Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

You said: "Do you think water just "happened"? Did it evolve from something? " and "Please explain water".

No water didn't "evolve". Here in this "water factory" it just happens. You said "Please explain water." So we have one perfectly natural explanation for water no gods involved.

Do you just want to prove that there is no God to yourself....or can you ever just answer my questions....?

Water did not evolve....it was created. This is what your article states. The law of cause and effect was also installed by the Creator. He is not some giant wizard in the sky waving his magic wand. He is the one who created what science attempts to study. Who knows better about their creation than the one who designed and manufactured it? Science has the knowledge of an amoeba compared to the knowledge of the Creator.

If you want to prove that there is no God....there are a multitude of ways to do so.....but they will only happen in your own head. Denying the Creator does not make him disappear, nor does it negate his purpose in creating this vast universe. His plans will go ahead with us or without us....so its up to us to choose to accept his terms for existence or to deny that there are any terms....or any God who might demand something from us.

We will all find out soon enough I guess.

 

[Deeje]

And now you're saying that has absolutely no effect on how you approach the subject?

That level of delusion is stunning.

It amazes me equally that you keep inferring this, but then again, inference is what scientists know best.
Its so much more convenient than producing facts, isn't it?

I need more than inference about what "might have" or "could have" happened all those billions of years ago when there was nobody there to correct science's interpretation of events. All you have is the power of suggestion....there is no real evidence and you know it. You claim NOT to have a belief system and yet nothing you accept as truth can be substantiated. It all based on what you "believe". Suggestions are not facts, and you can never refute that.

Haven't you noticed that I stopped citing science to you?

Yes, I think we know why....there isn't any "science" that you could provide supporting evolution that doesn't rely on the faith and belief of others who passed it on to you. If you have some proof for macro-evolution that is not based on 'faith and belief', I'm sure we would all like to see it....

You declared very early on that nothing science could ever produce would make you change your mind, so why would anyone bother showing science to you?

No I didn't but you keep saying that I did. Nothing that evolutionary scientists have produced to date has convinced me that they have anything concrete to present to anyone but each other...and those they have managed to convince with their "overwhelming evidence", which is a lie. Egos thrive in that environment, but the "overwhelming evidence" is concocted by interpretation of said evidence....real evidence is actually non-existent.

I don't believe anything science says on this subject because it has all proven to be conjecture hiding behind jargon and a huge fairy story, sold to the masses by those who see themselves as way too intelligent for God. Its so much cooler to be an atheist.

It's abundantly clear that the primary factor in all of this is you being a Jehovah's Witness and the emotional blackmail they have you under. But it's also clear that the prospect of going down that road frightens you, so you avoid it at all costs.

Since I was a believer in evolution for some years, that cannot be true.....as if you would have a clue.
I am an independent individual with a mind of my own. I already walked away from one church system....I walked away from evolution for the same reason....if I thought for one moment that evolution was true and that JW's were wrong, I would walk away again.....but in 45 years of constant research, I have never found them to be anything like what you assume....but that is your problem, not mine. No one convinces Jose Fly that he is wrong.....how are you any different from what you accuse me of being if that is the case?

You operate on what you consider to be convincing evidence....I see the very same evidence and come to a completely different conclusion. I am convinced of the opposite.
Who is right and who is wrong will become evident as time goes on.....we can at least count on that.

So we have a person who declares up front that nothing science could ever produce would ever convince her, now saying that science has failed to produce anything convincing.

Do you see the fundamental issue there? Will you allow yourself to see it?

Yes, Jose Fly...the fundamental issue is you being stuck in a mindset and pointing fingers at someone else whom you accuse of having a mindset....."Will you allow yourself to see it?".....we have come to our conclusions for vastly different reasons. Both of us can't be right.

The articles are for anyone who's interested in them.

The fact that after all the posts on this thread you saw the need to convince "anyone who is interested" (but they need a password to read what you linked to) tells me that you find the points raised to be somewhat threatening....otherwise you would answer the questions put to you instead of deflecting with personal insults about my faith and my motives for believing what I do. Your own 'faith' has the same effect on you but I doubt that you are aware of it.

Like I said, it is somewhat entertaining to see the sorts of excuses you fabricate in order to wave away inconvenient reality

I find the lack of any substance in your replies to be equally entertaining. I'm sure I am not alone.
Using attack for defense is very telling. Its an old tactic but once identified, loses its impact very quickly. It thereafter becomes a sign of desperation.

Here we see how evolutionary theory is foundational to an entire field of science (comparative genomics) and how it's been employed to generate some extremely important and accurate results, and how do you respond? "That's just their interpretation." Hilarious.

