-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based
- Thread starter Patriottechsan
- Start date
sooda
Veteran Member
The Lord created the 'Heavens, and Earth and all the laws that surround us. Nothing was created by
evolution or chance but according to His exact and balanced DESIGN. All things including TIME (Prophecy)
have been designed by HIM. ALL sciences and all truths come from HIM. All mysteries and all truths can
and will be revealed. Nothing is hidden from HIM or without His Permission. On our website, each topic or
article in each sub-board should help relate back to His truth, for HE is the TRUTH.
index
sooda
Veteran Member
I just posted a link.. He's very weird.
Wonder why its so important for creationists to deny science.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Evolution, according to science is a process of change. It has no sense of direction. It begins with the first DNA and RNA replicators. The replicators are strands of DNA or RNA,capable of self duplication. Evolution does not address the initial formation of the first replicators, from basic simple chemicals. This is a separate area of science, called Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis and Evolution are not the same thing. Darwin started with living things that could replicate. Darwin did not deal with abiogenesis.
Creationism has the same basic divide. Genesis is the formation of life from scratch, which is similar to Abiogenesis, or vice versa. After Genesis, there is then genealogy, which is analogous to the Evolution of a branch of humans and domesticated species. The ancients could see how parental DNA; called bloodline, formed similar, but sometimes, different offspring. Periodically, a top notched king would appear but with variations along the way.
The ancients were well aware of the principles of evolution, in that animals and humans have sex and make offspring. These offspring could be made to evolve; change or persist, by natural and artificial selection; selective and/or natural breeding. Genealogy or blood line breeds using the same root human DNA, down the generations, with the hope of maintaining certain advantages. Creationism agrees with Evolution, in terms of what comes after Genesis; selective breeding to accelerate and/or narrow evolutionary change.
Where Creationism differs from Science, is more connected to Genesis versus Abiogenesis. The problem with Abiogenesis is, this science theory has never been fully confirmed in the lab. They have never made life from scratch, to know if the theory is fully correct. There is still faith involved. They have faith that one day this will work and be proven. Creationism has a similar faith in its Genesis path.
Abiogenesis, makes use of a modern science godlike output, called random event. Where does a random event come from? How do you explain a key and needed random event to form life, with logic? This is mysticism, disguised as science, but without a rational explanation for the physics of how random works.
This God of random has no plan, but through departure and accidents can make useful and critical things happen. This is a strange god, who is sort of an idiot savant. He is not rational, but he does has the power to alter the universe. He may have been modeled, as an idiot savant, to make him more under the thumb of humans, since humans can plan and use reason. He may be an atheist compromise in terms of mythical need and censorship.
The debate is really whether the god of Genesis or of the god Abiogenesis is the true god, Did the god, behind life, have a plan, or was he more of gambler, playing slot machines, winning the mega jackpot called life. The God of random is very lucky at time. The God of Hosts does not gamble but has a system to beat the house. Einstein did not believe in a God of dice. He was more for a god who plans with logic, but even better than humans. This was atheist blaspheme, but since Einstein was a genius and he was older, he was grandfathered in.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
Could be.
But that's the sadness of the whole thing. It's impossible to differentiate between a "devil's advocate joker" and a real dyed in the wool Fundie.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
As the mythologist Joseph Campbell once explained, eternity is not a long time, it is a transcendence of time. The only way you can experience eternity is in the here and now.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
The evolutionary process is an example of the historical unfolding of complex, adaptive systems. I believe that such systems exist at every level of the Universe. I hypothesize that the origin of the Universe is of a similar nature. Recently I suggested that the quantum layer is one that might straddle the boundary of our Universe with its "classical" interior and its "modern" fringe.
At some point time comes in as a property of the Universe. I believe that there is likely a reality outside of the Universe and time, so in a sense I would say I believe in the existence of the eternal, that is, the existence of a reality transcendent of time.
ecco
Veteran Member
Looking at his website shows there isn't a woo topic that Mr Jordan doesn't believe in.
ecco
Veteran Member
That confidence of science is based on the fact that many other "mysteries" have been solved by science.
That is unlike the faith that people put into Genesis which fails repeatedly at explaining nature.
I'm sure you know the difference. But, on the off chance that no one has ever explained it to you...
faith
/fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine"she gave her life for her faith"
You would be well advised to not conflate the two in the future. /fāTH/
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine"she gave her life for her faith"
That's a really good example of what we have come to expect from Fundies: a God who is an atheist...
