Just Accidental?

[savagewind]

Why did you call spirit energy? What's supernatural about energy?

I am sure you are missing the point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Prophesy can only be fully discerned after the fact. We expected certain things to take place and in hindsight, we can see that they clearly did, but the last remaining events are yet future, so we will have to wait and see how they play out on the world scene....indications are that we will not have to wait much longer.

Like the Nostradamus "prophecies," it's pretty easy to take a bunch of vague descriptions written centuries upon centuries ago and apply them to random periods of human history. Of course, these prophecies never give dates or much in the way of specifics, so you can shoehorn pretty much anything you want into these things. The very fact that you have to point out that "the last remaining events are yet future" demonstrates that what you are referring to are not actually prophecies then. It's wishful thinking. You can long for the end of the world if you want, but I don't see any reason to believe any of this stuff, especially since people have been making these kinds of predictions for centuries now - and we're still here.

In other words, it's not much more than seeing what you want to see. You pick and choose the prophecies you think are coming true, while ignoring those that clearly aren't. Then you declare that they are true because a few of them might have kinda, sorta been right-ish. T

And in addition, even if any of these prophecies were actually specific enough to demonstrate that the person making it actually was envisioning the future, you're still no where near proving that the god you believe in exists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can and I did. You have no "scientifically verifiable" evidence of a chain of descent, with creatures morphing into other creatures. It is only a chain if it has links.....there are no verifiable links. Adaptation does not provide them.



That is just the point.....all the "scientific proof" is alleged, supposed, imagined....not proven. The conclusions were based more on what was an expected outcome and interpreting the results to fit that presupposition. This is obvious to those looking at evolution from the outside. 'In house', I just see you all being as blind as each other....patting one another on the back and perpetuating your pet theory with nothing but suggestion.

No. No they weren't. Not at all. We've been over this several times. Remember the geologists' example? You should, since I just reminded you of it in my last set of posts. Remember discussing Darwin's observations, and the many similar observations that human beings have been making for thousands of years? Darwin wasn't the first to notice that evolution happens.

Please stop repeating lies. It does nothing to bolster your assertions and only makes you look dishonest.

 

[Shad]

Genesis 1:3 comes before Genesis 1:11. So, it agrees. (If you're wrong on this, maybe you're wrong on your other assessments?)

Read the comment. He said sunlight not light. The sun was not made until Gen 1:16 thus the point is still correct and your error is based on you not reading what you reply to.

 

[Deeje]

In science, there two different approaches in attempting to ascertain "facts". One of them is direct proof, which is often hard to come by, especially in this arena, but the 2nd is to disprove all other possibilities.

In the case of descent with modification, there is often no possible alternative explanation as to why we see transitional forms gradually being formed into new species while many of the older species die off.

Why can't God as a Creator not experiment with his creativity? We do. Variety in creation is not necessarily a sign that one creature evolved into another, but I see it more as God giving life to a variety of living things before deciding on the ones who would share life with man. The dinosaurs were long gone, but perhaps needed to mow down a very overgrown earth at some period? Who knows....science doesn't and neither do we.

Theologically, it's as if God kept creating and creating and creating some more.

He did keep creating more and more. The creative "days" were epochs, each with a monumental amount of achievement. So much so that God declared each period to be satisfactory in his estimations.

But, in light of what it actually says in the Bible, that concept rubs counter to the fact that it says God finished creation at the end of the 6th day. Since this is what it says, what other explanation is possible? The reality is this: none.

As I see it, creation ended at the end of the 6th creative period. But that didn't mean that adaptation did not continue. The ability to adapt is given to all creatures as a natural way to cope with a changed environment. I don't see it as relating to macro-evolution in any way, so using one as proof in support of the other is just wishful thinking IMO.

