• 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!

Irony of the evolutionary belief

cladking

Well-Known Member
Absurd. More suggests without any plausible mechanism. So thoughts (which form in brains) occurred without brains so that brains could self-create? Is there a reason to take you seriously instead of laughing?

Nothing I say is funny. I don't even believe in intelligence, remember. I'm not the one who believes he knows how anything poofed into existence.

I don't take the existence of reality at face value as proof everything I believe is true.

If it doesn't accept facts and reasong then it will be just like other superstitions that don't offer truth.

Didya notice that when it was found the universe is accelerating it had no real effect on the belief in the big bang?

Didya notice that 150 years of failure to support Darwin has had very little effect on peoples' beliefs in Evolution?

There is no scientism. Those who think science is scientism are examples of theists who have bias against science and reason.

Science is not scientism. Scientism arose from a misunderstanding of science.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Nothing I say is funny.
Why underestimate yourself, even if unitended?
I don't even believe in intelligence, remember.
And this isn't funny? Or pathetic?
I'm not the one who believes he knows how anything poofed into existence.
Why are you even mentioning this absurdity? It's irrelevant to educated people.
I don't take the existence of reality at face value as proof everything I believe is true.
What's the rest, your imagination?
Didya notice that when it was found the universe is accelerating it had no real effect on the belief in the big bang?
I read what experts report, and I avoid forming opinions about their work.
Didya notice that 150 years of failure to support Darwin has had very little effect on peoples' beliefs in Evolution?
I notice 150 years of disinformation from biased religious people, that is more and more absurd and delusional as time goes on.

And no one calls modern explanations of evolution "Darwin". This is code speak by biased people. That's one way we recognize you folk.
Science is not scientism. Scientism arose from a misunderstanding of science.
If anyone misunderstands science it's you. We see your posts state absurdities that not only ignore science, but misrepresent it. That you don't understand what you are doing might be evidence that you lack intelligence, as you claim above.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Nothing I say is funny.

Disagree.

I don't even believe in intelligence, remember.

Not surprising.

I'm not the one who believes he knows how anything poofed into existence.

You don't have creationist beliefs?

I don't take the existence of reality at face value as proof everything I believe is true.

Who does, aside from creationists?

Didya notice that when it was found the universe is accelerating it had no real effect on the belief in the big bang?

Do you think it should have? Why?

Didya notice that 150 years of failure to support Darwin has had very little effect on peoples' beliefs in Evolution?

I didn't. Primarily because it's a bold faced lie that such is the case.

Science is not scientism. Scientism arose from a misunderstanding of science.
So scientism applies to creationists?

He shoots.... he scores!
Checkmate, theists!

:shrug:
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I read what experts report, and I avoid forming opinions about their work.

That makes two of us. But sometimes I investigate on my own and I sometimes find expert beliefs are not founded on experiment, logic, or evidence. They are extrapolations and have assumptions at their roots.

This certainly applies to beliefs about life and how it changes and whether or not it poofed into existence.
And no one calls modern explanations of evolution "Darwin".

Certainly modern understanding of Evolution is far better than Darwin but it is still based on several Darwinian notions that have not been shown by experiment.

If anyone misunderstands science it's you. We see your posts state absurdities that not only ignore science, but misrepresent it.

Perhaps you should point one of these out sometime so we can discuss it.

The real problem is most people don't discuss, they lecture. Instead of telling me where or how I'm wrong they tell me what's what. This comes across as mere naysaying and is usually mixed with semantics and word games.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
That you don't understand what you are doing might be evidence that you lack intelligence, as you claim above.

When I was young I used to say that I was the first human smart enough to know he was stupid. Now I just say that I'm smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket and let others decide if that is true or not. You might be surprised how many people reject the claim.

I'm not even trying to be funny.
 

Clizby Wampuscat

Well-Known Member
If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time? :cool:
There is convincing evidence that life had a beginning and evolved into the diversity we have today. There is not convincing evidence there was an intelligence prior to evolution created intelligence.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
You don't have creationist beliefs?
No.

Who does, aside from creationists?

Every homo omniscience who ever walked God's green earth. We pick and choose what to believe and see reality in those terms.

Do you think it should have? Why?

The "Question" for decades was whether or not the universe would expand forever or collapse back in on itself. How could new knowledge not affect beliefs in the big bang?

Yes, of course new hypotheses are being developed to account for this anomaly. But the fact is still it is an anomaly.

So scientism applies to creationists?

I don't take your meaning. There's no reason that a theologian can't also be a scientimist.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time? :cool:
Because there's 0 objective evidence for the latter.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time? :cool:
Nothing.

