The Miracle of Water.

[ecco]

I don’t see design in nature.

Neither do I. What I do see, in Nature, is efficiency.

Trees spread their seeds by specific methods and/or in specific patterns to ensure the maximum potential for reproduction. Bears hibernate in the winter to conserve energy loss.

Let's compare that to the Christian God.

He sat around for 99.9999999999999999999999---999% of eternity doing absolutely nothing.

Then He created a small group of people. Later He killed millions of their descendants, leaving only a small group from which to start over.

Pretty sad for an entity reputedly omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[ecco]

My emphasis in the following

Science, like other branches of human study is by and large ego driven....the more educated one becomes, the bigger the ego becomes, and the less likely one is to suffer "fools" (anyone who disagrees) gladly....the trouble is, its sometimes hard to figure out who is the bigger fool......and money figures in there too I think, so there is a lot of incentive to drive what generates the most acclaim and the biggest financial reward.

Religion, like other branches of philosophy, is by and large ego-driven ... and money figures in there too I think, so there is a lot of incentive to drive what generates the most acclaim and the biggest financial reward.

In genneral...

Specifically...

How much is Jehovah's Witnesses worth?
The Jehovah's Witnesses real estate holdings in the area have an estimated value north of $1 billion. In August 2016, the Jehovah Witnesses sold their iconic Watchtower building at 25-30 Columbia Heights for $340 million to developers CIM Group, Kushner Companies, and LIVWRK.

 

[ecco]

...proof for a deity would make scientists look like fools. Evolution would be proven to be a huge mistake. It would make them realize how infantile they really are in the big scheme of things. The Emperor would realize that he is naked.

How lucky for those foolish scientists that there is no "proof for a deity".

No evidence if "a deity" either for that matter.

Actually nothing except thousands of different ideas and concepts about "a deity".


I guess there is no reason for scientists to feel infantile and naked and foolish.


Religionists on the other hand...

 

[ecco]

I agree that fairy tales need to go....but you assume that the Creator is a mythical creation of man....I believe he is as real as you and I are.

Fairy tales need to go. Well, all fairy tales except the one I believe in.

 

[Polymath257]

Who shouts the loudest or who has the biggest stick is not a good way to ascertain truth....is it?
Science, like other branches of human study is by and large ego driven....the more educated one becomes, the bigger the ego becomes, and the less likely one is to suffer "fools" (anyone who disagrees) gladly....the trouble is, its sometimes hard to figure out who is the bigger fool......and money figures in there too I think, so there is a lot of incentive to drive what generates the most acclaim and the biggest financial reward.

Shall we compare the amount of money going to science with the amount going to religion? Which do you think has the most detrimental effects?

I see that scientists like those words "may be"...."might have"...."could have"...."leads us to the conclusion that..." This is not the language of fact, but the language of supposition. Facts are truth, not "maybe's"

That is the language of *honesty*. It is recognizing that *all* evidence has uncertainties. it is the recognition that *nothing* is absolutely proven. Ever.

So, yes, it is the *proper* language of facts. it is the proper language of humility and caution. And it is the proper language of attempts to understand the world.

All that means is that collectively, no matter what culture or in what continent, humans have the need to worship. If humans evolved, at what point did they become "human" enough to develop this need?

We don't know exactly. But there are cases of burial by Neanderthals. It can be difficult to determine the beliefs of ancient people from before the development of writing.

Animals do not worship like humans do. They never have. It has never been observed. As for their awareness of death, that could be attributed to a challenge to their instinctive programming. Animals that live in family troupes like monkeys, apes and elephants are all programmed to operate as a troupe, each as part of a collective forming relationships with the whole "family", they do not act as individuals. Each has their place in the arrangement. When one of them dies, the arrangement is altered. Awareness of death in those animals is nothing like ours. We are the only creatures who can contemplate our own death or the potential death of loved ones, even before it happens.

Can I have references for purposeful burials before there were modern humans? What does science consider to be "modern humans"? At what point did they stop being apes? Does science have a test for that?

The burials are of Neanderthals. They are physically distinct from modern humans.

They didn't 'stop being apes': humans are a type of ape.

