Evidence

[rational experiences]

If a human says I've used machines to study the paranormal.

And men adult designers say I use AI human images voices in conjunction with my machines. I design I control by biologies non stop thinking.

Father human first adult. Mother human first adult. Not theists. Not scientists. Not machine builders. Not reaction builders.

Gods highest greatest says our stories.

My baby life owns no ability to think by word explanation thesis.

Who my creator is. My baby self.

Basic truths.

Therefore no adult once a baby can say to me without lying my thesis owns your lifes presence. As you don't. No matter how intelligent you claim you are.

Therefore if we get life recorded as we live. Humans built machine sciences as human baby man adult designed who built. Is it any wonder you sacrificed life? Your baby self wasn't guilty your adult self is.

No it isn't. He says. Adults before me are at fault.

So half waters origin heavens mass owning living microbiology was carbonised then saved by living water. Recording introduced half of our full term life gone.

Half bio water mass gone then another portion of water evaporation used to cover over the machine caused carbon effect. Why humans now don't even live to 100.

200 years once the life bio span.

If we know our parents came out of eternal straight into the waters heavens. They did.

You have to be a human to be recorded. As the designer causer was human man.

Pretty basic advice.

If we live surviving we live we die we decompose then skeletal dusts the end convert into dusts like god earth.

Proving beyond doubt gods mass O planet gods had been with the eternal also. It is our exact proof.

We are still involved within the activated conversion.

It's why any human theists think. Then says it seems our heavens is reacting changing our biology.

It's because the reaction hasn't ended yet. As UFO attack as a conjured machine proves. The machines mass time shifted as the machines reactions were followed as many elements of the machine as a removal.

Also basic advice.

So of course phenomenas is machine involved yet also human witnessed in the presence of it's designer who caused it...humans.

 

[rational experiences]

Evolution is the testable proposed mechanism for the data we have.
When tested, it checks out.

There is no other proposed mechanism with equal, let alone better, results.

Say that advice to your human adult creator a human baby. Who proves you wrong.

We healed we returned to our absolute selves having suffered human mutations.

Sex natural selection gives the best result between man to woman's DNA. Sexual intercourse isn't data.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Have you not noticed that the human population has been continually growing especially over the last 300 years? Do you think that that might have something to do with it?

Of course it has..
The population has been rising too quickly, and is not sustainable, but why?

It has a lot to do with the industrial revolution that started off in the "West".
50% of the pop. is now dependent on oil to make artificial fertiliser, without which the pop. cannot be sustained.

It might have looked good at the time, but industrial scale food production is not sustainable, and neither is our way of life with its increasing urbanisation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You can't be certain, because Gods aren't know to exist..

I can be certain..
It has nothing to do with physical detection of gods.
I see that there is a reason for why the world is as it is.
It is not just driven by uncertainty, but by mankind's behaviour, and that in turn is driven by our philosophies and way of life.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Reasonable people must therefore conclude that all of these passages in the apocryphal gospels are the foundation for the Quranic passages analyzed in the last four sections.

Therefore, Allah through Gabriel did not send any of these legends down to Muhammad. They came from defective human sources. ​

Oh dear..
Who is to say that these "apocryphal gospels" do not contain some truth?
Why is it that the Bible canon which was chosen by men, is the only truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

[wellwisher]

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
Evolution is the testable proposed mechanism for the data we have.
When tested, it checks out.

There is no other proposed mechanism with equal, let alone better, results.

Say that advice to your human adult creator a human baby. Who proves you wrong.

We healed we returned to our absolute selves having suffered human mutations.

Sex natural selection gives the best result between man to woman's DNA. Sexual intercourse isn't data.

The problem is Evolutionary theory cannot predict the future, but can only correlate the past. This is not a real theory, but a good correlation.

As an example, say we gather the data about every person who ever won a lottery. We have all the lottery fossils that came before today. We can correlate this data into a catalog as a function of time. If we just stay in the catalog it all seems to check out. But, like evolution, we cannot be extrapolate this data to the future, so we can know who will be the next winner.

As long as you stick to the old data, we can pretend to have it under control. You can arrange the catalog anyway you wish. This is more of a mind game, than a rational theory. Genuine cause and affect will be needed to extrapolate to the future. If cause is replaced by Lady Luck, we may not know the affect since the gods are fickle.