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yes, you have made it quite clear that you are not remotely interested in either listening or learning. We know.
Science lights up our homes at night, has put men on the moon and brought them home, and has conquered polio and small pox. Science makes our lives longer (80 is the new 60), healthier, more functional (eyeglasses were a great invention), more comfortable, more efficient (especially in communication and transportation), easier, and more interesting, as with this activity we're participating in now involving computers, fiberoptic and electric cables, radio communication, and satellites.
What more do you need to understand that science works? It's proven itself already. Consensus isn't how science validates itself. The success of its ideas is what does that.
Your purpose seems to be to convince others to abandon certain scientific explanations and substitute religious ones. Why would we do that? Such ideas can't be used for anything.
What truth do you think the religions have offered the world? Between science which path generates light, and which can only sustain itself by offering mankind myths comforting to those who need them to be comfortable?Science might not have all of the answers, but religion offers none.
Can you give me a single religious idea that is useful, one that somebody who copes without a god belief or a religion can use to make his life better? I don't think you can.
Man will eventually outperform nature in this area as he already has in so many others. Man makes better corn than nature. And I love what we've done with dogs. Nature has no idea how to make an electric drill, but man does.
Why do so many of religions deprecate mankind? Since one gets to choose to believe whatever he wants if he uses faith to justify his beliefs, why not choose or invent an upbeat religion? Christianity is depressing. Sin this, perdition that, wrath of God and hellfire the other. My worldview would have to be optimistic and uplifting, which is in part why I prefer it to these gloomy religions.
You might like to give it a try. If the secular part frightens you, throw in a god, but make it less angry. Pretend that the Affirmations of Humanism come from some unseen, remote conscious source that you can pray to if you prefer that. Give it the kind of god that you or I would be if we had that job. I would end suffering. All would be welcome. I would have no use for ideas like sin, and no more need to judge or punish any sentient being.
Yet there is no evidence that any intelligent designer existed before intelligence evolved on earth. The universe has no apparent need for one.
Still stuck on this? Nobody here appears to care what the opinions of anybody else are except you. The critical thinker arrives at his own opinions independently. He may read and consider the opinions of others, but unless they ring true and become his own, they are rejected.
The tiny fraction of scientists that have a problem with evolution are irrelevant to the scientific community and those who respect and understand science, and not because the numbers of such anomalous outliers are so small, but because their argument is so weak. Their claims, which are essentially the same as your own incredulity fallacies, are not compelling. What difference should it make to somebody like you or me that a given scientist can't imagine how nature could have evolved to its present state without help from a conscious, intelligent agent?
When I quote a source, it's either because I agree with the point made and am giving attribution to its original source rather than paraphrasing him or her, or because I think the comment is wrong or absurd - not because I expect you or anybody else to treat my source as authoritative. It could well be somebody neither of us has ever heard of or knows anything about.
Your quotes are ineffective. You've revealed no fraud in science, and even if you had, unless it was systematic throughout science and typified the field, it would also be irrelevant. Creationists like to bring out Piltdown man, a bona fide fraud. Still irrelevant, and hasn't slowed science down by even a step, nor damaged its excellent reputation as the only reliable source of knowledge about reality and how it works.
The fraud is creationism. It's an idea with all of the credentials of an incorrect one - it can be used for nothing, it predicts nothing, it explains nothing. It's astrology with a god thrown in. What else do you need to know to abandon such a belief?
You know, you open the door to this kind of response when you accuse others of fraud and dishonesty. You are inviting others to focus on the fraud and dishonesty in your religion, something this poster had no incentive to comment on until I read you scurrilous accusations..
Logic isn't your strong suit.
Sorry to read about your unpleasant childhood.
Faith isn't a virtue. It is merely the will to believe something because it satisfies some need to do so. How is that more virtuous than being willing to stick a pencil in your idea or to believe that you can fly by willing yourself to do so?
Claiming functional design is a creationist deception. There is no evidence that the universe or the life in it was designed or serves any intended function.
So you don't like the Big Bang, either? And by sheer coincidence, it also contradicts your religious beliefs. What are the odds?
Still stuck on proof? We don't need proof - just supporting evidence. Of course, you need neither to believe, despite demanding it from others. We don't need to know that something is possible to explore its possibility. It's enough that we don't know that it is impossible.
And it likely never will be, even if science comes up with one or more pathways that atoms and simple molecules might have taken to spontaneously self-organize into the first life. How could we ever confirm that this was the path nature took?