Biological evolution as a way of explaining biodiversity on this planet is not incompatible with theisms that postulate gods are "superior intelligences." Or many other types of theism, for that matter.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
That makes two of us.
No it doesn’t. Look at what you say next.

But sometimes I investigate on my own and I sometimes find expert beliefs are not founded on experiment, logic, or evidence. They are extrapolations and have assumptions at their roots.
My investigation of non-experts criticizing experts is that the non-experts suffer from Dunning-Kruger, and are full of it and lack the self-awareness to realize it. You obviously think very highly of your beliefs while no one else does. Have you not noticed?

This certainly applies to beliefs about life and how it changes and whether or not it poofed into existence.
Experts in science don’t say anything poofed into existence. Thats creationist nonsense. That indicates your investigation is flawed.

Certainly modern understanding of Evolution is far better than Darwin but it is still based on several Darwinian notions that have not been shown by experiment.
And you make this claim but offer no details. It’s as if you are making it up. So we reject your thoughts. If you want to be taken seriously then explain your thoughts. Just stating them means nothing.

Perhaps you should point one of these out sometime so we can discuss it.
If you have a dispute then bring it up yourself. Just make sure you have thought it beyond the superficial.

The real problem is most people don't discuss, they lecture.
Valid explanations aren’t lectures. You don’t even get far enough to explain your beliefs.

Instead of telling me where or how I'm wrong they tell me what's what. This comes across as mere naysaying and is usually mixed with semantics and word games.
If you have a problem with being wrong then get the facts right. Get science right. Your beliefs about science are not educated, they are rooted in some bias that you don’t seem to be aware of having.

When I was young I used to say that I was the first human smart enough to know he was stupid.
Then aging didn’t produce wisdom, it ruined it.

Now I just say that I'm smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket and let others decide if that is true or not. You might be surprised how many people reject the claim.

I'm not even trying to be funny.
I’m sure picnic baskets know to not make poor judgments about science, so they have that going for them.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
My investigation of non-experts criticizing experts is that the non-experts suffer from Dunning-Kruger, and are full of it and lack the self-awareness to realize it. You obviously think very highly of your beliefs while no one else does.

It would be far more accurate to say I have a very high opinion of logic, experiment, and physical evidence. I also have a great deal of respect for science including 40,000 years of natural human science that failed at the "tower of babel".

I have zero respect for expert opinion or my own opinion. I defer to expert opinion usually but this doesn't mean I believe in it or in experts.

I have a great deal of respect for experts, the work required to become expert, and the et als upon whose shoulders they stand. But their opinions are still just opinion. People need to separate fact and experiment from opinion.

Believing in experts and Peers is a defining characteristic of scientism.

Experts in science don’t say anything poofed into existence.

Normally real scientists don't go that far. But all scientists and all homo omnisciencis take reality as a given and at face value. In a sense we all believe we poofed into existence; I think therefore I am. The universe apparently poofed from a really big bang.

And you make this claim but offer no details. It’s as if you are making it up. So we reject your thoughts.

What did you want me to say; that science has gotten worse since Darwin. In many ways it has but there is far more progress than the nonsense still based on Darwin's assumptions.

It hasn't gotten worse so I said the opposite. You have your beliefs and I have mine. The difference is I try not to have any beliefs and am vaguely ashamed of all each of them.

To each his own.

Valid explanations aren’t lectures.

Of course they are!!!! If you take as fact that your assumptions are correct then your conclusions are irrelevant to EVERY argument that rejects them. You need facts, logic, and experiment, not lectures.

I’m sure picnic baskets know to not make poor judgments about science, so they have that going for them.
You're pretty sure of that are you?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
It would be far more accurate to say I have a very high opinion of logic, experiment, and physical evidence.
It would be accurate if you showed it. You don't. We can see it, you can't.
I also have a great deal of respect for science including 40,000 years of natural human science that failed at the "tower of babel".
Your own statements reveal you don't. Non-expert criticism of science is contempt for science.
I have zero respect for expert opinion or my own opinion.
In your opinion. Doh!!!!
I defer to expert opinion usually but this doesn't mean I believe in it or in experts.
Huh?

