Claims vs. Beliefs

[Sheldon]

If we were solely flesh and bones you could bring people back to life easily I would think. Just another piece of machinery.

it is a fact we are flesh and bone, if you want to add something supernatural you will need to demonstrate something approaching sufficient objective evidence for your claim, Occam's razor applies.

No one has claimed humans are machines, so this appears to be just a straw man you've created.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So no then, you are not qualified to critically refute scientific evidence for evolution.



Yes, I don't however believe the best way to determine what is objectively true, is by a subjective and unevidenced claim to have a hotline to a deity, this is so obviously the antithesis of objective, that I find the claim risible.



Like species evolution then.

Just curious to know what your work is and area of expertise ?

 

[Valjean]

My qualifications are from God I said, qualified to discern Truth from error. You do believe there is objective truth, correct? Meaning something that is true for everyone.

What evidence do you have for these divine qualifications?

If human beings were comprised just of flesh, bones and had no soul or spirit, we could just replace bad parts when they go bad or stop working like if you were to drown and keep living. But the spiritual law doesn’t work that way, once a person dies and there soul and spirit leave the body that’s it unless God intervenes.

As has been pointed out to you, these claims of spiritual laws, souls, and God are unevidenced. You can repeat these claims endlessly, but without proffering evidence, you're just preaching.

 

[Sheldon]

Just curious to know what your work is and area of expertise ?

I'm not an evolutionary biologist or scientist, if that's where you are heading.

 

[Valjean]

You really don’t know anything of 200k years ago because that’s subjective from a naturalistic point of view. Is there any historical record written to verify any of your interpretations? What year was written and recorded information found approximately?

You're choosing to ignore inconvenient evidence: objective, demonstrable, testable evidence. You're asking for a historical (written, testimonial) record, which clearly doesn't exist from the period in question. Moreover, those historical records that do exist, from recent millennia, are many, varied, and questionable.

I’m not talking about a transplant on a living human being, I’m saying once a person’s spirit and soul leave their body there is no bringing them back to life like they were, you can keep them alive by machine. But unless God supernaturally returned their soul and spirit to that body, they aren’t coming back.

Again, this is an unevidenced, personal opinion.

If we were solely flesh and bones you could bring people back to life easily I would think. Just another piece of machinery.

Machinery whose many essential parts break irreparably within minutes of the breakdown of any single essential organ or system.
A biological organism isn't like a watch, that will sit unchanging when a given part fails, and resume function when the part's replaced.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ok so I wasn’t familiar with neutrinos and looked at some information, because these are hard to detect I’m not sure how this would make the concept of the supernatural break down?

The supernatural realm is described as simultaneously being causally connected to the natural world (God can perform miracles in it), and so disconnected from it that it cannot be detected by any means.

The neutrinos illustrate that as matter becomes less able to impact its surrounding, it is less detectable. Taken to the extreme, imagine ghost particles that did not interact with matter at all. They can't be seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted even with machines as large as the Large Hadron Collider because they don't modify physical reality, which also means they can't affect it. The idea of a realm that can affect nature, but not register on its sensors, is incoherent. The idea that such a thing could exist and we know it is incoherent. The idea that there is a path from here to there (heaven), that we could someday be there, but that heaven is unfindable from here even in theory is incoherent.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did I remotely say that? If you mean to say you were wrong in one of those claims just say that, rather then suggest I am wrong to highlight the contradiction.

The only thing you were wrong about was in posting what I said out or the order in which I said it.
I was not wrong in one of those posts, what happened is that I changed my mind.
Every moment is a snapshot in time....
It is not a contradiction when someone changes their mind from what they were thinking before.
I might change my mind again, I cannot say that I won't. Only God knows the future.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The supernatural realm is described as simultaneously being causally connected to the natural world (God can perform miracles in it), and so disconnected from it that it cannot be detected by any means.

This isn’t accurate, God is intimately connected to His creation, He gave authority to mankind to take care of and fellowship with. We rebelled and as a result broke fellowship with God, sin and death was the result. God kept speaking through the Prophets about how He would send His Son. He did come in the flesh. When He rose from the dead and went to Heaven He sent His Spirit to lead and guide us, teach us, enable us to communicate to God the Father through prayer and His Word. He said He was going to return and shared the signs before this would happen. There’s much more but this is all written in the Bible. The naturalistic comments only confirm this scripture to me.
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭2:12-14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[ElishaElijah]

Machinery whose many essential parts break irreparably within minutes of the breakdown of any single essential organ or system.
A biological organism isn't like a watch, that will sit unchanging when a given part fails, and resume function when the part's replaced.

