Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[gnostic]

God foreknew of Adam's fall.

That demonstrate God is stupid, because him supposedly being all-powerful and all-knowing, and yet to go ahead and make mistake anyway, knowing that he create something that would fail, showed illogical Genesis 1 to 3 are.

Wow, your logic know is so superbly illogical.

A SUPPOSED perfect being creating imperfect beings, just show what Gnosticism have always said about the creator of Adam and this world: that the creator is actually a Demiurge - a false god and a fallen being - the true devil.

In Gnosticism, the Demiurge is known by the names:

1. Yaldabaoth, "son of chaos",
2. Saklas, the "fool",
3. Samael, the "blind god".

According to the Apocryphron of John, only an imperfect being can create an imperfect world. And the Demiurge aka Archon ("ruler") aka Creator aka Yaldabaoth was an imperfect and lower being, an offspring of Sophia ("wisdom"), born with lion head and serpent body.

Here, the fall wasn't caused by Adam or Eve, or the serpent or Satan, but by this Yaldabaoth, and his "fall", as you would call it, occurred the moment he was born.

With the creation being imperfect, it would only make sense if the creator was also imperfect.

Not that I believe in the gnostic creation myth, but in many ways, the Apocryphron of John actually made more sense than Genesis 1 to 3.

My points in all this, is that perfect creator making imperfect creation don't at all make sense. The imperfect creation would only make sense, if the creator himself was imperfect.

Sources:

The Nag Hammadi codices:

• Apocryphron Of John, AoJ
• Hypostasis Of The Archons, HotA
• On The Origin Of The World, OtOotW

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

I grasp the vast number of anomalies present, now, in macro-evolution or switching between "kinds". I know 99% of fossils are sea life and that the fossil record is correlated well to a biblical, global flood.

Sorry, that's all quite wrong.
There is no such thing as 'kinds' - it's a childish idea - 'dog' kind, 'cat' kind, 'cow' kind ...
The fossil record conclusively DISproves the ancient story of a global flood.

I suggest you study up on what evolution actually says.
Like many creationists you don't seem well informed on the topic, sorry.


Kapyong

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, that's all quite wrong.
There is no such thing as 'kinds' - it's a childish idea - 'dog' kind, 'cat' kind, 'cow' kind ...
The fossil record conclusively DISproves the ancient story of a global flood.

I suggest you study up on what evolution actually says.
Like many creationists you don't seem well informed on the topic, sorry.

You don't have to apologise for his ignorance, Kapyong, because his ignorance is of his own making.

If anything, billiardsball should be apologising to everyone else.

He arrogantly never admit that he is wrong, no matter many times anyone point out his error; he often make excuses by moving the goalpost or he would flat out deny it or ignore it.

Since I have been here, I have not seen him once admitting someone who disagree with him being right. I would guess it is his ego.

Lastly, he is incapable to learn from his mistakes, let alone admitting them. He is incapable of learning altogether.

 

[McBell]

You don't have to apologise for his ignorance, Kapyong, because his ignorance is of his own making.

If anything, billiardsball should be apologising to everyone else.

He arrogantly never admit that he is wrong, no matter many times anyone point out his error; he often make excuses by moving the goalpost or he would flat out deny it or ignore it.

Since I have been here, I have not seen him once admitting someone who disagree with him being right. I would guess it is his ego.

Lastly, he is incapable to learn from his mistakes, let alone admitting them. He is incapable of learning altogether.

There is a difference between being unable to learn and being unwilling to learn.

 

[gnostic]

There is a difference between being unable to learn and being unwilling to learn.

With BilliardsBall, it is both.

 

[DawudTalut]

Oximoron warning.....

1=No
2=Creation+guided evolution
Under What Conditions, if any, Would You Worship a Deity?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You can't have evidences for design, because you have no evidences for designer, or God.

If you did then present this nonexistent designer to us. That the only way to demonstrate conclusively that the designer is real, not your absurd claims, which no one believe in. Your credibility has long since evaporated, because your you have made one too many dishonest claims.

This so-called evidences of yours is nothing more than fallacious logic and circular reasoning.

There is tremendous evidence for coherence of design in every science arena we can name. Even when scientists consider things like wave patterns, chaotic behaviors, and fractals, they find evidence of intense design, coherence, logic and math inside things considered random by mere human observation.

Where you misspoke was in saying:

If you did then present this nonexistent designer to us.