Perhaps God finds it hilarious that you think its all just a series of millions of fortunate accidents. You believe that none of it is intelligently designed or in any way directed by someone who knew about engineering....genetics...or biology or any of the other fields that humans must learn by intelligent teaching and study to even understand those things.
Is the human brain is just a fluke that required no designer at all?....but the computers that human brains designed couldn't ever happen by chance....could they?

And I wonder if you appreciate that dynamic Deeje? Do you understand that much of the reason people keep interacting with you here is to laugh at your posts?

Do you understand that there are probably people reading here who are doing the same with you?
Not all who read these posts are interacting. They are reading the interactions and drawing their own conclusions.

I personally have no problem with ridicule.....I am so used to it after 45 years as a JW....its water off a duck's back to me. Its interesting to see the bruised egos of the scientists turn to scorn and ridicule in place of evidence....fascinating actually. Dawkins has trained you all well. But be careful about who laughs last...OK?

your posts are entertaining if nothing else.

I am pleased that you find them so entertaining....that doesn't exactly explain your lack of intelligent response to any of my questions though. So if you have nothing intelligent to say, its good bye from me....

 

[ArtieE]

Do you just want to prove that there is no God to yourself....

No. For all I know there may be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of gods in them or no gods at all or anything in between. The possibilities are endless. It's up to humans to use the scientific method to find out the actual truth of the matter. So if you can come up with a scientific method of detecting gods instead of posting pretty pictures of ducks I would be very interested. There are plenty of gods mentioned in the Bible. The Bible’s Many Gods | Gerald McDermott Now, instead of just going around believing stuff make yourself useful and invent something that will allow us to get in contact with these gods so we can learn more about the universe(s) and what's in them. The moment one of those gods show up on some talk show you have disproved atheism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I need more than inference about what "might have" or "could have" happened all those billions of years ago when there was nobody there

You've demonstrated that you don't even need an inference to believe. All you need is a Bible and the will to believe.

All you have is the power of suggestion....there is no real evidence and you know it.

What we have is the fruits of science. They validate the claim that the scientific method is a valid way of determining truths about physical reality. That's called evidence. You're enjoying some of those fruits presently as you sit in the comfort of your air conditioned and electrically lit home, polio and smallpox free, communicating around the world using your computer and the Internet thanks to silicon technology, miniaturization, radiofrequency broadcasting, and satellite technology. That's the power of the scientific method, or what you call suggestion.

What you have are the fruits of creationism. Perhaps you could tell us what those are. I could use some fruit if you have any.

Suggestions are not facts, and you can never refute that.

Suggestions that bear fruit are valuable. The "suggestions" of science do that. The suggestions in the Bible do nothing. Have you seen the one about treating lepers with pigeon blood? Good luck with that suggestion.

If you have some proof for macro-evolution that is not based on 'faith and belief', I'm sure we would all like to see it.

No proof is needed. The theory is probably correct because it works.

You've still never offered a reason why we should toss out a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for the available fossil, biological, and biogeographical evidence, included a mechanism, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition, for an idea that can do none of that.

You apparently have no answer, indicating that you understand why we wouldn't do that and confirming that we are correct not to.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nothing that evolutionary scientists have produced to date has convinced me that they have anything concrete to present to anyone but each other

That's what a faith based confirmation bias does. It protects one from the evidence that contradicts the faith based idea. It's present in every creationist. And it wouldn't be necessary if you had chosen correctly by faith. Although faith is not needed to accept evolutionary theory, there is no reason that one couldn't skip past all of the evidence and books and choose to believe it by faith. If that happened, you would never be confronted with contradictory evidence, and blinding you to it wouldn't occur or be necessary.

we have come to our conclusions for vastly different reasons. Both of us can't be right.

That is correct. We use two radically different methods of determining truth. The reason and evidence based thinker applies valid reasoning to all of the available evidence considered impartially and with an open mind, that is, with the ability to follow a cogent argument and the willingness to be convinced by it if it is compelling. He then tests these ideas against reality. Those that work, that is, can be used to make choices that result desired outcomes, are added to the storehouse of useful, validated knowledge.

The faith based thinker chooses something to believe without consulting the evidence, then acquires a faith based confirmation bias that sifts through the evidence not to see what it tells us, but to find the pieces that seem to support the faith based belief, discarding the rest. These ideas cannot work because they are wrong, which is what all of the contradictory data that has been filtered out and ignored would have told you. Such ideas cannot be used in life. Whereas the theory of evolution has been put to work to serve mankind, creationism has given the world nothing.

That is how reason and evidence based thinker knows who is right and who is wrong. I don't think the faith based thinker cares if he is wrong, just that he never break the faith.

