Substitution

[PearlSeeker]

The Catholic Church has no horses in the race IMO. If they want to endorse evolution, they will have to take that up with the "Lord" that they purport to serve......he seems to be missing from their whole belief system.

Why do you think so?

 

[Deeje]

Claims that atheists have scriptures and go to church is a great starter. Or that a theist can't accept evolution, thats another good example.

Metaphors....if you don't know what they are.....please look them up.....

Not in any sort of personal deity.

Are there any 'gods' in your belief system? If so, what is their purpose?
Did you invent them, or do you believe that they all just appeared out of nowhere, like we did?

I had to move to another state to escape from persecution and discrimination at the hands of Christians and their politicians. I had to move to another state because Christian led politics doesn't believe insurance should cover my medical needs. Getting away from those Christians also came with a huge perk, amd that is being in one of the least Christian cities (or post-Christain, to use the phrase in the study) in America has came with the pleasantness of no one telling me to leave my home amd the state I live in.

Are people always what they call themselves? If we as Christians are told by our leader to be "NO part of this world", then the ones who legislated discrimination against you were not Christians, despite the fact that they identified themselves as such. I am pleased that you found the freedom to be yourself....its who God sees anyway.

No true Scots allowed.

The no true Scotsman rule applies in many areas....if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck and swims like a duck, then its not a rooster, is it?

Can you demonstrate free will exist? Its a claim taken for granted but not demonstrated to actually exist.

I have the free will to determine what I will do on any given day......what I will eat, who I will see, and where I will go....how much more freedom do I need? All freedoms have limits, for which we can be grateful. There has never been total freedom....and can you imagine what the world would be like if there were no limits? Its bad enough now.

Yes. It is. Germs are a fact and theory. Magnetism is a fact and theory. Cells are a fact and theory. Molecules are a fact and theory. And, by the way, although all theories begin as a hypothesis, a theory and a hypothesis are not the same.

"In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data. ... In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. . . .
A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis."

What do you see there in that definition? First we have an assumption (hypothesis)....made BEFORE any research is done.....so its just an untested idea.
Then we have a theory, or a "principle" that is supposed to "explain phenomena already supported by data". IOW they take what they already know and try to make it fit in with what they assume. So "before any applicable research is done", they already have a fair idea of which direction the research should be directed. So does the data fit the hypothesis or is the data already pre-determined because there is no real way to test the theory?

It goes on to make a distinction.....
"......hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)"
This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

Have you ever heard evolution referred to as a "Law"?....me either.

That isn't what evolution deals with, and not knowing now doesn't mean we never can. We probably eventually will solve that one as well.

I always notice how quick evolutionists are to divorce themselves from abiogenesis, as if one has no connection to the other....what is the point of arguing about how things changed if you don't know and can't prove how life began in the first place, and whether it even had to potential to morph itself into every living thing on the planet?
Evolution stands or falls on that first premise. If the first premise is false, then everything you build on it fails.

Adaption is a part of evolution.

So we are told....I don't buy it. One is provable in lab experiments....the other is far from demonstrable in any kind of research and is left up to "best guessing".....which is not real science....is it?
If you have to preface all your musings with "might have" or "could have"....your science has gone out the window....and in flies the fairy tales....its a shame that most people can't tell the difference between a fact and an unprovable assumption.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For example:

North Korean cult of personality - Wikipedia

That is what I would call a pseudo-theocracy, complete with a mythology of the leader and dynasty family.

 

[Deeje]

Why do you think so?

As one who has come out of Christendom's church system, it always amazes me what I was taught in church that has no basis at all in the Bible.....things that are of major importance....for example, the nature of God. The RCC changed his nature from the monotheistic God of Israel, into the three headed god of Catholicism. There is no trinity in Judaism, so where did the idea for this three headed god come from? Paganism.....

The veneration of Mary is not scriptural, but the veneration of mother goddesses was common in paganism...