Oh, so that just wipes out the whole second part of the evolution theory then. There is no way to test for macro-evolution....all of the science is based on micro-evolution and anything outside of wh1at is testable and demonstrable is nothing but educated guesswork. No testing, no science...you said it.

Sorry, but there has been extensive testing of the ideas surrounding evolution.

There is a thread on here at the moment about that.



We agree. Not being YEC's we can see clearly that the universe is indeed ancient, being created by a Being who is outside of time. We also see the creative periods as being perhaps millions of years in length, long enough for the Creator to experiment with life forms within that period, till he had worked it out to his satisfaction.....hence the declaration at the end of each "day" that everything was "good". He must have been especially pleased after the creation of man because his declaration was enhanced to "very good" at the end of the 6th day.

The 7th day saw God rest from his creative works and was reserved for ironing out the bugs that would naturally flow on from giving his human creation free will.......and it is still in progress according to our beliefs.

OK, so there is at least *some* acceptance of truth in the adherence to your myths. The whole Genesis story is a fabrication, nonetheless.

Adaptation sees many more varieties added to specific taxonomic families, but I am unaware of any proof that one species can evolve into a completely different taxa. There is no way to test that......so no testing, no science. Right? This is where you need to separate assumptions from facts.

There are no "facts" in macro-evolutionary science....so what facts are you talking about? All the facts are seen in micro-evolution which we have no problem with at all. You can't use one to prove the other.

We don't *expect* to see evolution to completely different taxa. Birds are still vertebrates. Humans are still apes. Cats are still mammals.

The facts are that biological species change over geological time. The facts are that the observed amounts of mutation and selection are enough for the observed amounts of change. The facts are that no evidence for 'special creation' events has ever been given.

When you say that macro-evolution isn't proven from micro-evolution, you are essentially saying you can't reach $1000 a penny at a time. Each stage is limited to what it can breed with (those similar to what exists at that time--say a few pennies away). But the whole population shifts over the course of many generations.

The same thing happens in languages, only much faster. Languages change slowly enough that speakers cannot understand the different languages at the time. But, over time, the languages shift, producing Spanish and French from Latin, for example. The barriers to understanding a language are like reproductive barriers between species. But there are no barriers to the larger scale changes in either languages or species over time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First of all, SkepticThinker you dogmatically assume that you are right about what the poster believes.

Oh, do I?
How many conversations have you had with the poster? Did you not read the words I quoted?

I am almost certain that the person doesn't believe that an empty brain led them to faith.

I've been speaking to this particular poster for a number of years now. How long have you been in contact with the poster? How can you be "almost certain" of what they meant? Are you a mind reader?

Secondly, I am not trying to convince anyone that God is, as skeptics are trying to convince themselves and others that God doesn't exist.

Is that what you think skeptics do? That's funny.

I politely answer questions asked, but seeing that you are asking for someone to convince you, I think you are going about it the wrong way.
God is not a dog that someone can or will fetch for you.

What way should I be going about discussing such matters on this forum? Do tell. Are you suggesting I should not challenge peoples' claims?

Like I said, you would not understand the text in Romans, and it's clear you didn't. So there is nothing I can say to help you.

Please explain how I misunderstood it. There is much to say that could help me. Go ahead, I'm listening.

Are you also under the impression that people can't believe or understand the Bible unless they already believe in God? I hope not, because that's silly.

God is not physical, and subject to you or your demands. Nor is he subject to man's puny instruments.

How do you know? How does anybody know? You want to make all kinds of claims about this God you believe in, but get bent out of shape when people ask what basis you are making such claims upon.

You can't answer or explain anything, only ask questions? Okay. Your questions have been satisfactorily answered.

I've explained my position and answered several questions. I'm still waiting for you to define your terms so we can continue.

So you've written this entire post here, and completely avoided addressing any of my points that were in response to your points/assertions. Great.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who shouts the loudest or who has the biggest stick is not a good way to ascertain truth....is it?
Science, like other branches of human study is by and large ego driven....the more educated one becomes, the bigger the ego becomes, and the less likely one is to suffer "fools" (anyone who disagrees) gladly....the trouble is, its sometimes hard to figure out who is the bigger fool......and money figures in there too I think, so there is a lot of incentive to drive what generates the most acclaim and the biggest financial reward.

