I have never heard anyone talk like that either and that goes for all his posts. I won't even hazard a guess as to what he's trying to express. Mohammad, maybe you have somebody in the vicinity who can help you with your English?
-
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 is illogical and non sense
- Thread starter ttechsan
- Start date
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I don't think I do. What I don't do is simply accept somebody's word that certain issues are no longer up for debate. For instance, you said, "Science in anthropology and archeology were used to determine history that shows Abraham was a literary creation." Could you point me to the studies please? I do try to keep an open mind, and when I reject the idea of a world-wide flood or people living to be hundreds of years old, it does not shake my belief in God in the slightest. It merely shakes my belief in certain things contained in the Bible. And then I get over it.
Back in the 1970's, when I was pregnant with my first child, I developed preeclampsia. After my son was born and I had recovered sufficiently to do some research on the subject. Pretty much everything I could find at that time suggested that preeclampsia develops in response to the pregnant mother's emotional state. Supposedly I hadn't really wanted to have a baby in the first place and this life-threatening condition developed for that reason. Today, the exact cause of preeclampsia is still unknown. Experts believe it may include insufficient blood flow to the uterus, damage to the blood vessels, a problem with the immune system or genetics. Fifty years from now, the exact cause may be known with 100% certainty. I can't imagine that Abraham can be proven to be a literary creation, although I can easily imagine that there is some evidence that has led some people to conclude that he is.
outhouse
Atheistically
Its basically studies in anthropology, and seeing all of the writing not only originating from a specific time period, but also seeing the events described as matching this later time period.
Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".
Thompson's argument, based on archaeology and ancient texts, was that no compelling evidence pointed to the patriarchs living in the 2nd millennium and that the biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns; Van Seters, basing himself on an examination of the patriarchal stories, agreed with Thompson that their names, social milieu and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations
His story, like those of the other patriarchs, most likely had a substantial oral prehistory.[12] At some stage the oral traditions became part of the written tradition of the Pentateuch; a majority of scholars believes this stage belongs to the Persian period, roughly 520–320 BCE
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
You can read on the wiki on free will, the traditional religious concept of free will, the soul or spirit chooses.
And God by another name is referred to as the holy spirit, so God chooses.
2 main things God does, creation and final judgement. Again, both events involve choosing.
Faith in God, the act of believing God exists, is another choice.
All main religious concepts involve choosing.
Evolutionists understand nothing about how choosing works, because the theory of evolution destroys their knowledge about it.
The denial that freedom is real and relevant is because correct knowledge about how choosing works requires acceptance that subjectivity is valid.
It is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.Facts do not apply to that issue. That is the only way the concept of choosing can function.
That is the root of all subjectivity. The question what is good, loving and beautiful, is rooted in the existence of the spirit choosing being a matter of opinion.
Evolutionists are social darwinists, they propose to know as fact what is good and evil. This is why evolutionists reject freedom is real and relevant in the universe, because they want good and evil to be fact, not opinion.
Accepting freedom is real and relevant, leads to acceptance of subjectivity as valid, and that is what evolutionists seek to avoid.
And they are utterly convinced they are being good, you see they know it as scientific fact that they are good.
And God by another name is referred to as the holy spirit, so God chooses.
2 main things God does, creation and final judgement. Again, both events involve choosing.
Faith in God, the act of believing God exists, is another choice.
All main religious concepts involve choosing.
Evolutionists understand nothing about how choosing works, because the theory of evolution destroys their knowledge about it.
The denial that freedom is real and relevant is because correct knowledge about how choosing works requires acceptance that subjectivity is valid.
It is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.Facts do not apply to that issue. That is the only way the concept of choosing can function.
That is the root of all subjectivity. The question what is good, loving and beautiful, is rooted in the existence of the spirit choosing being a matter of opinion.
Evolutionists are social darwinists, they propose to know as fact what is good and evil. This is why evolutionists reject freedom is real and relevant in the universe, because they want good and evil to be fact, not opinion.
Accepting freedom is real and relevant, leads to acceptance of subjectivity as valid, and that is what evolutionists seek to avoid.