Hellfire was never taught in scripture because the ancient Jews did not believe in an afterlife....nor purgatory either. They were taught about a resurrection, not immortality of the soul. Their mortal bodies were going to be raised to enjoy life where God put us in the first place....right here on earth under Messiah's rulership. You have to be alive to suffer....the dead are dead. (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)

Idolatry was forbidden as one of the Ten Commandments. They were not to "make" images of anyone or anything, and yet we see them in every Catholic building. (Exodus 20:4-5) Is this veneration or worship?

There is no "heaven or hell" as opposite destinations in the Bible.
The only options before mankind were "life or death". (Deuteronomy 30:19)
The only spirits who inhabit the spirit realm are angels or demons....not the spirits of the dead.

There are many more.....infant baptism, liturgy, holy water, distinctive priestly garb, and high sounding titles.
There were no "Popes" in first century Christianity.

It seems to me that whatever Christ said not to do, they did it....and whatever he told them to do, they found excuses not to comply....like currying friendships with the world and its leaders. (James 4:4) And participating in their wars.....Catholics urged to kill their fellow Catholics because their governments told them to. It isn't what Christ told them to do. (Matthew 5:43-45)

It occurs to me that even with the Reformation, Protestantism failed to remove many of the unscriptural doctrines that Catholicism had introduced.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Metaphors....if you don't know what they are.....please look them up.....

Even metaphor doesn't work.

Are there any 'gods' in your belief system? If so, what is their purpose?

Does it matter? The atheist/theist binary isn't really a very good approach amd isn't universally understood.

Did you invent them, or do you believe that they all just appeared out of nowhere, like we did?

People believe we just appeared out of nowhere? Science certainly doesn't promote such an idea.

What do you see there in that definition? First we have an assumption (hypothesis)....made BEFORE any research is done.....so its just an untested idea.

I see you are scientifically illiterate. A theory isn't forced fit. A hypothesis becomes theory after the hypothesis has been repeatedly tested and demonstrated to be accurate amd has data to explain it. If they are falsified it's back to the drawing board.

Have you ever heard evolution referred to as a "Law"?....me ei

Germs are not a law either.
What Is a Law in Science? | Definition of Scientific Law | Live Science

"Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered," according to the University of California. A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept, according to Kennesaw State University.

always notice how quick evolutionists are to divorce themselves from abiogenesis, a

There is no such thing as an evolutionist. No more than there are gravitationists or cellists or gravitationists. "Evolutionist" is an absurd ad hoc from Creationist who are desperate to try to take evolution to the level of belief. But no one believes in gravity. We just know its there and what it does. Second, theories only deal with one thing. They don't lump multiple issues together like that. Evolution explains how life evolved once it was here, not how it got here. This is position is rooted in a deep misunderstanding of science, as nowhere do you find hypotheses, theories, or laws that deal with things outside of what they deal with. Such as with electricity. We have Ohm's law, Watt's law, Kirchoffs current law, Faraday's law, and Gauss' law. Amd we have all these laws despite the fact they are very closely related and deal with electrical currents and flow. But without Ohm's law then Watt's law goes awry, Faraday's law is unintelligible, amd the electric circuit is faulty and the entire device fails.
Basic Electrical Theory: The Fundamental Laws of Electricity

So we are told....I don't buy it.

I'm not surprised.

 

[SomeRandom]

Having come out of Christendom, I am very aware of where the majority of their teachings come from....and it isn't Jesus.

If you say so.

No, there is a vast difference between "adaptation" and macro-evolution. The line between these is blurred by science in some very clever sleight of hand, using the power of suggestion to convey something as fact when it never was.....there is not one single shred of real evidence that life originated in some primordial soup and gradually transformed itself in to all the life forms that have ever existed. Having an adaptive mechanism programmed into all creatures is not proof of macro-evolution......Any experimentation with speciation never once saw a change that would lead to a new "kind" of creature. It only ever produced a new variety in a single taxonomy.