If Lady Luck is the cause, in both lotteries and evolution, what is the science behind Lady Luck, so we can know her mind and what she will do next? How does she differ from God? The religious assume God is the cause for the affect ,that we call all modern animals. How does lady luck differ? The Lady Luck approach cannot even fill in missing links between data; where we have no data. If I left out a few lottery winners from 5 years ago, that correlation will also be stumped to fill them in. It will be all speculation.

I would downgrade the Theory of Evolution to the Correlation of Evolution, until it can predict the future, successfully. The reason we need or do this, is now can rest on its laurels, as being more than it really is. It really needs to go back to the drawing board, so the correlation can evolve and make rational predictions. If you cannot predict the future or the gaps, the theory falsifies itself. Use the current theory, make a prediction, and if it fails, we junk it. Or go back, make it better, and then we run the test.

There are ways to improve the theory so it is not just a magic trick. For example, the second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. While entropy has been found to be a state variable. Any given state of matter will have a constant entropy. Life can be modeled as a state. Evolution should be connected to increasing entropy, jumping from stable state to stable state as entropy increases. Stable states persist, while unstable states will disappear or evolve into stable states. This can be correlated to water. Increasing entropy has a direction; higher and higher over time. Lady Luck has no sense of direction. The former has the potential to be a theory, while the latter is stuck at correlation; nilly willy.

 

[PearlSeeker]

common sense: good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
what is common sense - Google Search

What is common sense vs. not common sense is only a subjective personal opinion.
It is not a fact because it cannot be proven that someone has good sense and sound judgment'
It is a personal opinion and nothing more.

Common sense is based on familiarity and experience, not critical analysis or logic. It was only when people began abandoning commonsenical explanations that human knowledge of the how and why of the world worked skyrocketed. Abandoning common sense was behind the scientific and technological revolution.
Religion, on the other hand, hasn't made much progress at all.

I always thought common sense (in my language "healthy peasant brain") means using your brain, logical thinking, empirical realism... independent of any education... as exemplified by Sancho Panza.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Their claim is that organism (eye for example) evolved by the specific mechanism that we call “the Darwinian mechanism”……….. which obviously doesn’t include all naturalistic alternatives

You seem to see a problem there that I don't. And you told me previously that you had no larger point but to point out that we can't be certain that the eye evolved naturalistically, with which I agreed. Now you're introducing the possibility that evolution didn't occur by the application of natural selection to genetic variation, and though you have named a few terms from genetics, haven't explained how that is not also the application of natural selection to genetic variation. The problem for me is that I don't know why you are litigating this position and it seems that there is more to it than you admit to. At one point, you boiled it down to two statements with which I agreed. Now, there's more. I am trying to accommodate you by cooperating, but I really don't know where you're going with this or why. I can't help but assume that your actual agenda is pro-creationism, anti-evolutionary science. That's fine if it is. Or maybe you don't know what your purpose or goal is here.

The problem is Evolutionary theory cannot predict the future, but can only correlate the past.

You also see non-problems and call them problems. It's a common theme with the faithful - the science that contradicts their beliefs is described as being inadequate if not outright in crisis. They behave as if there is controversy among the scientists about saving this science from their criticisms, which they don't even hear. The theory is fine. And you are incorrect about the theory making no predictions. It predicts that the tree of life will continue evolving indefinitely. It predicts that evolution will occur more quickly with changes in habitat. It predicts that medical studies of similar animals will have application in man. All scientific theories are predictive because they are falsifiable. The theory predicts what kind of living things may be found in nature and what may not, such as irreducible complexity - a falsifying find if ever it were encountered. The theory essentially says that it will never be falsified, a correct prediction to date.

Rational minds know that the standards of evidence for religion can never be the same as the standards of evidence for science and law. This is basic logic.

Rational minds know not to believe without adequate evidentiary support, which is physical. Evidence is that which is evident to the senses. What it is evidence of requires intelligence. It needn't be much. Most human minds can learn what a red traffic light signifies, but get bogged down with higher order analysis, which is what this thread is about in large part - what constitutes sufficient evidence to believe in a deity.

Skilled critical thinkers understand that the standard for belief is evidence that justifies that belief according to the rules of critical analysis and empiricism. They understand that when one relaxes those standards, he is no longer tethered to reality - just imagination - and he can believe anything. The critical thinker understands that when the believer claims that something exists but cannot be detected in any place at any time, that he is describing the nonexistent.

Civilisations rise and fall. You cannot see the doom just round the corner, because you have no spiritual eyes. You just see how "smart" mankind is today, and all of their material achievements. ..not long to go now .. only a few years .. life is only going to get worse, before it gets better. We cannot "cheat" and trade carbon, and expect climate-change to reverse.

