I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Thermos aquaticus]

What? We are not discussing the positive case for creation. We have been discussing the negative case for materialistic macroevolution. If we were discussing creation I would have made the case for it. We can discuss creation if you want but we can't do both. Do you want to discuss what is true of biological evolution or the case for creation.

Can you cite any experiments where scientists have observed a deity creating life? If not, then you reject creationism as well, do you not?

 

[Audie]

Whatever, we are done here for now.

Of course; it is as I said. Incapable of admitting any
error. I expected nothing any different. Nor, I am
sure, did any lurker.

ETA-

OR, you could of course, astonish all by doing do,
and prove me wrong in the process!

I would even do 50 pushups penance for presumption!

It would take a while, I can only do two at a time.

 

[1robin]

You do realize that the single celled organisms we have today are the product of over 3 billion years of evolution, right? Modern bacteria in no way represent what the earliest life would look like.

Do you realize I was talking about the first single celled forms of life and not about modern single celled forms of life.

If you would like to discuss one of those topics at length, I would be happy to do so. However, you seemed crunched for time so I won't impose on your limited time here. If you wanted to, I would be interested in how you figured out what the first life on Earth looked like since I am unaware of any scientist who knows the answer to that question.

No it is up to you. I already know why I think each one of them is a problem for evolutionists, your the one that doesn't so it is up to you.

So there is no fossil evidence that would ever convince you?

This is intellectually dishonest. My claiming that a few pictures did not convince me of macroevolution does not in any way imply that I would reject all the evidence that may be out there. This kind of junk just makes me tired.

It is a thread that I wrote on this forum. The entire opening post is the argument.

Why is this just another link where you did not provide what I requested again? This is the last time I am going to say this. For at least the tenth time if your going to post a link to something copy and paste the most challenging portion of what is at that link. If I find it compelling I will investigate the link. Do you understand what I have been asking for?

And yet you though the taxonomic classification of "dog" was relevant. So why is "dog" relevant but others are irrelevant?

What?

It is a thread on these forums. Click on it.

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

I just can't ask the above again. Sigh!!!!!

 

[1robin]

Can you cite any experiments where scientists have observed a deity creating life? If not, then you reject creationism as well, do you not?

I have not claimed anything about creation, why are you?

If creation occurred it was finished long before science even existed. It does not occur in our time. This line of inquiry is silly.

 

[Audie]

Do you realize I was talking about the first single celled forms of life and not about modern single celled forms of life.

No it is up to you. I already know why I think each one of them is a problem for evolutionists, your the one that doesn't so it is up to you.



This is intellectually dishonest. My claiming that a few pictures did not convince me of macroevolution does not in any way imply that I would reject all the evidence that may be out there. This kind of junk just makes me tired.



Why is this just another link where you did not provide what I requested again? This is the last time I am going to say this. For at least the tenth time if your going to post a link to something copy and paste the most challenging portion of what is at that link. If I find it compelling I will investigate the link. Do you understand what I have been asking for?



What?



I just can't ask the above again. Sigh!!!!!

this is for the lurkers-

from an earlier post, repeated in more or less the same terms above

4. The sheer complexity of the earliest life forms. Single celled organisms (the first form of life)..........


Then we see reference to intellectual honesty.

The above statements about first life are false.

Let us see if our friend can admit that nobody (but a creationist) claims that a cell was or could have been
the first life form.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Do you realize I was talking about the first single celled forms of life and not about modern single celled forms of life.

Then what did this life look like, and why do you say that it was too complex?

" The sheer complexity of the earliest life forms. Single celled organisms (the first form of life) are more complex that the space shuttle."

So what is that complexity? How was the first life more complex than the space shuttle, and where is your evidence to back these assertions?

No it is up to you. I already know why I think each one of them is a problem for evolutionists, your the one that doesn't so it is up to you.

Since you haven't demonstrated that any of them are problems, there is nothing to disprove. All you have are bare assertions.

This is intellectually dishonest. My claiming that a few pictures did not convince me of macroevolution does not in any way imply that I would reject all the evidence that may be out there. This kind of junk just makes me tired.

Those are real fossil species. If fish with legs won't convince you, then what will?

Why is this just another link where you did not provide what I requested again? This is the last time I am going to say this. For at least the tenth time if your going to post a link to something copy and paste the most challenging portion of what is at that link. If I find it compelling I will investigate the link. Do you understand what I have been asking for?

What this means is that two insertions that happen independently of one another should occur at different spots in the genome in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, when we find the same insertion at the same spot in the genomes of two individuals this means that the insertion happened only once in a common ancestor. Again, if two individuals do not share common ancestry then their ERVs should be found at different places in their genome. If they share a relatively recent ancestor then they should share nearly all of their ERVs at the same location in their genomes which are called orthologous ERVs. This is the scientific test for common ancestry.

So how does this apply to human ancestry? The human genome has over 200,000 ERVs. There are about the same number in the chimp genome. Of the ERVs in the human genome, nearly all of them are found at the same position in the chimp genome. Less than 100 human ERVs do not have an ortholog (i.e. same ERV at the same position) in the chimp genome. This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry between chimps and humans.

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

What?

