Evolution flaws which proves it fallacy.

[JamesYaqub]

As I said this is a religion forum so nothing has to be substantiated in the way that it would be on a science forum. Convenient huh?

 

[Sha'irullah]

So far zero and thus no real evidence for existence. Though I specifically wanted to make it clear about the science that we can't test in a lab.

Something that sustains or exists outside of existence cannot be proven to exist. Existential beings cannot prove a super-existential being the same way eyes cannot see the wind. We can see its works or what we think are its work but we cannot physically view it.

It is just something one has to experience and if you are like me you will love experiencing it.

 

[JamesYaqub]

Something that sustains or exists outside of existence cannot be proven to exist. Existential beings cannot prove a super-existential being the same way eyes cannot see the wind. We can see its works or what we think are its work but we cannot physically view it.

It is just something one has to experience and if you are like me you will love experiencing it.

Thank heavens that someone else has experienced "it" and has the courage to say so. Yes. Everything I espouse is based upon decades of personal experiences. Someday science will catch up, as always.

 

[Skwim]

Someday science will catch up, as always.

Or, more likely, pass it by without a second glance.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Something that sustains or exists outside of existence cannot be proven to exist. Existential beings cannot prove a super-existential being the same way eyes cannot see the wind. We can see its works or what we think are its work but we cannot physically view it.

It is just something one has to experience and if you are like me you will love experiencing it.

I have experienced it. I've felt what I thought was the love of god, and then the goddess and ect. But now I'm an atheist and I STILL feel just as calm and loved as ever before. It was inside me. So now I realize that I never really needed god and god wasn't there for me. I was there for me and I always will.

 

[JamesYaqub]

I have experienced it. I've felt what I thought was the love of god, and then the goddess and ect. But now I'm an atheist and I STILL feel just as calm and loved as ever before. It was inside me. So now I realize that I never really needed god and god wasn't there for me. I was there for me and I always will.

When I say or refer to God I am doing so because it is a good way to express something that otherwise would be much more difficult. I know people who simply refer to a "source". Fine with me. Unlike religious followers I do not insist on some image of a great benevolent being who "loves" us (and then sends us all to flames just because we **** up sometimes).

The idea of God is optional. That there is a source, a reason is not.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So you do not mean "god" in a traditional sense but some new way you have yet to completely define?

 

[JamesYaqub]

Neither. I believe in some ultimate "cause" of creation. I call this God. If we ever discover what that cause really is I'll call it that.

Good luck trying to pin me down friend. I don't easily get backed into verbal corners.

 

[LuisDantas]

The idea of God is optional. That there is a source, a reason is not.

What do you mean by that? Is that source similar to a pantheistic notion of God? If not, why or how? And why is it not optional?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have experienced it. I've felt what I thought was the love of god, and then the goddess and ect. But now I'm an atheist and I STILL feel just as calm and loved as ever before. It was inside me. So now I realize that I never really needed god and god wasn't there for me. I was there for me and I always will.

You are despicable. People like you are such buzz kills and take the fun out of everything......I am just kidding with ya' .

I have tried being an atheist when my rejection of religion hit its peak. I had to literally try to reject god and listen to hours of mind numbing Hitchen's videos. After a few months I felt dirty and learned about the wonderful world of deism and ever since then I have been slowly stripping myself of religion until I am free of it.
People who adhere to unprogressive religions cannot break free of the control it has over them. hence their rejection of evolution and any scientific fact. If one truly believed in god they would know he blessed us with intelligence.
You are an atheist and thankfully do not have to be bogged down by religion like myself. We can accept science to its fullest extent.

 

[LuisDantas]

People shouldn't feel pressured into actively pursuing Atheism, for much the same reasons that they shouldn't feel pressured out of it.

If it is not too personal, may I ask why you tried that, Sterling Archer? It sounds like a fairly miserable experience.

 

[propheticeve]

hello! i have few questions if you guys have the time to reponse to them.

is evolution a sentient thing? is it self-aware? is the process conscious?

if the answer is no! then...

is your stomach self-aware? is it conscious ?

when your stomach produce a mucous lining to protect itself from being digested by the acid, that's not because it can understands the risk of the acid, but because it was taught to operate that way.

If you swallow a liquid which is a poison, your stomach will absorb that liquid, because that's what it meant for it to do and from there it goes to your blood stream and once that poison is inside the body
it will be used. It's not the fault of your stomach that made you get poisoned and it's not it's responsibility to check what your throw in it, but it's you who has a consciousness to understand that this is wrong.

how does a tree knows what it's fruit should taste like to humans? so it makes them so sweet with tempting smell, looks and colors? why the fruit supply us with important nurtrients and it's not posionous?

is the tree a sentient thing? is it self-aware? is it conscious? if the answer again is no! then...

if an it " evolution" doesnt know and an it " tree " doesnt know then who does?

Please stay on the topic and don't try to explain evolutoin to me. if you disgree with my points then....

you are telling that evolution is capable of desiging us without having a consciousness or thoughts or knowledge or even a reason for it ?

you are telling me that evolution understand when to start evolving an organ and it knows when to stop?

you are telling me that evolution finished evolving living parts and it wrote a full set of instrctions on each specific part, so that a heart will be reproduced as a heart and a lung will be reproduced as a lung
and a stomach will be reproduced as a stomach, but in another human body? and it designed the female body to be capable of receiving and understanding those instructions?

all of this from mindless evolution without...

Any understandings of it's surroundings, brain, thoughts, without knowing what it's actions are, and without realizing what the reasons are.

All sentient beings have varying degrees of self-awareness. Trees are likely to be sentient but to what degree or by what specific means we do not yet know. As for my stomach, I am not really sure, it can be self-aware depending on its definition. I am uncertain of the intent of this post but please clarify so I may be able to offer something more edifying. Thanks.

