Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Love and hate are a matter of opinion? God is a matter of opinion but leprechauns are a matter of fact? Did someone whack you over your head with a shillelagh?

....and the fact is that leprechauns don't exist, that they are fantasy figures. And my opinion is, that love and hate are real.

Again dishonesty in the way you interpreted what i said, deliberately changing it from the way I intended it to be interpreted.

Sapiens does not even know that what emotions are in his heart is a matter of opinion. You cannot be honest with such an attitude of pseudoscientific social darwinism, asserting to know as fact who is loving and hateful.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

You did not try it.

You cannot possibly know that. You'll just have to accept that I did. Contemplating God made me feel just like a monkey in a coconut tree. Deal with it.

This is serious, this is a big thing, the knowledge of good and evil is the original sin.

Isn't sin predicated on the ability to differentiate between right and wrong?

Until you can demonstrate how anyone can sin without knowing good from evil, I'll be obliged to regard original sin as a complete fraud.

When you make what is good, loving and beautiful into a fact, then you circumvent your emotions, and yes, you will feel high. You can try it, and it is shown true.

Your obtuse, poorly-reasoned, and badly articulated woo is no substitute for rational discourse.

You have to be a bit reasonable about what are matters of opinion, and what are matters of fact.

You're quite wrong about that. On both items.

Facts tend to be indisputable, so the reasonable thing to do is to accept them until they're proven to be false.

Meanwhile, opinions are a dime a dozen. I'm under no obligations whatsoever to respect an opinion that isn't supported by sound reason.

Religious opinions are especially execrable.

And love, hate, God, the soul, for those it is categorically a matter of opinion if they are real or not, because they choose.

That strikes me as erroneous. Love and hate are emotions that can be directly experienced.

Meanwhile, given the lack of evidence, it seems best to regard "God" as a concept and "the soul" as a bogus product being sold to the gullible by organized religion.

Whether planets, leprechauns, evolution, are real, those are matters of fact.

That doesn't even read as a coherent statement. Anyone reading this forum want to take a stab at diagramming that sentence?

Regardless of whether the fact is that they are real, or not real, it is categorically a matter of fact, because they are chosen, created.

Even if what you were trying to say made any sense (and I'm gathering that it doesn't and cannot), your writing is such a torturous mess that whatever meaningful ideas you might have brought to the discussion are doomed to be obscured.

There is a vast difference between merely asserting that something is created (or chosen) and demonstrating that your assertion is supported by facts. Clearly, it's a difference that you're struggling with.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That strikes me as erroneous. Love and hate are emotions that can be directly experienced.

Your insincere babbling is caused by that you regard what emotions are in your heart as a matter of fact.

Is beauty a matter of opinion?

Beauty is a LOVE of the way something looks.

Is the existence of love a matter of opinion?

 

[Sapiens]

....and the fact is that leprechauns don't exist, that they are fantasy figures. And my opinion is, that love and hate are real.

As far as I can tell leprechauns are as real and important as any deity that has ever been mentioned.

Again dishonesty in the way you interpreted what i said, deliberately changing it from the way I intended it to be interpreted.

I change nothing, if you are not capable of expressing yourself clearly, that is not my fault nor my responsibility.

How are you doing on that list of undefined and unreferenced pronouns that we need to make any sense at all of your posts? Not done yet? Well ... stop wasting time and get with it.

Sapiens does not even know that what emotions are in his heart is a matter of opinion.

That is a semantically empty sense, the objects and tenses are screwed up. Try again.

You cannot be honest with such an attitude of pseudoscientific social darwinism, asserting to know as fact who is loving and hateful.

I am not a believer in social Darwinism, but in your case I might be persuaded to make an exception.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

As far as I can tell leprechauns are as real and important as any deity that has ever been mentioned.

It is God the holy spirit, and the human spirit or soul, it is the same logical structure for both, as is clear by that the same word is used, spirit. The existence of both is a matter of faith and revelation, opinion, because they are both said to choose. And so it is also in common discourse, the law, and democracy, what the motivation of a decision is , what emotions are in somebody's heart, is categorically a matter of opinion. It is even still categorically a matter of opinion, what a fantasy figure leprechaun feels, while it is a fact that you have a leprechaun in your fantasy, if you are fantasizing about one.