And they are utterly convinced they are being good, you see they know it as scientific fact that they are good.
David M
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
The truth of the matter is that arguments about free will are ultimately irrelevant to the history of the diversity of life. Whether the hard determinists are right or not has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution. Whether "choosing" happens at the DNA level or not is irrelevant to the ToE. The ToE describes the history of life and the biological mechanisms by which it happened, nothing more.
David M
Well-Known Member
As always you provide nothing to substantiate this claim. Pointing to a Wiki article about Free Will is meaningless in establishing any link between Evolution and a denial of Free Will because as the article plainly states it is a philosophical question and it also makes it clear that it is an ongoing and involved debate.
Here is amusing fact, in 2007 a survey of eminent evolutionary biologists found that 79% believed in Free Will.
Sandwalk: Evolutionary Biologists Flunk Religion Poll
shawn001
Well-Known Member
2009
"Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution
In advance of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday on Feb. 12, 2009, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life recently released a research package exploring the evolution controversy in the U.S. The Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey found that views on evolution differ widely across religious groups."
"Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution
In advance of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday on Feb. 12, 2009, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life recently released a research package exploring the evolution controversy in the U.S. The Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey found that views on evolution differ widely across religious groups."
dust1n
Zindīq
Higher order would be significantly biologically if some sort of quantitatively observable phenomenon applied to all living things. However, there is no "scale" from 0 to 10 regarding the "higher order" of a given species in relation to all humans. Complexity is a matter of interpretation. A human has roughly 50 million cells. A blue whale would have on the order of 100 quadrillion cells. That's 20 times the number of cells in a given body.
There really aren't roles. There isn't a director.
Actually, the exact opposite is true. Any notion that evolution is striving or supporting anything is wholly unscientific.
Humans couldn't affect all other life forms if it wanted to.
It can be said, but that doesn't really make it true.
This has yet to be demonstrated.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
The problem is, many of us have no belief in soul or spirit, thus this point will not get through to us. In our behavior, something chooses our actions; that something is our human brain, a marvelous computer. Psychology has done tremendous work at deciphering the choices biological beings make based on a myriad of variable, including Environment, Upbringing, Values and Beliefs. We can agree that humans have a degree of a power of choice; though at which degree, we will probably not entirely agree, and what does the choosing, we certainly do not.
Many of us do not believe in God.
Again. We don't believe in god. If we are correct and there is not god, then how can a thing that does not exist choose anything?
Untrue. Many who have accepted Evolution as fact include those who believe in God, spirit, soul and free will. Evolution does not destroy any knowledge or understanding about how choosing works.
Subjectivity is very valid. If you are to say, "I am angry", the anger you feel is purely subjective. If you say, "I don't like spinache", the fact that you don't like spinache is a very subjective fact and very valid. What we are saying is that in the realm of science and scientific research, subjectivity is no longer valid in this area. One can't simply say, "I'm afraid of airplanes, so airplanes can't fly" as the conclusion that "airplanes can't fly" is based on that person's valid (and subjective) fear of flight; but all of that fear and belief will not stop that plane from flying; it flies based on scientific principles which take no heed or concern about how one "feels" about it.
If you are saying that it is a matter of opinion regarding the consequences of a choice, that is incorrect. If I choose to commit murder, it is not a matter of opinion whether or not I committed a crime and it is not a matter of opinion whether or not another human being is dead because of it. What choice we make, however, are certainly strongly influenced by (or completely dependent upon) our opinions. But the fact that planes fly, we fall to our deaths if we jump off bridges, and evidence supports evolution have absolutely NOTHING to do with choices, choosing or free will. These things simply are simply because they are.
Yes, the question about what is good, loving and beautiful is purely subjective. Many are uncomfortable, however, with the idea that morality is highly subjective; including myself. I propose that morality (good and evil) is highly subjective but also partially objective.
