Evolution is illogical and non sense

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm keeping a collection of this stuff to use in a new comedy routine, it's a religious version of the old Professor Irwin Corey routine, and this is perfect for it: "Facts are obtained forced by evidence. Facts require force, while choosing requires freedom, these 2 don't match. Therefore the existence of what chooses is a matter of opinion, hence the unevidenced spirit and soul choose."

That the existence of what chooses is a matter of opinion is the root of all subjectivity. One who rejects it, rejects all subjectivity.

Evolution philosopher Daniel Dennett argued that the rudimentary structure of free will is exemplified by a.....thermostat. The thermostat turning off or on depending on temperature and programmed settings, exhibits an "intentional stance".

Then he argued that while this theory of his is valid, he won't push acceptance of it because people find it strange, and aren't yet ready to accept it.

It seems the future when evolutionists are ready to accept this "fact" of how free will works is not far off, seeing as that evolutionists fall over each other trying to be as radical as possible in rejecting subjectivity.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you are set on challenging objective facts out of religious pride? Really?

 

[Etritonakin]

Good point. Why did I ever bother pointing the effort to reply at all?

I just didn't have a response. You said some stuff and I was ok with that.

 

[Sapiens]

That the existence of what chooses is a matter of opinion is the root of all subjectivity. One who rejects it, rejects all subjectivity.

Evolution philosopher Daniel Dennett argued that the rudimentary structure of free will is exemplified by a.....thermostat. The thermostat turning off or on depending on temperature and programmed settings, exhibits an "intentional stance".

Then he argued that while this theory of his is valid, he won't push acceptance of it because people find it strange, and aren't yet ready to accept it.

It seems the future when evolutionists are ready to accept this "fact" of how free will works is not far off, seeing as that evolutionists fall over each other trying to be as radical as possible in rejecting subjectivity.

Excellent, you're saving me days of work, keep it coming, please, this will have them rolling in the isles. BTW: how would you like me to credit your contribution to my comedy routine?

 

[dust1n]

I just didn't have a response. You said some stuff and I was ok with that.

Peculiar way of putting it.

 

[Unification]

The wisdom of the ages is unmoved by your litany of errors.

Facts are obtained forced by evidence. Facts require force, while choosing requires freedom, these 2 don't match. Therefore the existence of what chooses is a matter of opinion, hence the unevidenced spirit and soul choose.

Being unbiased, religion seeks evidence for science yet neglects providing evidence for their own myths that don't even matter.

The truth is the stated goal of most religions, so unbiased and open-minded science is religion’s best friend. Religious people see science as their enemy, when the opposite is the truth. For the last five hundred years, religions have been fighting science to protect their myths. They have tortured and killed in the name of myths.
Unbiased and open-minded Science is religion’s best friend, because it reveals the truth, and the truth is what sets people free from the myths created by the devil/mind.

The evidence = the truth. Religions say the truth is the way, but ignore it.

We acknowledge that the evidence reveals the truth in every area of life except religion.

Many religions want to believe so badly they will ignore scientific evidence, reason, common sense and their own better judgment. Religions have perverted the meaning of the word "truth".

We do not see things the way they are, we see things the way we are.

How a medicine tastes doesn’t matter; it is what it does that saves your life. Truth and reality doesn't taste as good as fantasy, bias, and divide.

This by no means negates an intelligent design.

To please science, we would have to use the term "consciousness" instead of spirit. They are essentially the same thing.

 

[Maponos]

You can't see the extremist anti-religion, anti freedom, anti-subjectivity rhetoric of evolutionists?

The only people who are like that are hardcore atheists like that British man who seems hell-bent on turning atheism into a religion.

 

[KnobofBel]

well, the mind, see, it evolves
that is what makes truth, true.

 

[McBell]

Without the input of religion people tend to state that good and evil are subjective and often matters of pure opinion.

What is good and what is evil are matters of subjective opinion.

For there is not a single thing that is objectively good or evil.

 

[Etritonakin]

Peculiar way of putting it.

As long as we keep the conversation going, right?

I just see no point unless it does some good.

What percentage of all of this has led to something positive for anyone in any real sense? Agreement? Enlightenment? Unity? Clarity?

Returning, rest, quietness....... Much more valuable than a multitude of words

 

[ArtieE]

What is good and what is evil are matters of subjective opinion.

For there is not a single thing that is objectively good or evil.

1. Evolution is an objective process.
2. The objective process produced a survival instinct.
3. Survival is therefore objectively good.
4. What leads to survival is therefore objectively good. We call it moral.
5. What leads to non-survival is objectively bad. We call it immoral.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is good and what is evil are matters of subjective opinion.

For there is not a single thing that is objectively good or evil.

It is just pretend because evolutionists use a different definition of subjectivity than the religious and common.