Guess what the reward is for winning a Nobel Prize? It's over one million dollars and comes with great prestige and honour.
It would easily go to anyone who could demonstrably falsify evolution. Why no takers yet, if evolution is so obviously false?



You need to seriously ask yourself that question, if you truly believe what you've said above.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You make me smile.....proof for a deity would make scientists look like fools.

Why?

It wouldn't do anything to negate evolutionary theory.

Evolution would be proven to be a huge mistake. It would make them realize how infantile they really are in the big scheme of things. The Emperor would realize that he is naked.

How?

 

[viole]

Who shouts the loudest or who has the biggest stick is not a good way to ascertain truth....is it?
Science, like other branches of human study is by and large ego driven....the more educated one becomes, the bigger the ego becomes, and the less likely one is to suffer "fools" (anyone who disagrees) gladly....the trouble is, its sometimes hard to figure out who is the bigger fool......and money figures in there too I think, so there is a lot of incentive to drive what generates the most acclaim and the biggest financial reward.

Yet, it allowed you to write this on a machine that transmits your message to the whole world to be seen instantaneously.

Can you do the same by praying to your particular brand of god? Whatever that is? Let me know.

I see that scientists like those words "may be"...."might have"...."could have"...."leads us to the conclusion that..." This is not the language of fact, but the language of supposition. Facts are truth, not "maybe's"

This is a little rule to improve knowledge:

? = good
! = bad

Science is not in the business of certainties. And doubt, scrutiny, improvements are the engines that explain its success.

Certainties are the business of believers in Apollo and similar stuff.

All that means is that collectively, no matter what culture or in what continent, humans have the need to worship. If humans evolved, at what point did they become "human" enough to develop this need?

Don’t you realize how self defeating that sentence is? The need to worship. When you have a need to believe something, usually the result of the belief is totally unreliable. I am sure you agree that the thousands of gods, different from your god, that people believe and believed in, are all false. Why you think to be better than them is the real question.

Animals do not worship like humans do. They never have. It has never been observed. As for their awareness of death, that could be attributed to a challenge to their instinctive programming. Animals that live in family troupes like monkeys, apes and elephants are all programmed to operate as a troupe, each as part of a collective forming relationships with the whole "family", they do not act as individuals. Each has their place in the arrangement. When one of them dies, the arrangement is altered. Awareness of death in those animals is nothing like ours. We are the only creatures who can contemplate our own death or the potential death of loved ones, even before it happens.

Again self defeating. Since we are more aware of our demise, while we have the same survival instincts of a chimp, it is to be expected that we develop (make up) mechanisms that avoid that demise.

This is what I would expect if naturalism were true. And that is why belief in god is probably an evolutionary adaptation, as well.

Can I have references for purposeful burials before there were modern humans? What does science consider to be "modern humans"? At what point did they stop being apes? Does science have a test for that?

We never stopped to be apes. We are still apes. I don’t understand your question.,

Oh, so that just wipes out the whole second part of the evolution theory then. There is no way to test for macro-evolution....all of the science is based on micro-evolution and anything outside of what is testable and demonstrable is nothing but educated guesswork. No testing, no science...you said it.

Suppose mX is a microevolutionary transformation on X,

Would you say that

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmX

Is a micro-transformation on X?

We agree. Not being YEC's we can see clearly that the universe is indeed ancient, being created by a Being who is outside of time. We also see the creative periods as being perhaps millions of years in length, long enough for the Creator to experiment with life forms within that period, till he had worked it out to his satisfaction.....hence the declaration at the end of each "day" that everything was "good". He must have been especially pleased after the creation of man because his declaration was enhanced to "very good" at the end of the 6th day.

Was He pleased? I really don’t see how a god could possibly be unpleased with His performance in doing anything. Because of perfection and omniscience, you know.

Could you imagine alternative scenarios like this? —>

God: let us make the universe. Boom.
God: lets take a look now that I created light and I can see what I did. I am not so sure of the result, despite knowing it in advance
God: Darn. That looks awful. That is what happens when you spend an eternity to make up your mind and then try to do everything in a week.