No. Most who accept Evolution as fact do NOT subscribe to the twisted philosophy of social darwinism. Social Darwinism twisted, beyond recognition, Darwin's theory and "selection of the species"; which they in turn recoined "survival of the fittest". A social darwinist sees "survival of the fittest" as the strong survive on the backs of the weak; or the strongest being the Most Fit for a given contest. When Darwin said "survival of the fittest", he meant nothing of the sort. He meant "those most fit for their environment have a better chance of surviving". Our ancestors, for example, would have been no match for the Tyrannosaurus Rex. It was stronger, faster, and able to devour modern man in a single gulp. Yet our ancestors survived -- thus we survived -- and Rex did not. We survived and it did not has nothing to do with which of the two species was the most powerful; and everything to do with the fact that our fortunate ancestors were able to adapt to their environment and Rex was not. Most evolutionary biologists and "evolutionists" (as you like to call us) understand that social darwinism is an absolute bastardization of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Most whom I know who accept evolution value freedom and accepts that subjectivity is valid; but that subjectivity is not valid simply because we feel uncomfortable with provable, repeatable, measurable facts. You are making sweeping value judgements about a huge number of people based only upon what they find to be true in the realm of science. I'm sure that when the religious community was railing against heliocentricity, many decided that those who accepted this scientific finding as a fact were labeled as immoral.
You are determining a person's entire character based on what they hold to be true scientifically; which is utterly ridiculous.
dust1n
Zindīq
Good point. Why did I ever bother pointing the effort to reply at all?
dust1n
Zindīq
By the way, if one is going to use the food chain as a means of determining who is at the top of the living being hierarchy, humans wouldn't be on top.
"On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the score of a primary producer (a plant) and 5 being a pure apex predator (a animal that only eats meat and has few or no predators of its own, like a tiger, crocodile or boa constrictor), they found that based on diet, humans score a 2.21—roughly equal to an anchovy or pig. Their findings confirm common sense: We're omnivores, eating a mix of plants and animals, rather than top-level predators that only consume meat.
To be clear, this doesn't imply that we're middle-level in that we routinely get eaten by higher-level predators—in modern society, at least, that isn't a common concern—but that to be truly at the "top of the food chain," in scientific terms, you have to strictly consume the meat of animals that are predators themselves. Obviously, as frequent consumers of rice, salad, bread, broccoli and cranberry sauce, among other plant products, we don't fit that description.
The researchers, led by Sylvain Bonhommeau of the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea, used FAO data to construct models of peoples' diets in different countries over time, and used this to calculate HTL in 176 countries from 1961 to 2009. Calculating HTL is fairly straightforward: If a person diet is made up of half plant products and half meat, his or her trophic level will be 2.5. More meat, and the score increases; more plants, and it decreases.
With the FAO data, they found that while the worldwide HTL is 2.21, this varies widely: The country with the lowest score (Burundi) was 2.04, representing a diet that was 96.7 percent plant-based, while the country with the highest (Iceland) was 2.54, reflecting a diet that contained slightly more meats than plants."
Where Do Humans Really Rank on the Food Chain? | Science | Smithsonian
"On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the score of a primary producer (a plant) and 5 being a pure apex predator (a animal that only eats meat and has few or no predators of its own, like a tiger, crocodile or boa constrictor), they found that based on diet, humans score a 2.21—roughly equal to an anchovy or pig. Their findings confirm common sense: We're omnivores, eating a mix of plants and animals, rather than top-level predators that only consume meat.
To be clear, this doesn't imply that we're middle-level in that we routinely get eaten by higher-level predators—in modern society, at least, that isn't a common concern—but that to be truly at the "top of the food chain," in scientific terms, you have to strictly consume the meat of animals that are predators themselves. Obviously, as frequent consumers of rice, salad, bread, broccoli and cranberry sauce, among other plant products, we don't fit that description.
The researchers, led by Sylvain Bonhommeau of the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea, used FAO data to construct models of peoples' diets in different countries over time, and used this to calculate HTL in 176 countries from 1961 to 2009. Calculating HTL is fairly straightforward: If a person diet is made up of half plant products and half meat, his or her trophic level will be 2.5. More meat, and the score increases; more plants, and it decreases.