 

[JamesYaqub]

What do you mean by that? Is that source similar to a pantheistic notion of God? If not, why or how? And why is it not optional?

Yes I am being very close to "pantheistic" in my references to "God". I'll try to clarify my beliefs. I really do believe that the universe had a beginning. Was there any physical matter before then? I assume "no". Was there a cause for the beginning? I assume "yes". That "cause" must therefore have an existence in a non-physical realm. I call the non-physical realm the "spiritual universe". Christians call it "heaven". Muslims call it "paradise". The "cause" or "source" of "creation" then exists in spirit. Humans traditionally envision this source as an all powerful and benevolent, sometimes angry "God". In order to make it easier to understand we make it a male figure and give it a personality. So traditionally God is a great person who we'd better believe if we know what's good for us.

I do believe that we come from spirit and will return to spirit. I believe that the spiritual universe, which is the only permanent one, is timeless and without recognizable dimension. It consists of many, many "levels" in existence. "The Father's house has many mansions". At the highest level is the "source". It is not an inanimate something but rather the very greatest manifestation of all that is good. Here is the "first purpose". I believe that this level in spirit is far beyond any need for a mere personality. There are none there.

Read the above and understand why i so easily refer to God while saying that God is not a personality but more like a source. Most believers use the term "God" so why shouldn't I? It provides common ground for dialogue.

Is God pantheistic? It is my further belief that the entire physical universe is a manifestation of God's Will, with distinct purpose. As such I can imagine that the earth is a part of His body. I see truth in all religions. For instance those who believe in nature spirits are correct in my view. God is the author of evolution but does not play any direct role in it's workings. Rather lesser spirits provide the trial and error in genetics, for instance, to see what will work and what will not. Most religions want to believe that above us all there is only God. That's far too simplistic for me. God ordains zillions of "worker spirits". It is they who actually do all the little jobs. For instance it is these little helpers who design the little things that we find so amazing. Consider the small fish with a large marking near it's tail which looks like the eye of a much larger fish. Consider the vast array of insects that possess specialized defensive colorations. These creatures have no minds so how is it done? It is desired that each of them survive to fill a requirement in nature. The worker spirits watch them all to this end. It is these little unknown and unsung heros of evolution that do all the work, under "God" of course. When an aspect, a branch, in evolution doesn't work it is abandoned. A critic will use this to claim there is no God but the truth is that the worker spirits saw that what they tried was not going to work out so it was abandoned in favor of something else. Perfectly logical in my view.

The above is just a sample of what I believe. Remember when Einstein voiced a desire? "I want to know God's mind. The rest are details" is what he said. He believed in a single great "unified field" in the universe. So do I. My belief is that this field is the spiritual universe which both supports and "informs" the physical one. That is filled with God's intelligence is a given in my view. That there are a multitude of worker spirits doing all sorts of things, steering evolution in both the mineral and animal kingdoms is part of my body of beliefs.

So here we are wanting to find "God" in simple terms while never suspecting that "God" is all around us indirectly causing everything in nature.

When the Christians coined the term "intelligent design" they did so in an attempt to further justify the illogical sequences in Genesis. They were right on the money though. In quite another way. It is real...

Can the reader begin to understand why I see God everywhere and think that all religions are correct?

Or maybe I'm just plain whacko nuts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Trust me, belief in any sort of God (even a pantheistic one that manifests as a source) is completely optional. If we are taking about people in general, not a specific person, that is.

Quite often it is such a belief that actually throws otherwise sincere people into dangerous paths, even.

 

[JamesYaqub]

Of course it's optional. That is a given.

 

[Sha'irullah]

People shouldn't feel pressured into actively pursuing Atheism, for much the same reasons that they shouldn't feel pressured out of it.

If it is not too personal, may I ask why you tried that, Sterling Archer? It sounds like a fairly miserable experience.

I was running out of options and I was becoming bitter against religion. I sort of rounded them all up into 1 pile so I could burn them. None of them made sense and I could not take them literally whatsoever and I began to feel as if I was holding a disbelief in god.
It sort of struck me though later on I was not an atheist since I denounced religion and never god. Despite my efforts which were just failures to full-heartedly denounce a god I just stopped being an idiot and realized religion and god are not mutual.

 

[JamesYaqub]

I was running out of options and I was becoming bitter against religion. I sort of rounded them all up into 1 pile so I could burn them. None of them made sense and I could not take them literally whatsoever and I began to feel as if I was holding a disbelief in god.
It sort of struck me though later on I was not an atheist since I denounced religion and never god. Despite my efforts which were just failures to full-heartedly denounce a god I just stopped being an idiot and realized religion and god are not mutual.

Excellent deduction. Religions are only imperfect shadows of truth.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Religion and god are not the same thing. I just so happen to belive in neither. I'm not perfect but no one else is either. Atheism isn't "flawed" exactly unless your talking about the person. Evolution which is the main point of the topic, does not equate to atheism. But evolution and atheist are both sound in reasoning.

 

[JamesYaqub]

Yes I agree. Between atheists and religionists the former always have the more sound arguments. Still, the question of the primary cause of the beginning of the universe remains. In addition are the pesky little questions such as the close relationship between flowers and bees for instance. That random mutations could be so elegant is quite improbable.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes I agree. Between atheists and religionists the former always have the more sound arguments. Still, the question of the primary cause of the beginning of the universe remains. In addition are the pesky little questions such as the close relationship between flowers and bees for instance. That random mutations could be so elegant is quite improbable.

Well the "I don't know" is always an option. Thats generally what the atheists provide (its what I provide as a response) when asked about it.

And as far as "random" it gets easier as selection helps out. What is to say its improbable?