So gloomy an outlook. Is there nothing good about your life and world? If so, you never discuss it - just this kind of thing. But it is to be expected among Abrahamics, whose theology is one of rescue from a hostile world including the one it posits for the afterlife. I've told you about the Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my door and began with the hell-in-a-handbasket meme, and were unexpectedly stymied when I told them that life is good for many. I also told you about the RF Witness who became angry with me for holding that position, and called me selfish for being happy in a world where many are not. That's what decades of these nihilistic theologies does to some people.

Regarding life getting worse before it gets better, are you suggesting a religious worldview can help with that? Is that why you mentioned it here? Here are a few now with some sage advice right from the pulpit to you:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

• "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

the world is a "bunch of nonsense".

You've been lied to. You've been taught to displace your spiritual intuitions from nature to an imagined place inhabited by imagined spirits. Spirituality has nothing to do with spirits, but it does have to do with a sense of connection and belonging. The spiritual humanist like many of the Dharmics and pagans has his gaze fixed on his world, which he wanders mindfully. Spirituality is found in gardening and contemplating the night sky - connecting activities. These religions that have created a god, separated it from nature, and tell its adherents that that is where spirituality is found, have many people living like they're at a bus stop waiting to be carted off to something better. By my definition of authentic spiritual intuitions involving a sense of connection and belonging to our world, this would be the opposite of that.

this material world is but a semblance of reality.

And another whose attention has been redirected from here to nowhere. Reality isn't enough for you anymore, is it?

I would not go to an Athiest site and start telling the Athiest how illogical and unreasonable they are.

You're at an atheist site doing just that. Or did you think that Religious Forums means it's for religious people. What would this site look like without the humanists? Where would this thread have ended? Post 4? So what keeps YOU coming back to disagree with atheists rather than finding a Baha'i site?

I came to this site as it says it is a "Religious Forum".

Now you know better, and you're still here.

 

[leroy]

Evolution is the testable proposed mechanism for the data we have.
When tested, it checks out.

There is no other proposed mechanism with equal, let alone better, results.

Let me guess

1 you wont define evolution

2 you will not quote any of those tests

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it has..
The population has been rising too quickly, and is not sustainable, but why?

It has a lot to do with the industrial revolution that started off in the "West".
50% of the pop. is now dependent on oil to make artificial fertiliser, without which the pop. cannot be sustained.

It might have looked good at the time, but industrial scale food production is not sustainable, and neither is our way of life with its increasing urbanisation.

And you just admitted that your prior post was pointless. Can you at least try to make a rational argument?

 

[leroy]

Again...................................

Evolution is the proposed testable mechanism by which populations evolve.
When tested, it checks out.

There is no other mechanism known that achieves equal, let alone better, results.

And you should know better by now... nobody on our side of the fence has ever said anything about "certainty". Au contraire... if anything, whenever that subject was touched upon, it was to make clear that science doesn't deal in certainties.

But we know by now that you have a bad habit of arguing strawmen and misrepresenting your "opponents".
You seem incapable of honest discourse.

arguing strawmen

Well firs you said “Darwinian mechanism” and then you changed to a wider term “evolution”………….my assumption based would be that you are wrongly using her term as if they were synonymous……….because the alternative would be that you are dishonestly changing the words such that you know mean something different form your original claim


But IF I am wrong then I am wrong , and I would apologize for the straw man.

All I am saying is that we don’t have conclusive evidence that shows that organisms evolve mainly through random mutation + natural selection (this is just one of many alternatives proposed in the literature)

Do you dispuspute this point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can be certain..
It has nothing to do with physical detection of gods.
I see that there is a reason for why the world is as it is.
It is not just driven by uncertainty, but by mankind's behaviour, and that in turn is driven by our philosophies and way of life.

You can have an irrational certainty. You do not have a rational one.

 

[leroy]

Yo

You seem to see a problem there that I don't. And you told me previously that you had no larger point but to point out that we can't be certain that the eye evolved naturalistically, with which I agreed. Now you're introducing the possibility that evolution didn't occur by the application of natural selection to genetic variation, and though you have named a few terms from genetics, haven't explained how that is not also the application of natural selection to genetic variation. The problem for me is that I don't know why you are litigating this position and it seems that there is more to it than you admit to. At one point, you boiled it down to two statements with which I agreed. Now, there's more. I am trying to accommodate you by cooperating, but I really don't know where you're going with this or why. I can't help but assume that your actual agenda is pro-creationism, anti-evolutionary science. That's fine if it is. Or maybe you don't know what your purpose or goal is here.

e.