Further proof, if you really needed that, that whoever wrote that did not pay attention to logical consistency. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

All that means is that collectively, no matter what culture or in what continent, humans have the need to worship. If humans evolved, at what point did they become "human" enough to develop this need?

Around the time that humans started asking questions like:
Where do we come from
Why has our well dried up
Why did the locusts eat all our crops
What happens when we die

Around the time that tribal chieftains realized that tribal chieftains who say I Dunno get replaced with tribal chieftains who say GodDidIt.

Around the time that tribal chieftains realized it was safer to let a "wise tribal elder" (AKA shaman, medicine men, etc) address those questions.

Around the time that shamans took the load off themselves by telling the clan that the well is still dry because the clan needs to offer a sacrifice to (the) god(s).

 

[nPeace]

Human laws require a lawgiver. Such laws are not descriptive, but are proscriptive: they say what should or should not be done as opposed to describing how things are.

Why do human laws require a law giver? Do you say this because it is what you know from experience, or is there a principle reason? Is it because they dictate requirements?

Natural laws, on the other hand, are descriptive, not proscriptive. They describe how things work. No intelligence is required for there to be natural laws: the only requirement is that things have properties that determine how they act.

So you are saying then that what describes something - how it works, is a law? Could you explain that please. perhaps you can use an example. As far as I know, a law can be described - you can describe how a law works, but a law dictates - it determines how things are required to work. Hence proscriptive.

And, the fundamental laws *cannot* have a cause. Why not? Because any cause would have to explain the origin of the laws and would then be a *more* fundamental law. All we can say about fundamental laws, if such exist, is simply that they are how they are.

Could you explain please, how a cause of a universal law would explain the origin of the law to one who does not know the cause. Why do you have to know the cause in order to recognize that the fixed universal law has a cause?

 

[nPeace]

Yet, it allowed you to write this on a machine that transmits your message to the whole world to be seen instantaneously.

Can you do the same by praying to your particular brand of god? Whatever that is? Let me know.



This is a little rule to improve knowledge:

? = good
! = bad

Science is not in the business of certainties. And doubt, scrutiny, improvements are the engines that explain its success.

Certainties are the business of believers in Apollo and similar stuff.



Don’t you realize how self defeating that sentence is? The need to worship. When you have a need to believe something, usually the result of the belief is totally unreliable. I am sure you agree that the thousands of gods, different from your god, that people believe and believed in, are all false. Why you think to be better than them is the real question.



Again self defeating. Since we are more aware of our demise, while we have the same survival instincts of a chimp, it is to be expected that we develop (make up) mechanisms that avoid that demise.

This is what I would expect if naturalism were true. And that is why belief in god is probably an evolutionary adaptation, as well.



We never stopped to be apes. We are still apes. I don’t understand your question.,



Suppose mX is a microevolutionary transformation on X,

Would you say that

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmX

Is a micro-transformation on X?



Was He pleased? I really don’t see how a god could possibly be unpleased with His performance in doing anything. Because of perfection and omniscience, you know.

Could you imagine alternative scenarios like this? —>

God: let us make the universe. Boom.
God: lets take a look now that I created light and I can see what I did. I am not so sure of the result, despite knowing it in advance
God: Darn. That looks awful. That is what happens when you spend an eternity to make up your mind and then try to do everything in a week.

Further proof, if you really needed that, that whoever wrote that did not pay attention to logical consistency. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

I wonder where our complex brain came from, with all of its spiritual energy that scientists hardly have a clue of, with which we are conscious of ourselves, our surroundings; with which we can rationalize, and weigh decisions; with which we can have various emotions - the feeling for love, justice; with which, if we did not have, science and technology could not even exist?
Hmmm. How did all of that come to be built from nonexistent intellect?
Does it not make sense that an intelligent mind caused it - even if you don't know that cause?
This seem reasonable to me, than to suppose non-existing particles popped into existence, and self arranged to evolve to a higher intelligence.
I guess we all see through different lenses though.

 

[ecco]

I wonder where our complex brain came from, with all of its spiritual energy that scientists hardly have a clue of, with which we are conscious of ourselves, our surroundings; with which we can rationalize, and weigh decisions; with which we can have various emotions - the feeling for love, justice; with which, if we did not have, science and technology could not even exist?