That’s because that’s not evolution. A bear stays a bear, it’s not going to transform into a pony. That would disprove “macro” evolution, as you call it. I freely admit I have no expertise on the subject. But even I know about predictive models.

God tells us what he created and the order in which he created them.....science confirms the order from the creation of sentient creatures (he does not go back to microscopic creatures because there would be no point until the invention of microscopes).....He tells us in scripture things that no earthbound human could know.....like that the earth is a 'sphere' and that it 'hangs on nothing'. He even outlines the mechanism behind precipitation at a time when these things were unknowable.

I have more faith in the Creator than I have in any man of science who can change his mind with the next "discovery".

Having faith in a creator deity doesn’t mean you have to be static, constantly eschewing new data, does it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

God tells us what he created and the order in which he created them..

By which story? Animals then humans? Or man, then woman, then animals?
And, the general order of appearances in either Genesis account is not congruent with what science has discovered. Amd what a flat and fixed Earth? Wrong number for pi? Being wrong about the world's languages?

 

[crossfire]

Question: what could possibly be more spiritual than transformation and evolution? (especially self-transformation)

Still waiting. Wouldn't maintaining the status quo (non-evolution) be more likened to "programming?"

OP must have me on ignore. Carry on.

 

[Deeje]

I see you are scientifically illiterate. A theory isn't forced fit. A hypothesis becomes theory after the hypothesis has been repeatedly tested and demonstrated to be accurate amd has data to explain it. If they are falsified it's back to the drawing board.

I see the theory forced to fit in many instances where no other conclusions could be reached unless the assertion was injected as a "might have" or a "could have"....and I have even seen a few "must have's" when there was no way to prove any of it.

Falsification is a ridiculous notion.....you cannot falsify God can you? So he must be real....? Can you prove that he doesn't exist? Can you prove that he didn't create all that exists on this earth?

There is no such thing as an evolutionist.

Then there is no such thing as a "Creationist" either......they are opposites IMO.

People believe we just appeared out of nowhere? Science certainly doesn't promote such an idea.

I'm afraid it does. That infamous single-celled organism that just appeared out of nowhere in the primordial soup, and managed to multiply and morph itself, and fill the whole planet with living things that don't resemble it or each other in the slightest.....it just took a few million years to accomplish it.

Then we have those phantom "common ancestors" that are necessary for these things to evolve into their branches, but no one has produced any of them......its very mysterious because without them evolution falls in a heap. So....who are they please tell us.....?

Where does that thin black line at the bottom (LUCA) lead I wonder......? Lots of other people wonder too....

Evolution explains how life evolved once it was here, not how it got here. This is position is rooted in a deep misunderstanding of science, as nowhere do you find hypotheses, theories, or laws that deal with things outside of what they deal with.

How convenient to leave the bigger question to a branch of science that is still scratching its head....
"We don't deal with that because.....well, we have no idea how life began....when we figure it out, we'll let you know...but don't hold your breath."

The "deep misunderstanding of science" appears to be an inconvenient inability to know "what" happened or "how" it happened.....they just know "that" it happened....so why not build a story from there and make it up as we go?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Falsification is a ridiculous notion...

It is a necessary and valuable asset of science. Kings and priests dont like being wrong regardless the evidemce. Science "lives and thrives" for new evidence that shows currents understandings aren't correct. It's how we do that "know better" thing. Sure, it's not always right (I was diagnosed with stomach ulcer when it was still accepted stress cause them) but it's always best to learn when you are wrong and amend what is wrong (it was brazenly demonstrated stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria).
Amd when something can't be falsified it can't be properly studied thus it has no use for science because science must be falsifiable.

'm afraid it does. That infamous single-celled organism that just appeared out of nowhere in the primordial soup,

That's not appearing from nowhere. Nomore than a building that started with a single beam appeared out of nowhere. Appearing out of nowhere is saying let it be and poof there it is.