Hit head with hammer to see if the hammer is hard.
I have a great deal of respect for experts, the work required to become expert, and the et als upon whose shoulders they stand. But their opinions are still just opinion. People need to separate fact and experiment from opinion.
Like saying "I like boats but only boats that don't leak, but all boats leak so I don't like them."
Believing in experts and Peers is a defining characteristic of scientism.
And this sentence defines bias against science and it's method.
Normally real scientists don't go that far. But all scientists and all homo omnisciencis take reality as a given and at face value. In a sense we all believe we poofed into existence; I think therefore I am. The universe apparently poofed from a really big bang.
Gold medal for being vague and irrelevant. You obviously have bias against science but either don't know why, or you do but are too lazy to type it out.
What did you want me to say; that science has gotten worse since Darwin. In many ways it has but there is far more progress than the nonsense still based on Darwin's assumptions.
Oh sure, it's been all down hill since 1865. Not a thing has been discovered and revealed. What kind of horse and buggy do you use? Too bad we can't fly long distances, dang. Well, I need to put my pen back in the inkwell and send this letter.
It hasn't gotten worse so I said the opposite. You have your beliefs and I have mine. The difference is I try not to have any beliefs and am vaguely ashamed of all each of them.
Don't try to equalize what you believe and what I believe, You have obvious biases that I don't have. I can explain my thinking, you refuse to, or are unable. That's why your posts are superficial and irrelevant claims.
Of course they are!!!! If you take as fact that your assumptions are correct then your conclusions are irrelevant to EVERY argument that rejects them. You need facts, logic, and experiment, not lectures.
And again another claim without a single bit of evidence and explanation. So I reject it.

If you are going to bother responding try explaining why you think as you do, not just what you think.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Humans cannot have experimental evidence about anything that exceeds or precedes our spatiotemporal environment. The only thing that can be known about that is what any previous Intelligence reveal about the whole process and so on.

For example: we could never know what exists outside of what came into existence from the BigBang onwards. We cannot know who caused it, where the energy that caused the explosion came from, what kind of infinitesimally small particle exploded, who was manipulating the process to obtain the precise results that emerged later, how many intelligences existed at that moment, what relationship these intelligences may have with what emerged later, how life as we know it in our planet came to be, etc.

The results of the process are evident samples of design, although many cannot distinguish that. Those who do not admit design say that human intelligence (which is sometimes indistinguishable from what the concept of science defines) arose from an unguided, chaotic process, which eventually led to this magnificent result that is the rational thought supported on the modern human's brain.

In this context I repeat the initial question:
if they say that human consciousness eventually appear in an autonomous process without designer ... and considering TIME like the number line, with a past infinity and a posterior infinity with 0 in the middle, as we mentally conceive it:

What blocks the minds of some and makes it seem impossible to them that in THE INFINITE pre-bigbang (whatever it may have been), predecessors intelligences already existed?

PS: I read few interesting answers... most of these known guys I talk about are just spoilling the thread though... normal in them ;)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Humans cannot have experimental evidence about anything that exceeds or precedes our spatiotemporal environment. The only thing that can be known about that is what any previous Intelligence reveal about the whole process and so on.

Why not? You need to prove this. Far too often creationists make claims as fact that they cannot support. A wise creationist (well of course that is an oxymoron) would have asked "How does one obtain experimental evidence from the past". The problem is that when most people do "experiments" they are actually only doing cookbook chemistry where the answer is already known. Cookbook chemistry experiments are used to teach students some of the basic concepts of science. Since the results of these experiments is well known they are not really experiments.
For example: we could never know what exists outside of what came into existence from the BigBang onwards. We cannot know who caused it, where the energy that caused the explosion came from, what kind of infinitesimally small particle exploded, who was manipulating the process to obtain the precise results that emerged later, how many intelligences existed at that moment, what relationship these intelligences may have with what emerged later, how life as we know it in our planet came to be, etc.
Well, yes and no. There may not be a before the Big Bang We cannot show strong evidence for that yet. Nor can we definitively answer your other questions. But there is no reason to believe that we can never know. What we can say is that it does not look as if any intelligences were needed at all.

By the way, if you want to claim that there had to be a God the burden of proof is upon you.
The results of the process are evident samples of design, although many cannot distinguish that. Those who do not admit design say that human intelligence (which is sometimes indistinguishable from what the concept of science defines) arose from an unguided, chaotic process, which eventually led to this magnificent result that is the rational thought supported on the modern human's brain.

What "design" are you talking about? There does not appear to be anything that was intelligently designed in nature. In fact in the Dover Trial it was shown that believers in Intelligent Design had no evidence for their beliefs. It was not science. I do not know of any changes since then
In this context I repeat the initial question:
if they say that human consciousness eventually appear in an autonomous process without designer ... and considering TIME like the number line, with a past infinity and a posterior infinity with 0 in the middle, as we mentally conceive it:

What blocks the minds of some and makes it seem impossible to them that in THE INFINITE pre-bigbang (whatever it may have been), predecessors intelligences already existed?

Oops, you assume a before the Big Bang again. But I will be generous. No minds are "blocked". You may be projecting there. It may be possible (we do not even know of a god is possible at all) that a deity of some sort formed the universe. The problem is that there is no evidence of such a deity.