Is the human brain is just a fluke that required no designer at all?....but the computers that human brains designed couldn't ever happen by chance....could they?

Irrelevant for the reason given to you countless times. Only biological systems evolve according to Darwin's mechanism. Laptop computers have no genetic material to pass along to other computers and are not subject to natural selection. Without a mechanism for them to self assemble and evolve, they cannot do the things that living systems can.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Elaborate on why discovering truth is of importance to you.

Truth is the quality that facts possess, with facts being linguistic strings that accurately describe a piece of reality such that it can be predicted or at times controlled. Armed with such knowledge, as I indicated to Deeje, one can make choices that result in desired outcomes.

What makes the statement that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier a fact is that it is a string of words that accurately maps a piece of the world in a way that allows me to get to the pier without any other guide. If the desired outcome is to get to the pier, and the belief is that the pier is five blocks south and three blocks west of my present position at home, if those directions get me there, then the statement is a fact. It is true.

I just explained to Deeje how the reason and evidence based thinker arrives at these truths - going from all of the relevant evidence to conclusions that are then tested against reality. Does making choices based on these ideas produce desired outcomes? If so, they're considered true.

Some truths aren't useful beyond merely being interesting, and discovering them is not of much importance. For example, suppose that there were a creator god that set our universe in motion, but either left it, died, or is simply undetectable by choice or necessity. That would be interesting to know, but not useful and therefore not important.

However, navigating life with a false god belief that informs choices badly is the opposite of useful, and so not making such mistakes is perforce useful and important. I know. I've been there.

Do I need elaborate further on why this would be of value?

Maybe this is not what you mean by truth, or your method for ascertaining what is true. That is apparently the case with many posting on these threads. I can't use their ideas. Worse, we really have no basis for sharing ideas. If one is willing to believe by faith, he will invariably have faith in wrong ideas and generate flawed conclusions from false premises however valid the reasoning applied to them is, then consider and call these flawed ideas truth. They're invariably useless ideas.

 

[Deeje]

Only biological systems evolve according to Darwin's mechanism. Laptop computers have no genetic material to pass along to other computers and are not subject to natural selection. Without a mechanism for them to self assemble and evolve, they cannot do the things that living systems can.

You have no answer as to how biological system came to exist in the first place.....let alone how they "self assemble".

You assume that life just sprang into existence somehow, for no apparent reason, and then transformed itself through a process that science imagines, based on a limited example of it in nature.

What about all the systems that are not biological? Are we to ignore all those as flukes too?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You have no answer as to how biological system came to exist in the first place.....let alone how they "self assemble".

I think I know, but I don't know for sure. Why would that matter?

You assume that life just sprang into existence somehow, for no apparent reason, and then transformed itself through a process that science imagines, based on a limited example of it in nature.

That is incorrect. I assume that either abiogenesis and evolution occurred, or else there was an intelligent designer.

What about all the systems that are not biological? Are we to ignore all those as flukes too?

They are to relevant to this discussion. When discussing biological evolution, we are discussing biology.

 

[Deeje]

I think I know, but I don't know for sure. Why would that matter?

It matters because, how life began is a way more important question than how life merely changed. If you can't establish how life started, then what does it matter how it changed or even if it changed?

That is incorrect. I assume that either abiogenesis and evolution occurred, or else there was an intelligent designer.

What if the Creator wants you to acknowledge his existence first.....based on "what" he has created and "how" he has accomplished it.

If you are waiting for God to confirm to you that he exists before you will acknowledge him, then by the time he reveals himself, (through the revelation of his appointed representative, according to the Bible) it will be too late. God requires "faith".....and faith does not require God to reveal himself to us in person. We would never survive the experience anyway. We have intellect and we have the curiosity and all the natural inclinations to study and appreciated all that the Creator has made....and yet so many of us are admiring the architecture but ignoring the architect. The building is impressive...but nobody gets the deserved credit for how incredibly well it is constructed. Scientists seem to want to get credit for finding ways to make God redundant.

You seem to have all the faith required to believe in the words of men who have no real proof for what they are proposing....but have difficulty putting faith in a Creator who has revealed so much about himself through his genius, revealed to all in creation.

We are not just brains.....we have hearts, feelings and emotions. Science tends to concentrate of the function of the intellect whilst ignoring the fact that intelligence has nothing to do with the kind of human being we are. We are a complete package....and it is innate in humans to worship. There is a spiritual component to our nature that is unique to us. Believers know why.....but science proposes other reasons.

They are to relevant to this discussion. When discussing biological evolution, we are discussing biology.

