Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

The difference is that complex intelligence emerged from simple components, so from an evolutionary perspective it makes more sense that what we would have at the beginning of the evolution of life on earth (and presumably at the beginning of the universe) would be much simpler than what we see now, and you wouldn't expect to see something as complex as a god emerge in the beginning out of nothing with no simpler components.

When you say that complex intelligence emerged from simple components, I'd like to know how you know that.

 

[F1fan]

When you say that complex intelligence emerged from simple components, I'd like to know how you know that.

Why do you call intelligence "complex"? What is so complex about it as a function?

 

[Pogo]

Why do you call intelligence "complex"? What is so complex about it as a function?

I think it is the Creo mantra, if they don't understand something it must be complex, and there is an awful lot that has been discovered by humans in the last 2000 years that is beyond the one book they can read.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

When you say that complex intelligence emerged from simple components, I'd like to know how you know that.

Read a book on evolutionary biology. I'm not going to waste my time writing a long essay for you that you won't even try to understand anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Read a book on evolutionary biology. I'm not going to waste my time writing a long essay for you that you won't even try to understand anyway.

From my queries here, I suspect it's because you really don't know the answers. But that's ok. You accept what others say about this without question, perhaps. But you have a good day. Thanks. (I've read books about evolution.)

 

[YoursTrue]

I am impressed. How, in fact though, could humans come up with the idea of religion (such as ancient religious sites and writings) when there is no such record of gorillas promoting such ideas? I daresay it's not brain size or intelligence.

Of course [he] did. Why else was there a tree in the story called The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden, and why else were they forbidden to eat its fruit and why else when Eve ate it did she suddenly obtain knowledge of good and evil, and why is the same true of Adam?


She had no knowledge of good and evil so she was at all times up to having eaten the fruit kept in ignorance of those qualities and the difference between them. The story is unambiguous.


The serpent spoke only the truth. It was God who misspoke, since just as the serpent said, they didn't die when they ate the fruit.


Why? Even were you right, 'should have' has no meaning to someone denied the power to discriminate, as Eve and Adam were.

And as I pointed out, Ezekiel is unambiguous that sin can't be inherited.

So whichever way you look at it, there was no biblical Fall of Man, just an old yarn from Alexandria that Paul overheard at the golf club.

And whichever way you look at it, it's only a story.

Actually, God let Eve decide for herself. As you probably know, it's clear from the account. She decided. He let her do that. Story or not.

 

[blü 2]

I am impressed. How, in fact though, could humans come up with the idea of religion (such as ancient religious sites and writings) when there is no such record of gorillas promoting such ideas? I daresay it's not brain size or intelligence.

Actually, God let Eve decide for herself. As you probably know, it's clear from the account. She decided. He let her do that. Story or not.

And it has nothing to do with sin or the Fall of Man or any of that nonsense. You only have to read it to notice there's not the faintest whiff of such things in the Garden story.

Which is, anyway, beyond argument unhistorical and simply a tale.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

why is “no God” your default position?

My default position is that gods might or might not exist, but until there is reason to believe one or more do exist, I live the same way as somebody who says they don't exist. But this is my position regarding all claims that can neither be cofired nor disconfirmed like that vampires and leprechauns exist.

Is your view on a deist God, analogous to my baseball example? If not, would you try to explain your view with an example/analogy?

What are the odds that angels have green wing feathers? 80%? 50%? 30%? 1%?

If there are only 2 possible options and there is zero evidence on both sides, and zero arguments on both sides then the probability should be 50%, any other number would indicate that there is something (evidence) in favor of one.

I dont see why isent this necesairly true

Then your answer to the question above is 50%? I don't think you can pick a value.

I didn’t say that the probability is always 50% / 50% when we have 2 choices, …………..what I said is that if you have the same amount of evidence on both sides (even if zero in on both sides) the probability shouldn necessarily be the same for both .

I would say that that only applies when one has evidence both for and against a proposition that is equally compelling. When there is no evidence at all for either position, the odds are undefined and thus incalculable.

 

[leroy]

What are the odds of an imaginary team winning a game that isn't known to exist? That's God.

