, so something is wrong with your escape route.

I still want to test you though. Enter my studio for a minute.
Designed or not? Certainly, they stand out against the trees and plants, rocks and oceans, don't they?

 

[nPeace]

Hmmm, with the proviso that we're talking about some people's definition of God here, I'd say that omniscience refers to knowing everything that there is to be known, but without the "already". I'll leave it to you to fit that into your question, as I find it confusing.

So, not that God already knows everything, but can know, if he chooses to.
Good.

There are things God does, and did not choose to know. Like free will choices.
So for example, God does not know if I will become an Atheist, or if you will become a Christian.
He leaves the outcome to us... our choices.

At the end of the day, he rewards us accordingly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I still want to test you though. Enter my studio for a minute.
Designed or not? Certainly, they stand out against the trees and plants, rocks and oceans, don't they?

Hang on - are you suggesting that trees, plants, rocks and oceans are elements of an undesigned background against which designed things can stand out?

 

[nPeace]

Not that I want to jump in on your discussion with @Alien826. But this only really applies if you look at the bible from a historical point of view.

Simply reading some verses multiple times doesn't necessarily mean that you gain greater knowledge just because you understand it differently, your new understanding might as well be wrong, and neither does it make you get any closer to an answer of whether the claims that God exists or not are true.

Given how many different views people have of God both now and in the past and what is right and what is not. I think it's valid to conclude that despite these people having read the bible countless times, they still don't agree on this so-called "knowledge" each of them has gained.

Feel free to jump in any time Nimos.
Only make sure to look before you leap.

Are you guessing here, or speaking from experience?
Notice. I did not say get a different understanding from listening to your pastor. Neither did I say, one's understanding cannot be wrong.

This is obvious. Why, it happens even with scientist.
Do you think I believe that men are infallible because they read the Bible?
Did I say that?

 

[Alien826]

Not that I want to jump in on your discussion with @Alien826.

Please do.

By the way, and not totally unconnected, did you see that Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year for 2022 is "gaslighting"?

 

[Alien826]

So, not that God already knows everything, but can know, if he chooses to.
Good.

There are things God does, and did not choose to know. Like free will choices.
So for example, God does not know if I will become an Atheist, or if you will become a Christian.
He leaves the outcome to us... our choices.

At the end of the day, he rewards us accordingly.

That's a new one to me.

Are you saying that God is like me, to the extent that I have some knowledge in my brain and also a vast reservoir of knowledge available to me, on the Internet for example, that I can choose to ignore if I wish? Do you have Biblical support for that?

Not that it matters as far as allocating responsibility goes. Even we humans realize that it is a person's responsibility to inform himself of the likely consequences of his actions. If I mix saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal, put it in a closed container with a fuse and light the fuse it would not help me in court to claim that I had no idea what would happen and the damage done by the resulting explosion was not my fault. I should have looked it up!

A better argument I have read is that if free will is to be truly free, God cannot know the future in this way.

 

[Alien826]

Hang on - are you suggesting that trees, plants, rocks and oceans are elements of an undesigned background against which designed things can stand out?

Once again we have an old old argument dusted off and trotted out.

This time it's the "watchmaker" analogy. It does take a bit of thinking, certainly. The problem in my view is in the comparison. We compare the watch to the grains of sand and it's obviously designed. We compare the universe to ... what? We would need an undesigned universe to compare this one to, which we don't have.

Incidentally, a lot of the problem with comparing evolved creatures with "designed" creatures is semantic. Evolution does in fact "design" creatures, but it's a very limited use of the word "design". It uses a process of trial and error, over millions of years, it's not random in any way. We should make sure we are talking about "intelligent design" when arguing for creationism.

 

[Nimos]

No one is arguing against what's obviously known.

There are hardly any such things as obviously known, it was obviously known that Earth was the centre of the Universe, that Earth was flat, that God created water above the skies etc.

Things become obvious once demonstrated to be true not before.

What are you talking about?