Creation is a package too. It involves the whole universe. Earth just happens to be where the Creator placed life. All plans have to have a starting point. I believe that we are the beginning of something so much bigger than our own existence on this tiny speck.

There are so many factors that are vital to the perpetuation of life on this planet...and yet not all of them involve biology or evolution.

If you cannot see that the package is more than how life adapted, then I believe that you are ignoring a huge component of a much wider issue.

 

[Little Lunch]

That god is such a trickster.
Leaving all that evidence lying around, pointing in one direction when he's really hiding around the corner, laughing at us.
Eventually he'll come out and admit it was all a joke.
But if you don't get the joke before he comes out you'll burn forever.

 

[Profound Realization]

I find that more characteristic of creationists.



If you mean intelligent design, you are correct. The claim is unfalsifiable.

That alone doesn't make the statement wrong. What it means is that if it is wrong, there is no way to show it.

The claim that an intelligent designer is responsible for our reality might be demonstrable if true. That's what the ID researchers are looking - a biological system that could not have developed by natural processes. They've suggested several were irreducibly complex, including the eye, the flagellum, the clotting cascade, and the immune system, but were shown that a step-wise progression of changes that could be accomplished by mutation and natural selection existed in each case.

Would we expect to find irreducible complexity in nature if it were intelligently designed? I don't know, but if your answer is yes, then the failure to find it constitutes evidence against the hypothesis.

In another sense, we can argue that if there are multiple ways that an intelligent designer could have fashioned reality - say with or without irreducibly complex biological systems - but only one way for blind, naturalisitic forces to have done it - without irreducible complexity - and we never find irreducible complexity, that argues slightly for the method that was constrained to that reality.

You might have seen my comment to another poster about consilience - the idea that when multiple factors, each of which mildly suggest a given conclusion, are considered collectively, they strongly suggest it. I gave the example of the tax cheat. Random honest errors would be expected to sometimes raise the taxpayer's bill and sometimes lower it. No single mistake in the taxpayer's is convincing of fraud, but if there are many and they all work out to the taxpayer's benefit, you have made a strong case for fraud.

Likewise with intelligent design. A universe ruled by an omnipotent god needs no scientific laws, and could conceivably have been designed with or without them. A godless universe needs them.

In a universe ruled by a creator god, we might or might not experience miracles, or feel a god directing our thoughts and choices, whereas in a godless world, we would only expect no miracles and a sense of free will.

In a universe designed by a god, we might or might not find evidence for abiogenesis. In a godless universe, we will.

In a universe designed by a god, we might or might not find evidence for evolution. In a godless universe, it is there.

Considering all of these facts and others like them collectively, we can conclude that the naturalistic hypotheses are well grounded, and the supernaturalistic ones on shaky ground just like the tax payer.



No, I did not state that. I said that there is no apparent barrier dividing what creationists call micro- and macroevolution. Life and nature probably each have insurmountable boundaries such as thermodynamic constraints. And it's hard to imagine life without an external energy source.

Naturalistic hypothesis have become supernaturalistic hypotheses. Natural selection has become supernatural selection. Of course there is no barrier when natural selection is currently viewed as supernatural selection and is all-powerful. It "can" do everything and anything in the minds of man because the beliefs cannot be falsified, biological reproduction and the passing of genes "is thought" to have occurred in supernatural ways. What is the complete nature of Nature, do you know? How can anyone then claim anything as natural or supernatural?

Why speak as if they are scientific laws, when they are natures laws, and evolved naturally from nature? Scientific laws are considered not natural, they are created by the intelligent designers of humankind.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Taxes are not considered natural. They are made my humankind. By definition, all hypothesis are not natural.

We see human beings intelligently designing in nature, are they separate from nature? We see legions of various beliefs in nature, are beliefs themselves separate from nature? Seems to me that any faith or beliefs in anything would have had to have been naturally selected and evolved as well.

Evolutionary theory will tell one that all lifeform comes from previously existing lifeforms as a fact. Abiogenesis will then throw this fact away and render a supernatural hypothesis on how life arose. It can be also circular.

I don't see those as facts, rather as beliefs. Elaborate on the nature of "God" so we can know what a godless universe would present, or may or may not present, or how you know "God," if exists, is supernatural rather than natural, and how you know "God" is an individual entity outside of its potential creation or within it. Even a Creator God as however you may perceive such to appear in your mind would be natural by definition.

So, what constitutes as supernatural in Nature if we do not know Nature in its entirety and if supernatural beliefs/hypothesis come from the mind, does that make the mind supernatural? Supernatural hypothesis seem to exist in Nature, and have naturally evolved from Nature. Is Nature part trickster and a fraud, for naturally selecting supernatural hypothesis to exist in its individual minds? Those darn trickster and fraudulent biochemicals of Nature.