Then we have those phantom "common ancestors" that are necessary for these things to evolve into their branches, but

We don't need to find all of them. But we've found so many that we can trace the tree of life back very, very far. Saying gaps are problematic is like saying you dont know what the picture on a puzzle is because it's missing a few pieces.

How convenient to leave the

How convenient of you to ignore a paragraph of why and examples of science only allowing one item per hypothesis/theory/law. We have Ohm's Law and Watt's Law which both operate under electricity, thus evolution and biogenesis are separate things that both fall under biology.
You didn't even address the point. You skipped entirely over to continue on with insisting things work in a way that they just don't.

 

[Deeje]

OP must have me on ignore. Carry on.

I'm sorry, are you taking to me?
You quoted yourself so I haven had an alert. There have been quite a few responses so I'm sorry if yours got lost...

Question: what could possibly be more spiritual than transformation and evolution? (especially self-transformation)

What do you mean "self-transformation"? What has that got to do with evolution?
I have seen no real evidence that evolution on the macro level, is even possible, let alone a forgone conclusion.
It is based on science's best guessing, not any real facts, establishing proof for their first premise.

I believe that God created all things just as he said he did....why would I doubt him in favor of flawed and godless humans' educated guessing?

Still waiting. Wouldn't maintaining the status quo (non-evolution) be more likened to "programming?"

I have no idea what you mean.
This thread is about substituting one belief for another.....evolution has no more proof than creation does. That makes them both "belief systems" IMV.

Humans are "programmed' as the OP demonstrates.....but they are 'programmed' for a very different life to the one we live now. If you asked them collectively what would make an ideal world, I'm sure you would find many listing the same kinds of changes that they would like to see......

Peace, security, no wars, no crime or violence, no exploitation or trafficking in drugs or humans.

We are naturally drawn to beautiful locations, I believe because we were meant to live in paradise.
We were not programmed for grief or suffering or death because the Creator never gave us the means to cope with those things......they were never meant to happen.

The existence of a Creator provides many answers to questions that science cannot explain.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

.evolution has no more proof than creation does. That makes them both "belief systems" IMV.

It's called a fossil. They demonstrate that evolution happens, and that macro evolution is sort of like a rainbow transitioning from one color to the next. Such as, blue amd green have clear spots where they are, but there is no clear point when green becomes blue. This is basically how transitional fossils work (with things living now being "future transition fossils" as evolution is constant and only ends whwn life is no more.) Ultimately and at it's core, evolution is "full of change that no one sees." Until its accumulated enough to notice.
Amd it sounds way more spiritual, amd puts all life on a much higher pedestal when we realize and accept all life is related amd shares a common ancestor. This makes life sacred, rather than silly ideas that only really value human life.

....why would I doubt him in favor of flawed and godless humans' educated guessing?

These "educated guesses" (they aren't) put us on the moon, developed antibiotics, developed the many things that make it possible for us to communicate in this manner, and it really is the basis of modern society. It's not educated guesses. As you'll see when science predicts the next lunar eclipse amd it happens.

 

[Deeje]

That’s because that’s not evolution. A bear stays a bear, it’s not going to transform into a pony. That would disprove “macro” evolution, as you call it. I freely admit I have no expertise on the subject. But even I know about predictive models.

That is in no way what I was suggesting.....what I said was that adaptation in no way alters the taxonomy of any creature. How then was it possible to begin with a single cell that arose by chance and that conveniently had all the mechanics necessary to transform itself undirected into every life for that has ever existed on this planet? If science is going to make such a broad suggestion, at least they should have some concrete evidence to back it up. No? Assertion, conjecture and suggestions, if they cannot be corroborated, are just empty theories. Yet they are presented as proven facts.

Having faith in a creator deity doesn’t mean you have to be static, constantly eschewing new data, does it?