That I simply gave a few examples and didn't think it necessary to come up with 100 examples to get the point across. Which is why when you added 3 more, I said they were valid theories as well. But that didn't change anything in regard to my point.

I didn't say the rodent rolled in the paint. did I?

I misread it. Anyway it doesn't matter. It is not important for the point I'm trying to make whether someone rolled the rodent in it or it did it itself, or if it was aliens.

Also, one can easily demonstrate 10 things, but choosing one out of the ten because "it's easier to demonstrate", does not make it better.
Do you go by what is easiest?

No, it's not about what is easiest. But you still have to be able to demonstrate your theory. In the example I gave, given what we are talking about, a rodent with a yellow stripe, the rational explanation, in this case, is that someone simply painted over it. If you are talking about something much more complicated, it also requires a lot more evidence, think about the number of people working with climate change, evolution or within space etc. All these are trying to figure out how things work and you can't do that by simply guessing. I honestly didn't think this example would give you so many issues with understanding.

...amd (4), if you read what I said correctly.
The point is though, your saying something is more likely the case, and dismissing anything else, but that, does not make it true.
You are free to lve with that belief for the rest of f your life. It is still a case of you choosing what to believe, and what not to believe.
That is the point.

I'm not dismissing anything, I am pretty sure I made that perfectly clear in my example that you having another theory would require you to demonstrate it just as I would. That is why it doesn't matter how many examples you can come up with, it is not important to my point.

Why is (1) better than (4), or (5)?
That's an important place to start.

I didn't say that (1) was better than (5) at least. Again, you completely miss the point of what I'm saying. The example of the rodent is just a simplified way of explaining the method or process involved, based on the 3 theories I gave, but if we are talking about evolution it becomes a lot more complicated. We are not actually trying to solve the rodent case here

Do you take the claims made about evolution and other beliefs in the same way.
Do you know that whales came from a wolf-like animal?

I know the whale ancestor evolved from a land animal a long time ago, but the whale itself did not evolve from a wolf-like creature as you can see here:

So whatever animal at the first red marker near the top, looked nothing like a whale, but they have been able to track it back to that creature by following the changes over time.

And that is a big difference, it is not based on pure guesses but by examining fossils.

Science beliefs affect people's lives.
Just look at what happened recently, with the pandemic.

Yes and if the scientific beliefs were just people guessing and having no clue whether it was true or not, that would be a massive issue. But luckily it isn't. How many lives do you think prayers have saved during the covid pandemic compared to a vaccine?

So you basically believe whatever scientists believe. Is that what you are saying?

No, of course not. I believe in the method and what the evidence shows. And lucky for us the field of science is designed in such a way, that it is self-correcting, so if something is wrong, someone will notice it at some point and correct it. I'm not qualified to evaluate whether a neuroscientist is saying is true or false. But lucky for me there are others that are and will call BS if that person makes poor science. So yes, in general, I do trust scientists, but not blindly. Also, a scientist might have little knowledge about a given field of science, for instance, I would have little trust in a biologist talking about something related to blackholes etc.

I want to know what you think, I am talking to you, am I not. Are we not in a discussion?
You wouldn't want me to tell you, go read the Bible if you want to know what Christians believe, would you?

Again, I'm not and I highly suspect that you as well are not qualified to talk in great detail about the evolution of seeds either. So there is little point in me trying to guess how seeds came to be if there are people out there that have actually studied it and can back it up with evidence. So, yes, I believe that those actually having examined the evidence are correct and I would read their explanation if I were truly interested in knowing the evolution of seeds.

Well, I have read the bible and based on countless talks here on the forum, it is also very obvious that the majority of Christians don't actually believe what the bible says, but only parts of it. This is why I do prefer for anyone I'm talking with to clarify what exactly they personally believe. Because JW does not believe the same as other Christians, and some Christians believe in hell while others don't, some believe the Earth is 6000 years old, while others don't etc. So even if I asked you to, you wouldn't be able to point me to a "Christian" because they come in many different forms and most of the time they disagree.