 

[ArtieE]

Evolutionary theory will tell one that all lifeform comes from previously existing lifeforms as a fact. Abiogenesis will then throw this fact away and render a supernatural hypothesis on how life arose. It can be also circular.

(Biological) evolution says all lifeforms come from previously existing lifeforms all the way down to the first cell. The first cell could have been a result of chemical evolution (abiogenesis). Or it could have dropped in from space. Or been created by aliens or some god. Biological evolution says nothing about that.

 

[metis]

If this is an inquisition then perhaps you should burn me at the stake....?

Would that make you feel better?

Should I go quietly.....plead insanity.....or just resist arrest?

I'm sorry but this just looks like another attempt at emotional blackmail....a failed attempt I hasten to add. Is this all you have too?

You're acting like a small child who cannot take on any responsibility or admit any complicity when things go wrong, but it all too well fits into your frequent use of bigotry and the stereotyping of religions/denominations and scientists. You and Trump actually would be an excellent match as he too can never do wrong and never apologize for his words or actions. OTOH, moral adults do take responsibility for their words and actions, and they do admit and apologize for their mistakes, neither of which you seem to be able to do.

Anyhow, go ahead and play the role of the poor defenseless victim here as you so frequently do, but your "colors" are showing, so I really don't think you're fooling anyone here but maybe yourself, Deeje.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you just want to prove that there is no God to yourself....or can you ever just answer my questions....?

Water did not evolve....it was created. This is what your article states. The law of cause and effect was also installed by the Creator. He is not some giant wizard in the sky waving his magic wand. He is the one who created what science attempts to study. Who knows better about their creation than the one who designed and manufactured it? Science has the knowledge of an amoeba compared to the knowledge of the Creator.

If you want to prove that there is no God....there are a multitude of ways to do so.....but they will only happen in your own head. Denying the Creator does not make him disappear, nor does it negate his purpose in creating this vast universe. His plans will go ahead with us or without us....so its up to us to choose to accept his terms for existence or to deny that there are any terms....or any God who might demand something from us.

We will all find out soon enough I guess.

Prove it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It matters because, how life began is a way more important question than how life merely changed.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. My point was that it doesn't matter that I don't know where life came from.

As I indicated, I can only think of two possibilities - a naturalistic process of chemical evolution, or the creation of an intelligent designer, so I assume that one of those is the answer.

If you can't establish how life started, then what does it matter how it changed or even if it changed?

Man has been involved in a centuries-long quest to discover as much useful information as he can about our world and how it works. We can't always tell what will be useful, so we attempt to understand it all. Who knew that studying lightning and electrostatic attraction would lead to electric motors and street lights at night?

God requires "faith"

Let me share a quotation with you:

"If there is a god, that god should know exactly what it would take to change my mind...and that god should be capable of doing whatever it would take. The fact that this hasn't happened can only mean one of two things: 1. No such god exists. 2. Whatever god exists doesn't care to convince me, at this time. In either case ... there's nothing I can do about it. Meanwhile, all of those believers who think that there is a god who does want me to know that he exists - are clearly, obviously, undeniably... wrong." - Matt Dillahunty"

A universe created by a god might feature a god that can be known by the senses or not, but in a godless universe, such a belief could only be held by faith. It strains credibility to ask us to believe that a god that wants to be known, loved, understood and worshiped would in every case make the choice that suggests that it doesn't exist.

I don't know if you saw my post to Profound Realization on consilience, but the requirement that God requires faith to be believed in would be yet another factor to add to the list.

Scientists seem to want to get credit for finding ways to make God redundant.

Scientists want to understand physical reality. It could have been that they found evidence for a god, but they haven't. It could have been that the world could not be understood to the degree that it presently is without invoking a god, but none of our scientific theories require that hypothesis.

Instead, what they keep showing us is the kind of universe we would expect were it godless. It's on autopilot. The parts interact without Apollo's help moving the sun through the sky or angels to push the planets around. We don't need a ruler god.

It can assemble itself from seeds such as the seed that expanded in the Big Bang that then generated all of the particles, forces, and the structures they combined to form, or the first living replicator. We don't need a builder god.

That doesn't mean that no gods exist or existed, just that there is no evidence for any, and no need to posit one yet, and it wouldn't have much part in our reality after creating the seeds. That's really about the last job left for a god.

And we have naturalisitic hypotheses for the origins of those seeds - the so-called origins problems.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You seem to have all the faith required to believe in the words of men who have no real proof for what they are proposing....but have difficulty putting faith in a Creator who has revealed so much about himself through his genius, revealed to all in creation.

