The assumptions behind evolution?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If Science can reduce mental processes to physical ones, there will be a really serious philosophical conflict over whether the concept of the mind (and by implication the soul/spirit) and the physical organ of the Brain are identical.

There won't be a serious philosophical conflict there will be the holocaust and thermonuclear war and so on, by people who simply get no information to their conscience about decisions they make, or anybody makes, because the knowledge about choosing is corrupted and destroyed by evolutionists.

I find that entirely credible. Mess up all knowledge about how things are chosen, then subjectivity is surpressed, religion cannot function, conscience is sabotaged, mayhem ensues. There is no reason whatever for communism and nazism, it is a completely mandmade disaster. Made at universities by scientists, with their obvious enormous arrogance, their sarcasm, their smugness.

All those evolutionists talking about god as a fantasyfigure, and love and hate as electrochemistry in the brain, are destroying religion, and subjectivity altogether.

 

[Laika]

There won't be a serious philosophical conflict there will be the holocaust and thermonuclear war and so on, by people who simply get no information to their conscience about decisions they make, or anybody makes, because the knowledge about choosing is corrupted and destroyed by evolutionists.

I find that entirely credible. Mess up all knowledge about how things are chosen, then subjectivity is surpressed, religion cannot function, conscience is sabotaged, mayhem ensues. There is no reason whatever for communism and nazism, it is a completely mandmade disaster. Made at universities by scientists, with their obvious enormous arrogance, their sarcasm, their smugness.

All those evolutionists talking about god as a fantasyfigure, and love and hate as electrochemistry in the brain, are destroying religion, and subjectivity altogether.

Would you argue that man cannot be moral without religion?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Would you argue that man cannot be moral without religion?

I would argue that religion is a matter ofcourse. Normally there would not be a question about it to give thanks for creation as there would not be any question about it to give thanks when somebody gives you something. That if religion goes, then it means all subjectivity is under pressure, and can also go at any moment.

 

[McBell]

Would you argue that man cannot be moral without religion?

I wouldn't agree with that

 

[Laika]

I would argue that religion is a matter ofcourse. Normally there would not be a question about it to give thanks for creation as there would not be any question about it to give thanks when somebody gives you something. That if religion goes, then it means all subjectivity is under pressure, and can also go at any moment.

I would disagree firstly because I'm an atheist and think man created god; by implication, man also created the morality in religion. But I'm going to assume you won't agree with me on that.

I think if you look in genesis, the concept of original sin derived from the fact that Adam and eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and hence we able to 'think' like god. They never got round to eating from a tree which would make them immortal and therefore become like god.

The issue is that science increases man's knowledge and therefore his power. The concept of original sin means that the pursuit of knowledge, power and freedom makes man more like god and is therefore 'immoral' by challenging gods authority. Given that it is in Genesis, would you therefore agree that it is possible for man to obtain such knowledge of good and evil and become like god-even if it is immoral?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would disagree firstly because I'm an atheist and think man created god; by implication, man also created the morality in religion. But I'm going to assume you won't agree with me on that.

I think if you look in genesis, the concept of original sin derived from the fact that Adam and eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and hence we able to 'think' like god. They never got round to eating from a tree which would make them immortal and therefore become like god.

The issue is that science increases man's knowledge and therefore his power. The concept of original sin means that the pursuit of knowledge, power and freedom makes man more like god and is therefore 'immoral' by challenging gods authority. Given that it is in Genesis, would you therefore agree that it is possible for man to obtain such knowledge of good and evil and become like god-even if it is immoral?

Obtuseness. It is specifically knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge in general. It is making good and evil into a matter of fact, that is the sin, instead of leaving good and evil subjective, a matter of opinion, so the spirit retains the power to choose. When you have asserted as fact what is good and evil, then your life is just calculating, sorting out the best result, based on these facts about what is good and evil. It makes you feel high, the body's own drugs are released when you assert with (scientific) factual certitude what is good and evil. It is a drug addiction.

 

[Laika]

Obtuseness. It is specifically knowledge of good and evil, not knowledge in general. It is making good and evil into a matter of fact, that is the sin, instead of leaving good and evil subjective, a matter of opinion, so the spirit retains the power to choose. When you have asserted as fact what is good and evil, then your life is just calculating, sorting out the best result, based on these facts about what is good and evil. It makes you feel high, the body's own drugs are released when you assert with (scientific) factual certitude what is good and evil. It is a drug addiction.

Moses brought down god's commandments, such as "thou shall not kill", "thou shall not steal", "thou shall not commit adultery". I'm sure the Prophet Muhammad represented God's position on certain subjects (I apologize as I can't name any off hand as my knowledge of religion is so limited). Was that not God turning good and evil into a matter of fact? A law which must be obeyed?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Moses brought down god's commandments, such as "thou shall not kill", "thou shall not steal", "thou shall not commit adultery". I'm sure the Prophet Muhammad represented God's position on certain subjects (I apologize as I can't name any off hand as my knowledge of religion is so limited). Was that not God turning good and evil into a matter of fact? A law which must be obeyed?

Why? Saying something is evil just makes it an opinion.

If I say somebody is beautiful, then my opinion is that this person is beautiful. It's not a fact.