Yet you’re saying in abiogenesis and evolution these organisms can do much much more on their own with no outside assistance.
Life is fragile and complex, I will give you a fully developed newborn baby, put that child out in the middle of the ideal environment by itself and see what happens. Let evolution do it’s thing, what would happen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you’re saying in abiogenesis and evolution these organisms can do much much more on their own with no outside assistance.
Life is fragile and complex, I will give you a fully developed newborn baby, put that child out in the middle of the ideal environment by itself and see what happens. Let evolution do it’s thing, what would happen?

You are failing at making a proper analogy.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You are failing at making a proper analogy.

Biology is biology, the organisms are much more advanced now, yet can’t survive on their own, at least not human life. That’s what we are talking about, going from some small organism to advancing to what we have currently, all by itself.

 

[Valjean]

Biology is biology, the organisms are much more advanced now, yet can’t survive on their own, at least not human life. That’s what we are talking about, going from some small organism to advancing to what we have currently, all by itself.

Huh? I'm not following.
Evolution is not advancement, it's adaptation. A mammal today is no more 'advanced' than a mammal from the age of dinosaurs. A human is no more advanced than the cat on his lap.

"Survive on their own?" What does that mean? Are you trying to make some analogy from childhood helplessness?
Please clarify.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biology is biology, the organisms are much more advanced now, yet can’t survive on their own, at least not human life. That’s what we are talking about, going from some small organism to advancing to what we have currently, all by itself.

After a point there is no "advancement" in evolution. And your poor example fails because I can do the same with a baby and test the Christian God in that way. Would your Christian God rescue the baby? It would not do that any more than evolution would. If you want to use analogies you need to learn how to use them correctly.

The mechanism of how life changes is well understood. There does not seem to be a God needed. Nor has any believer in ID found any evidence for a God.

By the way, why are you so hung up on evolution? Evolution only refutes false versions of Christianity. It does not refute all of Christianity. And if you are a YEC why aren't you a Flat Earther? If you understood the Bible you would see that it is a Flat Earth book.

 

[ElishaElijah]

After a point there is no "advancement" in evolution.

That’s problematic to the cause

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s problematic to the cause

Not at all. It is problematic only to your strawman version of evolution.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Huh? I'm not following.
Evolution is not advancement, it's adaptation. A mammal today is no more 'advanced' than a mammal from the age of dinosaurs. A human is no more advanced than the cat on his lap.

"Survive on their own?" What does that mean? Are you trying to make some analogy from childhood helplessness?
Please clarify.

An organism supposedly adapted and I would call it advanced from a simple form to a much more complex life form that we see today, but if you take the updated product of evolution you would think it would be able to adapt to any environment you put it in. But that’s not the case, a healthy person drowns and after 20 minutes without a lot of help will not revive and be dead.
The first organisms were much more fragile and in what environment, not a friendly one I can imagine, yet you are convinced this happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An organism supposedly adapted and I would call it advanced from a simple form to a much more complex life form that we see today, but if you take the updated product of evolution you would think it would be able to adapt to any environment you put it in. But that’s not the case, a healthy person drowns and after 20 minutes without a lot of help will not revive and be dead.
The first organisms were much more fragile and in what environment, not a friendly one I can imagine, yet you are convinced this happened.

Sorry, evolution does not work that way. What you propose could only occur if there was some intelligence driving the process. That we do not see it is evidence against ID.

 

[Valjean]

That’s problematic to the cause

Huh?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Huh?

What’s the deal with this? Old news, is it true they staged the photo’s?
Lying Evolutionary Art, The Peppered Moth

 

[ElishaElijah]

Sorry, evolution does not work that way. What you propose could only occur if there was some intelligence driving the process. That we do not see it is evidence against ID.

Is this old news that’s been corrected?ERNST HAECKEL EMBRYO DRAWING A FRAUD– STILL USED IN TEXTBOOKS – Evolution is a Myth