We've been through this before. You're making an equivocation fallacy by conflating justified belief with unjustified belief by calling both faith and assuming that that makes them the same.

I have all of the evidence I need to believe the scientist and disregard the theologians. Remember the fruits of each?

it is innate in humans to worship

Disagree. I have no such desire and never did, even when I was a Christian, believed in the Christian god, and prayed to it reverently and worshipfully. I was willing to do so because I considered it appropriate, but had no innate drive to worship before or after that phase of my life.

There are so many factors that are vital to the perpetuation of life on this planet...and yet not all of them involve biology or evolution.

Yes, I know, and it's a very interesting subject. The development of complex, intelligent life on earth probably required that it be a rocky planet in a relatively circular orbit around a relatively stable star, which would be unlikely if our sun were part of a double or triple star system.

The planet needs to rich with water and be in the goldilocks zone so that it forms liquid oceans, although water can be maintained in a liquid form just from tidal forces.

An atmosphere helps to smooth out temperature difference between night and day as well as assisting in weathering minerals to free them up for life to use

A molten metallic core is necessary to generate a magnetic field around the earth to shield it from the sun's radiation and the shower of particles that would blow the atmosphere and oceans away.

A single relatively large moon helps stabilize the earth's axial tilt so that equatorial regions remain warm and severe climate change over relatively brief intervals don't occur.

There needed to be a rich assortment of elements for life to form, so the disc from which the sun and earth formed needed to have been previously enriched with the residue of earlier supernovae.

I am told that a solid crust floating as plates above a molten sea of magma likely played a role in the formation and evolution of life on earth, but cannot comment on the matter much.

You needn't tell me that you find that all of this is evidence for a god. I already know that you do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Naturalistic hypothesis have become supernaturalistic hypotheses. Natural selection has become supernatural selection. Of course there is no barrier when natural selection is currently viewed as supernatural selection and is all-powerful. It "can" do everything and anything in the minds of man because the beliefs cannot be falsified, biological reproduction and the passing of genes "is thought" to have occurred in supernatural ways. What is the complete nature of Nature, do you know? How can anyone then claim anything as natural or supernatural?

Why speak as if they are scientific laws, when they are natures laws, and evolved naturally from nature? Scientific laws are considered not natural, they are created by the intelligent designers of humankind.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Taxes are not considered natural. They are made my humankind. By definition, all hypothesis are not natural.

We see human beings intelligently designing in nature, are they separate from nature? We see legions of various beliefs in nature, are beliefs themselves separate from nature? Seems to me that any faith or beliefs in anything would have had to have been naturally selected and evolved as well.

Evolutionary theory will tell one that all lifeform comes from previously existing lifeforms as a fact. Abiogenesis will then throw this fact away and render a supernatural hypothesis on how life arose. It can be also circular.

I don't see those as facts, rather as beliefs. Elaborate on the nature of "God" so we can know what a godless universe would present, or may or may not present, or how you know "God," if exists, is supernatural rather than natural, and how you know "God" is an individual entity outside of its potential creation or within it. Even a Creator God as however you may perceive such to appear in your mind would be natural by definition.

So, what constitutes as supernatural in Nature if we do not know Nature in its entirety and if supernatural beliefs/hypothesis come from the mind, does that make the mind supernatural? Supernatural hypothesis seem to exist in Nature, and have naturally evolved from Nature. Is Nature part trickster and a fraud, for naturally selecting supernatural hypothesis to exist in its individual minds? Those darn trickster and fraudulent biochemicals of Nature.

I agree that there is no need for the word supernatural. Yes, if a creator god exists, it too is part of nature, but possibly a bigger nature than just our universe and its laws and substances.

I think the chief purpose the concept of the supernatural serves is to serve as the realm where something can exist undetected. It allows the believer to say that the reason we cannot find his god is because we can only detect things in nature, and this realm is beyond that.

Of course, there is a problem with that. There is no reason why the presence of a god causally connected to our world couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The reason that believers claim that their god can't be detected is because it isn't detected, and so a rationale had to be contrived to explain why a vast, eternal, all-powerful something intimately involved in our lives is indistinguishable from the non-existent.

Also, take care not to confuse two different meanings of natural. One is the opposite of artificial or man-made, the other being the opposite of supernatural, or not found in nature. By one definition, the things man does are natural (as opposed to supernatural). By the other, much of what man does is not natural, such as building computers - artificial brains. Your definition - "Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind" - alludes to this as well, but would be improved by adding numbers to the two phrases to emphasize that they are different definitions and not two parts of a single definition.

