Just Accidental?

[Shad]

@sayak83 Please don't waste your time posting science books and article in support of organic evolution. Since I believe that evolution's first premise is completely without foundation, anything written by biased scientists seeking to prop up this fraud is useless, since it proves nothing to anyone but those who have been persuaded to believe it.

Yet you have no issue in accepting and posting work from biased people that accept what a set of books from 2-3 millennia ago as fact. Hilarious.

It appears as if "science" and all things "scientific" can replace human logic and experience. It is not a replacement for spirituality however. I will retain my belief in an Intelligent Designer because that is what I see in nature. I am not one bit swayed by the findings of a bunch of learned people who don't want to believe in a Creator but who want him to be drowned in nothing but unprovable conjecture....which is after all, what you accuse ID proponents of having. I will take my cues from the greatest scientist in existence who knows more about biology, genetics, geology and archeology than all the scientist in the world put together. If you want to write him off, that is your prerogative, but please don't assume that everyone worships science the way you do.

At least we now know you are incapable of learning anything if it challenges your preconceptions.

 

[Olinda]

What is this absolute refusal for so many to acknowledge one simple truth.....that there is no real evidence and never has been for organic evolution ever to have taken place?

He can call himself whatever he likes. I'll have to pull the "no true Scotsman" rule here. If Jesus accepted creation, then his follower must accept it too. You can't have a foot in both camps because they are totally incompatible. You have to choose one or the other.
makes God a Creator is his creativity after all. He is a true artisan who crafted the life forms he brought into existence....and he has a place for all of them, just as he had a reason for creating every star.


Here is the classic example of someone who has fallen for the evidence without understanding that suggestions are not facts. He attributes creation to a process that God never once mentioned. To make such an assumption is more about saving face than standing up for the truth.

He can call himself whatever he likes. I'll have to pull the "no true Scotsman" rule here. If Jesus accepted creation, then his follower must accept it too. You can't have a foot in both camps because they are totally incompatible.

Unfortunately for your position, "no true Scotsman" is not a rule but a logical fallacy. Do look it up.
And where did Jesus specifically state how creation was accomplished?
Finally, as @SkepticThinker is pointing out, there are no 'two camps'. Science is a methodology, and accepting it's current conclusions does not imply any opposition to faith or spirituality. Rather, honestly following the methodology where evidence leads shows far more respect for the natural world - however it was or wasn't created - than clinging to a man-made interpretation of the Bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Most conceptions are not visible to human eyes

.....before the development of microscopes, no one knew for sure "how" it happened....only "that" it happened through the act of copulation.

The microscope was invented hundreds of years ago.

You said, “Reproduction for the most part, takes place in complete secrecy. All science has been able to do is show us "how" it happens, revealing the processes of the miracle.”

That isn’t true. We don’t live hundreds of years ago. We do know how reproduction takes place.

Both have the potential to combine and create life. The mechanism is basically the same for most creatures. And sperm are most definitely "alive". No creature on earth "creates" life...they merely have the ability to pass it on.

Sperm are definitely alive? Does that mean people are taking thousands of lives every time they masturbate or have sex?

Humans create life by engaging in activities that bring sperm and egg together. There is no human life, then very well known biological processes take place and then a human starts growing. You don’t think that equates to “creating life?” I do.

Since both males and females are required for procreation, wouldn't they have had to "evolve" at exactly the same time and in specifically different ways to perpetuate the life of all species in the first place?

Here are some resources that may answer your question for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction
http://www.livescience.com/15096-sex.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/29307/title/Why-sex-evolved/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304253/

More of the same assertions and predictions...there is no real evidence for anything in these links.

They contain evidence that it is at least theoretically possible that organic molecules can form from inorganic molecules, given the right conditions.

I am aware of that, but to my way of thinking, where life came from is way more important as a game changer than how things adapted after they got here. If an all powerful Creator is the originator of life, and the one who created all life as it is, with inbuilt ability to adapt, then what happens to your theory? What happens to people like you?

I think both are intriguing.

I don’t think evolutionary theory is necessarily false if it turns out there is some god out there, as I said before. Evolutionary theory doesn’t hinge on atheism. And I see no reason to think some powerful deity could not have come up with evolution in the first place. It is quite an efficient process, after all.

