What idea in it makes you not think of evolution as true? And poll

[Hidingfromyou]

I changed my wording but you drew a lot of conclusions about me based on your bias, and not really knowing about who I am or what I believe.

Given that you're unable to address the argument I produced and are responding only with emotion, there's no further point in continuing this discussion.

All the best.

 

[GardenLady]

Cancel culture prevents me from mentioning a certain health issue of late....so I won't mention it or every forum will ban me (thank goodness we live in America, land of free speech and free press).

The constitutional right to free speech means the government cannot suppress or penalize protected speech. It does not mean that every individual, private business, website, or any other private entity has to put up with my bullsh!t or yours or provide a platform for it.

 

[Heyo]

I've recently tried a number of religion based forums seeking intelligent conversation around life's impossible questions. And in every one of them there have been trolls attempting to clutter up and pollute the threads with pointless, meaningless garbage in an apparent attempt to frustrate people into abandoning thier attempts of establishing human interactions in an age where people are becoming increasingly isolated.

What I can't understand is why. I can think of conspiracy theories where the wealthy and powerful seek to create great enough social disintegration to sieze power but its hard to believe that individuals would buy into this even if they are getting paid. It would be too easy to know where you are on the spectrum of right and wrong.

The alternative is there are lots lonely and angry people out there who can't bear the idea of other people conversing and do what they can to shut it down.

Both seem unlikely but one must be true as I can't think of a third option and the only thing that is certain is that the phenomenon is real.

Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice what can be equally explained by stupidity.
I can easily think of multiple scenarios where the trolls aren't malicious but simply haven't learned to communicate, where their need for attention overcomes their ability to communicate or their cultural background has a more indirect way to deal with difficult problems.
Thinking of your interlocutor as an idiot may not be nice but it is less likely to cause you stress or end in serious conflict than thinking of them as sane but malicious.

 

[AshT]

Given that you're unable to address the argument I produced and are responding only with emotion, there's no further point in continuing this discussion.

All the best.

I addressed your comments. You didn't produce an argument. You tried to restrict the conversation to arbitrary limitations of your own making. Not having an arguement you resorted to insults using false associations related to your baseless assumptions of my religious world view. Having no more ammunition you doubled down on that tactic. Calling me arrogant for thinking my beliefs are better than people who worship inanimate objects? Really? So in other words, in your opinion, my beliefs couldn't be more sophisticated than that?

But I agree, there is no point to this and it doesn't even address the topic or my comments on the topic. It's just strange to run into such religious bigotry and intollerance on a forum called religious forums. I mean, I run into it everywhere but didn't expect to find it here. I wasnt even guilty of proselytizing. I didn't bring up religion at all. I guess that doesn't matter to some people. It's guilt by false association.

 

[AshT]

Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice what can be equally explained by stupidity.
I can easily think of multiple scenarios where the trolls aren't malicious but simply haven't learned to communicate, where their need for attention overcomes their ability to communicate or their cultural background has a more indirect way to deal with difficult problems.
Thinking of your interlocutor as an idiot may not be nice but it is less likely to cause you stress or end in serious conflict than thinking of them as sane but malicious.

Yah, you are right, I agree with that. Thanks for your comments.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

I addressed your comments. You didn't produce an argument. You tried to restrict the conversation to arbitrary limitations of your own making. Not having an arguement you resorted to insults using false associations related to your baseless assumptions of my religious world view. Having no more ammunition you doubled down on that tactic. Calling me arrogant for thinking my beliefs are better than people who worship inanimate objects? Really? So in other words, in your opinion, my beliefs couldn't be more sophisticated than that?

But I agree, there is no point to this and it doesn't even address the topic or my comments on the topic. It's just strange to run into such religious bigotry and intollerance on a forum called religious forums. I mean, I run into it everywhere but didn't expect to find it here. I wasnt even guilty of proselytizing. I didn't bring up religion at all. I guess that doesn't matter to some people. It's guilt by false association.

Nope. I presented a challenge that you were entirely unable to answer. I asked you to present a single example of where theology added to our knowledge. Just one example, and you were entirely unable to do so. So unable that you became emotional and claimed that I called you stupid.

And you did that after I explained to you how enculturation works. That was about the time that you arrogantly denigrated believers of other religions.

Seriously, our conversation is very disappointing. All you have been demonstrating is exactly what I wrote, that you're completely encultured into your belief system and incapable of understanding how people outside your belief system function. Worse, you just make fun of them.

I don't think that's wisdom. It's akin to failing object permanence, but for culture and cognition.

 

[AshT]

Nope. I presented a challenge that you were entirely unable to answer. I asked you to present a single example of where theology added to our knowledge. Just one example, and you were entirely unable to do so. So unable that you became emotional and claimed that I called you stupid.