NOBODY here believes you have any emotional depth, however entertaining anybody might think you are. You cannot have emotional depth when you regard it a scientific fact what emotions you have.

 

[Sapiens]

It is God the holy spirit, and the human spirit or soul, it is the same logical structure for both, as is clear by that the same word is used, spirit.

Here we go ... again, boring! Unsupported claims.

The existence of both is a matter of faith and revelation, opinion, because they are both said to choose.

Unsupported claim.

And so it is also in common discourse, the law, and democracy, what the motivation of a decision is , what emotions are in somebody's heart, is categorically a matter of opinion.

Unsupported claim.

It is even still categorically a matter of opinion, what a fantasy figure leprechaun feels, while it is a fact that you have a leprechaun in your fantasy, if you are fantasizing about one.

Unsupported claim.

NOBODY here believes you have any emotional depth, however entertaining anybody might think you are. You cannot have emotional depth when you regard it a scientific fact what emotions you have.

Here we go ... again, boring! Unsupported claims.

Can you ever support a claim ... or is making claims all you ever learned to do? Rather juvenile in my opinion.

BTW: Where is that list of identities, titles and references for all the pronouns you've been spewing?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Your insincere babbling is caused by that you regard what emotions are in your heart as a matter of fact.

You are free to assert that until you are blue in the face. You have not demonstrated it, nor can you.

Given that none of your posts rise above the level of diaper filling, this is not to be wondered at.

Is beauty a matter of opinion?

"Remember that the most beautiful things in the world are the most useless, peacocks and lilies for instance." ~ John Ruskin

Beauty is a LOVE of the way something looks.

So (if we follow your proclamation) the poetry of the Qur'an cannot possibly be beautiful to listen to. It can only be beautiful if one sees it written down as calligraphy. Correct?

Is the existence of love a matter of opinion?

Please demonstrate that love exists outside the human mind.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Please demonstrate that love exists outside the human mind.

You cannot demonstrate it in the human mind, the existence of it is a matter of opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Can you ever support a claim ... or is making claims all you ever learned to do? Rather juvenile in my opinion.

I took the trouble to substantiate that you were dishonest before, the result of providing the substance was zero. You request substantiation just so you can make work for me, it is meaningless.

 

[arajian]

We did not evolve from apes. Evolutionary scientists do not believe this and neither does anyone who has actually researched evolution. The African ape is actually our cousin, not our ancestor. While we do share similarities with the ape, scientists agree that we both had a common ancestor. That ancestor was not a "monkey" and it was not human. We're not quite sure what it was but science is working to figure that out. Just like it took 10,000 years for Christianity to fully develop and to have a savior and apostles, you have to give science equal time to search the cosmos and our own planet for the answers. Also, I'd like to add that just recently we discovered life on a comet. That life is proof that it is possible for celestial bodies to harbor life. They are effectively test tubes and the origins of humanity that science agrees on says we came from such a test tube. To reply to the person who said life "sprung up" it actually did not just spring up. In the "pillars of life" that we can observe in our universe there is life being created everyday. That life is simply carbon atoms bonding with other atoms to create single-celled organisms. We aren't claiming that there is or is not a God. No one can claim to know the truth about that. All we are doing is trying to get you to see the amazing FACTS that are in front of you. The choice is ultimately up to you, but just look at both sides first.

 

[Sapiens]

I took the trouble to substantiate that you were dishonest before, the result of providing the substance was zero. You request substantiation just so you can make work for me, it is meaningless.

You have substantiated nothing. You have created ways of ducking the issues by calling people names, not even very creative, unimaginative and typical.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have substantiated nothing. You have created ways of ducking the issues by calling people names, not even very creative, unimaginative and typical.

You read my story about how evolutionist deal with darwinism and nazism. I know how your sort operates.

 

[Sapiens]

You read my story about how evolutionist deal with darwinism and nazism. I know how your sort operates.

It appears that you see some monolithic evolutionist conspiracy that exists just to keep your truth from the world. That is not the case. If you want to engage in a useful dialectic you need to overcome your propensity for the use of undifferentiated pronouns such that "evolutionist" and learn to say specifically whom it is you are talking about. Similarly you need to move beyond "how your sort operates" or I will respond in kind discussing how rag heads (or is it towel heads?) operate.