You mean, what happens to atheists? I don’t know. What happens to you if the Muslims are right? Or the ancient Greeks? I can’t spend my time worrying about what happens if any of the thousands of gods people have believed in throughout the course of history turn out to be real. I spend about as much time worrying about them as you do, apparently. All I can do is try my best to use the brain that perhaps some god gave me, to analyze all the available evidence to help me figure out what is going on in the world around me. As it stands, I don’t see any reason to believe any god I’ve ever heard of exists at all.

And if some all-knowing god did exist, then it should probably be able to determine what kind of evidence would convince me of its existence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Huge grants for research are a big motivator for many scientists. Accolades are also important in what has become to many an ego driven field. A research scientist's salary is around $1200 - $2,000 a week. The anonymous ones working away in labs still have to be paid by someone.

It’s a pretty tough process in getting a research proposal approved for further study. They have to compete against many other scientists for a relatively small amount of available grants. So they have to come up with new and exciting avenues of research if they want to stay competitive and have a chance in getting funded.

The money itself is granted to some institution (e.g. a university) that administers it. The money is meant to be used to fund the use of laboratories and the necessary equipment and such that are needed to carry out the research. The scientists don’t just pocket the money.

Accolades come from producing new and exciting discoveries.

"Natural selection" only guarantees the survival of the fittest. Cosmetic things like color or small physical changes do not demonstrate organic evolution. Adaptation is not in question.....its the lengths to which science wants to stretch these "known" things. Do you not see that one thing does not equal the other when there is no way to prove it?

Colour and physical attributes contribute to an animal’s ability to survive.

They are the same process. The only difference is time. I’m still waiting for you or any creationist to identify the mechanism by which small changes are blocked from turning into larger changes over time. As it stands, there is no known mechanism for this thing you propose.

All living things demonstrate the ability to communicate either audibly or chemically, or both. But there are no creatures on earth who communicate like humans do.

Not only do we have complex language skills abut we also have the ability to acquire information from written language, be that pictographic or alphabetic.

How do you know? This is just more anthropocentrism. We only have the ability to view the world from our human point of view and so it makes us feel like we’re special somehow.

Chimps and bonobos can communicate via lexigram:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRM7vTrIIis

Humpback whales and a particular subspecies of blue whale communicate using song, which one Marine Biologist (Philip Clapham) describes as, “probably the most complex in the animal kingdom.”
https://books.google.ca/books?id=lrQwBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=phillip+clapham+probably+the+most+complex+in+the+animal+kingdom&source=bl&ots=JlDvolFTSY&sig=a22egk51PZabIoCmbKVxbjJGHEo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikt_Hb6qbQAhXp5oMKHQPmAAEQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=phillip%20clapham%20probably%20the%20most%20complex%20in%20the%20animal%20kingdom&f=false

There are creatures on earth who communicate in all kinds of different ways. Is your point is that god made us extra special, because we can also communicate using symbology?

We have the ability to comprehend concepts such as past, present and future

Some of our primate relatives apparently have the ability to plan ahead:

http://evp.sagepub.com/content/11/3/147470491301100307.full.pdf
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080618114602.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309121931.htm

 

[SkepticThinker]

and to use information lifted from the printed page to form mental images that are interpreted by a superior brain. We can take that information and plan future events.

This is the same method of communication you referenced above.

This is not done by instinct, which is programmed into most living things by their Creator, but this is a deliberately planned action based on the computation of information gathered in various ways. Animals have no idea why they do anything.....instinct drives them to perform all the actions that contribute to their survival. It is programmed into them.....not by undirected chance.

That’s a claim you’re going to need to back up.

All through history human beings have displayed spirituality....something that is completely missing from the animal kingdom. Spirituality is like a muscle, if it isn't exercised, it shrivels up and becomes useless. When humans decided at some point, that they were too intelligent to believe in God, it never occurred to them that what they were rejecting was man made, flawed religion. God is not found in religion...evidence for his existence is seen in his Creation. He doesn't need religion or performance or rituals.....nor does he demand that humans serve him or even acknowledge him. All he does is tell us what his plans are for the future and leaves the decisions up to us.....we either want to be included in them, or we don't. He tells us how to be "selected".