It means trusting in that Creator because he did not leave us in the dark about what his intentions were regarding life on planet Earth. We know why we are here, and what role we were supposed to play with the earth, and its creatures as well as each other. We have a purpose here, which means that we are not accidents of evolution...

 

[SomeRandom]

That is in no way what I was suggesting.....what I said was that adaptation in no way alters the taxonomy of any creature. How then was it possible to begin with a single cell that arose by chance and that conveniently had all the mechanics necessary to transform itself undirected into every life for that has ever existed on this planet? If science is going to make such a broad suggestion, at least they should have some concrete evidence to back it up. No? Assertion, conjecture and suggestions, if they cannot be corroborated, are just empty theories. Yet they are presented as proven facts.

Citation needed.

It means trusting in that Creator because he did not leave us in the dark about what his intentions were regarding life on planet Earth. We know why we are here, and what role we were supposed to play with the earth, and its creatures as well as each other. We have a purpose here, which means that we are not accidents of evolution...

Evolution has no accidents. Trial and error is probably closer. But not quite there yet.
How do you know that God didn’t set off the domino effect and allowed his creation to unfold?
Did you ask him personally?

 

[SomeRandom]

It is a necessary and valuable asset of science. Kings and priests dont like being wrong regardless the evidemce. Science "lives and thrives" for new evidence that shows currents understandings aren't correct. It's how we do that "know better" thing. Sure, it's not always right (I was diagnosed with stomach ulcer when it was still accepted stress cause them) but it's always best to learn when you are wrong and amend what is wrong (it was brazenly demonstrated stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria).
Amd when something can't be falsified it can't be properly studied thus it has no use for science because science must be falsifiable.

That's not appearing from nowhere. Nomore than a building that started with a single beam appeared out of nowhere. Appearing out of nowhere is saying let it be and poof there it is.

We don't need to find all of them. But we've found so many that we can trace the tree of life back very, very far. Saying gaps are problematic is like saying you dont know what the picture on a puzzle is because it's missing a few pieces.

How convenient of you to ignore a paragraph of why and examples of science only allowing one item per hypothesis/theory/law. We have Ohm's Law and Watt's Law which both operate under electricity, thus evolution and biogenesis are separate things that both fall under biology.
You didn't even address the point. You skipped entirely over to continue on with insisting things work in a way that they just don't.

Completely unrelated. But when I read the line “science lives and thrives” my brain autocorrected lives to elongate the “I” as in “our lives” and was confused for a second. Geez, what a drunkard of a language English is.

 

[crossfire]

Question: what could possibly be more spiritual than transformation and evolution? (especially self-transformation)

What do you mean "self-transformation"? What has that got to do with evolution?

This was in response to the claim made in your OP:

One very clear substitution, I believe, is seen in the atheist verses religion debate. Evolution seems to be the main divider to determine where a person's beliefs will land them....and which 'side' they will take.
I think that there are certain 'natural' inclinations that will determine the choice. Some people are naturally spiritual and others are not....no one seems to know why.

I'm familiar enough with the bible to recognize such terms as "make your mind over" to refer to building a new way of thinking and evolving from the old way of thinking. What could possibly be more spiritual than this self-transformation, except perhaps this individual transformation occurring on a species-wide level. Isn't this the goal of JWs--to have this transformation of the mind occur on a species-wide basis with the "destruction (extinction) of the wicked" and the "good living on forever?"

I have seen no real evidence that evolution on the macro level, is even possible, let alone a forgone conclusion.
It is based on science's best guessing, not any real facts, establishing proof for their first premise.

Here you are considering evolution on a material level rather than a spiritual level. Take a moment to think how an individual would experience such a transformation.

I believe that God created all things just as he said he did....why would I doubt him in favor of flawed and godless humans' educated guessing?

So god is leaving out the most spiritual part of the living experience--that of transformation and evolving into something more suited to the creatures at hand?
Why?

