The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[Segev Moran]

This is actually a separate claim to those people who claim that the god of their religion is only one. You are multiplying gods, not reducing the number.

Not so.
What I've meant is that even if some people speak of different gods, they are an attempt to describe god.
At times people describe several gods that each is an aspect of the one God.
God is not a character or an entity. I hope you don't expect to find evidence for a character called God

This is silly. Where is the objectivity in these "simple things" we're supposed to follow? How can they be discovered objectively (rather than just somebody telling us what they think they are)?

Start with observation, examine everything you do in your life. find out if you control it or it controls you.
If you do something that you cant seem to control, ask God (but really ask, don't joke about it, don't do it just to prove nothing works) to help you find a way to control it.
When you do, in return, do something that will benefit someone else.
If you'll do this for sometime, you will start understanding things you didn't before.

Oh great, so there is no evidence for god unless you learn Hebrew!? Your god isn't at all interested in getting its message across, is it?

Lol, that is not what I've meant. The Torah is a Hebrew book. the English translations are only a small (and many times misleading) part of it.
If you'll will learn the true meaning of the Hebrew words, you will start to understand the actual meaning of the Hebrew Torah. Start there. I think you will be surprised how different it is than what you thought or taught.
There is a lot of English literature that can explain the Torah, but than you will be "biased" by other peoples thoughts. so if you really want to learn, learn the basics and go from there.
You will NOT find evidence for God by reading the Torah, but you will understand how to find it in your life while using the things described there.

Tell me this is a joke! Who decides the 'right' way? What is the objective reason to study the Torah? If I go to ten different people from different religions, denominations, sects, and cults, I'll likely get ten different 'right' ways and 'right' things to study.

In order to learn what gravity is, you need to understand many things before. sure, i can tell you gravity is a force that its affect causes things to attract others.
But this is only the idea of gravity. if you want to understand gravity, learn the basics. than, drill down to each subject until you understand it.
It works the same when it comes to God.
You can't expect someone to tell you everything, you need to start from the basics and grow from there.

You have presented nothing remotely objective.

God's objectivity is the same the objectivity of our reality.
Its subjectively experienced yet we all know its real

 

[ratiocinator]

Not so.
What I've meant is that even if some people speak of different gods, they are an attempt to describe god.
At times people describe several gods that each is an aspect of the one God.

This is your claim, and it contradicts all those people who claim that their god(s) is (are) the only one(s). As I said, this just adds a god (your particular idea of what some strange amalgam of all the other gods means).

Start with observation, examine everything you do in your life. find out if you control it or it controls you.
If you do something that you cant seem to control, ask God (but really ask, don't joke about it, don't do it just to prove nothing works) to help you find a way to control it.
When you do, in return, do something that will benefit someone else.
If you'll do this for sometime, you will start understanding things you didn't before.

There is nothing objective in that. It depends not only in my attitude - you effectively want me to take it seriously in order find a reason to take it seriously - but also on my subjective impressions of what happens.

In order to learn what gravity is, you need to understand many things before. sure, i can tell you gravity is a force that its affect causes things to attract others.
But this is only the idea of gravity. if you want to understand gravity, learn the basics. than, drill down to each subject until you understand it.
It works the same when it comes to God.

The comparison doesn't stand up for a moment. If I want to learn about gravity, I can go to any textbook or take any course on the subject and have access to exactly the same theories and find the same objective evidence.

Trying to learn about a god is nothing like that at all. There are endless different religions, denominations, sects, and cult, with entirely different ideas.

God's objectivity is the same the objectivity of our reality.
Its subjectively experienced yet we all know its real

The objectivity of our reality is actually objective (intersubjectively verifiable; it doesn't depend on our attitudes or beliefs) and we all do experience it, whereas I don't experience any gods, either subjectively or objectively and I definitely don't know that any exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My religious belief will not go along with other religious beliefs.
That's because all those other religious beliefs follow's man's teachings and doctrines. Unto which Christ Jesus condemned.