What is “spirituality?”

Where do animals go when they die, in your opinion?

The "latecomers" were to become caretakers of all the rest. A caretaker's job is to keep order and make sure things run smoothly. If there are problems that turn up, he can deal with them before they become an issue. If you are a gardener for example, how quickly do weeds take over in a garden if they are not controlled? A weed infested garden is not very attractive but a well kept garden is appreciated by all who see it.

The earth and everything on it seems to have held up just fine for the first 3.5 billion or so years without human caretakers. Why bring them in so late in the game? Especially if it’s so important to trim those weeds right away before they get out of control!

Beauty is not just in the eye of the beholder because we have an inbuilt standard by which we judge beauty. The majority of people will have the same standard. Culture may mean a small difference in the outward appearance, but by and large, we know when something is either attractive or repulsive.

Our concept of beauty has changed a lot over time. How does that work into this plan you are describing?

There are many human beings that I don’t find attractive, but other people do. I’m sure you can say the same. I’m sure there are people who think the mate I have chosen is not attractive, but he is to me. In other words, beauty appears to be in the eye of the beholder.

They do not fly in the face of science at all...they fly in the face of a theory that has been accepted by the majority despite the fact that it has no foundation in fact...only in supposition. You believe that the supposition is fact and I do not. It has nothing to do with real science. It has everything to do with being convinced....you one way...me another.

Except that they do. Evolution theory is scientific. It uses the very same scientific tools and methods of investigation as all the other fields of science do (ya know, like the ones you accept). You know this, because it’s been pointed out to you several times in this thread.

As I have thoroughly demonstrated to you, the theory of evolution was accepted by the vast majority of scientists because the evidence pointing to it became overwhelming, and still is to this day. That’s when scientific theories become accepted, and not a moment sooner.

The fact that no creationist (or anyone else for that matter) has ever been able to falsify the theory of evolution speaks VOLUMES about the veracity of the evidence in its favour. Why is it that I never seen you address this point? If it’s so obvious that evolution is false, this should be an extremely easy thing to do. And yet, still nothing.

And you are free to do that. I, however demand more than you do to change my thinking on this issue. You accept the teaching of those you regard as experts in their field....but what if the experts are taught by those who have also passed on false interpretation of information?

I just told you I don’t blindly accept the teachings of those I regard as experts and you’re seriously just going to repeat that I do? And you wonder why I say you argue in a dishonest manner??

You may follow leaders blindly, but please don’t project your behaviors onto me.

I see this very thing also in religion. If the teachers are misled, then so will their students be equally misled. Evidence is presented in such a way as to suggest that A led to B when there is no actual link....it is a virtual one produced by suggestion and a lot of tap dancing.

This is why science was designed the way it was. So that we don’t have to just take someone’s word for it.

Why do you think humans want to believe that a reunion with dead loved ones is possible? ( I don't believe in the heaven or hell scenario BTW because, contrary to popular opinion, this is not what the Bible teaches.)

I miss my dead relatives and friends because I love them and miss their presence in my life.

Have you ever wondered why death is so foreign to the human psyche, when it is all we have ever known?

Why do we have a collective expectation that we should go on living?

Because the idea that we will one day cease to exist is a very difficult concept to wrap our minds around. Just like the concept of billions of years is pretty tough to wrap out minds around.

Christopher Hitchens explained it pretty well. He said that it’s not the fact that someone is tapping you on your shoulder and telling you that you have to leave because the party is over. Rather, death is someone tapping you on the shoulder and telling you that you have to leave, but the party is going to go on without you. It’s a hard concept to accept.

Animals, by and large, accept death as a natural part of life....we on the other hand have great difficulty being separated from those we love. We all fight getting old or sick or incapacitated.....yet it will inevitably happen to all of us. Why have we not evolved to accept something that has been with us from the beginning? Why do we alone grieve so deeply, and have elaborate burial rituals for our family and friends, when none of those in the animal world go anywhere near as far as we do when death happens to those close to them? Even then, it is only species that are designed to form family groups. (or troupes)

Maybe the fear of death is what drives us to survive.