There can be only one answer: GodDidIt.


The same answer that has been wrong over and over and over.

 

[nPeace]

Oh, do I?
How many conversations have you had with the poster? Did you not read the words I quoted?


I've been speaking to this particular poster for a number of years now. How long have you been in contact with the poster? How can you be "almost certain" of what they meant? Are you a mind reader?

No, of course I am not a mind reader, but I believe that the person said this without going into detail.
I could say A, and A is true, but because I did not say B, it doesn't mean that Bis not also true. It's just that I saw no need to mention B.

Is that what you think skeptics do? That's funny.


What way should I be going about discussing such matters on this forum? Do tell. Are you suggesting I should not challenge peoples' claims?

I'm not suggesting you don't challenge person's views.
I'm saying you are going about it the wrong way. What I mean is, say you ask for evidence that God is, which by the way you have been on my thread - "Evidence God Is", which has been open to challenge, but for some reason, I wouldn't name anyone, but some seem not able to get past the first post.
However, when you ask that question and persons provide an answer, and you drill in with more questions. Okay.

Now follow me closely.
This is you...
Great! This is opinion number 8,765 about what someone thinks God says or wants. How can we really know?

Can you point out how any of this shows that faith actually enhances knowledge? All I’m seeing here is, “just have faith and it will become clear to you that God exists and created everything.” You have managed to back up the Poster’s claim about faith preceding “knowledge.”

Funny how nobody has ever been able to show that any creator exists at all. It’s not like Christians haven’t been trying for centuries, right? What’s the problem?

I don’t see design in nature. Others see Allah’s design in nature. Others see Vishnu’s design in nature. What tests can we carry out to determine who is right? Quoting the Bible doesn’t get us there.

I’m usually pretty good at understanding the written word, but thanks for your vote of confidence.

I’m not sure what the Bible study is all about. Especially since I don’t put any stock in it. You believe a different thing about faith than someone else who practices religion. So what else is new?

You see God, I don’t. How do we determine who is actually right, and how does faith help in that determination?

It sounds like faith is absolutely useless in a knowledge-seeking quest.

Can you demonstrate that your “knowledge is enhanced” by having faith? In what way(s)? No Bible quotes please.

So you ask questions - for evidence.
You get answers - the evidence.
You dismiss the answers, because you don't believe them.
You ask more questions - basically repeats.
You get answers which you don't believe.
...and the cycle continues.

Worst yet, you ask persons not to use one of their means of evidence, which you claim you know, and yet you "give no stock" to.

There is a pattern here, and it's not that you haven't gotten answers.
It's simple - You are not looking for answers. You are here to ridicule.
It's like the apostle Peter said, "First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning."
He further went on to mention the flood, stating, "For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people." 2 Peter 3:3-7

Are you seeing the picture yet?
There is evidence - none that will satisfy you, and to just repeatedly.... and I mean, repeatedly badger persons with the same questions over an over again, is to me... well, you know.

The Bible asks these questions.
Proverbs 1:22 “How long will you inexperienced ones love inexperience? How long will you ridiculers take pleasure in ridicule? And how long will you foolish ones hate knowledge?

Please explain how I misunderstood it. There is much to say that could help me. Go ahead, I'm listening.

No there isn't, and no you are not listening. Am I wrong? Note your next question.

Are you also under the impression that people can't believe or understand the Bible unless they already believe in God? I hope not, because that's silly.

Clear evidence I can't help you, and you are not listening. Wow. The post you are responding to must be in Danish.

How do you know? How does anybody know? You want to make all kinds of claims about this God you believe in, but get bent out of shape when people ask what basis you are making such claims upon.

Bent out of shape. Me?
Just take note that no one minds being asked questions.
However, have you ever babysat a 10 year old and they ask you the same question 50 times? I think the next time the parents call you, you would suddenly remember you had an appointment.
There was a man who found himself in a similar situation - John 9:26-28
26 Then they said to him: “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27 He answered them: “I told you already, and yet you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become his disciples also, do you?” 28 At this they scornfully told him: “You are a disciple of that man, but we are disciples of Moses.

I've explained my position and answered several questions. I'm still waiting for you to define your terms so we can continue.