Notice... "might have"; "could have"; "maybe"; "might have"; "maybe", all in two short sentences alone.
You admitted, you are guessing, but when scientists do the same thing, you don't admit they are guessing. Why not?

Of course, I would admit it if a scientist did it, but the majority of them, are very good at saying whether something is established science or whether it is merely a working theory.

Thank you. Your belief.
It's a case of what you choose to believe and what you don't. Why are you finding it hard to admit that?

Sure it is, but there is a huge difference between believing something because it is backed up by a rational explanation and one that isn't. If someone came and said that aliens are real, but provided no evidence at all, it is not rational to believe it. Again science is a process, it is not just some random person in a dark lab making up stuff and everyone agrees with it because he is wearing a white coat.

It is no different than if you made a crazy claim, then I wouldn't believe you either unless you provided me with good enough evidence to convince me.

Right. You don't know, but you lean toward one side though, because you choose to believe in unguided processes.

Yes, because so far no evidence for the other standpoint has been presented. But I'm open to them if people have some?

May I ask why you say, "seem to"?
Also, adapting is called evolving, and those who believe that God created the base template, do not deny that adaptation happens.
They however do not believe in what most scientists believe, where they extrapolate on those adaptations to claim that a fish becomes, you for example.

So why did you feel the need to mention "animals and plants seem to evolve to cope with the environment they live in rather than being designed from the top down"?
I don't get the comparison.
Are you saying that God could not have designed things which adapt?

Because that is what the evidence "seems to" indicate, there is no particular reason for that choice of words.

That some religious people believe that, is an afterthought as almost everything else, after science has figured it out. Just as Earth was the centre of the Universe, then Adam and Eve weren't really the first humans, then Earth was not really 6000 years old etc. Despite contradicting what the bible actually says. It is good that people adjust to it, but I'm not giving religion or the bible any credit for it.

No, according to the bible God can do anything, but likewise, according to the bible, nothing even remotely suggests that it is supposed to be understood as if God created animals through evolution, again that is an adjustment religious people have added later.

The bad design argument is like ome saying, I don't like the fact that I have two melons on my chest. Therefore the person that made them should just go crawl under a rock and die."
Because you don't like something, doesn't make it, not designed.

Another thing... Because the driver of the Tesla 420, takes a bat to it, and then drives it into a wall, doesn't mean that Elon Musk doesn't exist, and did not design any car.
That's a terrible argument, Nimos.

No, it is not a bad argument.

If we were talking about a human capable of making mistakes and wrong choices, then I agree it would be a terrible argument, because we know such things happen. But we are talking about an almighty God, which knows everything etc. And if such a being is capable of making mistakes, then the whole concept of God falls to the ground.

See how Atheists are. They ask us to give them evidence, but they can't give us any. They send us to read what we already did.
Well, you do likewise Nimos. Dig deep into the truth about the creator God.

There is a lot of evidence, evolution is evidence of it being unguided. Which is why so many religious people do not like it. Some have come to terms with it, and that is where we get that God used evolution as his method excuse, which is better than nothing. Compare that to the evidence there is for it being guided, just give me one piece of evidence?

Say again. "design typically stands out from the rest of the natural environment"
Do you hear yourself?
So here is what you are now saying? You know... You know... Let that sink in. You know that there is no design in nature. You know this.
Is this what you are saying for real, Nimos?
If you know this, you know there is no creator, or designer. Is that so?

No, that is not what I'm saying. But if we suddenly saw a snail driving around in a mobile home with small tires etc. then that would stand out as being designed rather than something natural. If God designed everything to be perfect, why would evolution be needed?

I still want to test you though. Enter my studio for a minute.
Designed or not? Certainly, they stand out against the trees and plants, rocks and oceans, don't they?

Yes, their cloth seems designed, and the humans themselves seem to remind an awfully lot about other apes, wonder why that is?