Since evolution depends entirely on scientist's ability to "interpret" evidence, don't you think that the creation account might also be more a matter of correct interpretation? There are as many conflicting scientific arguments as there are religious ones. Who is telling the truth and what if both of them are in error? What if there is a middle ground that is reasonable and logical, and accommodates both true science and creation without compromising either? This is what I am advocating on this thread. But this topic often makes evolution supporters cranky because the mere suggestion of a Creator turns some of them into monsters! I am grateful for the ones who can retain a sense of humor in discussing this emotive topic, which I see as merely one belief system competing with another. We are all free to choose, but let the truth from both sides be told because informed choice is the only kind we need.

So, if we take a look at roughly 3 billion years of the evolution of life here on Earth, there simply is no even slightly plausible alternative scenario, and that would even include the biblical creation accounts.

Yes there is Metis. The Bible account of creation can be interpreted to accommodate an old earth and ancient creatures that came and went before man's arrival. There is no conflict with science on that score.

On top of that, what we now know about genetics confirms the basic principles of the ToE, namely gradual mutations that natural selection and genetic drift dictate can and have been involved in the formation of new species (google "speciation", for examples)..

Again, interpretation of the evidence is based on a foregone conclusion...that evolution is a verifiable fact and that shared DNA proves a slow and gradual production of new species. But what if all that shared DNA is simply the act of a common creator who used the same raw materials to create everything? Are we not all made of the same elements as the earth itself, just as Genesis states? Wouldn't that explain the similarities? Evolution takes those similarities and assumes many things which may not be true if their first premise is flawed.

So, we know this has happened, and we've known it for over a century now, so it makes not one iota of sense to blindly swallow what we now know is an absurd interpretation of the creation accounts, especially since there's a much more logical alternative.

That is the frustrating part....science only claims to "think" it knows. How is it possible to take a theory, based on suggestion, which is based on educated guessing, and make it sound like absolute truth, when it cannot be proven by any scientific method. The best science can do is take what it already believes and try to squeeze everything they find into that belief. Then it calls that belief, fact. That is what I object to. There are no "facts"...only educated assumptions.

To put it another way, the Bible should enlighten one-- thus not to have one go through life with a set of blinders on.

I found the Bible to be enlightening only after I left the church. I was never given alternatives growing up. Creation was the '7 literal day' process and that was that. In High School I began to learn about evolution and was really excited about it. The church's teachings were old hat to me anyway, so I fully embraced the theory....yet somehow, as much as I was disenchanted with the church, I never stopped believing in God.
But the more I studied evolution, the more purposeful design I saw in everything....even in inanimate things. I concluded that they both had to be wrong and that God must be hiding somewhere else. I made excursions into Eastern religions and even Mormonism, but there was only emptiness and a feeling like I was missing something.
It wasn't until I examined the teachings of JW's that I saw that something that was missing in all the rest. A reasonable middle ground where science and creation met without one compromising the other. They didn't try to sell theistic evolution as a sell out to science, but combined true science and creation in a very reasonable and logical way.

Everyone is free to choose, so I cannot understand why some get so heated when these truths are brought to their attention. Everyone is entitled to their own choices in this issue.

Neither macro-evolution, nor ID have any scientific method of validation.....I just wish that people could understand that they are choosing between one belief system and another. But science won't have a bar of that.

 

[Deeje]

That your originator didn't require an originator for it's existence is proof that stuff can exist without an originator.

We are material creatures who live in a material world. Science can test matter, yet they cannot create matter. But the one who created the universe can produce matter, but is himself not a material being, therefore he requires no originator because his existence is not testable by any means known to science. Rather than place such a being in the realms of possibility, they place him in the realm of fantasy, whilst concocting another equally improbable fantasy . Go figure.

 

[Deeje]

Read the comment. He said sunlight not light. The sun was not made until Gen 1:16 thus the point is still correct and your error is based on you not reading what you reply to.

Why are you quoting the Bible when you know nothing of what it says?