Evolutionists use a definition of subjectivity meaning observations related to unique physical characteristics of the observer, or observations related to characteristics of the information content in the mind, or differences in position from which is observed. That way there is a variety of opinions, which evolutionists call subjectivity.

Creationists on the other hand conceive of subjectivity as choosing about what it is that chooses. Somebody can go left or right, chooses left. What was it that made the decision turn out the way it did? The logic of subjectivity requires that there are at least 2 answers to this question, any of which can be chosen. Choosing between courage and cowardice for instance, cowardice is chosen, then the opinion is that cowardice is what made the decision turn out left. That way there is also variety in opinions, because people choose different things.

The evolution variety of opinions is forced, while the creationist variety of opinions is chosen. They look similar but are entirely different.

One can just easily tell by the rampant abject denial of the spirit that evolutionists reject subjectivity and freedom whole. They do not mean with subjectivity that people express their emotions with free will, forming an opinion by choosing.

eh....except of course that evolutionists redefined free will and choosing as well as subjectivity, redefined choosing with the logic of sorting, so evolutionists can say that subjectivity is forming an opinion by choosing. By which they of course mean something entirely different than creationists.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not so, there are things which are more important and less important in scripture. We could live with pretty much any theory in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant in the universe. That is because with decisions subjectivity is introduced in respect to the spirit in which it is decided. Subjectivity provides room for faith.

How exactly are you ''choosing'' what is and isn't important in Scripture? Who is doing the choosing? On what basis besides personal bias would that choosing be done?
If you are saying, the religious texts are totally subjective to the individual reader, then why even have texts in the first place? Why not just create your own religion with only completely subjective parameters?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How exactly are you ''choosing'' what is and isn't important in Scripture? Who is doing the choosing? On what basis besides personal bias would that choosing be done?
If you are saying, the religious texts are totally subjective to the individual reader, then why even have texts in the first place? Why not just create your own religion with only completely subjective parameters?

The law of equal importance? One advice in the Quran is to have a receipt with transactions. Supposedly that is equally important as anything else in the Quran? I do accept the Quran as one whole, but then there are still portions which are of more and less significance to me at different times.

....you simply also do not comprehend how subjectivity works eventhough you are a "creationist". This is why you avoid subjectivity.

Subjectivity does not equal bias, subjectivity is expression of your human spirit. You relate your spirit towards the spirit who wrote the text, God wrote the text.

Noticeably you have no science about how creation or intelligent design actually works. The facts about how things are chosen in the universe at large, or how human beings choose and thereby create things, how this can be described in terms of physics, you have no idea about it.

 

[Yerda]

Evolution philosopher Daniel Dennett...

Dennett is a bad example, almost everyone disagrees with him. He isn't an evolution philosopher either.

 

[ArtieE]

The wisdom of the ages is unmoved by your litany of errors.

The "wisdom of the ages" seems incapable of answering a few simple questions.

Facts are obtained forced by evidence. Facts require force, while choosing requires freedom, these 2 don't match. Therefore the existence of what chooses is a matter of opinion, hence the unevidenced spirit and soul choose.

Incomprehensible doubletalk.

 

[`mud]

But they all get to choose from all the virgins in heaven !
Who had the choice of how those virgins got there.
And what force was used to accomplish this feat.
Amazing choices there from these spiritual souls,
promising entities not in the presence of their Allah.
Nonsense is all around, from anyone who speaks it.
Including myself....
~
'mud

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The evidence = the truth. Religions say the truth is the way, but ignore it.

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion resulting in a model of what is evidenced.

For example: there is the moon, and a book about the moon, containing the facts about the moon. The book about the moon is a copy of the moon to a world of words, pictures and mathematics. The ideal fact is a 1:1 copy containing no more or less information than the original.

There is little truth in rather mindless copying.

Only important facts are truth, and what is important is a matter of opinion. By reasonably judgement most facts are just facts and not truth.

Also it is possible to say that what decides which facts are important is truth, like saying love is truth, in which case truth is all opinion, and no fact.

the list of things evolutionists don't understand:
truth
fact
objectivity
opinion
subjectivity
material
spiritual
free will
choosing
the future
anticipation
creation
intelligent design
emotions
spirit
soul

 

[Theweirdtophat]

What I don't understand is if it takes many years to evolve, how come creatures older than humans like some reptiles, bugs, ect, didn't become just as evolved, if not, more so than us?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What I don't understand is if it takes many years to evolve, how come creatures older than humans like some reptiles, bugs, ect, didn't become just as evolved, if not, more so than us?

There is no meaningful way to say something is more or less evolved. We can make judgement as to its complexity but not how "evolved" it is. We are no more evolved than any other species living today. Elephants, dogs, chimps, turtles, trees, and even bacteria are "just as evolved" as we are. We are more complex than bacteria and we are arguably more complex than plants but we are not more complex than say an elephant or a dog.