So you've written this entire post here, and completely avoided addressing any of my points that were in response to your points/assertions. Great.

As I said, I satisfactorily answered your questions.
You want more on God and faith... I'll look for you on the "Evidence God Is" thread, if you are interested.

 

[Deeje]

There's a lot more to history than just written records. Archeology provides wonderful insights into what people have wanted to hide.

Archeology can reveal some interesting facts but it is by no means an accurate history because again there is the human element that interprets what it sees. Interpretation is everything, no matter what branch of study is undertaken. Preconceived notions affect all of us...educated or not.

Yes, of course. The difference has been explained to you multiple times and you insist on using the non-technical definition. I wonder why?

You know what I wonder? Why there is a need for an explanation in the first place? If science is about facts, and these facts are supposedly well established, along with "mountains of evidence", then why still call it a theory? Why change the meaning of a well-known word to mean the opposite in science to what it means in every other application? That is what I wonder.

Sorry, but the existence of such a deity would not change the basics of the science: at most it would add a single new factor that needs to be considered. And, I might add, a very interesting object of study *if* there could be some form of verification of hypotheses (testing).

And you think that such a deity owes the godless anything when their denial of him has caused him to be reproached, slandered and ridiculed? Science has spread its anti-god thinking throughout the whole world. Tell me what ruler of any nation would treat such a deplorable citizen as worthy of any rights? Even democracies have their limits. No one really knows what goes on behind closed doors, especially in cases of treason....do they? Isn't it regarded as treason to work in opposition to one's duly appointed ruler?

At least the Creator is up front about what his requirements are and what happens when we refuse to meet them. There will be no surprises except for those who don't believe that an accounting is coming. Not believing that he exists, doesn't make him go away.

I don't *assume* that it is a myth. I *conclude* it is a myth. There is a difference. I look at the range of religious beliefs and find that the Christian one just isn't so different in kind from all the others. And I find it *far* more likely that all religions are wrong than that any one is correct.

Conclusions are based on what? Evidence? What if the interpretation of that evidence is way off the mark, because of the way scientists are programmed to read into the evidence things that are imagined rather than observed? You think science doesn't program people's thinking? Tell me what student enters university to study the various branches of science who doesn't accept evolution without question? Indoctrination begins at school and is reinforced at home. This is not because science can prove much, but because it is good at marketing its beliefs....often by disparaging any who disagree.

No, that is definitely *not* what I mean. I mean a morality that is based on the well-being of people as opposed to following orders from a priest. I mean a morality that is based on decrying actual harms to actual people as opposed to worrying what people are doing in their bedrooms. I am talking about a morality that is appalled when differences of religious opinion lead to wars and killings that are then justified by statements that their deity said it was expected of them.

Since a great deal of the Mosaic Law covered moral issues, then these are of concern to the Creator of life. He has the right to dictate our actions in the transmission of life.....to him, a most sacred act to be enjoyed only within the sanctity of scriptural marriage. Sex today is seen as a right, not a God-given privilege. Hence we often see pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases as an inconvenient side-effect of an immoral lifestyle. If we stayed within the boundaries set by the Creator, we would never experience these "inconveniences". Science aids and abets the immorality by trying to circumvent the consequences.....offering abortion pills and the like and medications to treat the symptoms of STD's. Heaven forbid that we should just follow the Bible's simple moral guidelines. But that would mean obedience to a God who doesn't exist, wouldn't it......whose laws on hygiene applied before humans ever knew what a germ was.

Again, I see your deity as just as much a myth as Thor or Zeus. Putting humans emotions and motivation onto the myth only makes it less convincing, not more.

You can see him any way you wish....such is the beauty of free will. I really don't see Zeus or Thor having a great deal of impact on the way people live today.....but Jesus' teachings are guiding many millions. I don't find any of them impractical or difficult, nor do I see Jesus place much emphasis at all on emotions. These are a very poor basis for faith. Blind faith is mere belief, but what I believe means much more than that.

beneficial in what situations? Something as simple as brown eyes versus blue eyes and can beneficial when there are too many UV rays around.