"Light" appeared on the first day. (Gen 1:3) The only source of light for this planet is the sun....which was made right along with "the heavens and the earth", "in the beginning".

When God made the luminaries appear, it was by dispersing whatever it was that was obscuring them. Cloud layers perhaps. The simple language used in Genesis was aimed at ordinary folks...not science geeks...OK?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Here I am, again, Deeje! I thought I was gone....guess I'm not.
(Just can't stand it when somebody call me a liar!)

I'll NEED you to provide quotes from Einstein claiming that there's a designer in the first place: Intelligent or not. The burden of proof is on you; You made the claim. From my standpoint, you not providing such a quote would make you both a liar and an abuser of strawmen.

You might find this interesting, I did. In fact, I downloaded the entire book to my 'ibooks'!
(Keep in mind, not believing in a "personal" God, does not mean, Einstein didn't think God is a higher intellect. It only means he thought God wasn't interested in any person.... Or us, as people.)

Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book, not mine.)
(Double asterisks and bold type are mine, to highlight.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Here I am, again, Deeje! I thought I was gone....guess I'm not.
(Just can't stand it when somebody call me a liar!)

I'll NEED you to provide quotes from Einstein claiming that there's a designer in the first place: Intelligent or not. The burden of proof is on you; You made the claim. From my standpoint, you not providing such a quote would make you both a liar and an abuser of strawmen.

You might find this interesting, I did. In fact, I downloaded the entire book to my 'ibooks'!
(Keep in mind, not believing in a "personal" God, does not mean, Einstein didn't think God is a higher intellect. It only means he thought God wasn't interested in any person.... Or us, as people.)

Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book, not mine.)
(Double asterisks, italics, underlining and bold type are mine, to highlight.)

 

[Deeje]

Like the Nostradamus "prophecies," it's pretty easy to take a bunch of vague descriptions written centuries upon centuries ago and apply them to random periods of human history. Of course, these prophecies never give dates or much in the way of specifics, so you can shoehorn pretty much anything you want into these things. The very fact that you have to point out that "the last remaining events are yet future" demonstrates that what you are referring to are not actually prophecies then. It's wishful thinking. You can long for the end of the world if you want, but I don't see any reason to believe any of this stuff, especially since people have been making these kinds of predictions for centuries now - and we're still here.

That is more likely to be due to the timeframe that life on earth exists in. The Creator lives in a realm that is outside of our time. We earth bound humans must live according to the rotation of the earth....24 hours in a day...7 days in a week, 52 weeks in a year....and the earth just happens to be at the right tilt, and rotating at the right speed and is the right size to sustain life beautifully. Science tells us that the environment produced life (somehow) whereas ID proponents believe that the earth was purposely prepared with life in mind. Everything that was needed to support life was here long before the first creatures took breath. (which just happens to have the right mixture of gasses as it turns out)
What amazingly fortunate flukes you believe in.....on a par with belief in a Creator IMO.

In other words, it's not much more than seeing what you want to see. You pick and choose the prophecies you think are coming true, while ignoring those that clearly aren't. Then you declare that they are true because a few of them might have kinda, sorta been right-ish.

There is no " kinda, sorta, right-ish" in any of it. It is quite specific actually.There are just two events to go....the destruction of Babylon the great and the end of this entire world system of things. That's it. Humans will then have no more chances to listen and to come on board with what the Creator is offering. Its their choice because he will force no one to do anything against their will.

And in addition, even if any of these prophecies were actually specific enough to demonstrate that the person making it actually was envisioning the future, you're still no where near proving that the god you believe in exists.

There is no one making anyone believe anything. All I am is a messenger and you are free to ignore me and my God.
But it is my firm belief that you will believe in him one day. He promises to rectify everything, soon by all accounts.
We already know that we can't hurry him up as much as we would like to.