Do you believe in Big Foot? Probably not. Why? Because there is a lack of credible evidence for a Big Foot. Belief should come after enough reliable evidence for a concept has been supplied by believers. And that is the problem. There does not appear to be any credible scientific evidence that a God did it or was even needed.
PS: I read few interesting answers... most of these known guys I talk about are just spoilling the thread though... normal in them ;)
Well it wasn't me!!
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Let's make it simple: is it totally impossible that there were pre-BigBang intelligences?


PS: Some militant atheists don't like to think about certain things ... They are just so busy attacking different points of view that they just don't have time to think better. ;)
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
Non-expert criticism of science is contempt for science.

Who is better qualified to critique any science than a philosopher or a metaphysician? I am a metaphysician.

Like saying "I like boats but only boats that don't leak, but all boats leak so I don't like them."

I like all boats except those that sink while I am on them.

Evolutionary beliefs are a sinking boat so I am not on board.

Your beliefs about science are not educated, they are rooted in some bias that you don’t seem to be aware of having.

I'm quite aware of my biases. The chief one is that belief and assumption have no meaning in science though they drive interpretation of experiment. Definitions and axioms underlie the meaning of experiment but every interpreter sees it in terms of his prejudice called the prevailing paradigm.

And again another claim without a single bit of evidence and explanation. So I reject it.

This is simple logic. If you don't see it then I'd be happy to lead you through but not if you expect some proof or a link.

Do you realize all argument, all, belief, and all perception is founded in assumptions? If you don't understand this it is far more basic than the statement you rejected for no reason.

If you are going to bother responding try explaining why you think as you do, not just what you think.

I started with one simple assumption. All people make perfect sense all the time in terms of their premises.

Obviously this does not include insane people but it does include all life and all individual life though I didn't know that when I started. If my assumption is wrong then I might be wrong as well. Even if my assumption is exactly correct I might be wrong.
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
Humans cannot have experimental evidence about anything that exceeds or precedes our spatiotemporal environment. The only thing that can be known about that is what any previous Intelligence reveal about the whole process and so on.

For example: we could never know what exists outside of what came into existence from the BigBang onwards. We cannot know who caused it, where the energy that caused the explosion came from, what kind of infinitesimally small particle exploded, who was manipulating the process to obtain the precise results that emerged later, how many intelligences existed at that moment, what relationship these intelligences may have with what emerged later, how life as we know it in our planet came to be, etc.

The results of the process are evident samples of design, although many cannot distinguish that. Those who do not admit design say that human intelligence (which is sometimes indistinguishable from what the concept of science defines) arose from an unguided, chaotic process, which eventually led to this magnificent result that is the rational thought supported on the modern human's brain.

In this context I repeat the initial question:
if they say that human consciousness eventually appear in an autonomous process without designer ... and considering TIME like the number line, with a past infinity and a posterior infinity with 0 in the middle, as we mentally conceive it:

What blocks the minds of some and makes it seem impossible to them that in THE INFINITE pre-bigbang (whatever it may have been), predecessors intelligences already existed?

PS: I read few interesting answers... most of these known guys I talk about are just spoilling the thread though... normal in them ;)

Homo erectus hunted and used fire. Homo Neanderthalensis built fires, cooked, hunted, and had language.

Are these human intelligences?

I think so. And these two species alone cover 2 million years of earths homo history.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Let's make it simple: is it totally impossible that there were pre-BigBang intelligences?

Doh!
280.jpg



PS: Some militant atheists don't like to think about certain things ... They are just so busy attacking different points of view that they just don't have time to think better. ;)

Wtf are you talking about?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Humans cannot have experimental evidence about anything that exceeds or precedes our spatiotemporal environment. The only thing that can be known about that is what any previous Intelligence reveal about the whole process and so on.

For example: we could never know what exists outside of what came into existence from the BigBang onwards. We cannot know who caused it, ....
Who? You just said we can't know, yet here you are speculating. And not only speculating but guessing there is a someone behind the Big Bang? Who planted that idea in your head? Why waste time with this since you already said we can't know? If we can't know, then we can't known. End of process.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
What atheists say:

NOTHING -:> something -:> life w/o conscience -:> rational human brain (consciousness)

in short: from nothing to intelligence. ;) and this was just after the BigBang.

We, believers, say that the beginning was not after the BigBang ... that is what we are allow to know ... so, before the BigBang>

Intelligent Designer -:> something -:> life -:> BigBang and another universe.

Since no one can say there was not a BEFORE the BigBang, it is not impossible, logically talking, that there already was God before our beginning. :cool:

Atheists believe in from nothing to intelligence, but don't want to believe from Inteligence to intelligence. It doesn't make any sense to me. :(Nevertheless some theorists are SPECULATING about many universes, many dimensions, and even many beginnings and endings of those universes o_O.

Give me a break. :facepalm:
 
Top