I was surprised at how few there were too....compared to the billions of beneficial mutations that were supposedly needed to produce all this variety of life. Do you believe that humans are related to bananas Polymath? Can single celled organisms really morph themselves into dinosaurs? If you want to talk about fantasy, why not start there? Show us how science 'knows' that it happened.

 

[Deeje]

And I'm sure you have been informed that evolution happens within taxonomic groupings. For example, Cats are vertebrates, they are mammals, they are carnivores, and they are felids. Their immediate ancestors were still carnivores, but not yet felids. The ancestors of those carnivores were still mammals, just without the characteristics of carnivores. Evolution happens by branching and adaptation based on characteristics that already exist, not by sudden changes in singular individuals.

Ah yes,
Phylogenetics (From Wikipedia)


In biology, phylogenetics /ˌfaɪloʊdʒəˈnɛtɪks, -lə-/[1][2] (Greek: φυλή, φῦλον – phylé, phylon = tribe, clan, race + γενετικός – genetikós= origin, source, birth)[3] is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree) – a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms.[4] The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the "end", or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. Phylogenetic analyses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes."

So the study of evolutionary history is based on what? Inference and diagrammatic hypothesis about how science wants to see that history and those imagined relationships? Science sees to it that it all fits neatly into its pet theory.

And then we have Taxonomy....

Taxonomy:

So a Red Fox fits neatly into classifications that supposedly indicate relationships. The domain, kingdom, phylum, class, family, genus and species indicate things that are not indicative of relationship at all. Similarity perhaps, but certainly not relationship. This is smoke and mirrors IMO.

But different types of finches. So, yes, we *expect* them to maintain the characteristics of their ancestors in many ways. They are also birds, and vertebrates, etc. Your understanding of what happens in evolution is faulty.

You see what you just said? All Darwin observed were different varieties of finches. The finches would never become some other kind of bird no matter how much time elapsed. Scientists assume this can happen by inference, but they have no way to test it. No test...no science. Birds are vertebrates...said as if all vertebrates must be related along the some imagined evolutionary line.....I believe science twists the truth to fit it all neatly into a box that no one seems to question except those who see clear evidence of design everywhere in nature. You see believers as 'collectively blind'...we see you the same way.

Except that it *has* been tested many times and passes those tests. Species change over biological time. There are mechanisms in place that show *why* those changes happen.

No species has ever been observed that stepped outside of its own taxonomic family. Adaptation produces variety within a family of creatures. This is I believe what is referred to as a "kind" in Genesis. Living things are programmed to mate only with their own "kind" and to produce replicas of themselves. When is this not so, as observed in nature? Even when the adaptation takes away the features that trigger mating behavior, they are still members of the same family and always will be. Which means that there never were walking whales. The fossils tell no story by themselves....scientists have to put words in their bony mouths.....or even their ears.

And that is the way with *all* myths: the characters in the myth aren't real unless you believe in them. I see no real difference here.

And I guess you will never see what you don't want to. But, isn't that true of all of us? Humans appear to have an inherent desire to please themselves. That little streak of "I want what I want", sometimes called "the selfish gene"....or in the Bible it is called a "treacherous heart".....it gets us into trouble most of the time. Jesus taught us to try and fight it. (Jeremiah 17:9; Proverbs 3:5-6)

Sorry, not everyone thinks like you do.

Ditto. We all think the way our personality dictates....so we are drawn to things that are compatible with what we want to believe. Time will tell I guess. What do atheists have to look forward to?

 

[Polymath257]

Why do human laws require a law giver? Do you say this because it is what you know from experience, or is there a principle reason? Is it because they dictate requirements?

Yes, precisely. Humans dictate laws because they want to set up standards for action and punishments for going against those standards.

So you are saying then that what describes something - how it works, is a law? Could you explain that please. perhaps you can use an example. As far as I know, a law can be described - you can describe how a law works, but a law dictates - it determines how things are required to work. Hence proscriptive.

Well, physical laws are descriptive: they *describe* how things do, in fact, work. For example, the statement that F=ma says that the acceleration of a particle times its mass is always equal to the force applied. No punishments are set up for violating this law: it is a description of what actually happens. proscriptive laws can be violated (and punishments assigned). Descriptive laws, if correct, are never violated (that's what it means to have the correct law).