 

[Nimos]

Please do.

By the way, and not totally unconnected, did you see that Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year for 2022 is "gaslighting"?

No, I did not know

 

[nPeace]

That's a new one to me.

You are not alone.
We grow up being taught otherwise.

Are you saying that God is like me, to the extent that I have some knowledge in my brain and also a vast reservoir of knowledge available to me, on the Internet for example, that I can choose to ignore if I wish?

Not like you. You can't know everything, even if you tried.
Pay no mind to that, I am just being devilish

.
...but yes, God's reservoir of knowledge is vastly superior. It's unlimited.
However, it's not an opened reservoir, that takes in any and everything, as though God has no control over what he allows into it.

Do you have Biblical support for that?

That's good. I must have scriptural support if someone claims things about God, or the Bible.
That way, I know I'm not just getting opinions, or just claims.

Here, the Bible tells us God does not even hear sounds he does not want to hear. Isaiah 1:15; Isaiah 59:2; Lamentations 3:44; Proverbs 15:29; Zechariah 7:13; Micah 3:4; John 9:31

Here, the scriptures tells us, God doesn't even see what he does not want to. Psalms 34:15-16; Psalms 138:6; Jeremiah 33:5;

Here, we read, that God did not exercise his ability to know what one will, or will not do. Genesis 22:12; Exodus 16:4; Deuteronomy 8:2; Deuteronomy 13:3
There are others, but not as direct. as these
However, we can't get any more direct.

On the other hand, God can exercise his foreknowledge, and tell the finale, of any event. Acts of the Apostles 2:23; Isaiah 42:9

Allowing us to exercise free will / choice, God outlines the path he wants us to take, and the outcome either way.
Deuteronomy 30:17-20
He leaves us to make whatever decision we choose, without intervening.
He does not look at the the end result, but what we do at present. Ezekiel 18:21-24

To further demonstrate this is the case, and God does not know what your choices will be.
Here, a man humbled himself, after God told him of his fate. - 1 Kings 21:29 God forgave him.
This often was the case, in scripture.

However, you have direct references.

Not that it matters as far as allocating responsibility goes. Even we humans realize that it is a person's responsibility to inform himself of the likely consequences of his actions. If I mix saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal, put it in a closed container with a fuse and light the fuse it would not help me in court to claim that I had no idea what would happen and the damage done by the resulting explosion was not my fault. I should have looked it up!

A better argument I have read is that if free will is to be truly free, God cannot know the future in this way.

God does not know your future, so you do have free will, and God has no reason to intervene in those choices.
Are you saying though that by giving persons free will, or free choice, that God was irresponsible?

 

[Nimos]

Sorry for jumping in again

That's good. I must have scriptural support if someone claims things about God, or the Bible.

This is a fair demand. But I assume this also applies to you?

So what is your scriptural support for this:
However, it's not an opened reservoir, that takes in any and everything, as though God has no control over what he allows into it.

Isn't that a claim about what God can and can't do?

 

[Nimos]

God does not know your future, so you do have free will, and God has no reason to intervene in those choices.

What do you make of this, just wondering?

Psalms 139:1-7
1 - To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. O LORD, you have searched me and known me!
2 - You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar.
3 - You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways.
4 - Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.
5 - You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me.
6 - Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it.
7 - Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?

 

[nPeace]

That I simply gave a few examples and didn't think it necessary to come up with 100 examples to get the point across. Which is why when you added 3 more, I said they were valid theories as well. But that didn't change anything in regard to my point.

Oh, but it does.
You see, sometimes the theory that is dismissed, bounces back to stand in place of the one that was the "best explanation", rendering it obsolete.

So, believing one thing over another, when you don't know, but claiming you do, is simply making a choice to believe one over the other.
The ones who believed otherwise, were right, and you weren't.
That's significant.