Oh your God is an imaginary being......souns like a strong positive claim with a big burdenproof...... wonder if you can support that assertion

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh you God is an imaginary being......souns like a strong positive claim with a big burdenproof...... wonder if you can support that assertion

Your reading comprehension is off again. What did he say exactly that has a big burden of proof?

 

[YoursTrue]

Read a book on evolutionary biology. I'm not going to waste my time writing a long essay for you that you won't even try to understand anyway.

I hope @Pogo and @Rational Agnostic reads your answer, since you are the one who said it. But thanks for offer, maybe they can read the book to get why you made the statement.

 

[YoursTrue]

And it has nothing to do with sin or the Fall of Man or any of that nonsense. You only have to read it to notice there's not the faintest whiff of such things in the Garden story.

Which is, anyway, beyond argument unhistorical and simply a tale.

Whether it's a tale or not, you are wrong because God DID let her decide for herself. But thanks anyway for your input, since you're wrong absolutely in your assessment of the account, tale or not. Have a good day and enjoy yourself. I'm beginning to think some of you who are deadset against what the Bible says cannot read or understand too well. Thanks, though. Take care.

 

[Pogo]

I hope @Pogo and @Rational Agnostic reads your answer, since you are the one who said it. But thanks for offer, maybe they can read the book to get why you made the statement.

@Rational Agnostic is not yet familiar with you sufficiently to know that any books that you might have already read was wasted due to incomprehension or creationist source selection. More recently you have abandoned rational discourse and are now just pretending interest in a futile effort to waste our time.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Rational Agnostic is not yet familiar with you sufficiently to know that any books that you might have already read was wasted due to incomprehension or creationist source selection. More recently you have abandoned rational discourse and are now just pretending interest in a futile effort to waste our time.

You finished yourself a while back, but these recent conversations closed the book insofar as your references are concerned, along with your attitude. Have a good one.

 

[Pogo]

You finished yourself a while back, but these recent conversations closed the book insofar as your references are concerned, along with your attitude. Have a good one.

Thank-you for your admission.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your reading comprehension is off again. What did he say exactly that has a big burden of proof?

OK, I read your response again due to your friend Pogo's response and attitude, and the point is aptly made as to whether anyone can prove there is no God. OK? By the way, that was a good point insofar as I am concerned. Take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank-you for your admission.

LOL, thanks -- you've just about closed the lid on your viewpoints similar to a coffin lid about your references to "evolution," so I doubt you can show, prove, or demonstrate, there is no God. The burden of proof is on you now about that, plus you can't do more than quote others without understanding. (You're finished as far as I am concerned...bye for now, take care...and have a good one...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Read a book on evolutionary biology. I'm not going to waste my time writing a long essay for you that you won't even try to understand anyway.

Can't you explain it in a few sentences what you mean by "complex intelligence"? Guess not, must be too complex for you to say in a few sentences. I mean you said it. Obviously you cannot say much about why you said complex intelligence emerged from simple components. Thanks anyway. Bye for now, take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I read your response again due to your friend Pogo's response and attitude, and the point is aptly made as to whether anyone can prove there is no God. OK? By the way, that was a good point insofar as I am concerned. Take care.

No, it is not. He was pointing out that even if a God exists we know nothing about it. That puts the burden of proof upon those claiming that a God exists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you're wrong absolutely in your assessment of the account, tale or not.

If it's a tale, one can't be wrong in any assessment. The tales (myths) of the garden, Noah, and Job, for example, mean to the reader whatever he thinks they mean. None of them actually mean anything to me except they depict a god that sets people up to fail, drowns them for its own engineering failures (and speaking of failure, attempts to correct its mistake using the same breeding stock), and the gratuitous bullying of a good man. Sure, I could make up nobler interpretations, but that's just making things up.

You are free to say that these stories mean something else to you, but that's irrelevant to my understanding of them, and vice versa.

I'm beginning to think some of you who are deadset against what the Bible says cannot read or understand too well. Thanks, though. Take care.

This is a common complaint from the faithful, who think that their message is so compelling that to not agree means to not have understood it.

Also, there is nothing clearly written in scripture that is difficult to understand, and the vague, ambiguous, and mutually contradictory passages also mean nothing specific.

What the critical thinker is dead set against is accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs.