Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

And yet your intelligent Designer is supposed to exist undesigned and undirected killing your argument stone dead.

You keep saying this as if it has an answer? Until mere mortals understand more fully what is beyond the confines of planet Earth, even science understands how much there is still to learn.

The power behind creation has not yet been discovered, so scientists (as they outgrew religion) did what humans often do....they substituted one belief system for another.

Men of learning stepped outside of the box that religion had put their gods into, and so became 'gods' to themselves and each other. It looked like freedom...but it simply became another kind of enslavement.

Evolution emerged as a good explanation for the existence of creation but it could never quite achieve success in explaining how life began. Brushing that important question under the rug, science then built an elaborate story (more fanciful, I believe, than anything ID supporters have ever proposed) using fabricated "evidence" by putting words into the mouths of fossils and interpreting everything else to fit their pet theory. Any who dared to question the validity their 'findings' were relegated to the ranks of the ignorant and uneducated.....as this thread so clearly demonstrates.

Those who like to stand on the sidelines and fire their 'snipes' have contributed nothing of substance to this topic, and the "scientists" among us just look down their learned noses and hurl insults without ever providing "substantive" evidence for their theory. The challenge was to do this "without the use of suggestion, supposition or mere belief" that evolution took place the way they insist that it "must have".

I am still waiting for such evidence. The challenge has not been met so far, despite all the bluster. Insults are all they have. Let's see the evidence in plain language so that those who have been taught that evolution is a fact, can see it for what it truly is.....the greatest con ever served up to gullible humans.

You may have killed off the Creator in your own minds, but you cannot make him disappear just because you think he is a figment of someone's imagination. I believe that creation is the greatest testimony to God's existence. Those with spiritual eyes can see it so clearly, because only those who "seek" shall "find". What does that mean for those who aren't seeking?

 

[Sapiens]

You keep saying this as if it has an answer? Until mere mortals understand more fully what is beyond the confines of planet Earth, even science understands how much there is still to learn.

It is an answer, both realistic and honest. The problem is so well known and recognized that it even has a name: "regression."

Your statement, that the universe requires a creator but that the creator does not is contradictory, circular and illogical. It is far more reasonable and far simpler to say either, "the universe has always been there," or "we do not know ... yet" rather than retreat into a fairy tale based on a bronze age historical novel.

The power behind creation has not yet been discovered, so scientists (as they outgrew religion) did what humans often do....they substituted one belief system for another.

It has already been shown that a knowledge system replaced the belief system that you are still stuck with. Please deal with the copious evidence that has already been presented because no one has the energy or interest to rehash it for you because you show no respect to logic and evidence that does not fit your preconceived belief system.

Men of learning stepped outside of the box that religion had put their gods into, and so became 'gods' to themselves and each other. It looked like freedom...but it simply became another kind of enslavement.

And you, the self admitted and proud ignoramus are so much better equipped than all of modern thought to dictate which fairy tales are true and which are not?

Evolution emerged as a good explanation for the existence of creation but it could never quite achieve success in explaining how life began.

Once again, evolution and abiogeneisis have nothing in common ... this has been explained to you ad infinitum.

Brushing that important question under the rug,

It is not an "important" question, it is irrelevant. Evolution is a fact, how life began is, as yet, incompletely delineated, but the answer to abiogenesis (even it were to turn out to be your fairy tale) has no impact on the correctness of Darwinian Evolution.

science then built an elaborate story (more fanciful, I believe, than anything ID supporters have ever proposed)

By you own admission you lack the basic knowledge to have such pronouncements taken seriously.

using fabricated "evidence" by putting words into the mouths of fossils and interpreting everything else to fit their pet theory.

Everyone is lying, only we know the truth of the matter is symptomatic of mind control cults. Shall we pursue that line of inquiry in detail?

Any who dared to question the validity their 'findings' were relegated to the ranks of the ignorant and uneducated.....as this thread so clearly demonstrates.

No, it was not the questioning of their findings, it was the poor quality or complete lack or their evidence.

Those who like to stand on the sidelines and fire their 'snipes' have contributed nothing of substance to this topic, and the "scientists" among us just look down their learned noses and hurl insults without ever providing "substantive" evidence for their theory.

That is a bald faced lie.

The challenge was to do this "without the use of suggestion, supposition or mere belief" that evolution took place the way they insist that it "must have".

You clearly need to reread the thread.

I am still waiting for such evidence.

