tas8831
Well-Known Member
Such great thinking and great questions.
Can you provide examples of failed tests?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The creator did it.
- Thread starter A REAL CHRISTIAN
- Start date
Such great thinking and great questions.
Can you provide examples of failed tests?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Evolution is fake! That has humans and chimps related, then the closest relative is the rat! ......
.... the uninformed creationists will say...
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That is one bizarre definition of religion you've given there. Perhaps you could cite your reference for us on that one (as you should have done). How can someone "prescribe certain responses" to things they don't believe exist? Are you trying to say that atheists "prescribe certain responses" to the non-existence and character of God? How would that work?I understand perfectly, religion is defined as “any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.” Atheism is a religion.
Is that a fact? How about the prescribing of certain responses to persuade theists that " SCIENCE" circumvents the Word of God in creation and to encourage them to see the "truth" that Christians are uneducated in the sciences and that they are fools for believing in a different and more sensible, reasonable and logical view of the world around us?
I cant believe you said this!
Your religion is only Science, your dogma which is a principle or set of principles laid down by your authority (science) as unquestionably true. Your tenet,
a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of your religion of Atheism and your philosophy of evolution is quite hypocritical when you openly state you posses none of these things!
How about a definition that actually makes sense?
religion
noun
1a: the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Definition of RELIGION
Now, can you explain how lack of belief in god(s) is a religion?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Why are you so obsessed with Isaac Newton??
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
There are no doctrines in atheism. All that is required to be an atheist is to lack a belief in god(s). It's the only common denominator between all atheists.No doctrines? A doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group. Are you not the other group? Of atheists with a set of beliefs that you continue to try and convince others who don't adhere to your disbelief in God that they are wrong? Common Skep, I see you. Who are you trying to hoodwink here
You mean atheists like you?
What is your agenda?
You have proved nothing! Try again.
If you think there is a doctrine or a dogma to atheist, perhaps you could you point out what you think it is.
I haven't asked anyone not to believe in god(s). What I've actually done, is to argue against what I consider to be unsubstantiated assertions people make about god(s).
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Thank you again!
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It's one of the rules of the forum.
And yes, it does matter to me. I like to be able to view the source material that people provide here. Scientific-minded people prefer it that way.
Rapture Era
Active Member
Alright, let me one more time express this as clearly as I can for you. I am perfectly aware of what a Phylogenetic Tree is, it's the classic "Tree of Life" Darwin scribbled, that everything came from something at the bottom of the tree trunk. My question has always been, where is the scientific method showing you that anything at the bottom of the tree trunk came into existence? What started it? Where did the massive genetic information come from in one living cell? Without this genetic information, (which I have been for 40 some odd pages now) trying to get you guys to see that that even scientifically, does not happen. The more science discovers and the deeper we go into the DNA/RNA and the almost incomprehensible massive and vast genetic information in living systems and the operations they carry out is staggering! You dont start out with any kind of species at the bottom of the Phylogenetic Tree by skipping this step. Do you understand? And most perplexing, what was the process by which these living organisms contained enough information to build male and female and the systems in them to reproduce after their own kind? This in it self is confounding and stunning! You have to be in awe of the fact that the information in the one cell from your mom, and the one cell from your dad came together to build that model of you in nine months! All of the physiology that was taking place in your moms body was taking place because of instructions. Can you really critically think that you are the result of some mindless, purposeless matter? Where did the information come into existence through the Phylogenetic Tree process? Never in the history of mankind have we known as much as we do about information in living systems and what is involved to make them viable reproducing organisms.
The bottom line is that, the scientific method we all agree, (a method of procedure consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses) cannot validate the evolutionary process of origins. So when I say that leaves the evolutionist dead in the water right from the get-go, that's what I mean.Simple perception.
A transcendent creator that decided to tell us what our origins are, what our purpose is and what our destiny is, and, the world and universe in which we exist, is a much better explanation of the data we know through science in all he created. Science is pointing to design and order, not the Phylogenetic Tree process. Now, you either you believe that, or, you don't.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Nope.
That is not evolution that is abiogenesis. Why the conflation? Don't you know any better?
You must be like the greatest expert on this subject since you have been trying to tell people for 40 pages.
Tell me about it all - pretend I know nothing about it. What is "information" in a cell? How much is required, and how do you know?
Wow, seems like a great argument against evolution,but it seems very very thin on the details.
So.... You don't understand that you are making two different arguments?
Evolution is about the changes that occur in living things.