And you did that after I explained to you how enculturation works. That was about the time that you arrogantly denigrated believers of other religions.

Seriously, our conversation is very disappointing. All you have been demonstrating is exactly what I wrote, that you're completely encultured into your belief system and incapable of understanding how people outside your belief system function. Worse, you just make fun of them.

I don't think that's wisdom. It's akin to failing object permanence, but for culture and cognition.

That's not true because I didn't bring theology into the conversation, you did. You attacked my ideas based on your false assumption about my world view. I explained why my religious beliefs were irrelevant to the conversation. Why should I even have to defend a premise that was not my own?

 

[Hidingfromyou]

That's not true because I didn't bring theology into the conversation, you did. You attacked my ideas based on your false assumption about my world view. I explained why my religious beliefs were irrelevant to the conversation. Why should I even have to defend a premise that was not my own?

Your ideas are based in your belief system, which are a product of your enculturation.

When I explained that to you, you got very upset.

 

[AshT]

Your ideas are based in your belief system, which are a product of your enculturation.

When I explained that to you, you got very upset.

We are now repeating the conversation because I turned it around and pointed out how easy it was to say the same thing about you.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

We are now repeating the conversation because I turned it around and pointed out how easy it was to say the same thing about you.

You were unable to answer my previous post about how I accept this situation without problem. You're the one who doesn't.

Also, you're the one who arrogantly claimed your religious beliefs were better than people whose religions included statues and so on.

 

[AshT]

You were unable to answer my previous post about how I accept this situation without problem. You're the one who doesn't.

Also, you're the one who arrogantly claimed your religious beliefs were better than people whose religions included statues and so on.

Aren't you tired of this? I'm not defending a premise that isn't mine and you keep turning the topic towards my religious world view. I can't believe I've wasted this much time on this. But you achieved your goal. You, like so many others do, have made this thread useless and pointless. Congratulations, you achieved your goal.

 

[Link]

I think the question in title is enough
But I'll explain, I only saw when reading the Bible (I'm in Isaiah now, its a big journey!) the opening part as a story about how everything is, like people who said "because a huge snake died we have this huge river now" or maybe "because perseus took fire we have fire" an old explanation that made a God involved to do a ritual with but just a story

People do not just see like that way and why?
Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll

I vote yes

I believe irreducible complexity (both versions) are true. The mind is an example of irreducible complexity.

Hence, to me evolution is false, though evolution happens, not the way evolutionist teach.

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

Hi Leahpolitan. Good afternoon. If you calculate and estimate the genealogies that are given in the Bible, you will find that life has only been on earth for a few thousand years. Several chronologists who have undertaken the task of calculating the age of the earth based on the Bible have their calculations range from 5501 to 3836 B.C.E

That feels strange to have in mind, its like God was here yesterday

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

All life changes over time. This idea is not very controversial in my opinion.

The issue revolves around origins and the idea that all life sprang into being from a single source, randomly created in the primordial ooze.

That is a highly improbable scenario. Back in the day when this idea was presented it was believed that individual living cells were structurally very simplistic. We now know that isn't the case.

What do you think happened instead?

 

[Leahpolitan_icecream]

I believe irreducible complexity (both versions) are true. The mind is an example of irreducible complexity.

Hence, to me evolution is false, though evolution happens, not the way evolutionist teach.

What is mind?

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe irreducible complexity...

It has long been discredited, and even thrown out of court.

The mind is an example of irreducible complexity.

Baseless assertion.

 

[Audie]

It has long been discredited, and even thrown out of court.


Baseless assertion.

Guess hes never seen a planaria brain.

 

[night912]

The issue revolves around origins and the idea that all life sprang into being from a single source, randomly created in the primordial ooze.

I'm not aware of anybody who accepts that as the explanation for the origin of life on earth. In fact, the only place and people that I've observed using that idea are creationists who are dishonestly telling their fellow creationists that that is the Theory of Evolution, which is nowhere near to what the actual theory is saying.

That is a highly improbable scenario. Back in the day when this idea was presented it was believed that individual living cells were structurally very simplistic. We now know that isn't the case.

Back in those days, the idea that a god named Zeus resides on Mt. Olympus, was also believed by numerous people. And...?

We also know, actually it has been for a while, now that not all life sprang into being from a single source.

 

[Heyo]

We also know, actually it has been for a while, now that not all life sprang into being from a single source.

[citation needed]

 

[night912]

The mind is an example of irreducible complexity.

Here's Michael Behe's definition:

"...a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Source

Can you name all the parts of the mind that when one of those part is removed, the mind will cease to exist. And can you also provide some evidence of known cases of that happening.

Keep in mind, the brain is not the mind.