No, it's not about what is easiest. But you still have to be able to demonstrate your theory. In the example I gave, given what we are talking about, a rodent with a yellow stripe, the rational explanation, in this case, is that someone simply painted over it. If you are talking about something much more complicated, it also requires a lot more evidence, think about the number of people working with climate change, evolution or within space etc. All these are trying to figure out how things work and you can't do that by simply guessing. I honestly didn't think this example would give you so many issues with understanding.

I don't disagree. I say this all the time. You need more evidence.
Running with pieces of circumstantial, and claiming it's all you need, when it isn't enough, leads to embarrassment.

This has happened in the scientific community quite often.
Here is one...
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples.

I'm not dismissing anything, I am pretty sure I made that perfectly clear in my example that you having another theory would require you to demonstrate it just as I would. That is why it doesn't matter how many examples you can come up with, it is not important to my point.

...but what if that's done, and its ignored? See above.

I didn't say that (1) was better than (5) at least. Again, you completely miss the point of what I'm saying. The example of the rodent is just a simplified way of explaining the method or process involved, based on the 3 theories I gave, but if we are talking about evolution it becomes a lot more complicated. We are not actually trying to solve the rodent case here

...and I am explaining why the so called best explanation is a belief. See above.
Do you need more.

I know the whale ancestor evolved from a land animal a long time ago, but the whale itself did not evolve from a wolf-like creature as you can see here:

So whatever animal at the first red marker near the top, looked nothing like a whale, but they have been able to track it back to that creature by following the changes over time.

Aha! My aha moment. Rubbing my hands together with an evil grin
If that belief changed, and was overturned five years from now, would you say you knew, or would you admit you really didn't know?
You would have no choice... embarrassing.

And that is a big difference, it is not based on pure guesses but by examining fossils.

Doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong. ...and religious belief isn't guessing. It's based on evidence.
That's the problem with atheist, and the mistake they make of thinking that science is the "know all" - the only way to truth.
That's scientism. The atheists' belief system - their religion.

Yes and if the scientific beliefs were just people guessing and having no clue whether it was true or not, that would be a massive issue. But luckily it isn't. How many lives do you think prayers have saved during the covid pandemic compared to a vaccine?

Religious investigation has nothing to do with praying, Madam Atheist.

No, of course not. I believe in the method and what the evidence shows. And lucky for us the field of science is designed in such a way, that it is self-correcting, so if something is wrong, someone will notice it at some point and correct it. I'm not qualified to evaluate whether a neuroscientist is saying is true or false. But lucky for me there are others that are and will call BS if that person makes poor science. So yes, in general, I do trust scientists, but not blindly. Also, a scientist might have little knowledge about a given field of science, for instance, I would have little trust in a biologist talking about something related to blackholes etc.

[Religion] is designed in such a way, that it is self-correcting, so if something is wrong, someone will notice it at some point and correct it.
What's the difference?

Again, I'm not and I highly suspect that you as well are not qualified to talk in great detail about the evolution of seeds either. So there is little point in me trying to guess how seeds came to be if there are people out there that have actually studied it and can back it up with evidence. So, yes, I believe that those actually having examined the evidence are correct and I would read their explanation if I were truly interested in knowing the evolution of seeds.

I don't believe, like you, in the evolution theory of the first seeds, you see.
That's why I asked you the question. I'm not interested in the beliefs scientists have about seeds. I know their beliefs, and if I didn't, I just have to open Chrome, or Firefox, and tap in a few words in the search bar, and tap the Enter key.

I was hoping to hear you explain, so that I could show you something, but it's okay.
You believe. I understand that.

 

[nPeace]

Well, I have read the bible and based on countless talks here on the forum, it is also very obvious that the majority of Christians don't actually believe what the bible says, but only parts of it.

Yup "Christians" are the majority. Not only here, but in the world.

This is why I do prefer for anyone I'm talking with to clarify what exactly they personally believe. Because JW does not believe the same as other Christians, and some Christians believe in hell while others don't, some believe the Earth is 6000 years old, while others don't etc. So even if I asked you to, you wouldn't be able to point me to a "Christian" because they come in many different forms and most of the time they disagree.

the evolutionary origin of the seed ... is poorly understood
I guess you would not be able to tell me anyway.

Of course, I would admit it if a scientist did it, but the majority of them, are very good at saying whether something is established science or whether it is merely a working theory.

Sure it is, but there is a huge difference between believing something because it is backed up by a rational explanation and one that isn't. If someone came and said that aliens are real, but provided no evidence at all, it is not rational to believe it. Again science is a process, it is not just some random person in a dark lab making up stuff and everyone agrees with it because he is wearing a white coat.

Neither is religion/ I'm not talking about all religion.

It is no different than if you made a crazy claim, then I wouldn't believe you either unless you provided me with good enough evidence to convince me.

Solid evidence is good.

Yes, because so far no evidence for the other standpoint has been presented. But I'm open to them if people have some?

I don't agree, and I understand that many people have said the same about what you believe... including thousands of scientists, mind you.

Because that is what the evidence "seems to" indicate, there is no particular reason for that choice of words.

That some religious people believe that, is an afterthought as almost everything else, after science has figured it out. Just as Earth was the centre of the Universe, then Adam and Eve weren't really the first humans, then Earth was not really 6000 years old etc. Despite contradicting what the bible actually says. It is good that people adjust to it, but I'm not giving religion or the bible any credit for it.

No, according to the bible God can do anything, but likewise, according to the bible, nothing even remotely suggests that it is supposed to be understood as if God created animals through evolution, again that is an adjustment religious people have added later.

Yes. many religious folk say that, but that's not what I am talking about.
JWs do not believe God used evolution to form different life forms. Adaptation has its limits.
Scientists extrapolate on it.

The Bible talks about reproduction. Scientists came centuries later, and added to it.
The Bible didn't spell out everything about reproduction, like DNA passing on, etc., but scientists discovered what the Bible said..
(Acts 17:26) . . .he made out of one man every nation of men . . .

Spoiler

. ... and added to it... what they believe.

No, it is not a bad argument.

If we were talking about a human capable of making mistakes and wrong choices, then I agree it would be a terrible argument, because we know such things happen. But we are talking about an almighty God, which knows everything etc. And if such a being is capable of making mistakes, then the whole concept of God falls to the ground.

Sorry. No. If that's what you are talking about, then show me from the Bible, because, for one thing, that's not what I read. For another, I have not read of those mistakes being God's.
So you are talking about what you were told, and maybe what you think.

There is a lot of evidence, evolution is evidence of it being unguided. Which is why so many religious people do not like it. Some have come to terms with it, and that is where we get that God used evolution as his method excuse, which is better than nothing. Compare that to the evidence there is for it being guided, just give me one piece of evidence?

Evolution is not guided, so I cannot give you evidence of that.

The DNA in genes contain instructions for the processes of building everything - from skin to teeth, hair, semen, etc.
Sex is not an unguided process, and scientists do not know why there is sex.
The Bible on the other hand, tells us... “Be fruitful and become many... multiply."
All back at what scientists discovered - reproduction. It has a purpose.

No, that is not what I'm saying. But if we suddenly saw a snail driving around in a mobile home with small tires etc. then that would stand out as being designed rather than something natural. If God designed everything to be perfect, why would evolution be needed?

What? Sorry, can you explain that, in a way that it makes sense?

Yes, their cloth seems designed, and the humans themselves seem to remind an awfully lot about other apes, wonder why that is?

Ah. ...but you see, one of those is not human.
Gotcha! So you can't tell design just from looking at something, as you claimed. Designed things do not stand out, apart from undesigned things, as you are suggesting.
So, there must be another way.

Right. You don't see the "bolts" on this doll.

China's Most Lifelike Robot

They aren't visible.
Looking under the hood, gets us to the evidence for design.
However, you believe what you believe. It's all good.
I'm not here to change your belief.