I have no idea what you mean.
This thread is about substituting one belief for another.....evolution has no more proof than creation does. That makes them both "belief systems" IMV.

Humans are "programmed' as the OP demonstrates.....but they are 'programmed' for a very different life to the one we live now. If you asked them collectively what would make an ideal world, I'm sure you would find many listing the same kinds of changes that they would like to see......

Peace, security, no wars, no crime or violence, no exploitation or trafficking in drugs or humans.

We are naturally drawn to beautiful locations, I believe because we were meant to live in paradise.
We were not programmed for grief or suffering or death because the Creator never gave us the means to cope with those things......they were never meant to happen.

So, your goal is actually to hope for an evolution from the current human situation then, no?

The existence of a Creator provides many answers to questions that science cannot explain.

IMO, the question remains: who made whom?

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh, ffs..

The theory of evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive. A belief in the literal interpretation of a creation myth isn't a prerequisite for belief in a god.

The theory of evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive. A belief in the literal interpretation of a creation myth isn't a prerequisite for belief in a god.

The theory of evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive. A belief in the literal interpretation of a creation myth isn't a prerequisite for belief in a god.

 

[Bear Wild]

God tells us what he created and the order in which he created them.....science confirms the order from the creation of sentient creatures (he does not go back to microscopic creatures because there would be no point until the invention of microscopes).....He tells us in scripture things that no earthbound human could know.....like that the earth is a 'sphere' and that it 'hangs on nothing'. He even outlines the mechanism behind precipitation at a time when these things were unknowable.

Thank goodness you have told us this. I feel so relieved now or I would if you can how do you know this outside of a book. No scripture written by us flawed humans thus scripture cannot be trusted but your real source of your knowledge.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thank you all for your contributions....it was pretty much what I expected.

You're just so smart, @Deeje. Boy... you have the world pegged, don't you? Hooweee!

No one likes to think that they are just one of the mob, going through the motions of predictable behavior.....but I see it pretty clearly.

There is some comment below here of yours about "being snotty." You apparently don't like those who are from the looks of it. But with this little passive-aggressive gem of yours right here, this is a lot like the pot celling out the kettle, isn't it?

The defensiveness from some of the posters was as I had anticipated...as if I had written it to insult their intelligence directly....but I was speaking in generalities only.

Oh please... stop deluding yourself. Just stop. You were speaking in generalities initially, I'll grant you that, but you just now basically equated anyone who got defensive in response to your post as "just one of the mob", that their behavior was "predictable" and that you can see it oh so clearly. This is you definitively insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you. I don't agree with you, and so you are insulting me. On purpose. At least when I insult people I don't LIE about it.

This was about human behavior, not a serve to those who can't see the obvious metaphors. It was food for thought....not intended to be a food fight.

I don't see anything but more lies, honestly.

Cudos to @lewisnotmiller for your very reasonable response (as always) its so nice to disagree without being snotty.

Discount my opinions because I am not civil if you will. It will not change them - and from the consistent content of your posts I think that you are so very wrong in your assessments, and on top of that myopic and not very good at all at self-reflection and self-understanding. You can call me "snotty" all you like. You think I don't know that I am? Hahaha... please. Oh boy... how amusing. Call me something I am not (like a "worshipper of atheist gods"), and then you'll raise my hackles. Call me "snotty" and I will ask you to tell me something I don't know.

 

[metis]

As we've seen over and over again, fabricated lies about the Catholic Church abound with the JW's, and quoting official Catholic sources to refute what they say about Catholicism gets virtually ignored, thus seeing the same lies being repeated over and over again. Lying in "Jehovah's" name-- ain't that just so cute.

Also, I would suggest that dissing science that works on objectively-derived evidence, is what they also do. IMO, ignoring objectivity (science) in order to accept subjectivity (religion) is probably not the the most intelligent thing to do.

But then, what should we expect?