When you are blindfolded, have your fingers in your ears and run in circles whining, "no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, ..." you will have not recognize evidence that is presented.

The challenge has not been met so far, despite all the bluster. Insults are all they have. Let's see the evidence in plain language so that those who have been taught that evolution is a fact, can see it for what it truly is.....the greatest con ever served up to gullible humans.

Asked and answered. Take off your blindfold, get your fingers out of your ears and stop whining. Then you might just learn something.

You may have killed off the Creator in your own minds, but you cannot make him disappear just because you think he is a figment of someone's imagination. I believe that creation is the greatest testimony to God's existence. Those with spiritual eyes can see it so clearly, because only those who "seek" shall "find". What does that mean for those who aren't seeking?

... and you are fond of "Emperor's New Clothes" analogies ... phew, there's hypocrisy if ever it was.

 

[savagewind]

I

Your statement, that the universe requires a creator but that the creator does not is contradictory, circular and illogical.
.

It actually isn't. Everything in the universe has many, many, many parts. God has no parts.
God is ONE. There is nothing that needs to be coordinated with God.

 

[Deeje]

It is an answer, both realistic and honest. The problem is so well known and recognized that it even has a name: "regression."

Your statement, that the universe requires a creator but that the creator does not is contradictory, circular and illogical. It is far more reasonable and far simpler to say either, "the universe has always been there," or "we do not know ... yet" rather than retreat into a fairy tale based on a bronze age historical novel.
It has already been shown that a knowledge system replaced the belief system that you are still stuck with. Please deal with the copious evidence that has already been presented because no one has the energy or interest to rehash it for you because you show no respect to logic and evidence that does not fit your preconceived belief system.
And you, the self admitted and proud ignoramus are so much better equipped than all of modern thought to dictate which fairy tales are true and which are not?
Once again, evolution and abiogeneisis have nothing in common ... this has been explained to you ad infinitum.
It is not an "important" question, it is irrelevant. Evolution is a fact, how life began is, as yet, incompletely delineated, but the answer to abiogenesis (even it were to turn out to be your fairy tale) has no impact on the correctness of Darwinian Evolution.
By you own admission you lack the basic knowledge to have such pronouncements taken seriously.
Everyone is lying, only we know the truth of the matter is symptomatic of mind control cults. Shall we pursue that line of inquiry in detail?
No, it was not the questioning of their findings, it was the poor quality or complete lack or their evidence.
That is a bald faced lie.
You clearly need to reread the thread.
When you are blindfolded, have your fingers in your ears and run in circles whining, "no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, ..." you will have not recognize evidence that is presented.
Asked and answered. Take off your blindfold, get your fingers out of your ears and stop whining. Then you might just learn something.

... and you are fond of "Emperor's New Clothes" analogies ... phew, there's hypocrisy if ever it was.

Blah blah blah Sapiens...we've heard it all before...its just bluster. I believe that it is you and your cronies who "have their fingers in their ears, whining". The "Emperor" never had anything on except in your willing imagination. He is still parading around in a state of undress. It wasn't the adults who proclaimed that the Emperor was naked.....

.......it was the children.

You have never presented "evidence" that was not based on "belief, supposition and conjecture" so where is your high ground on this issue? You think intelligent people can't be fooled by a good con artist? You don't think that they can be swayed by the power of a good argument, whether it is true or not? Science has proven this to be true every time a new discovery undid an old standard.

The existence of my God and belief in his creation predates your "new" replacement beliefs by millennia. If such a God exists, (and I firmly believe he does,) then your beliefs have been around for like 5 seconds and are absolute unsubstantiated rubbish IMO. Calling out your "evidence" for what it is, must be irksome for people like yourself who are obviously used to people deferring to your educational credentials...whatever they might be. (you seem to be impressed by them)

I don't need a science degree to understand that what you believe is not based on fact......you and your fraternity obviously dote on each other's opinions, pat each other on the back, and look down your noses at anyone who is not possessed of your great scientific knowledge....but seriously....tell someone who is impressed. Isn't an educated jerk, still a jerk generally speaking?

 

[Sapiens]

It actually isn't. Everything in the universe has many, many, many parts. God has no parts.
God is ONE. There is nothing that needs to be coordinated with God.

If nothing needs to be coordinated with your god then your god is strictly supernumerary and by Occam's razor best thrown over the side.

Even died-in-the wool religionists like Craig, Morris and Feinberg reject Divine Simplicity as philosophically and theologically unacceptable and too problematic to maintain the doctrine. Going out on a limb is one thing, going out on a limb and sawing it off behind you is another indeed.

 

[savagewind]

If nothing needs to be coordinated with your god then your god is strictly supernumerary and by Occam's razor best thrown over the side.

Even died-in-the wool religionists like Craig, Morris and Feinberg reject Divine Simplicity as philosophically and theologically unacceptable and too problematic to maintain the doctrine. Going out on a limb is one thing, going out on a limb and sawing it off behind you is another indeed.

LOL. One not many.
God is Spirit.
God is the opposite of supernumerary.

 

[savagewind]

Coordinate.
.
bring the different elements of (a complex activity or organization) into a relationship that will ensure efficiency or harmony.

God is not of different elements. OK?

 

[Sapiens]

Blah blah blah Sapiens...we've heard it all before...its just bluster. I believe that it is you and your cronies who "have their fingers in their ears, whining". The "Emperor" never had anything on except in your willing imagination. He is still parading around in a state of undress. It wasn't the adults who proclaimed that the Emperor was naked.....

.......it was the children.

Now you are reducing the discourse, because the written record that is here and that belies your stance, to nothing more than a childish shadow of dialectic composed of nothing more than, "I know you are, but what an I?"

You have never presented "evidence" that was not based on "belief, supposition and conjecture" so where is your high ground on this issue? You think intelligent people can't be fooled by a good con artist? You don't think that they can be swayed by the power of a good argument, whether it is true or not? Science has proven this to be true every time a new discovery undid an old standard.

The thread is full of solid and unrefuted evidence that supports Darwinian Evolution and that further falsifies your fairy tales. Your unwillingness to admit this, and in most all cases your unwillingness to attempt to falsify or even admit to the existence of said evidence, has been noted by many thread participants of diverse opinions.

The existence of my God and belief in his creation predates your "new" replacement beliefs by millennia. If such a God exists, (and I firmly believe he does,) then your beliefs have been around for like 5 seconds and are absolute unsubstantiated rubbish IMO. Calling out your "evidence" for what it is, must be irksome for people like yourself who are obviously used to people deferring to your educational credentials...whatever they might be. (you seem to be impressed by them)

Finally! You come up with something new! Too bad it's just a logical fallacy that you've not used before, in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition, this is known as argumentum ad antiquitatem.

I don't need a science degree to understand that what you believe is not based on fact......you and your fraternity obviously dote on each other's opinions, pat each other on the back, and look down your noses at anyone who is not possessed of your great scientific knowledge....but seriously....tell someone who is impressed. Isn't an educated jerk, still a jerk generally speaking?

Just as a ignorant jerk is still a jerk. If you've got to be a jerk ... would it not be best to try to be a smart one rather than an ignorant one? The study required to earn a science degree would help you no end.

 

[Sapiens]

LOL. One not many.
God is Spirit.
God is the opposite of supernumerary.

Care to provide tangible evidence of those claims as well as a refutation of the views of e Craig, Morris and Feinberg who each reject Divine Simplicity as philosophically and theologically unacceptable and too problematic to maintain the doctrine?

 

[savagewind]

Care to provide tangible evidence of those claims as well as a refutation of the views of e Craig, Morris and Feinberg who each reject Divine Simplicity as philosophically and theologically unacceptable and too problematic to maintain the doctrine?

Being without parts does not mean simple.

 

[Sapiens]

Being without parts does not mean simple.

Please, that's a semantic quibble. Answer the question if you can, if you can't ... recognize that neither your philosophy nor your theology are up to the level that is needed here and go hit the books.

Hint: "Divine Simplicity" is the title usually given by scholars to the doctrine you were trying, but failing, to advance.

 

[savagewind]

Please, that's a semantic quibble. Answer the question if you can, if you can't ... recognize that neither your philosophy nor your theology are up to the level that is needed here and go hit the books.

Hint: "Divine Simplicity" is the title usually given by scholars to the doctrine you were trying, but failing, to advance.

Well, the prophets who have said, "God is Holy" and I agree. Why would I care about what other people say?
Have you seen the movie Cast Away with Tom Hanks? One is not simple.

 

[savagewind]

Hey, @Sapiens is the "singularity" a real thing?
What do you think of the people who believe it exists?

 

[savagewind]

This is what I have heard here.

God can't be one because God can't be simple and one is simple.