 

[Laika]

Why? Saying something is evil just makes it an opinion.

If I say somebody is beautiful, then my opinion is that this person is beautiful. It's not a fact.

God is Omniscient. Is his word an opinion?

 

[Ouroboros]

This a link to the source of the claims that were heard.

Mendel's Accountant | Home

John C. Sanford

Source for what exactly? source code?

 

[AllanV]

Source for what exactly? source code?

To John C. Sanford who gave the easily understood talk that answered some of the critics.
I will find his videos hopefully.

I have a mechanical engineering background with electricity and electronics. Biology isn't my subject but animals on a small holding have been breed and gardening is undertaken of course.

 

[AllanV]

Source for what exactly? source code?

 

[Sapiens]

Why would I want to bother? It is, after all, your claim and Stanford is a little known quack whose claims fly in the face of demonstrable reality.

 

[AllanV]

Why would I want to bother? It is, after all, your claim and Stanford is a little known quack whose claims fly in the face of demonstrable reality.

He 's one person giving an interview.

 

[AllanV]

Moses brought down god's commandments, such as "thou shall not kill", "thou shall not steal", "thou shall not commit adultery". I'm sure the Prophet Muhammad represented God's position on certain subjects (I apologize as I can't name any off hand as my knowledge of religion is so limited). Was that not God turning good and evil into a matter of fact? A law which must be obeyed?

The people were killing, stealing, the children were misbehaving, there were bad parents and probably wife swapping. Sounds a bit like today.
Something had to be done because they were in a precarious situation. If someone rocks the overloaded life raft and will not stop, what is to be done.

 

[AllanV]

Well since evolution is such a complex theory that it is spread throughout dozens of different branches of science and is fundamentally based upon core concepts that may be at their center, assumptions. But lets look at the first generation of "assumptions" that we base evolution on.

Fossils. We assume that fossils were in fact once living creatures with bones. We have observed the fossilization process before and the near perfect representation of the bones and structures make it fairly obvious that the fossils we find were once living things.

What about the age of things? This is the crux of the debate for some. We know that the deeper we go the older it gets. Why? First off it comes from the fact we have layers at all. When we have defined layers one cannot have layers that form by taking away from the topsoil but by sedemintation. We can observe this occur all over the world and in scientific laboratories and the results match fairly well with what we have seen in nature. This is an assumption of sorts.

The nature of a half life which is observe din much smaller time-frames with some elements can be then measured or "clocked". Lead being one of the best which allows us to accurately age things. Lead was used to date the earth and can be used to date specific things in the soil. With the known half-life and the fact that it does not change in any observation regardless of its outside conditions.

There are a few things that are difficult to understand. Blood cells in soft tissue Of 26 million year old fossils. It was calculated that these should not exceed 100 thousand years.

Trees or logs without their foliage were found standing vertically through millions of years of sedimentary layers.

 

[Sapiens]

There are a few things that are difficult to understand. Blood cells in soft tissue Of 26 million year old fossils. It was calculated that these should not exceed 100 thousand years.

Trees or logs without their foliage were found standing vertically through millions of years of sedimentary layers.

Clearly then, the items were not blood cells or blood cells are able to last longer that was thought in the past. It will be interesting to see which it turn out to be.

Polystrate fossils "problems" were solve with conventional geology more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations. In case you missed the memo, it went out by Pony Express: John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.

From Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp.

See also:

fossil trees in Yellowstone National Park.

"fossil whale standing on its tail"

the formation of coal.

(with thanks to Talk Origins)

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

God is Omniscient. Is his word an opinion?

Obviously.

Maybe you could argue theologically that after the final judgement, it's not an opinion anymore, but something more definite. That is.... if you first had comprehensive knowledge about how choosing works you could argue about something like that.

 

[Laika]

Obviously.

Maybe you could argue theologically that after the final judgement, it's not an opinion anymore, but something more definite. That is.... if you first had comprehensive knowledge about how choosing works you could argue about something like that.

Well, let's say that God created the Universe. Many Scientists before recent times were religious precisely because they wanted to see "the mind of god". Many of them still are "theists" of a sort, but they have a different definition of god to the one found in scripture. The idea that science and religion are in conflict is very recent (and has a lot to do with reactions to the theory of evolution and how it challenges biblical accounts of creation).
If God did create the universe and it was governed by laws, Wouldn't using science to understand how the Universe works, such as Evolution, also count as a way to understand God's Laws and his creation? Wouldn't evolution therefore be an understanding of the works of God?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, let's say that God created the Universe. Many Scientists before recent times were religious precisely because they wanted to see "the mind of god". Many of them still are "theists" of a sort, but they have a different definition of god to the one found in scripture. The idea that science and religion are in conflict is very recent (and has a lot to do with reactions to the theory of evolution and how it challenges biblical accounts of creation).
If God did create the universe and it was governed by laws, Wouldn't using science to understand how the Universe works, such as Evolution, also count as a way to understand God's Laws and his creation? Wouldn't evolution therefore be an understanding of the works of God?

One should simply describe how things are chosen in the universe, creationism is the correct terminology, the correct basic theory. Evolution theory does not describe how things are chosen in the universe.