What are these dogs doing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv_ldCNqXeM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZsFWLN-tDk


Many animals have been observed mourning their dead.

http://ioniandolphinproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/0713062.pdf
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/whales-death-grief-animals-science/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140221-elephants-poaching-empathy-grief-extinction-science/


I’m not sure how you think you can make such sweeping claims. Especially when your analysis of other animals doesn’t seem to amount to much more than making cursory judgments based on their physical appearance.

The study of human nature will demonstrate just how vastly separated we are from any other creature on this planet.

Our uniqueness should tell you something when no other life form has progressed to the state of being that we have...why is that? If evolution is true, why are there not many species who have progressed to an equivalent level? Why is there no one like us?

I think in-depth study of the animal kingdom has begun to help us realize that the opposite is probably true.

As a human being, I need a reason for my existence and I need a hope for the future that isn't a black hole or a dead end. Why evolve a need for this with nothing to meet that need? What other need do humans have that cannot be met?

I don’t see why your future has to be so hopeless just because evolution is a fact of reality. And I don’t see why accepting it would mean that you can’t also believe in a god.

Humans want happiness, I would imagine. That’s a need that cannot always be met.

Is life meant to be one long frustration? Or can we rightly expect something better in the future? The Creator gives us life, reason and hope, fulfilling that need like nothing else can. You can live without it, but not in any truly satisfying way.

I don’t know what life is meant to be. I don’t expect that it must have some grand meaning. Maybe it just is.

I don’t need to believe that I get to live forever somewhere after I die to appreciate this life to its fullest. And maybe it makes this life all that much more important, if it’s the only one I’ve got.

 

[Deeje]

Please keep your empty threats to yourself. Nobody is threatening eternal torture to you for not accepting science.

Whoa!.....who is making empty threats of eternal torture? You have me mixed up with Christendom's churches. There is no eternal torture in the Bible. Under God's law there was not even incarceration, let alone torture. That is something invented by the early church to keep their ignorant masses in subjection. There is life and death......that's it. You either get to keep the gift of life indefinitely, by obeying the direction of the Creator, or you forfeit life as unworthy (in his estimations) to retain it. This life is about proving yourself fit to be called a citizen of the incoming kingdom (government) of God. If people are judged as unfit, they simply exit life....never to be seen again.....isn't that what atheists expect anyway? God is not going to do worse to them than they already believe will happen. I see nothing unfair in that. If you don't want him, he doesn't want you....if you don't want what he is offering, he will not force it on you......its really that simple.

Start providing some evidence for the existence of this creator you speak of instead. I don't believe things I don't have any good reason to believe. .

It is not up to me to make you believe in the Creator or to convince you to appreciate his creation. That is for your own heart to decide. God is all around you if you just open your eyes.

The Creator that you are rejecting is nothing like what you imagine. He does not resemble the God that Christendom portrays.

I wish you could see through evolution long enough to comprehend what you are missing, both now and in the future.....

 

[Shad]

Whoa!.....who is making empty threats of eternal torture? You have me mixed up with Christendom's churches. There is no eternal torture in the Bible. Under God's law there was not even incarceration, let alone torture. That is something invented by the early church to keep their ignorant masses in subjection. There is life and death......that's it. You either get to keep the gift of life indefinitely, by obeying the direction of the Creator, or you forfeit life as unworthy (in his estimations) to retain it. This life is about proving yourself fit to be called a citizen of the incoming kingdom (government) of God. If people are judged as unfit, they simply exit life....never to be seen again.....isn't that what atheists expect anyway? God is not going to do worse to them than they already believe will happen. I see nothing unfair in that. If you don't want him, he doesn't want you....if you don't want what he is offering, he will not force it on you......its really that simple.

Mathew 25:46, read your bible. If a person no longer exists there is no eternal punishment as you can not punish that which no longer exists. You contradict the Bible.

You will respond with a different verse but this merely demonstrates that Bible contradicts itself. The reasonable conclusion is that the human authors contradict each other which itself demonstrated that the Bible is not from God nor inspired by. The only other conclusion is that God is incoherent and illogical.

 

[sayak83]

You mean like yours?