"Dog" is a taxonomic classification. Here is what you said about Chihuahuas and Great Danes:

"The bible affirms evolution within "kinds". In this case everything was a type of dog and so it is evidence for microevolution. "--1robin

Obviously, taxonomic classifications are relevant because you are using them. Therefore, primate is just as relevant as dog.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I have not claimed anything about creation, why are you?

Do you reject creationism because there is no evidence for it?

If creation occurred it was finished long before science even existed. It does not occur in our time. This line of inquiry is silly.

So why wouldn't the same thing apply to abiogenesis?

 

[Jose Fly]

For at least the tenth time if your going to post a link to something copy and paste the most challenging portion of what is at that link. If I find it compelling I will investigate the link.

And if it's material he has no answer for, he will just say "I'm done with this discussion". Such is the nature of creationism.

I mean, we all realize that 1robin is playing this board in the exact same way as previous creationists (i.e., our JW members), right?

 

[Audie]

Often the game is to be able to report elsewhere:

I single handed argued a roomfull of really mean evos
to a standstill!

They could not convince me!

 

[scott777]

I've recently committed to rejoining my family's religion (the Jehovah's Witnesses). In doing so I'm obligated to give up my belief in evolution. This is hard for me because I find evolution so logical.

To combat my resistance to rejecting evolution, I've been researching all the objections to evolution and studying all the arguments for creation. It's not working. I can't seem to give up my belief in evolution, despite the fact that it goes against Jehovah's Witness theology.

What should i do?

How do I manipulate my logical facilities so that I can genuinely reject evolution and genuinely accept creation?

May I suggest that every time you have one of these 'logical' thoughts, repeat the words: Donald Trump, Donald Trump, and hit your head with some rhubarb.

Why am I telling you this? God told me that he helps those who help themselves. So darn well help yourself!

 

[NathantheProfit]

I don't understand why you would want to manipulate your thinking like this. Why reject the evidence to try to fit in? This goes far beyond just pretending to believe what others do just to appease them. I'm not even sure it's possible to choose your beliefs like this anyway.

I think all you can do is look at the evidence and form your beliefs based on what shows up. If the results are different from what you would prefer to believe, oh well. I guess you'll have to pretend.

I was just joking. I'm god

 

[Audie]

Which one?

Not Diana, thats me.

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...67j0i30j0i24.a3q-wCndCzY#imgrc=fkm3n1kp5DB1zM:

 

[Sha'irullah]

I think the issue here is the age old matter of people sacrificing the community of a religion in favor of its rationality.

 

[Audie]

I think the issue here is the age old matter of people sacrificing the community of a religion in favor of its rationality.

huh?

 

[Sha'irullah]

huh?

Religion provides community and in this case family. The OP is obviously happy about being more in touch with their family but at the same time feeling the need to fit in and sacrifice their own personal beliefs which is biological evolution in this case. It is a simple delima and is the same dilemma that stopped me from leaving Islam earlier even though I no longer agreed with the beliefs of the religion.

 

[Audie]

Religion provides community and in this case family. The OP is obviously happy about being more in touch with their family but at the same time feeling the need to fit in and sacrifice their own personal beliefs which is biological evolution in this case. It is a simple delima and is the same dilemma that stopped me from leaving Islam earlier even though I no longer agreed with the beliefs of the religion.

Only he can decide what is important to him.

For myself, I feel fortunate to not be in such a
position.

I hope it is not too much of an issue for you.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Only he can decide what is important to him.

For myself, I feel fortunate to not be in such a
position.

I hope it is not too much of an issue for you.

Obviously this is a matter of what is good for his own sanity but from personal experience I do not think it is worth the trouble. A religion must mesh with your own experiences and understanding of the world and be as objective and accommodating to reality as possible, because without this you will always find yourself in positions of confusion and self disgust.

I spent 2 years of my life as a self hating Muslim when I should have departed from the religion as it no longer was logically tolerable to myself. I actually admit it ruined my late teen years and early adulthood because of my emotional attachment.

 

[Audie]

Obviously this is a matter of what is good for his own sanity but from personal experience I do not think it is worth the trouble. A religion must mesh with your own experiences and understanding of the world and be as objective and accommodating to reality as possible, because without this you will always find yourself in positions of confusion and self disgust.

I spent 2 years of my life as a self hating Muslim when I should have departed from the religion as it no longer was logically tolerable to myself. I actually admit it ruined my late teen years and early adulthood because of my emotional attachment.

That is sad. Hearing such things, I remind myself
of how very fortunate I am.

How are you dealing with it now?

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is sad. Hearing such things, I remind myself
of how very fortunate I am.

How are you dealing with it now?

As of now I have gotten over my hatred of Islam and thankfully am not bitter toward Muslims. I was always worried my own experiences would make me hateful and bitter but thankfully I can love something without being apart of it. I can respect Islam even though I admit it is not the religion for me.

 

[Audie]

As of now I have gotten over my hatred of Islam and thankfully am not bitter toward Muslims. I was always worried my own experiences would make me hateful and bitter but thankfully I can love something without being apart of it. I can respect Islam even though I admit it is not the religion for me.

It is a good thing to get past hatred, esp for a group.
I felt that way toward Japanese, did not think they'd
been nuked enough. I've been to Japan now, with
my Japanese friend, and, it was such a burden lifted.