Is one simple? Is it simpler than 2? While we are on the subject can anyone tell me is zero is the simplest?

 

[Deeje]

Now you are reducing the discourse, because the written record that is here and that belies your stance, to nothing more than a childish shadow of dialectic composed of nothing more than, "I know you are, but what an I?"

Perhaps you can interpret this garbled bit of nonsense...? Makes no sense to me.

Try English.....

The thread is full of solid and unrefuted evidence that supports Darwinian Evolution and that further falsifies your fairy tales. Your unwillingness to admit this, and in most all cases your unwillingness to attempt to falsify or even admit to the existence of said evidence, has been noted by many thread participants of diverse opinions.

Now this is classic.....

What evidence? If you were asked to provide real evidence for macro-evolution that does not depend on supposition, suggestion or educated guessing....then please feel free to show us what you offered. This thread is well over 200 pages long with thousands of replies......you really think anyone is going to go back and check? Nice try.

I am fascinated that a person of your supposed educational background needs to hang around religious forums to make yourself sound important......let me guess.....you're retired and have you nothing better to do?

Finally! You come up with something new! Too bad it's just a logical fallacy that you've not used before, in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition, this is known as argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Thank you for the lesson in logical fallacies......but what on earth did that have to do with what I said?
Should we all be impressed by your vast command of Latin now? I guess you can Google too.

If you've got to be a jerk ... would it not be best to try to be a smart one rather than an ignorant one? The study required to earn a science degree would help you no end.

I don't need a science degree to see that macro-evolution is a gigantic fraud....you obviously need a science degree to believe it. That doesn't say much for science degrees IMO. I am smart enough to see through your bluster and your empty claims....where is your evidence for macro-evolution that does not rely on belief or faith? I haven't seen any.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Lets see what science does so that we can compare......

How about we start with the definition of "empirical evidence"......?

"The word "empirical" indicates information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiments. A central theme of science and scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or at least empirically based, that is, it should depend on evidence or results that can be observed by our senses."

OK....What has been "observed" and "experienced" by scientists' 'senses' regarding macro-evolution"? Who was there to observe all this evolving?
No one apparently because humans were millions of years from making an appearance on this earth....all we have left are assumptions and guesswork about this period.

So what about "experiments"? What has science observed in the lab that leads them to conclude that amoebas became dinosaurs and everything in between in the pre-historic past before humans were even here?

"Speciation" I have heard many of you say. So what is "speciation" and how is it proof of macro-evolution?

This is from Britanica..... speciation | Causes, Process, & Types

"Speciation, the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. Speciation involves the splitting of a single evolutionary lineage into two or more genetically independent lineages. . . .There are many hypotheses about how speciation starts, and they differ mainly in the role of geographic isolation and the origin of reproductive isolation (the prevention of two populations or more from interbreeding with one another)."

Here is an example of speciation on the Galapagos Islands among its finches.

"Empirical implies that the information is based on experience, and data is information we gather about something. Thus the information acquired by scientists through experimentation and observation is called empirical data. Gathering empirical data is an essential part of the scientific process."

So how do we "observe" these finches by the gathering of "empirical data"? A quick look at the diagram above reveals a glaring consistency......the birds are all still finches. They have not "evolved" outside of their taxonomic family.....and haven't to this day. The same applies to "Hawthorn Flies" and "Stickleback Fish" and Bacteria and Viruses. None have been observed to become anything other than a new species of the one they started with. None have moved out of their taxonomic families at all, to become something different. All breed "according to their kind".

Britanica goes on to say.....
"The central argument of Darwin’s theory of evolution starts with the existence of hereditary variation. Experience with animal and plant breeding had demonstrated to Darwin that variations can be developed that are “useful to man.” So, he reasoned, variations must occur in nature that are favourable or useful in some way to the organism itself in the struggle for existence. Favourable variations are ones that increase chances for survival and procreation. Those advantageous variations are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation."

OK....so what is this telling us? That Darwin "reasoned" that variations "must occur in nature that are favorable to or useful in some way to the organism itself in the struggle for existence"....and he was right! It is called "adaptation"....a marvelous mechanism built into the DNA of every living species on earth to facilitate their survival in changing environments. What was never observed and has never been observed is a single family of creatures evolving into something completely different to their ancestors.

So much for gathering empirical evidence.....eh?

In this regard science has no superiority over ID.