No. Unlike Christianity and Islam, unyielding belief about something, even of God, is considered a hindrance in Hinduism and Buddhism for spiritual progress (Blind men and elephant story). Beliefs should be held lightly and allowed to evolve (that term again) naturally, like running water in a cupped hand (instead of in a closed fist) and only then can one quench the thirst from it.

I have never presented anything intentionally misleading....all I have presented is the truth as I understand it.
I am supposing that you have done the same. You believe your teachers and I believe mine. Yours rely on their interpretation of science, mine rely on their interpretation of scripture. You cannot prove that your teachers are right....and neither can I if I rely only on science.

Yours teachers have presented many things that are misleading, from sources that are intentionally misleading. You do bear responsibility for repeating claims that were intentionally misleading (multiple cases of quote-mines) whether you are doing it deliberately or not. Your continuous attempt to say scientists are creating fantasies by pointing out ordinary and widely used probabilistic language of science(like suggests and may) and your continuous attempt to ignore the scientific definitions of theory and fact despite multiple rebuttals are definitely intentioned. Are they not? As below:-

The theory of evolution is a theory, regardless of the definition science wants to give it..

Here is the analogy:-
Christians are human blood and flesh drinking followers of a super-powered zombie, regardless of what spin Christian theology wants to put on their practices...

It is trivially easy to denigrate worldviews you do not believe in as fantasies, forgeries, money-fuelled special interest conspiracies so that you remain blind and deaf to what they are actually saying. You must be doing it all your life so that it comes reflexively to you and feel "natural" and "right". Which is a pity.

There is so much more to life than science. How does science explain spirituality, which has been with mankind from his beginnings.

Science explains this as an extension of the "theory of other mind" conception capacity of humans to processes other than human beings and animals. That this is the case is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether the feature is non-adaptive side effect of the theory-of-mind or an adaptive feature that has latched onto something true in the world (something like number sense).

..it is based on the supposition that all life descended from a single called organism that somehow sprang into life in an unexplainable fashion in the dim dark past, and then supposedly transformed itself into all the diversity of life that has ever existed.

Science can prove that adaptation took place in the past and still does when a new environment or a change of food source forces living things to make necessary changes in their habits. But what science can never prove is that all life descended from that primordial soup evolving over millions of years to explain the existence of all life forms on this planet. If the "evidence" was not interpreted by those who promote evolution, no one would ever assume that all life is just a monumental series of fortunate accidents. How many flukes does it take to build a theory?

Good evidence to my proposition that despite so many posts you have been unable to understanding anything of what any of us are saying.

Really? You seriously think that this is how Moses obtained his information for the writing of Genesis? Talk about cringe-inducing....

Its hardly surprising that you missed the point of the story..

And your belief system is somehow superior to mine....because it has a white swan, a thousand petal lotus and a goddess named Saraswati?

No. Its because it is very congenial to the reality uncovered by the sciences including the science of evolution with no requirement to modify anything in its form, philosophy or theology whatsoever. I don't have to flex a single mental or spiritual muscle to incorporate evolution into one of the oldest great religions of the world (Hinduism and its sibling Buddhism). Quite revealing.

Since you show no understanding of my belief system, how do you know that your claim is not just as empty, false and futile as you think mine is?

Direct experience -of being both a scientist and a practitioner of meditation.

Your understanding of biology and geology and archeology have been fed to you by those who accept that an Intelligent Designer is a fairy tale. I believe that evolution is the real fairy story and that you have no more 'scientific' proof for your beliefs than I do.

False. I knew that the intelligent designer like the one you believe in is a fairy tale much before I have ever heard of evolution. The scientific evidence for evolution is as strong as the scientific evidence for any well established theory in physics and chemistry, often much stronger. Again I know this because I am practicing scientist and know how to evaluate these things.

 

[ArtieE]

If the human race had just continued to use their free will in obedience to their rightful sovereign

This is what we call a contradiction in terms. The definition of "free will" is "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free will
but if you obey God your choices are controlled by God. You can't do things God disapproves of. Obeying God = giving up your free will.

 

[Deeje]

This is the same method of communication you referenced above.