 

[Jose Fly]

It amazes me equally that you keep inferring this

Inferring? Again, you told us yourself that you cannot ever compromise on this issue, or else your Jehovah's Witness friends and family would treat you "like a piece of garbage" and your life would lose all meaning.

That you think we need to "infer" something you told us directly is just another example of your delusion.

Yes, I think we know why....there isn't any "science" that you could provide supporting evolution that doesn't rely on the faith and belief of others who passed it on to you.

Your further delusion is noted.

No I didn't

Now you're back to simply not telling the truth. It's amazing how often those who claim to be on the side of God can't manage to be truthful.

Post #186: "No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago"

Why can't you even manage to be honest about your own posts?

but you keep saying that I did.

As the record shows, you did (and this isn't the first time I've reminded you of it).

Nothing that evolutionary scientists have produced to date has convinced me that they have anything concrete to present to anyone but each other

Of course not. You declared up front that nothing ever will convince you, no matter what. Then later on you explained why (the emotional blackmail the Jehovah's Witnesses have you under).

But talking about that threatens your emotional well-being, so you try and recreate your own history and run away anytime the subject comes up. It's both transparent and sad.

I don't believe anything science says on this subject

See? You've declared that 1) no one will ever convince you to change your mind, 2) you don't believe anything from science, and 3) changing your mind would ruin your life.

So when you make your assertions about science, given the above, just how much credibility do you think those assertions carry?

because it has all proven to be conjecture hiding behind jargon and a huge fairy story, sold to the masses by those who see themselves as way too intelligent for God.

Exhibit A

Since I was a believer in evolution for some years, that cannot be true

Um, yes it can.....quite easily in fact.

if I thought for one moment that evolution was true and that JW's were wrong, I would walk away again

So you would walk away from all your friends and family? You would willingly ruin your own life?

You're trying to make it sound as if changing your mind on this would be no big deal, but your history of posts shows you're just deluding yourself further. After all, you also said that if you did change your mind, your life would lose all meaning. That's not a trivial thing, is it?

I see the very same evidence and come to a completely different conclusion. I am convinced of the opposite.

Of course....you have to.

Yes, Jose Fly...the fundamental issue is you being stuck in a mindset and pointing fingers at someone else whom you accuse of having a mindset

Your additional delusion is noted.

you would answer the questions put to you instead of deflecting with personal insults about my faith and my motives for believing what I do.

Again, how is it an insult to reflect back to you what you've said?

Perhaps God finds it hilarious that you think its all just a series of millions of fortunate accidents. You believe that none of it is intelligently designed or in any way directed by someone who knew about engineering....genetics...or biology or any of the other fields that humans must learn by intelligent teaching and study to even understand those things.
Is the human brain is just a fluke that required no designer at all?....but the computers that human brains designed couldn't ever happen by chance....could they?

See? I posted and explained how evolutionary common descent is the foundation for an entire field of science (comparative genomics), and showed how it is used to figure out genetic functions. How do you respond, with thoughtful insights? Intelligent questions? Anything at all showing you even read the material?

Nope, you just spout off about God and your religious beliefs, thereby demonstrating my point. This isn't about science at all for you; it's about your religion. Yet if anyone attempts to address that, you cry that you're being attacked in a ridiculously transparent manner.

If nothing else, it is fascinating from a human behavior standpoint.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, and I also know that statistics can be used to distort reality. They are not always an accurate measure of the way things really are.
Observations can be misinterpreted, Conclusions can be drawn, based on pre-conceived notions. IOW, people see what they want to see.

Sure, people being people can be biased and dishonest, and there may be some scientists who will bend the rules to fit the evidences with their dodgy hypotheses, but you are forgetting that there are millions more of these other scientists who can spot scientists who cheat and lies.

You are forgetting that peer review, will examine and investigate and test any hypothesis presented to them. They will test the test results and evidences themselves, and weed out any dishonest practice to the scientific method.

The peer review is where can be used to correct any errors, refuted any flawed hypothesis and find out which scientists who are not following the protocol of scientific method. The peer review provide the mechanism for self-correction.

There are no such mechanism within the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Catholic Church or any other religious bodies. Who do JW have overseeing those to prevent people from cheating, lying or being corrupt? Sorry but the governing body of JW are neither incorruptible, nor infallible.

What I do find funny is that you accused scientists being corrupted by greed from big corporations and governments, and yet the JW act like those corrupt corporations and corrupt governments; in fact the governing body is like the hierarchy of big corruption, with president and board of directors.

Of course, the peers (scientists), themselves are humans too and not infallible, so one single peer might miss who is not on the up-and-up (not cheating), that’s why it is better if there were more than one peers investigating and testing a single hypothesis. But the peer review never pretends to be infallible.