With the FAO data, they found that while the worldwide HTL is 2.21, this varies widely: The country with the lowest score (Burundi) was 2.04, representing a diet that was 96.7 percent plant-based, while the country with the highest (Iceland) was 2.54, reflecting a diet that contained slightly more meats than plants."
Where Do Humans Really Rank on the Food Chain? | Science | Smithsonian
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
That is of course because evolutionists define the term free will with the logic of being forced, that they can say they still accept free will.
This is called "compatibilism", which means to say that free will is compatible with cause and effect. Compatibilists use the logic of sorting to mean choosing. The fittest is sorted out, forced by the sortingcriteria. It could not have turned out any other way. The most influential compatibilist is Daniel Dennett, who is also known as an ultra darwinist.
So that is how these evolutionists can say they accept free will, but they don't accept the traditional concept of free will, where a choice can turn out several different ways, and the spirit or soul does the job of choosing.
Now why would people start to fantasize en masse about an unevidenced spirit or soul in considering how choices are made?
Why would they not just point to the actual physical heart as what chooses, since they experience emotions to be localized and centered there, or point out the brain, and leave it at that?
This is because the concept of choosing does not function when it can be established as fact what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. Facts are obtained forced by evidence. Facts require force, while the concept of choosing requires freedom, these 2 don't match. The solution is to make the existence of what it is that chooses into a matter of opinion. That way the freedom in the concept of choosing is left in tact. Hence the unevidenced spirit and soul chooses.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
It is not so, evolutionists are social darwinists of one kind or another. To avoid social darwinism on account of accepting natural selection theory requires to know the distinction between fact and opinion. But evolutionists do not know it, and they categorize goodness and evil as facts.
They simply have no separate category of a spiritual domain to put good and evil into. They have no distinct category for opinions. They have a category for things in the brain, and information, but all these things in the brain are known as fact, therefore evolutionists propose good and evil are known as fact.
The evolutionist makes their use of the terms good and evil look similar to choosing what is good and evil by expressing your emotions with free will. For example they might say that good and evil is relative to a complex environment, that it is dependent on many factors, that individuals are unique.
The variation you get from regarding every human being as physically different, and making what is good and evil a function of that, looks similar to what variation you would get if you choose what is good and evil by expressing your emotions with your free will. But the one variation is forced, while the other variation is chosen.
The evolutionists arrive at the conclusion good and evil forced by evidence. They do not choose, they regard good and evil as facts.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As one who taught anthropology for some 30 years, the above is just one gigantic lie after another. "Evil" is what you are posting, and you listen to no one when they try to explain to you why you are so terribly mistaken.
More a major misuse of terms than a lie, I'd say.
Example?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Possibly, but the problem is how many times can a person be told with substantial evidence that A does not equal B, and yet they come back over and over again making them equal? If a person does not know or understand, I'm willing to cut them a lot of slack (about 2/3 of my students in my introductory anthropology course either didn't believe in evolution or questioned it), but when a person is informed in no uncertain terms, and yet comes back with the same nonsense over and over again, then I think the word "lie" can be applied.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Nobody who accepts that subjectivity is valid would respond like that.
There is the history of rampant racism in anthropology, and the bizarre notions of inclusive fitness, and reciprocal altruism supposedly dominating behaviour which are now current in anthropology.
The correct "evolutionary" understanding of behaviour is based on the optimal efficiency of choosing over calculating a course of action. Choosing provides predators surprise in attack, and prey unpredictability in escape, because a choice can turn out several different ways in the moment. Calculating a course of action automatically based on input would result in predictable behaviour, which would not be optimal. The predator doing the same thing every time in the same sort of situation would not be succesful. That way, and many other ways in which choosing is optimal, a capability for sophisticated ways fo choosing is preserved by natural selection.
But evolutionists are against free will, which is why anthropology books are still full of ideas about inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism dominating behaviour. The obvious fact that people can choose has not registered yet with anthropologists.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
More "lies"-- or, "a major misuse of terms"-- take your pick.