I will say it again...no other creature on this planet communicates like we do. We have a capacity to learn that is far superior to any other creature in existence. Unlike the animals, we have the ability to permanently adapt our surroundings to suit ourselves, and the last time I looked, no other creatures build cities 'to plan' the way we do. We have many skilled people who have had to be educated to acquire the various skills used in architecture, engineering and construction, whereas animals and insects form colonies or troops who all function by instinct, not by education.They adapt to their surroundings, whilst we do the opposite.

Who taught termites or ants or honey bees to build their nests or hives? Who taught them to function as a colony where each individual knows their job and keeps their place? Where are their centers for education? Who are their teachers?

That’s a claim you’re going to need to back up.

You think instinct needs back up? All sentient species operate by instinct.....programmed wisdom. What program do you use on your computer that wasn't designed by someone with intelligence?
Do squirrels know why they gather acorns for the winter....or who tells bears its time to hibernate? Who taught the birds how to migrate thousands of miles or how to build a nest specific to their species when the babies were not around to observe their parents' building skills...and they weren't around for any previous generations either?
All these creatures instinctively know what to do to preserve their own species. OTOH humans have to learn everything.

What is “spirituality?”

It's the notion of having a spiritual side of our nature that must be nurtured. Its the understanding that there is a power higher than ourselves who is responsible for our being, and to whom gratitude should naturally be expressed. It gives purpose and meaning to life as well as a hope for a better future. This is a uniquely human need. No other living creatures worship or have an inherent need to do so.

Where do animals go when they die, in your opinion?

The same place as we do.....back to the dust. They breathe the same air and die the same death. (Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20)
We though, have an opportunity to have our life restored. The one who created life can restore it if he chooses to do so.

The earth and everything on it seems to have held up just fine for the first 3.5 billion or so years without human caretakers. Why bring them in so late in the game? Especially if it’s so important to trim those weeds right away before they get out of control!

The mandate given to humankind was not given to animals. Man was told to "fill the earth" with his kind and to "subdue it".
Humans were assigned the task of turning the entire planet into something resembling the garden of Eden. 'Subduing' the earth meant not just taming the wilderness places outside the garden, but also having the animals in subjection. A caretaker is not an animal trainer but someone who keeps an eye on things so that animals and humans can share a common environment peacefully....even joyfully.

Our concept of beauty has changed a lot over time. How does that work into this plan you are describing?

I disagree....we have always admired beautiful things in nature. When would humans not have admired a colorful sunrise or sunset? The vast array of color and design in birdlife and flowers? Ocean or lake views? Waterfalls? Snow capped mountains? Rain forests? We are designed to appreciate beauty for its own sake, whereas animals and other creatures have interest only in self preservation and perpetuation of their species.
Our evaluation of human appearance can change with the fads of fashion, but beauty has its standard in all cultures. We all know when something doesn't look right at any given time period.

There are many human beings that I don’t find attractive, but other people do. I’m sure you can say the same. I’m sure there are people who think the mate I have chosen is not attractive, but he is to me. In other words, beauty appears to be in the eye of the beholder.

There is so much more than appearance that attracts people to one another. We are chemically matched as well as physically attracted. Animals and humans pair up for different reasons. Moral concepts separate us from the animals.....yet when evolution convinced people that they are nothing more than animals, morality has been the casualty, and we are not the better for it.

Except that they do

. Evolution theory is scientific. It uses the very same scientific tools and methods of investigation as all the other fields of science do (ya know, like the ones you accept). You know this, because it’s been pointed out to you several times in this thread.

Evolution is not "scientific" if it relies on conjecture and prediction, forcing evidence to fit a false premise......that describes fantasy, not fact.
Many things have been pointed out to you on this thread, yet you still insist that there is proof for organic evolution....when there is NO PROOF. What you accept as proof is suggestion backed up by nothing more than educated guesswork.
We each have a belief system based on whom and what we have chosen to believe.

As I have thoroughly demonstrated to you, the theory of evolution was accepted by the vast majority of scientists because the evidence pointing to it became overwhelming, and still is to this day. That’s when scientific theories become accepted, and not a moment sooner.

If the commercial world can use the power of suggestion to motivate the masses to buy a certain product, promoted by persons who are recognized by them, what makes you say that science cannot achieve the same outcome using the same tactics? Accepting something doesn't mean it is right...it is only acceptable because people want to believe it and accept the authority of the person promoting it.