You used the word problem, but this is not a problem for science in the sense of threatening its validity or its authority as the only reliable method man has for studying, understanding, and predicting the behavior of physical reality. It's only a problem in the sense that this matter may remain an unanswered question indefinitely.
No. Faith is not a part of science, which is why it has been so spectacularly successful. Faith has not generated useful ideas, but science has again and again. No faith is required to believe that it is likely to continue doing so for decades or centuries to come.
Justified belief is not faith in the religious sense, which is unjustified belief. The two should not be confused or equated. Only one of these produces useful results.
What you call a random event is merely something obeying physical law, but which behavior wasn't anticipated and couldn't be predicted, like a leaf picking this moment to fall from a tree, twirling and winding its way to earth in what you might call a random path because it couldn't be specified in advance. Such things need no explanation. They are commonplace. Life is replete with unexpected occurrences, but they are not mysterious, just unpredictable, like a genetic mutation.
If you like mysticism and want a good problem to work on, please explain how it is possible for a god to exist undesigned and uncreated? Does it exist because of what you call random events? What physical laws have to be in place in advance for a god to remain intact over time rather than dissipating away like a cloud? What physical laws had to be in place for it to think or act, or to store and retrieve memories? What physical laws had to exist for it to create a universe using them? What physical laws constrained this god in a way that it couldn't create life or mind without heeding fine tuning requirements of the physical constants of our reality?
What do you think about a god that creates mankind flawed, regrets it despite allegedly being able to do anything including foreseeinng how this experiment would turn out, goes ahead anyway, decides it needs a do-over and kills most of the life on earth, and tries to correct the error using the same breeding stock?
Audie
Veteran Member
Poe's Law
Audie
Veteran Member
So ignore him already.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Context!... Context!...... Context!
And not to put Mr. Scott down, but he isn't a scientist, but simply an atheist who has served in various positions on the American Atheists Organization. You may as well quote my aunt Hilda
Which is why he proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, an additional theory explaining how evolution has operated.
This comes from an article "Who doubts evolution?" appearing in "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831
It's an interesting article, and it's quite surprising that any "creationist" would want to call attention to it. By the way, it's on pages 830-832 of that issue.
On page 830, Ridley says
"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media."
And in answer to the quoted piece
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation.
It doesn't mean the theory of evolution is unproven, only that in 1981, when the piece was published, better kinds of evidence were used: From page 831
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
And from page 832
"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature."
.
Last edited:
Patriottechsan
Member
Science lights up our homes at night, has put men on the moon and brought them home, and has conquered polio and small pox. Science makes our lives longer (80 is the new 60), healthier, more functional (eyeglasses were a great invention), more comfortable, more efficient (especially in communication and transportation), easier, and more interesting, as with this activity we're participating in now involving computers, fiberoptic and electric cables, radio communication, and satellites.
Per It ain't necessarily so. Thank you Sir or Ms.
Do you not notice how you proved my point. Every thing you mentioned took ID to make and make our lives better and more comfortable ie by ID.
Could any of that happened by evolutionary means and not involving a brain of intelligence to conceive conceptualize then design each part and then all the parts and make each part work and then make it where each part works separately but also work together as a unit to make it a functional design.
That is exactly what you find in nature with plants and animals and humans and individual organs and how they all must work separately but together so the plant or animal or human etc is able to live and exist.
Robotics takes ID. Evolution try's to sell me all that functional design came about without an ID. That does not compute. Nothing in our lives shows that other than what evolution tells us exist due to evolution. Yet except for their "word" they can't and never will be able to prove that concept of functional design can occur without Intelligent Designer. There is no science lab test or experiment etc that can prove that ever so important principle that evolution stands on. Once you can prove that by a truly scientific experiment etc. Then I will listen. Because that principle and foundation is so key to evolution. I have to see it proven. Everything I see proves it is just the opposite. Functional Design ALWAYS requires ID.