All I am saying is that we dont have conclusive evidnece that organisms evolve by the so called Darwinian mechanisms (random variation + NS) …….. other alternatives are being discussed in the literature, and nobody claims to have an answer.

I had the impression that you agreed with this claim………. If not feel free to correct me

 

[F1fan]

Rational minds know that the standards of evidence for religion can never be the same as the standards of evidence for science and law. This is basic logic.

So your "basic logic" is OK with a low standard for deciding a God exists, but high for legal matters? How does that make sense? Why is your personal belief so cheap, but science so exceptional? Shouldn't your personal beliefs be high as possible as a foundation os self-respect?

Yes, the testimonials from those meetings and what they experienced...

Luke 24:34 “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

Jesus Appears to the Disciples
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

Acts1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
​

Do Baha'is believe these testimonies in the NT. I don't think they do.

This seems part of the low standard for thinking that some believers admit to. In science when a person collects data they HAVE to account for ALL the data, they can't pick what they want to bolster the conclusion they want. Religion is the complete opposite where subjectivity is encouraged , and this help preinforce cconclusions and beliefs that would be otherwise challenged by other texts. This discussion has revealed the rampant subjectivity in religious thinking, and the indifference to fact and objectivity that is crucial to critical thought and valid conclusions. Oddly this is like a perry Mason moment where the accused confesses on the stand, but then tries to justify the murder. "All the believers have a low standard, so it's OK". And all children believe in Santa Claus, so it's real.

I always thought common sense (in my language "healthy peasant brain") means using your brain, logical thinking, empirical realism... independent of any education... as exemplified by Sancho Panza.

Back on the old Beliefnet boards there was a guy who made a devastating argument against common sense. I wish I could remember what it was in more detail. But his point was that what is "common" is highly subjective and open to loads of cultural bias and prejudice. Ideally the notion of common sense means some sort of casual skill at reasoning that is generally reliable, and comes after a history of mistakes and learning from those mistakes, and exhibits a respected wisdom. From what I observe those who are poor at reasoning have appropriated the phrase "common sense" as they have related words like logic and knowledge to improperly use in their defenses for bad thinking. Again it all falls back on high cognitive skill at thinking, and self-awareness where it comes to personal bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well firs you said “Darwinian mechanism” and then you changed to a wider term “evolution”………….my assumption based would be that you are wrongly using her term as if they were synonymous……….because the alternative would be that you are dishonestly changing the words such that you know mean something different form your original claim


But IF I am wrong then I am wrong , and I would apologize for the straw man.

All I am saying is that we don’t have conclusive evidence that shows that organisms evolve mainly through random mutation + natural selection (this is just one of many alternatives proposed in the literature)

Do you dispuspute this point?

The science has moved on past just natural selection and random variation. That does not mean that variation and selection are not still the two main forces behind evolution. But due to at least several other driving forces scientists are unwilling to limit it to just the two that Darwin found.

 

[River Sea]

Exodus simply didn't happen.

@Polymath257 What if the Indus Valley Exodus took place when the Yadavas-Hebrews fled for Canaan, Yisrael?

 

[leroy]

The science has moved on past just natural selection and random variation. That does not mean that variation and selection are not still the two main forces behind evolution. But due to at least several other driving forces scientists are unwilling to limit it to just the two that Darwin found.

Well I don’t grant that these forces are the main forces,……….is there any proper source that suggest otherwise?

 

[muhammad_isa]

And you just admitted that your prior post was pointless..

..nothing pointless about it .. the reason why we are in a mess, is due to "the west" turning away from God, and towards a materialistic philosophy.
How many people go to church on Sundays?

..most people these days, just want the "market place" to be open 24/7, and have no time for much else.

..just saying "population", as if that is the cause why we are in a mess is false.
Why has the population increased so quickly?
The industrial revolution, which was financed by usury, which has become the global norm.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you think?
The truth is, that we will all die, and return to our Maker.

You have been informed of the truth .. so maybe one day, when you find that it is true, you will know why it is called truth.

Is it? How did you determine that?
From where I sit, it's just a claim.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You can have an irrational certainty. You do not have a rational one.

I am just as rational as anybody else.
I know that mankind is responsible for climate-change.
You can deny it as much as you like.

Some people believe that it is caused by mankind .. they quote scientific evidence.
I have similar evidence, as to the root cause behind it all.
USURY
Almighty God has forbidden usury, and encourages almsgiving.

It is no coincidence .. it is truth.