The fact that no creationist (or anyone else for that matter) has ever been able to falsify the theory of evolution speaks VOLUMES about the veracity of the evidence in its favour. Why is it that I never seen you address this point? If it’s so obvious that evolution is false, this should be an extremely easy thing to do. And yet, still nothing.

How easy is it to "falsify" something that the majority of people have been duped into believing? When scientists are put on pedestals and "evidence" is produced along with vast "scientific" explanations about why you must believe it....and how moronic you must be to deny the "overwhelming evidence" they have.....sorry, but I do not accept that science tells the truth about our origins.

This is why science was designed the way it was. So that we don’t have to just take someone’s word for it.

Now, that is really funny, because that is exactly what you are doing.

I miss my dead relatives and friends because I love them and miss their presence in my life.

If we have supposedly been evolving for so many millions of years and death is all we have ever known....why have we not evolved the ability to deal with death the way most animals do? There is a reason why humans fight death....we were not created to die, but the animals were designed to have a finite circle of life. They accept death, by and large as a natural part of life.
Animals have no concept of their own death even though they have certain survival instincts. We are the only sentient creatures who can contemplate our own death or the death of a loved one. It weighs heavily on us.

Because the idea that we will one day cease to exist is a very difficult concept to wrap our minds around. Just like the concept of billions of years is pretty tough to wrap out minds around.

Christopher Hitchens explained it pretty well. He said that it’s not the fact that someone is tapping you on your shoulder and telling you that you have to leave because the party is over. Rather, death is someone tapping you on the shoulder and telling you that you have to leave, but the party is going to go on without you. It’s a hard concept to accept.

We have no 'program' for death. We find it hard because we are created to form lifelong bonds with those who are close to us. Those bonds are not supposed to be broken and life is not supposed to end. The Creator formed us to enjoy unending life with no aging, sickness, suffering or death, but the first humans thought life would be better if they did what they wanted instead of what the Creator wanted......death was the penalty and humans began to degenerate and descend into aging and eventual death, genetically sentencing their children to the same fate....but just until free will was tested among them and decisions were made about obedience to the Creator.

Maybe the fear of death is what drives us to survive.

Fear of death doesn't drive any other species.....they have no concept of their own death. Why are we different?

I’m not sure how you think you can make such sweeping claims. Especially when your analysis of other animals doesn’t seem to amount to much more than making cursory judgments based on their physical appearance.

I think in-depth study of the animal kingdom has begun to help us realize that the opposite is probably true.

Please provide evidence of any animal in existence who is equivalent to humans in their abilities, intellect and skills. We are unique as far as I am aware.

I don’t see why your future has to be so hopeless just because evolution is a fact of reality. And I don’t see why accepting it would mean that you can’t also believe in a god.

Humans want happiness, I would imagine. That’s a need that cannot always be met.

Yes, all humans basically want the same things.....health, happiness and an enjoyable family life with the people they love. It is a collective desire no matter what nation or environment we are raised in. How many people ever get to live that life? I have a reason for that....do you? I have God's solution to that problem.....what solution does evolution give you? I have a wonderful hope for the future. What hope do you have for the future?

I don’t know what life is meant to be. I don’t expect that it must have some grand meaning. Maybe it just is.

I don’t need to believe that I get to live forever somewhere after I die to appreciate this life to its fullest. And maybe it makes this life all that much more important, if it’s the only one I’ve got.

What if you were born with a mental or physical disability that robbed you of the basic abilities that most of us take for granted? Or had them taken from you in an accident.....Would you still be satisfied that this life is all there is? If you wanted to live life to the fullest but had no opportunity to do so because all your nation had ever known was war and oppression.....how could this life be enough?

If this life is not the one we are meant to live...and I think deep down we all know it isn't, wouldn't you want to know how to live in a better world, with no one making life miserable for any reason? If this life is the one where we either pass the test or fail it, wouldn't you want to know how to pass the test?

 

[Deeje]

This is what we call a contradiction in terms. The definition of "free will" is "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free will
but if you obey God your choices are controlled by God. You can't do things God disapproves of. Obeying God = giving up your free will.