 

[Deeje]

No. No they weren't. Not at all. We've been over this several times. Remember the geologists' example? You should, since I just reminded you of it in my last set of posts. Remember discussing Darwin's observations, and the many similar observations that human beings have been making for thousands of years? Darwin wasn't the first to notice that evolution happens.

Please stop repeating lies. It does nothing to bolster your assertions and only makes you look dishonest.

I tell the truth as I understand it. I assume that you do too. That is not repeating lies, because I can accuse all evolutionists of doing exactly the same thing.
Quoting science to me is like me quoting the Bible to you.....I don't believe that evolutionary science tells the truth. I believe that they take their "evidence" and interpret it to suit their presuppositions.

Darwin is known as the Father of Evolution. He is the one who is mainly credited with science's views on the subject. I assume that is why they call it "Darwinian Evolution"?
How does bringing in the beliefs of heathens, thousands of years ago, add to your argument? The Israelites were never told about evolution and neither were the first Christians. I really don't care about what other religions teach....OK?

This thread is about how we got here, not how we adapted after the fact. Nothing is "accidental".

 

[metis]

Why can't God as a Creator not experiment with his creativity?

I never said God couldn't, but if God did, it's completely obvious that He must have done so with the creation of new species ("kinds") because there simply isn't any other option based on the evidence.

I don't see it as relating to macro-evolution in any way, so using one as proof in support of the other is just wishful thinking IMO.

There really isn't any other option but to accept that reality, unless one prefers delusion.

Again, interpretation of the evidence is based on a foregone conclusion...that evolution is a verifiable fact and that shared DNA proves a slow and gradual production of new species. But what if all that shared DNA is simply the act of a common creator who used the same raw materials to create everything?

Which is why most Christian theologians believe in "theistic evolution". It doesn't deny the existence of God, plus it's compatible with the overwhelming evidence we see.

That is the frustrating part....science only claims to "think" it knows.

False. The closest thing to what you say is called a "hypothesis, but even that has to have some supporting evidence to indicate that it could be true. In science, we don't make "claims" w/o evidence, so all you're doing is parroting absurd excuses.

Again, I know where you're coming from as I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught against evolution, so I experienced the pattern of indoctrination that you've gone through and accepted it at first. However, I eventually accepted the reality, as painful as that was since I had thoughts on going into the ministry.

Evolution is a fact, and we now well know it's a fact, and to believe otherwise is simply allowing yourself to be manipulated by a group that also tends to be quite dishonest in other ways as well.

I've studied theology, including at the college level and well beyond that, and two sets of my neighbors were JW's, and I well know where they were coming from because of our discussions. Eventually one set finally realized they were being duped and left the JW's. I also know another family that went through that same process and left, and now they run an outreach program for JW's considering leaving.

You are being taken for a "ride" by a group with not a good record with the truth, who fabricate stories and excuses with their false predictions and anti-science and anti-intellect teachings.

Sorry, but that's the truth, and I hope someday you come to realize that you're being taken advantage of and stop supporting such a group.

Take care.

 

[Deeje]

I never said God couldn't, but if God did, it's completely obvious that He must have done so with the creation of new species ("kinds") because there simply isn't any other option based on the evidence.

Hang on .....where have I ever said that God didn't create the various "kinds" of creatures. Of course he created new species.....all throughout the 5th and 6th creative periods, which could well have been thousands or even millions of earth years long. The Creator does not exist in earth time. Variety is seen in the whole of creation, not just in the animal kingdom, but even in the inanimate things. Beauty and the ability to appreciate it with all five senses could never have evolved by mere chance.

There really isn't any other option but to accept that reality, unless one prefers delusion.

I see evolution as the real delusion....but its just marketed better than ID. And I assume that the sheer weight of numbers might make the secret ID proponents do a 'Nicodemus'. (never admit it in public for fear of the backlash.) Scientists can be brutal in their derision of anyone who suggests that evolution isn't a fact.

Which is why most Christian theologians believe in "theistic evolution". It doesn't deny the existence of God, plus it's compatible with the overwhelming evidence we see.