If someone is trying to distort the statistics, there are other scientists out there who can independently see if there are any distorting.

Take Michael Behe, for instance. He is a qualified biochemist, with PhD, who have become involved with the Discovery Institute, and with their Intelligent Design movement. In the Dover case, he was their “expert witness”.

My point is not about the Dover case, but his own papers - Irreducible Complexity (IC) - which he proposition the Intelligent Design that life is too complex to occur naturally, so it would require the existence of Designer.

The reasons why scientific community reject his claims of irreducible complexity, because he has no evidences to support his proposition, he didn’t follow Scientific Method, and his fellow scientists, biologists and biochemists, can see that Behe is using the exactly the same argument from ignorance fallacy as that early 19th century Watchmaker Analogy.

His IC not only relied on this fallacy, but also his reliance on anecdotal evidences, not scientific evidences, therefore Behe isn’t rigorously applying Scientific Method.

The problem with using anecdotes is that it isn’t impartial, it is informal and can lead to logical fallacies, especially the frequent use of circular reasoning.

But the main problem with using anecdotes is that the credibility is not on the evidences under investigation, but upon the person’s credibility (which in this case, it’s Behe’s credibility), and let face it, Behe is not at all credible among the scientific community.

Even the same biology department he worked at the Lehigh University, fellow-biochemists reject his Irreducible Complexity and his following of Intelligent Design.

Yes, there are some scientists who distort statistics and distort the evidences or test results, but they are often people like Behe, Michael Denton (another biochemist), William A. Dembski (mathematician philosopher), Stephen C. Meyer (geophysicist); have the tendencies to distort their respective fields, to fit in with ID movement they followed.

You frequently questioned scientists’ duties is to the people who fund them.

Well guess what, Deeje, the Discovery Institute is the one bankrolling ID projects of Behe, Meyer, Denton and Dembski. They have a lot of monetary gains by supporting Intelligent Design and Discovery Institute. That’s probably why they are failures in their respective fields.

The Intelligent Design are often based on propaganda and misinformation, and perpetrated by these disgraced scientists, and people like Phillip E. Johnson (lawyer, father of Intelligent Design); and the 2 founders of Discovery Institute - Bruce Chapman (politician and journalist) and George Gilder (economist, journalist). The last 3 men, have no qualifications and experiences in science, and yet they are ones calling the shot.

Don't confuse science fiction with science fact.....that is what the problem is as far as I can see.

You trust your science 'gods' and their 'scripture' as much as I trust my Creator and his word. If you have chosen a different belief system, that is your prerogative. But of what benefit will it be to you, if the Creator shows himself and rewards only those who remained faithful under test?

For crying out loud...

Really?

You really know how to twist everything out of proportions. You cannot be honest, can you?

 

[Deeje]

You're acting like a small child who cannot take on any responsibility or admit any complicity when things go wrong, but it all too well fits into your frequent use of bigotry and the stereotyping of religions/denominations and scientists. You and Trump actually would be an excellent match as he too can never do wrong and never apologize for his words or actions. OTOH, moral adults do take responsibility for their words and actions, and they do admit and apologize for their mistakes, neither of which you seem to be able to do.

Anyhow, go ahead and play the role of the poor defenseless victim here as you so frequently do, but your "colors" are showing, so I really don't think you're fooling anyone here but maybe yourself, Deeje.

Good grief metis, the only one who seems to be playing 'wounded' around here is you.

What "mistakes" am I needing to apologize for? What "wrongs" do I need to be sorry about? If these "mistakes" and "wrongs" are simply to disagree with what is being said, then how many others who have posted on this thread also need to apologize? Is it only me? Are you giving them a hard time as well?

I am really not too concerned with tip-toeing around people's personal sensitivities in a debate forum like this one. I am concerned with the topic at hand and all I seem to get from you is how much I have offended your sensibilities by showing science up in this particular branch of study. My "stereotyping of religions/denominations and scientists" is just me telling it like I see it.
It isn't as if I haven't done research into the things I post. It isn't as though I am not reading what is given to me in links. I just expose them for what they are....unsubstantiated guesswork. I will not apologize for that.

It is not my intention to offend anyone, but to simply present the truth as I see it......it is a very hostile environment in case you haven't noticed. If I have stepped on your toes, I am sorry if it hurt, but I am not sorry for the step. I will continue to tell it like it is, and all I can say again is that perhaps you should ignore my posts if you find them to be so offensive?

This is a place to present facts, not sentiment. This is more of a battlefield, than a meditation retreat....if you catch my drift.
Emotional appeals are pretty much wasted on this forum IMO. Ask Jose Fly about that.

On other forums I may use an entirely different approach....it depends on the topic.