Let's see now ... my Mama taught me the difference between a rag and a towel ... she said is was OK to use a rag to shine my shoes but that I should never use a towel for that purpose.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It appears that you see some monolithic evolutionist conspiracy that exists just to keep your truth from the world. That is not the case. If you want to engage in a useful dialectic you need to overcome your propensity for the use of undifferentiated pronouns such that "evolutionist" and learn to say specifically whom it is you are talking about. Similarly you need to move beyond "how your sort operates" or I will respond in kind discussing how rag heads (or is it towel heads?) operate.

Let's see now ... my Mama taught me the difference between a rag and a towel ... she said is was OK to use a rag to shine my shoes but that I should never use a towel for that purpose.

It certainly can be the case that millions of people together are wrong, as we can see with communism and nazism. And it is very obvious where evolution theory is wrong. Evolution theory is wrong because it fails to properly acknowledge that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. Things in the universe are chosen, freedom is real and relevant in our lives as well as in the universe in general. Evolutionists know this also, because the knowledge is a given, people come to know it naturally wherever they are born. The evolutionists know it, but they say something else. The rampant perfidity and sacrilege of evolutionists shows that they are liars, and again, it is very obvious where the fault is.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It certainly can be the case that millions of people together are wrong, as we can see with communism and nazism. And it is very obvious where evolution theory is wrong. Evolution theory is wrong because it fails to properly acknowledge that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. Things in the universe are chosen, freedom is real and relevant in our lives as well as in the universe in general. Evolutionists know this also, because the knowledge is a given, people come to know it naturally wherever they are born. The evolutionists know it, but they say something else. The rampant perfidity and sacrilege of evolutionists shows that they are liars, and again, it is very obvious where the fault is.

How is evolution compatible with "freedom"?

 

[Sapiens]

It certainly can be the case that millions of people together are wrong, as we can see with communism and nazism. And it is very obvious where evolution theory is wrong. Evolution theory is wrong because it fails to properly acknowledge that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

Please explain, it seems to me that the ToE acknowledges far more freedom than any religion does.

Things in the universe are chosen, freedom is real and relevant in our lives as well as in the universe in general.

I think we are all having trouble, once again, with your private definition of chosen.

I
Evolutionists know this also, because the knowledge is a given, people come to know it naturally wherever they are born.

Again with the pronouns. What knowledge? Given by whom? Given to whom?

The evolutionists know it, but they say something else.

What evolutionists? There is no central registry for the International Evolutionist Conspiracy.

The rampant perfidity and sacrilege of evolutionists shows that they are liars, and again, it is very obvious where the fault is.

It is only obvious to you. When only you can see something that no one else sees, especially when it involves morality or persecution, that usually means that you off your rocker.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think we are all having trouble, once again, with your private definition of chosen.

All wellknown evolutionist activists either deny free will of people is real, or give choosing a logic of being forced (compatibilism). And for the universe in general, any idea about freedom is generally absent. The concept of choosing that professional evolutionary biologists use is the same concept as used in artificial intelligence research. It is simply a routine for searching an optimal, a sorting mechanism with if else then logic gates. The result is forced by initial conditions. It is forced to turn out the way it does, there are no several ways in which it can turn out.

The only practically functional concept of free will where there are alternative courses of action available is the creationist concept of it. The spirit chooses and it is a matter of opinion that the spirit exists. By making it a matter of opinion what it is that does the actual choosing,the freedom in the concept is held in tact. Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion, resulting in a 1:1 descriptive model of what is evidenced. It is obvious that if we introduce any kind of force in the concept in regards to what it is that chooses, including the force of evidence, that then the freedom in the concept is lost. That is how love and hate, beauty and ugliness, God, the soul, are all categorically matters of opinion, and wholly distinct from fact.

That is why universally people use creationist logic in common discourse, that it is a fact what decisions are made, but an opinion what the motivation of a decision, what emotions are in somebody's heart. The law and democracy are also based on creationist logic of choosing.