I see that position as a sell out. There is no such thing as "theistic evolution".....its more about saving face that standing up for the truth....not me.

Its an unacceptable compromise. Accepting the Bible's version of creation as it is stated, does not allow for evolution. It robs God of his creative genius. He said he created all things as complete creatures, displaying much variety within the "kinds" that he produced.....and I believe him.....why wouldn't I? I see the most exquisite design everywhere....even in the small things.

Are these the result of random mutations? These beautiful things just designed themselves?

The closest thing to what you say is called a "hypothesis, but even that has to have some supporting evidence to indicate that it could be true. In science, we don't make "claims" w/o evidence, so all you're doing is parroting absurd excuses.

Metis, the absurd excuses is what I hear for evolution. Science "suggests" that something "might have" happened that "could have" produced this or that and that this "leads us to believe" that evolution is true. That is "evidence"...really?

Again, I know where you're coming from as I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught against evolution, so I experienced the pattern of indoctrination that you've gone through and accepted it at first. However, I eventually accepted the reality, as painful as that was since I had thoughts on going into the ministry.

Evolution is a fact, and we now well know it's a fact, and to believe otherwise is simply allowing yourself to be manipulated by a group that also tends to be quite dishonest in other ways as well.

And you have been led to believe that from whom? Are you easily led my friend? Do you believe everything you hear? Or only when it agrees with your own bias?

I've studied theology, including at the college level and well beyond that, and two sets of my neighbors were JW's, and I well know where they were coming from because of our discussions. Eventually one set finally realized they were being duped and left the JW's. I also know another family that went through that same process and left, and now they run an outreach program for JW's considering leaving.

Now this is interesting.....JW's do not study theology...we study the Bible in depth and we do not need college degrees to teach the Bible. Jesus wasn't a graduate of the rabbinical schools and neither were any of his apostles....do you know why? Because the schools of higher learning taught Pharisaical traditions that were not in line with the Hebrew scriptures....most of it was rubbish.
He taught his disciples to teach others the truth from God's word. Christendom has followed the exact same course as their first century counterparts in Judaism. What they teach has no resemblance to Jesus' teachings either.

And as for your JW neighbors.....even Jesus had a Judas in his group....it didn't make the rest wrong though, did it? We will happily leave Jesus to do the judging.

You are being taken for a "ride" by a group with not a good record with the truth, who fabricate stories and excuses with their false predictions and anti-science and anti-intellect teachings.

Again...who told you that? Are a few rebels in a group representative of the whole lot? Its sad that you think so.
What "ride" do you think I am taking?

If you ask people who employ JW's , they will tell you that we are the most honest out of all their employees.
Our HQ gets constant requests for workers because of the current climate of dishonesty and crime in the workplace.
So our record speaks for itself really. The truth is important to us. We are certainly not anti-science as I have stated many times on this thread. What we believe is perfectly compatible with known science....and we most certainly are not anti-intellectual because we have doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists and researchers in our ranks. We don't promote higher education, because Jesus didn't. He said serving God was the best career we could have....many have proven that this is true. But its a choice, not something forced.

Sorry, but that's the truth, and I hope someday you come to realize that you're being taken advantage of and stop supporting such a group.

I get the feeling that you're not sorry at all. It obviously suits you to believe people who tell you a good story. The ex-JW sob stories are a dime a dozen on the net.....we have standards and we refuse to compromise on them. That makes some people a bit cranky when the discipline they receive makes them feel bad.

Boo hoo.

I am amused actually that you think I am being taken advantage of, because my brotherhood does not benefit in any real way from my presence among them. It is me who benefits from them. The brothers who take the lead as shepherds in the congregations are all volunteers, so there is no payment or stipend. Our donations are also entirely voluntary, so those who cannot contribute financially, don't have to. We all help each other out when there are problems and everything is free, so I am wondering how there is any advantage for them from me?