That is the balance of free will and obedience. Free will was never the freedom to do as you please. As described in Genesis, free will was granted within the parameters set by the Creator's will. He had the sovereign right to lay down the ground rules. Humans did not have the right to disobey him....the penalty was death. God gave a lot of freedom within those parameters.

 

[Deeje]

Mathew 25:46, read your bible. If a person no longer exists there is no eternal punishment as you can not punish that which no longer exists. You contradict the Bible.

There is no contradiction.....Matthew 25:46 is Jesus sentencing the "goats" to eternal punishment. The word used in that verse is "kolasis" which means "correction, punishment, penalty". Eternal death is the opposite of eternal life, so eternal death is an eternal punishment.

You will respond with a different verse but this merely demonstrates that Bible contradicts itself. The reasonable conclusion is that the human authors contradict each other which itself demonstrated that the Bible is not from God nor inspired by. The only other conclusion is that God is incoherent and illogical.

I don't need another verse to demonstrate that death is the highest punishment there was under God's Law.
In order to suffer eternally after death, one would have to live forever.....yet eternal life is promised only to the righteous, not the wicked.

 

[ArtieE]

That is the balance of free will and obedience. Free will was never the freedom to do as you please. As described in Genesis, free will was granted within the parameters set by the Creator's will. He had the sovereign right to lay down the ground rules. Humans did not have the right to disobey him....the penalty was death. God gave a lot of freedom within those parameters.

So God really meant "you have free will to do whatever you want except what I don't want you to do"? When the definition of "free will" is "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God"?

 

[Deeje]

So God really meant "you have free will to do whatever you want except what I don't want you to do?" When the definition of "free will" is "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God"?

The definition of free will is not man's to make. He had free will to choose many things in life. He was not controlled except in one area. He was not to take something that belonged to God. Abuse of free will involved theft and gross disrespect for the only law that God laid upon his human creation. It caused them no hardship and it was very reasonable considering the consequences of their actions.

 

[Kirran]

Just to throw in - I believe in God and the presence of God in everything and in every moment, and see no contradiction whatsoever between this and accepting the observable phenomenon of evolution.

 

[ArtieE]

Who taught termites or ants or honey bees to build their nests or hives? Who taught them to function as a colony where each individual knows their job and keeps their place? Where are their centers for education? Who are their teachers?

Where are your god's teachers? Or are you saying that your god just knew this by instinct and gave the knowledge on to the animals?

You think instinct needs back up? All sentient species operate by instinct.....programmed wisdom. What program do you use on your computer that wasn't designed by someone with intelligence?

Your god is supposed to be sentient and intelligent. Who programmed your god then?

 

[ArtieE]

The definition of free will is not man's to make.

So please give us God's definition of "free will". And then tell us how we can have "free will" if we're not even free to make our own definitions.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, all humans basically want the same things.....health, happiness and an enjoyable family life with the people they love. It is a collective desire no matter what nation or environment we are raised in. How many people ever get to live that life? I have a reason for that....do you? I have God's solution to that problem.....what solution does evolution give you? I have a wonderful hope for the future. What hope do you have for the future?

You might be interested in different theories about how and why we evolved religious beliefs. http://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html
Religious people believe in and argue for the existence of their gods. I am interested in the evolutionary reasons for the existence of religions and religious people.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You might be interested in different theories about how and why we evolved religious beliefs. http://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html
Religious people believe in and argue for the existence of their gods. I am interested in the evolutionary reasons for the existence of religions and religious people.

Many atheists have argued to me that their belief is the default one, because we are all born atheist.

So by this rationale, belief in God is the fundamentally skeptical position- and I think this holds true historically- more curious humans began to question the blind acceptance that everything 'just is' 'accidental' 'for no particular reason' and logically concluded a creator.

 

[McBell]

Many atheists have argued to me that their belief is the default one, because we are all born atheist.

So by this rationale, belief in God is the fundamentally skeptical position- and I think this holds true historically- more curious humans began to question the blind acceptance that everything 'just is' 'accidental' 'for no particular reason' and logically concluded a creator.

It is sad that so many people in this day and age cling so readily to the traditional strawmen born of ignorance.
You do understand there has been great improvements in our knowledge of the world since then, right?