What is observed by our senses ST? What "superficial judgments" are we making that science doesn't? Are you so brainwashed that you can't see past the gigantic fraud that evolutionary science actually is? Suggestions are not facts and never will be. "Reasoning" that something "must have" taken place because you want to believe it is hardly scientific. If you have no proof...it isn't a fact and never was.



I can make assumptions and guesses and extol a belief just as well as you can. I believe that the delusion is with you lot, but you pretend to have all this evidence, and yet, when it is asked for, nothing of substance is ever forthcoming.

I challenge you to produce evidence for macro-evolution that is not dependent on belief, supposition or assumption. Those are the things that creationists get accused of relying on, so show us how you prove that evolutionary science is true without them.

This argument has been rebutted ad infinitum, but repeating the rebuttal periodically is a helpful exercise.

Science is based on what can be observed, not on what hasn't been observed, point made to you several times in the past, one which you just ignore, then come back making the same demand that you be shown something that the theory suggests occurs over time periods too long to expect to have been observed in the time that man has had to do so. This is one form of what I call bad faith argumentation

You pretend that something has to be observed to be reasonably inferred when you know that isn't true. I never saw your implantation into your mother's womb, your growth and development there, your birth, or you learning to read and write, but I know that they all happened.

You wouldn't accept a skeptic's claim that since you didn't see your god creating earth or life, that it didn't or couldn't have happened. So why are you making an analogous argument to others? Why are you implying that if we haven't witnessed the evolution of new biological classes, orders, and families that it didn't happen? This is another form of what bad faith argumentation.

The evidence for the theory is robust, and can only be reasonably explained by invoking descent from a common ancestor due to genetic variation and natural selection. If the theory were falsified tomorrow, that evidence would still be here and would still require explaining. Creationism can't do that with or without falsification of the existing data. In fact, the evidence falsifies the Christian claim that a god that wants to be known, loved, obeyed, and worshiped made the "kinds." If an intelligent designer were required because naturalisitic evolution had been falsified, it couldn't be that god. It would have to be an intelligence that wanted to deceive us - to remain hidden for at least for as long as it took us to uncover the deception.

Another matter you consistently ignore rather than address is why we should abandon a theory that unifies mountains of observations, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found that have never been falsified after over 150 years, and has had technological applications that have improved the human condition, and replace it with an unsupported hypothesis that has produced nothing of value.

And yet another matter you consistently ignore is the rebuttal to the suggestion that life is too complex to have come into existence undesigned and uncreated by an intelligent agent by noting that you are positing something even more complex and therefore by your own argument, less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You may have killed off the Creator in your own minds, but you cannot make him disappear

I think it's more relevant that you can't make Him appear.

Those with spiritual eyes can see it so clearly, because only those who "seek" shall "find".

Unless it's evidence for evolution.

What you call spiritual eyes is what I call a confirmation bias. It distorts perception making seeing the evidence for evolution impossible in too many cases.

What does that mean for those who aren't seeking?

I did my seeking from within Christianity. It led me back to atheism and secular humanism. At this point, I have a philosophy and worldview that is rational, compassionate, pro-humanity and the biosphere, internally consistent, satisfying, and has brought me to a place in my life where I am at peace with myself and the world, and my needs are met. Christianity couldn't do that. The idea of gods offers nothing that I don't already have.

And yes, I know how you object to that attitude, and condemn me for not being more nihilistic, pessimistic, and misanthropic like you given that there are problems in the world. But you offer nothing better to replace it with. As I indicated in my last post, there is no reason to throw out that which works for that which doesn't.

 

[Sapiens]

Well, the prophets who have said, "God is Holy" and I agree. Why would I care about what other people say?
Have you seen the movie Cast Away with Tom Hanks? One is not simple.

Really ... you are going to reduce to a Tom Hanks movie the answer to a question that has occupied some of the foremost philosophical and theological minds? You are wasting everyone's time.

 

[savagewind]

Really ... you are going to reduce to a Tom Hanks movie the answer to a question that has occupied some of the foremost philosophical and theological minds? You are wasting everyone's time.

Maybe you should talk only about what you know about.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.
Colossians 2:8
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Matthew 7:14
A highway will be there, a roadway, And it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, But it will be for him who walks that way, And fools will not wander on it. Isaiah 35:8
Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. Matthew 7:15

 

[savagewind]

You are wasting everyone's time.

Haha. Not everyone to be sure. I suspect that the members who don't have me on technical ignore skip over my posts for the most part.

You read it. That makes one. Are you calling one everyone? Priceless!