Therefore the bible is all the evidence that I need, because people can not handle it, it's no fault of mine.
Nope not at all, my belief in the bible is me all by myself and not what someone else will say.
As I had enough of man made Religious belief's

The stuff you read in your bible was written by humans.

By definition, you are believing what someone else is saying.
Multiple (anonymous) people, in case of the bible, even.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To me it is just a semantic game

But to working bioligists, you know - the people that actually study this stuff for a living, it isn't.

What it means to you, a religious creationist, is of no importance.

, most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis too

So do you. Or do you believe that life has always existed?
I think we can all agree that at some point in time, life originated one way or the other, right?

The difference between creationists and rational folks, is that only creationists pretend to know how, while rational folks are honest enough to say that we don't know yet.

abiogenesis is still part of your world view and you still have to support it………

Ok. Since YOU are the one who claims to KNOW how life originated - support away.

To me it is obvious and easy to understand when creationist talk about “kinds” it is obvious that dogs and wolves are the same kind and Dogs and Bannanas are a different kind

So are bonobo's and gorilla's the same "kind"?
What about tigers and housecats?

That might be true for some creationists, but in general IMO creationists tend to represent “evolution” correctly.

I've conversed a lot with creationists.
I have yet to meet one who correctly represented evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Using that definition of evolution, then no creationists would deny evolution.

That definition does not imply common ancestry nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a proces of random mutations and natural selection.

The point is that creationists do not missrepresent evolution, the problem is that evolution has many different meanings .

The problem is that creationists don't seem to be able (or willing) to fully comprehend the inevitable outcome of such a process.

The state of life on this planet (genetically, anatomically, biogeographically) is exactly what it is expected to be, if all life diverged from a common ancestral population. It is the only state a process like evolution could possibly result in.

When you have multiple independent lines of evidence that all converge on the exact same answer - that's when you have something very solid and accurate.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The stuff you read in your bible was written by humans.

By definition, you are believing what someone else is saying.
Multiple (anonymous) people, in case of the bible, even.

But the question is, who inspired those men to write down what is in the bible.

Nope not at all, what I'm reading came from men that were chosen by God to write down, what was inspired to them by God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are mistaken.
If you study and understand, you will discover much evidence to God.
Let me rephrase that, i think you are maybe looking for a physical evidence for god, which is not something you can find.
Think of it as saying you want to prove gravity by observing it... you cannot. you can prove gravity by observing it effect. the same goes for God.
There is plenty of evidence for its effect, you won't find God itself.

Are you really claiming that we can determine god to being real in the same way that we can determine gravity to being real?

If that is what you are saying, then please provide an example.

 

[ChristineM]

Nope not at all. All because there has to be a starting point.
Nothing comes by nothing, there has to be a starting point.
So where's your starting point?

Many people, including people who study the phenomenon believe that something can come from nothing. In the world of quantum particles it happens all the time. Here, do you want to see the maths on how the universe could have come from nothing?

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What objective evidence do you have for atoms?

Nukes explode.

What objective evidence do you have for particles?

The LHC

What objective evidence do you have for quantum physics?

The fact that you're reading this.

What objective evidence do you have for gravity?

I just dropped my keys and they fell down.

What objective evidence do you have for dark energy?

First, that's a work in progress.
Second, it's the proposed cause of very observable and measurable phenomena in space.

What objective evidence do you have for energy?

Nukes explode.
The fact that's you're reading this.
The fact that plants grow.
The sun.

What objective evidence do you have for death?

What objective evidence do you have for thoughts?

MRI

What objective evidence do you have for imagination?

Star wars.
The bible. p )

What objective evidence do you have for anger?

And Super Sayajin Son Goku, off course.

What objective evidence do you have for fear?

I just scream "BOE!" and my cat ran away.

What objective evidence do you have for courage?

My 3-year old son this afternoon, when he overcame his fear and gave my friend's dog a cookie.

What objective evidence do you have for randomness?