Could you explain please, how a cause of a universal law would explain the origin of the law to one who does not know the cause. Why do you have to know the cause in order to recognize that the fixed universal law has a cause?

No, no. If it has a cause, the action of that cause is via a law. That means we are describing the original law as an application of the one giving the cause. In other words, the one giving the cause is the more fundamental one. But this means that the *most* fundamental laws *cannot* have a further explanation: any explanation would be based on a more fundamental law.

This isn't a matter of our knowing the law or not. In fact, it may well be that all the laws we currently know have further explanations. But that just means they aren't fundamental laws.

 

[Deeje]

Guess what the reward is for winning a Nobel Prize? It's over one million dollars and comes with great prestige and honour.
It would easily go to anyone who could demonstrably falsify evolution. Why no takers yet, if evolution is so obviously false?



You need to seriously ask yourself that question, if you truly believe what you've said above.

What I truly believe is that science itself cannot prove its own theory, so what hope would anyone have of falsifying something that can't be proven in the first place?

 

[Polymath257]

So a Red Fox fits neatly into classifications that supposedly indicate relationships. The domain, kingdom, phylum, class, family, genus and species indicate things that are not indicative of relationship at all. Similarity perhaps, but certainly not relationship. This is smoke and mirrors IMO.

And your conclusion that these have nothing to do with relationships, even though they agree with the degree of similarity in the DNA?

You see what you just said? All Darwin observed were different varieties of finches. The finches would never become some other kind of bird no matter how much time elapsed. Scientists assume this can happen by inference, but they have no way to test it.

No, this is where you misunderstand the claims that science makes. A descendant of a finch would still be classified as a finch, just like a descendant of the first mammals would still be classified as a mammal. And a descendant of the first apes would still be classified as an ape.

But, for example, the finches could well develop new characteristics and abilities that the ancestral finches did not have. That is evolution.

No test...no science. Birds are vertebrates...said as if all vertebrates must be related along the some imagined evolutionary line.....I believe science twists the truth to fit it all neatly into a box that no one seems to question except those who see clear evidence of design everywhere in nature. You see believers as 'collectively blind'...we see you the same way.

So, you don't think the classification of vertebrates together into a taxonomic grouping is a valid one? On what basis do you conclude that?

No species has ever been observed that stepped outside of its own taxonomic family. Adaptation produces variety within a family of creatures. This is I believe what is referred to as a "kind" in Genesis. Living things are programmed to mate only with their own "kind" and to produce replicas of themselves. When is this not so, as observed in nature? Even when the adaptation takes away the features that trigger mating behavior, they are still members of the same family and always will be. Which means that there never were walking whales. The fossils tell no story by themselves....scientists have to put words in their bony mouths.....or even their ears.

All this says is that whales are still mammals (they haven't stepped out of their taxonomic grouping). The modern whales would have the same taxonomic group as their ancestors that walked. They just adapted to new conditions and became water animals rather than land animals.

And I guess you will never see what you don't want to. But, isn't that true of all of us? Humans appear to have an inherent desire to please themselves. That little streak of "I want what I want", sometimes called "the selfish gene"....or in the Bible it is called a "treacherous heart".....it gets us into trouble most of the time. Jesus taught us to try and fight it. (Jeremiah 17:9; Proverbs 3:5-6)

Ditto. We all think the way our personality dictates....so we are drawn to things that are compatible with what we want to believe. Time will tell I guess. What do atheists have to look forward to?

Which is why science uses people from a variety of different backgrounds and viewpoints to criticize the conclusions made. Anyone can suggest a new test of the ideas and make a prediction of what would be observed *and then do the test*. Creationists don't do this. They simply don't ever do real science, which consists of making *testable* hypotheses and conducting tests that could potentially falsify pet concepts. Real scientists do this all the time (although they tend not to redo tests that were done many times hundreds of years ago). But whenever new techniques or equipment are produced, another decimal point is investigated and the ideas challenged.

 

[Polymath257]

What I truly believe is that science itself cannot prove its own theory, so what hope would anyone have of falsifying something that can't be proven in the first place?

And there we have the fundamental lack of understanding of how science works in a nutshell.