Even the Jews contributed to the temple treasury as part of their worship. Jesus even highlighted the story of the poor widow who gave a very small contribution, but he commended her because he said she gave all she had. He appreciated her generous spirit.

Not everything is as it seems Metis...the world is ruled by God's adversary, so what do we expect? (1 John 5:19; John 15:18-21)

 

[ArtieE]

I am sure you are missing the point.

Yes. Why would this supernatural being or essence exist if it wasn't originated?

 

[ArtieE]

Neither macro-evolution, nor ID have any scientific method of validation.....I just wish that people could understand that they are choosing between one belief system and another. But science won't have a bar of that.

That is because science doesn't assume that since our DNA is different from our parents we both had to have been separately made by some god. Neither does science assume that our parents parents would have to have been made separately by some god. No matter how far you go back in time science finds no reason to assume that the DNA of any of our ancestors were separately made by some god. That is just simple logic and no belief system. But when you insert a god somewhere you start a belief system.

 

[Deeje]

That is because science doesn't assume that since our DNA is different from our parents we both had to have been separately made by some god. Neither does science assume that our parents parents would have to have been made separately by some god. No matter how far you go back in time science finds no reason to assume that the DNA of any of our ancestors were separately made by some god. That is just simple logic and no belief system. But when you insert a god somewhere you start a belief system.

You believe what science suggests. That makes you a believer. I believe what the Bible suggests...that makes me a believer.

Science claims evidence for evolution but they cannot categorically state that it is true. Interpretation of the evidence is necessary to make a hypothesis into a theory.

ID proponents claim evidence for special creation, but they cannot categorically state that it is true. Interpretation of the evidence is necessary to make that into a viable belief.

Its a choice. Regardless of the objection...both are beliefs.

 

[ArtieE]

You believe what science suggests. That makes you a believer. I believe what the Bible suggests...that makes me a believer.

My parents weren't separately made by a god. Their parents weren't separately made by a god. Their parents weren't separately made by a god. I have no reason to believe that any of my ancestors were separately made by a god no matter how far back you go. That is not a belief that is just a logical conclusion unless you start to believe in some god.

 

[Segev Moran]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

These are indeed marvelous colors and it can make you think there is a design here.. But the fact is that there is none (Not a defined designed at least)
You need to know that not every form in the ducks body (as in any other specie) have a purpose!
Not everything is made out of purpose and that is one of the hardest things theist seems to understand.

Things can happen with no purpose! an erupting volcano have no purpose.. it has a cause.. but a cause in a sense of events that brought the volcano to erupt and not a cause in the form of someone made it so in a cause.

The variety of colors actually proves just the opposite of a designer! The colors are a result of genes variations and minor DNA differences that cause each duck to look different. the same goes for ANY life form we know!!!

the TOE doesn't explain that each change in DNA occurred for a reason rather that some of the changes helped certain species to be better fitting for their environment in a sense that they could survive better than others. this is what natural selection means.
In that way for example, white bears can survive better in the snow.

If you'll take the human form for example.. there is no specific purpose for your thumbs.. It is not as you think.. the thumbs weren't developed so humans can handle tools better rather the other way around. they were just a consequence of DNA changes. once thumbs evolved in the way they did, it allowed human to have better precision than other "palmed" animals, allowing us to handle more delicate and precise tools.

 

[savagewind]

Yes. Why would this supernatural being or essence exist if it wasn't originated?

I suppose it is for the same reason the universe first existed if it wasn't originated, according to you.
The universe had no originator. Correct?

It seems to me that you think the power that caused everything had no originator.

 

[ArtieE]

I suppose it is for the same reason the universe first existed if it wasn't originated, according to you.
The universe had no originator. Correct?

It seems to me that you think the power that caused everything had no originator.

What originated the originator? If the originator didn't have an originator why would the universe need one?