The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

Demonstrably and ridiculously false.

Your authority for saying that is...? Or is it just something in which you have blind faith?

 

[cladking]

Yes...

One of the few things we should be able to agree on and something most religious people will agree to as well is that it requires evidence to reach conclusions. You say we had 7000 years of superstition. Where is your evidence? What evidence do you think might exist before the invention of writing?

I would agree that such evidence could exist but archaeology doesn't use systematic application of modern knowledge and science. They are Look and See Scientists and generally just brush dirt from pot shards and study bone orientations. I don't mean to tar every archaeologist with the same brush but very very little quantitative data is published about anything. Infrared film has been available for a century now but there is still NO SUCH data for any great pyramid at all. A $3 roll of film can't be put on paper or digitized because nobody cares about evidence and only about proving their beliefs. They're spending millions to study a void because they BELIEVE it might contain gold but they won't spend a few dollars to investigate anomalies on the infrared imaging and they won't publish the data even for Peers.

How can anyone support this? We are living in the grey ages and it's getting darker every single day.

 

[RabbiO]

But the rub is this, one must be born again in order to have such love. It can't be had in the secular realm.

The only response this deserves is

If you don't know why, think about it. If you still can't figure it out, get back to me tomorrow and I'll try to explain it to you.

 

[rrobs]

The only response this deserves is

If you don't know why, think about it. If you still can't figure it out, get back to me tomorrow and I'll try to explain it to you.

I have no rebuttal to your response. It is certainly the case for those who choose to do so. No explanation needed for that.

 

[Valjean]

The Pastafarian Heaven has a Beer volcano and stripper factory.

 

[Tiberius]

I have no rebuttal to your response. It is certainly the case for those who choose to do so. No explanation needed for that.

Sounds to me like you're simply saying that you have to believe you are born again in order to believe that you are being filled with God's love.

How is that any different to me saying that you have to believe you are a wizard in order to believe you are being filled with magic?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You've not addressed one single scripture I've quoted. You ask me a question, I answer it from the scriptures in such a way that it ought to give anyone pause for thought, and you just come back to tell me I'm this, or I'm that. Come on, I know you are better than that.

I didn't ask you about scriptures. I asked you about your double standard.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was thinking about evidence changing as more facts are discovered

If you have facts A and B and then later on you find facts D and E, then A and B didn't change. Instead your understanding is just expanded with D and E.

A and B remain the same. Your understanding of them might change after being presented with D and E, but A and B are the same as they were before.

But even if that is not that case and it is, as you suggest, the explanation that changes, the net result is the same; what we thought was the case is not really the case at all.

That's not the same.
Secondly, yes it's called learning.

You think learning is a bad thing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't really think it's me.

It is more of the emotional responses that tend to arise when scriptures are the topic of discussion. Even more so than politics in my experience.

It's not scripture that is the topic of discussion. It's you using a double standard.
Logic that works in your favour you happily accept. But when the exact same logic doesn't work in your favour, you dismiss it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your authority for saying that is...? Or is it just something in which you have blind faith?

No. Rather basic observation of just about any society that ever existed or still exists (and I predict: will exist).

The golden rule also predates christianity, btw.

So your idea that one must be "born again" to realise this "rule" is demonstrably false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You say we had 7000 years of superstition. Where is your evidence?

All of human history.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia

Organised religion traces its roots to the neolithic revolution that began 11,000 years ago in the Near East but may have occurred independently in several other locations around the world.

What evidence do you think might exist before the invention of writing?

Do you believe that ancient writing is the only way we have to learn about the past?

I would agree that such evidence could exist but archaeology doesn't use systematic application of modern knowledge and science. They are Look and See Scientists and generally just brush dirt from pot shards and study bone orientations. I don't mean to tar every archaeologist with the same brush but very very little quantitative data is published about anything. Infrared film has been available for a century now but there is still NO SUCH data for any great pyramid at all. A $3 roll of film can't be put on paper or digitized because nobody cares about evidence and only about proving their beliefs. They're spending millions to study a void because they BELIEVE it might contain gold but they won't spend a few dollars to investigate anomalies on the infrared imaging and they won't publish the data even for Peers.

How can anyone support this? We are living in the grey ages and it's getting darker every single day.

 

[exchemist]

You've not addressed one single scripture I've quoted. You ask me a question, I answer it from the scriptures in such a way that it ought to give anyone pause for thought, and you just come back to tell me I'm this, or I'm that. Come on, I know you are better than that.

So do you see why I might have said the churches are wrong about the dead floating around looking after their earth bound relatives? If not, what was unclear about the verses that I think make it quite clear that dead is really, really dead?

That issue is totally off-topic for this thread and will be of little interest to most contributors, I should have thought.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All of human history.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia

Organised religion traces its roots to the neolithic revolution that began 11,000 years ago in the Near East but may have occurred independently in several other locations around the world.