Just out of curiousity. As the paragraph mention I copied. It talked about life spans increasing. Explain to me with evolution needing millions and billions of yrs. With life spans being so short in evolutionary time before we as humans or animals can live long enough for all those trail and errors and mistakes and then all those numerous catastrophies destroying all of life meaning you have to start all over again. BTW while happening they are unfit until finished so Nat Selection is trying to kill them off. I just don't see how in say 80 yrs and heck we are way past our prime at 80. Usually our peak is late 20's. So how does evolution happen in that short time frame of trial and errors and keep and not keep what works and much less knowing what to keep or not. It doesn't have the engineering brain to know that. Seems a awful lot to accomplish in such a short time frame before the animals die and start over and then the starting over again. My analysis of that just doesn't get past go and esp with how it explains it in these textbooks without really explaining it. It just makes statements as if true but again it is just like the quote of JUST SO STORIES and w/o actual science demonstration of how it happened or is possible.
It really is just that simple. Prove Functional Design can occur w/o ID.
Dr. Wells writes a book exposing the frauds used to teach and indoctrinate evolution are in fact frauds. Why that list of Scientist, despite the gestapo tactics of mainstream establishment not wanting that out, want honest science to be taught. Why are they fighting truth? That isn't religion being able to show and remove the proven frauds from texts. What is bad about that? Do you think it is bad to remove proven frauds from textbooks? Do you think it is wrong to show the science problems with evolution?
What is so wrong with truth good and bad of evolution being taught? Why is that so scary that the establishment resorts to such tactics?
Logic and common sense is so scary to you. That is truly sad.
Per It ain't necessarily so. Thank you Sir or Ms.
Do you not notice how you proved my point. Every thing you mentioned took ID to make and make our lives better and more comfortable ie by ID.
Could any of that happened by evolutionary means and not involving a brain of intelligence to conceive conceptualize then design each part and then all the parts and make each part work and then make it where each part works separately but also work together as a unit to make it a functional design.
That is exactly what you find in nature with plants and animals and humans and individual organs and how they all must work separately but together so the plant or animal or human etc is able to live and exist.
Robotics takes ID. Evolution try's to sell me all that functional design came about without an ID. That does not compute. Nothing in our lives shows that other than what evolution tells us exist due to evolution. Yet except for their "word" they can't and never will be able to prove that concept of functional design can occur without Intelligent Designer. There is no science lab test or experiment etc that can prove that ever so important principle that evolution stands on. Once you can prove that by a truly scientific experiment etc. Then I will listen. Because that principle and foundation is so key to evolution. I have to see it proven. Everything I see proves it is just the opposite. Functional Design ALWAYS requires ID.
Just out of curiousity. As the paragraph mention I copied. It talked about life spans increasing. Explain to me with evolution needing millions and billions of yrs. With life spans being so short in evolutionary time before we as humans or animals can live long enough for all those trail and errors and mistakes and then all those numerous catastrophies destroying all of life meaning you have to start all over again. BTW while happening they are unfit until finished so Nat Selection is trying to kill them off. I just don't see how in say 80 yrs and heck we are way past our prime at 80. Usually our peak is late 20's. So how does evolution happen in that short time frame of trial and errors and keep and not keep what works and much less knowing what to keep or not. It doesn't have the engineering brain to know that. Seems a awful lot to accomplish in such a short time frame before the animals die and start over and then the starting over again. My analysis of that just doesn't get past go and esp with how it explains it in these textbooks without really explaining it. It just makes statements as if true but again it is just like the quote of JUST SO STORIES and w/o actual science demonstration of how it happened or is possible.
It really is just that simple. Prove Functional Design can occur w/o ID.
Dr. Wells writes a book exposing the frauds used to teach and indoctrinate evolution are in fact frauds. Why that list of Scientist, despite the gestapo tactics of mainstream establishment not wanting that out, want honest science to be taught. Why are they fighting truth? That isn't religion being able to show and remove the proven frauds from texts. What is bad about that? Do you think it is bad to remove proven frauds from textbooks? Do you think it is wrong to show the science problems with evolution?
What is so wrong with truth good and bad of evolution being taught? Why is that so scary that the establishment resorts to such tactics?
Logic and common sense is so scary to you. That is truly sad.
Patriottechsan
Member
So so sorry for the multiple post. It seemed like it had timed me out while writing and I kept trying to post and then it just post them all at once. Really sorry. I will see if I can delete some of these. It looks like I was successful in deleting all the extra ones. I truly am sorry and apologize for the inconvenience that may have caused.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Excellent stuff here IANS.
Your recipient has already screwed it up with his top notch reading comprehension. I see he is demanding that you support your claim about evolution and life span. Except I could not find that claim in what you wrote. You said science.
I guess that explains why all of his posts have seemed like just multiple postings of the same thing. They were.Don't worry, we understand. You were designed to make the mistake.
.