And whenever the evolutionist idea of choosing is applied. it inevitably leads to societal disaster, because it provides no room whatsoever for subjectivity. This is how nazism with it's idea that people are predetermined by heredity, asserts as fact what the emotional disposition and worth of people is. When the evolutionist logic of being forced is used for the word choosing, then the motivation of the decision is the cause which forces the effect. And like any cause it can then simply be measured, so the emotions of people must be fact, and as worth is derived from emotions, worth is also a fact. It all becomes fact, and as by logic there is actually no room whatsoever for any opinion. That results in the typical coldhearted calculating nazi persona, which is obviously very similar to the stereotype of the coldhearted calculating scientist. The same sort of thing goes for communism and it's ideas of predetermined stages of evolutionary development of social order.

 

[Midnight Rain]

All wellknown evolutionist activists either deny free will of people is real, or give choosing a logic of being forced (compatibilism). And for the universe in general, any idea about freedom is generally absent. The concept of choosing that professional evolutionary biologists use is the same concept as used in artificial intelligence research. It is simply a routine for searching an optimal, a sorting mechanism with if else then logic gates. The result is forced by initial conditions. It is forced to turn out the way it does, there are no several ways in which it can turn out.

I am an evolutionist that believes in free will.

 

[Sapiens]

I am an evolutionist that believes in free will.

As am I, though in my case it is not a "belief" but rather an observation that it exists (which is what I expect Midnight Rain was getting at, but chose to use a colloquial shorthand).

 

[Sapiens]

All wellknown evolutionist activists

Once again, whom?

either deny free will of people is real, or give choosing a logic of being forced (compatibilism).

This is simply not true.

And for the universe in general, any idea about freedom is generally absent.

This is simply not true.

The concept of choosing that professional evolutionary biologists use is the same concept as used in artificial intelligence research.

I'd consider myself to be a "professional evolutionary biologist" (ret.) and I'd say that this is simply not true.

It is simply a routine for searching an optimal, a sorting mechanism with if else then logic gates. The result is forced by initial conditions. It is forced to turn out the way it does, there are no several ways in which it can turn out.

This is simply not true, there are a myriad of ways that it cann turn out, many completely unpredictable and unforseen.

The only practically functional concept of free will where there are alternative courses of action available is the creationist concept of it.

This is simply not true.

The spirit chooses and it is a matter of opinion that the spirit exists.

This is simply not true, there's no such thing as a "spirit."

By making it a matter of opinion what it is that does the actual choosing,the freedom in the concept is held in tact.

This is simply gibberish.

Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion, resulting in a 1:1 descriptive model of what is evidenced. It is obvious that if we introduce any kind of force in the concept in regards to what it is that chooses, including the force of evidence, that then the freedom in the concept is lost.

This is simply more of the same.

That is how love and hate, beauty and ugliness, God, the soul, are all categorically matters of opinion, and wholly distinct from fact.

Ipso facto, they're all bozos on that bus.

That is why universally people use creationist logic in common discourse, that it is a fact what decisions are made, but an opinion what the motivation of a decision, what emotions are in somebody's heart. The law and democracy are also based on creationist logic of choosing.

You need to buy yourself a dictionary and use it.

And whenever the evolutionist idea of choosing is applied. it inevitably leads to societal disaster, because it provides no room whatsoever for subjectivity. This is how nazism with it's idea that people are predetermined by heredity, asserts as fact what the emotional disposition and worth of people is. When the evolutionist logic of being forced is used for the word choosing, then the motivation of the decision is the cause which forces the effect.

This is simply not true, there is no evolutionist logic of being forced, except in your fevered brow.

And like any cause it can then simply be measured,

Please, tell us the measure of it. A mile? A gallon? An acre? an erg?

so the emotions of people must be fact, and as worth is derived from emotions, worth is also a fact. It all becomes fact, and as by logic there is actually no room whatsoever for any opinion.

Now you think that there are no opinions? Or did you mean options?

That results in the typical coldhearted calculating nazi persona, which is obviously very similar to the stereotype of the coldhearted calculating scientist.

How would you know? Have you had any personal experience with either?

The same sort of thing goes for communism and it's ideas of predetermined stages of evolutionary development of social order.

The Soviet Communists were not Darwinians but Lamarkians.