Do you believe that ancient writing is the only way we have to learn about the past?

Good luck.

 

[cladking]

All of human history.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia

All I see here is a lot of opinion derived from modern beliefs. Here's one that struck my eye;

"Lewis Wolpert argues that causal beliefs that emerged from tool use played a major role in the evolution of belief."

Lewis Wolpert believes this because it would be consistent with the way we think and believe. The actual reality is that they used no complex tools and it is entirely possible to make rather complex tools without being able to imagine the finished result. I often do. Even if they had complex tools and did image them first there is no evidence for this and it hardly proves they also imagined things that didn't exist and had no evidence for existence as modern people do. The Egyptians literally lived on ramps according to modern Egyptological "theory" yet there was no god of ramps. They imagine there were ramps because this is the simplest possible tool that they can imagine despite the fact that the actual means used to built the pyramids was orders of magnitude easier and simpler; they pulled stones straight up the sides of five step pyramids. But solving this has had no effect on theory because it has had no effect on beliefs.

There were only simple tools and most machines were a single moving part which was often propelled by man. There is no evidence of any sort of complexity though I believe multiple such simple machines were used in tandem which made some of the systems complex. These systems evolved over centuries rather than springing into existence full blown.

Why should anyone believe that beliefs arose by such means? This appears to be a complete non sequitur.

" The manufacture of complex tools requires creating a mental image of an object which does not exist naturally before actually making the artifact. Furthermore, one must understand how the tool would be used, that requires an understanding of causality.[17] "

They had no words for belief or thought. Our "understanding of causality" we believe is based on knowledge but it is not. It comes with our taxonomies and reductionism. It is a function of language. We don't even understand the nature of causality but this was axiomatic in Ancient Language. It was assumed all things have causes. Without reductionistic words we can't function at all yet they had none.

It is simple fact that ancient people could not have thought like we do and did not even experience "thought'. They experienced consciousness but not thought.

Do you believe that ancient writing is the only way we have to learn about the past?

OF COURSE NOT!!! But this is what archaeologists do. They brush the evidence right off of pot shards and then hold the shard up as a trophy. I have no means to stop them and no means to get them to scientifically test the artefacts. The ONLY thing they've managed to accumulate is language and they can't read this language. They believe they can circumscribe the meaning of the language but they have NEVER EVEN NOTICED it is not like ours.

We have created a world safe for Homo Omnisciencis out of something wholly disparate. This world is safe for us but it is fabricated from our beliefs and language. We want to believe "survival of the fittest" is real so we can't see the evidence showing it is not.

 

[Valjean]

What evidence do you think might exist before the invention of writing?

Written evidence can be sketchy, especially if no sources are cited or no evidence tendered. Anyone can write fake news, or alter a text to suit his predilections.

We have thousands of ancient, historical and religious texts, each telling a different story. How are we to evaluate them?

We have millions of scientific texts, but these cite evidence; they invite peers to criticize them and try to reproduce the results.
Those that fail are set aside. Those that stand are built upon, thus, unlike religious doctrines, basic scientific facts are universally accepted, with new facts continuously being added from the arguments at the peripheries.

You've not addressed one single scripture I've quoted. You ask me a question, I answer it from the scriptures in such a way that it ought to give anyone pause for thought, and you just come back to tell me I'm this, or I'm that. Come on, I know you are better than that.

But why would we pay any more attention to an unevidenced scripture than we would to the historical accounts in Lord of the Rings?

 

[rrobs]

Sounds to me like you're simply saying that you have to believe you are born again in order to believe that you are being filled with God's love.

How is that any different to me saying that you have to believe you are a wizard in order to believe you are being filled with magic?

The scriptures declare the former and your fantasy is the basis for the second.

 

[rrobs]

I didn't ask you about scriptures. I asked you about your double standard.

You absolutely did ask me about the scriptures.

 

[rrobs]

If you have facts A and B and then later on you find facts D and E, then A and B didn't change. Instead your understanding is just expanded with D and E.

A and B remain the same. Your understanding of them might change after being presented with D and E, but A and B are the same as they were before.




That's not the same.
Secondly, yes it's called learning.

You think learning is a bad thing?

Interesting conclusion. Unfounded, but interesting.

 

[rrobs]

It's not scripture that is the topic of discussion. It's you using a double standard.
Logic that works in your favour you happily accept. But when the exact same logic doesn't work in your favour, you dismiss it.

Look in the mirror for further understanding.

 

[rrobs]

No. Rather basic observation of just about any society that ever existed or still exists (and I predict: will exist).

The golden rule also predates christianity, btw.

So your idea that one must be "born again" to realise this "rule" is demonstrably false.

Whatever you think is fine with me.