Abiogenesis is about the origin of life.
Your argument is akin to you mentioning you are a Christian and someone the demanding that you explain the origin of religious thought.
Can you really critically think that one of many ancient Hebrew tribal deities is really the one true God, and that this tribal deity created the universe from noting in a day and made a man from dust?
Rapture Era
Active Member
Your own #4 pretty much says it all.
Your cause (still can't scientifically explain the source of the bottom of the supposed Phylogenetic Tree process), your principle (belief in impossible evolutionary beginnings), and last but not least, the system of beliefs that there is no God that you hold with ardor and faith. There ya have it!
Rapture Era
Active Member
Is this not your phylogeny?
So what is the undisputed ridiculously huge evidence for the bottom of the trunk whereby the rest of it comes? In your world, you must have life in order to move up your tree! So you want to pass that part of the life-root of your tree and ignore it? You want to say that abiogenesis is a different subject that has nothing to do with the evolutionary Phylogenetic Tree? What started this tree?
Of course I do! What are you using to take the place of abiogenesis then, to start your life giving root for your belief in this tree? You have to have something! What is it?
No no!
I'm asking you to explain the beginning of your faith-based belief in how your Phylogenetic tree started!Yes! Why? Because we see the insurmountable evidence that even science validates that all of life, time, space, and matter authenticates!
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Is this not your phylogeny?
It is A phylogeny - but let us recall what you actually wrote:
"I am perfectly aware of what a Phylogenetic Tree is, it's the classic "Tree of Life" Darwin scribbled, that everything came from something at the bottom of the tree trunk."
It is bad form to 'answer' a different question than was asked (in effect), in an attempt to avoid having to admit error.
The first life form(s). Whatever those were, it is irrelevant to what happened after. What follows is very funny:
Please look up a few lines to see the obvious contradiction.
Why do I have to have something?
In my research, I looked at the phylogeny of groups of mammals. What the first living thing was did not matter one bit to the questions I was dealing with.
Right - which is exactly what I indicated above.
No no!
You keep conflating abiogenesis (i.e., "explain the beginning of your faith-based belief in how your Phylogenetic tree started") and evolution despite claiming you know the difference.
And while I do have faith that some day we will have a better idea of what that first life/lives was/were, it will still be irrelevant to, for example, mammalian phylogenetics.
Of course, MY faith in this is not premised on my worship of some ancient scroll stories from the middle east, rather, on the track record of the scientific enterprise in chipping away at problems.
LOL!
Amazing...
Wow, OK - I dismiss your deity story from middle eastern numerologists and KNOW that abiogenesis AND evolution are totally true because we see the insurmountable evidence that even science validates that all of life, time, space, and matter authenticates!
WOW! Argument via unsupported assertion is SO satisfying - easy, too!
He has Risen!
JESUS IS LORD FOR HE HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD
Thank you for your honesty tas...I gave you a like because you told me the truth about what your willing to buy into. You and I are in our mid fifties, I first became a Christian and started to go to church when I was 15 yrs. old. I was not raised in the church and when a friend of mine invited me to his church, I went. Back then I believed the bible and everything the bible said. Today, at 54yrs of age, I believe the bible and everything it says because it is both Historically true and the manuscripts we have today show that it has not been corrupted. After I looked into what I believe (by reading many, many, many, many books and not just the bible), I find that I am on solid ground, not on shaky and shifting sand. The arguments that most people are using here have already been answered by first rate scholars. But your answer is what Jesus said would happen, "Even if someone were to come back from the dead, they will not believe" (Abraham spoke those words to the rich man in hell).
If you'll notice, I don't really quote his views on science.... Science has changed so much.
But the text of the Bible hasn't.
What supposed contradictions exist now, existed then.
And he was an expert on the Scriptures: if there truly were genuine discrepancies, he would have found them. He discovered spurious texts, and was quick to expose them! His views shouldn't be discounted.
That's all.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Almost no scholars think that. Any actual historians who do are fundamentalists who refuse to accept consensus opinions in the field.
No scholar considers the gospels to be historical writings and we know they were written by anonymous authors rather than actual disciples
Wiki The Gospel According to Mark -
The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.
Euangélion katà Mârkon - this Greek designates a writing as told to the author by someone else.
Wiki The historical reliability of the Gospels
"Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70."
Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria[84] or in Northern Palestine.[85] Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document.[8
Like Matthew, Luke drew on Mark and added material from Q.