Dice throws.




This was kind of fun.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the question is, who inspired those men to write down what is in the bible.

Who inspired the men who wrote the Quran? The bagavhad ghita? The codex troana? The iliad? The norse myths?

Maybe a better question is "what inspired those men?".

And the answer is: good ol' superstition.

Nope not at all, what I'm reading came from men that were chosen by God to write down, what was inspired to them by God.

Only "inspired"?

At least the quran was dictated!!

 

[ChristineM]

So what your saying, Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing.

Something happened for the universe to come from nothing.
So there's still a starting point, even if it's from nothing, there's always a starting point.

Me saying? Really, i should be so will up on quantum theory and vacuum bubbles.

What i am saying is you made a statement "Nothing comes by nothing" that is not valid, i provided the evidence to show my belief is valid.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Who inspired the men who wrote the Quran? The bagavhad ghita? The codex troana? The iliad? The norse myths?

Maybe a better question is "what inspired those men?".

And the answer is: good ol' superstition.



Only "inspired"?

At least the quran was dictated!!

But the question is, Who wrote the Qu'ran,
Seeing that Muhammad couldn't read or write?
And how would Muhammad know for sure what they wrote down, seeing Muhammad couldn't read or write?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope not at all. All because there has to be a starting point.
Nothing comes by nothing, there has to be a starting point.
So where's your starting point?

The starting point of evolution is existing life.
Life exists, so it's a pretty safe assumption.

 

[ChristineM]

Nope not at all did prove anything, if something as the universe came from nothing, there's still a starting point to get from nothing to something.
So the question is, what lays in between
Nothing <----------> to Something

Sheesh, you made the statement, an honest person would hold their hands up and say "fair cop guv, i will never use that misrepresentation in an argument again"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the question is, Who wrote the Qu'ran,
Seeing that Muhammad couldn't read or write?

His companions, to whom Mohammed dictated it after it was revealed to him.
Which means that the authors of the quran were much closer to the source of the supposed revelation then the authors of the bible, by the way, since none of those authors were eyewitnesses, seeing as those stories weren't written down until several decades, to even more then a century, after the supposed events.

Did you ever play the telephone game?
That experiments suggests that the quran should be a more accurate account of the supposed revelations then the bible.

And how would Muhammad know for sure what they wrote down, seeing Muhammad couldn't read or write?

He asked them to read it back to him.
How would Jesus know, considering he was already dead/gone by the time it was written down?

Be that as it may, the point is flying straight over your head. The "arguments" you are giving in support for your bible, can literally be used without change to support any religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope not at all did prove anything, if something as the universe came from nothing, there's still a starting point to get from nothing to something.
So the question is, what lays in between
Nothing <----------> to Something

What do you mean by "nothing"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, now if evolution is existing life, so where did this evolution of existing life, gets it starting point from.

First, evolution "is" not "existing life". Evolution rather is a process that existing life is subject to.

Second, evolution is something that inevitably happens when you have systems that replicate with variation and that are in competition over limited resources.

Life is such a system. Thus it inevitably will evolve.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope not at all, just because I am not gullible to buy into that nothing came from nothing.
If your that gullible to buy into that nonsense, that speaks for itself

By the way....


This thread is about evolution.
"nothing" has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is a process that acts on something.

That something is life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Aren't you the one that brought up that the universe came from nothing?

No. You should read the posts you are responding to.
Here's the post where you suddenly started talking about "nothing":

The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

It's weird how you thought that was an apropriate response to the post you were responding to..................

 

[ChristineM]

Nope not at all, just because I am not gullible to buy into that nothing came from nothing.
If your that gullible to buy into that nonsense, that speaks for itself

What you buy into is irrelevant, and i for one have never heard a quantum particle speak, perhaps you have heard one saying "i didnt just pop into existence from nothing" and that would explain your bias.

However the fact is that in the quantum domain something (particles) come from nothing all the time. And luckily for the universe your belief is not required.