Wiki The historicity of Jesus
The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.
joelr
Well-Known Member
There are genuine discrepancies. Here are 550
Contradictions as listed in the SAB book
but there are many other types of discrepancies as well like pages and pages of verbatim Greek between the gospels (because they all used Mark as a template) and many obvious OT stories copied into the NT. John has sequence problems where someone took sections out but forgot to fix the errors when re-editing.
There are also eclipses, earthquakes and zombies running around after Jesus resurrected which do not appear in historical records.
Newton was s scientist, for bible discrepancies you want someone who studies the bible.
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia
-Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria[84] or in Northern Palestine.[85] Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I love the lines that keep repeating in that article whenever a contradiction is found:
". Other scholars state that the contradictory stories can be reconciled."
sooda
Veteran Member
The Bible is didactic literature. It is neither history nor science .. and it was not intended as such. The Bible stories are myths borrowed and adapted from other cultures.. Egypt, Sumer, Babylon and the North Coast Canaanites.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Not really
Abiogenesis is a work in progress and a different field of study then evolution.
Evolution concerns already existing life.
This "massive genetic information" is the result of 3.8 billion years of evolution.
You are aware at least that in evolution, cells as we know them today evolved over billions of years, right?
Argument from awe/incredulity?
And once again, the living things you observe today, even if "only" microbes, are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolution.
Nobody is skipping that step. You just like to pretend that science ignores that.
In reality, plenty of scientists working in abiogenesis around the world, study this stuff every single day.
And, once again, abiogenesis and evolution are two different theories about different things in different fields of study.
Evolution deals with origins of bio-diversity.
Abiogenesis deals with the origins of life.
In context of evolution, it doesn't matter how first life came about.
If tomorrow you conclusively prove that your god created first life, not one iota of evolution would be impacted.
Once life existed, it started to evolve.
I understand that you don't understand.
Sexual reproduction evolved. And rather recently, in the big scheme of things, as well.
Argument from awe, again.
Sure, life is amazing.
However though, there wasn't any need for a 3rd party to make that cell from my mom and that cell from my dad result in me, was there?
It doesn't matter what I think. Or anyone else, for that matter.
What matters, is what the evidence demonstrates.
Phylogenetic trees aren't a process....
Indeed. So why do you still run around sticking with ideas from +500 years ago?
There is no "evolutionary process of origins".
Evolution theory (which addresses the diversity of life - NOT the origins of life) is one of the most evidenced, if not THE most evidenced, theories in all of science.
Physics doesn't have it's "unified field theory" yet.
Biology does. It's called evolution.
It explains genetics, it explains anatomy, it explains the rise and fall of species, it explains the geograhpic distribution of species, it explains the fossil record,...
The explanatory power of evolution is true the roof.
Physicists can only dream of such an elegant, all-encompassing, unified field theory for their own field.
Too bad it's based on a strawman and an ill-understanding of the scope of evolution theory.
Religious statements and assertions, aren't explanatory at all - let alone scientific.
No. Explanations of phenomena of reality, aren't a matter of "either you believe it or not" to me.
You seem to be projecting your religious mind.
I go by the evidence, not by a priori religious beliefs.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why do you insist on being dishonest like that concerning the scope of certain theories?
Evolution theory address the process that existing life is subject to.
It does not address where life originally comes from.
Just like the theory of plate tectonics address the geological processes of the crust of the earth. It does not address where the earth comes from.
Just like germ theory addresses the effects germs have on health of complex animals.
It does not address where the germs themselves come from.
When you are in a discussion about a subject and you are trying to convince others about your beliefs concerning said subject, it really will only backfire if you consistently get it wrong - especially after plenty of people have been correcting you and brought your error to your attention.
But you just ignore it. You continue to repeat the same falsehoods.
What is it that you hope to accomplish with such dishonest behaviour?
Do you think that this kind of behaviour will result in positive outcomes for your case?
Completely false.
We don't "have to have" something.
Life exists and we can study it.
It doesn't matter where it come from, in terms of that study.
NO MATTER where life comes from, life is what it is. The reality of what life is, won't change if tomorrow we find out conclusively where it originally comes from.
In context of evolution, it is completely irrelevant if first life was the result of complex chemistry, of extra-dimensional unicorns planting it here, of your god speaking it into existance, or whatever.
It makes absolutely no difference at all.
It won't change the fossils.
It won't change DNA patterns.
It won't change mutation rates.
It won't change selection processes.
It won't change biogeography.
It won't change phylogenies.
It won't change anatomy.
It. Will. Make. Absolutely. No. Difference.