No one presented Jesus Christ to me conclusively, I had to meet Him on His terms. You aren't an exception to the human race. Why do you merit special treatment? If you want to know God, you shall!

 

[BilliardsBall]

If it's everywhere, how do you how undesigned things look like?

Ciao

- viole

Name something that is random, and not designed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And yet, He created him? if you knew in advance that your next child will become someone like Hitler, would you try to have that child?



Obviously, we do not need to believe in talking serpents to understand the genesis of the immune system.

Ciao

- viole

I think you are confusing Adam and Eve, who taught their children to sacrifice unto God and to worship God, with Adolf Hitler. This sort of confusion stems from a mind and heart not devoted to God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Gday all,



Sorry, that's all quite wrong.
There is no such thing as 'kinds' - it's a childish idea - 'dog' kind, 'cat' kind, 'cow' kind ...
The fossil record conclusively DISproves the ancient story of a global flood.

I suggest you study up on what evolution actually says.
Like many creationists you don't seem well informed on the topic, sorry.


Kapyong

I'm aware of how modern taxonomy diverges from "kind". I'm trying to use lay terms, sorry.

The fossil record informs us re: the Flood and vice versa. It would help, though, if instead of saying, "You're wrong!" you would cite facts.

 

[McBell]

There is tremendous evidence for coherence of design in every science arena we can name. Even when scientists consider things like wave patterns, chaotic behaviors, and fractals, they find evidence of intense design, coherence, logic and math inside things considered random by mere human observation.

Where you misspoke was in saying:



No one presented Jesus Christ to me conclusively, I had to meet Him on His terms. You aren't an exception to the human race. Why do you merit special treatment? If you want to know God, you shall!

you need to work on your back peddling.

 

[McBell]

Name something that is random, and not designed.

Snow flakes

 

[Valjean]

There is tremendous evidence for coherence of design in every science arena we can name. Even when scientists consider things like wave patterns, chaotic behaviors, and fractals, they find evidence of intense design, coherence, logic and math inside things considered random by mere human observation.

This is just matter and energy conforming to the laws of physics. There is coherence because this is the only way it's possible for things to behave without violating natural law.
Now if there were periodic perturbations in the laws of Nature, that might be evidence of a an intentional "God" altering His own laws of nature, but this isn't what we see. The laws of Nature remain inviolate, erasing any evidence of divine intervention.

 

[gnostic]

No one presented Jesus Christ to me conclusively, I had to meet Him on His terms. You aren't an exception to the human race. Why do you merit special treatment? If you want to know God, you shall!

And you think Jesus is the designer...all based on the words of the gospels, which evangelicals like to twist.

Not all Christians believe that he is God, and some of the passages clearly contradict those who do believe him to be God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is just matter and energy conforming to the laws of physics. There is coherence because this is the only way it's possible for things to behave without violating natural law.
Now if there were periodic perturbations in the laws of Nature, that might be evidence of a an intentional "God" altering His own laws of nature, but this isn't what we see. The laws of Nature remain inviolate, erasing any evidence of divine intervention.

The laws of nature are inductively observed. Perturbations in the law were observed, called miraculous. What you have seen and what I've seen have differed. The laws of nature aren't inviolate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And you think Jesus is the designer...all based on the words of the gospels, which evangelicals like to twist.

Not all Christians believe that he is God, and some of the passages clearly contradict those who do believe him to be God.

The post above would indeed be goal post shifting. Jesus, or if you like, simply God, will reveal Himself to you if you are open. Are you open or closed to the possibilities here?

 

[viole]

Name something that is random, and not designed.

That is not my point.

If everything is designed, how do I know how undesigned things look like? I expect to need those, for comparison reasons.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is not my point.

If everything is designed, how do I know how undesigned things look like? I expect to need those, for comparison reasons.

Ciao

- viole

1. I didn't say design is everything (all in all) but everywhere (all pervasive).

2. I asked you for an example of an undesigned thing. If you are unable to provide an example, you cede my point, and are saying that all things are designed.

3. Further, if you don't know how to compare designed with undersigned things, you have not earned the right to say the universe is undersigned/random OR designed/created.

 

[viole]

1. I didn't say design is everything (all in all) but everywhere (all pervasive).

Yes, everywhere. Ergo there is nowhere things that are undesigned. So, how do you know how undesigned things look like if design is everywhere? How did Paley know the watch on the beach was designed if the sand surrounding is designed too? Why didn't he use the beach instead of the watch for his analogy?

2. I asked you for an example of an undesigned thing. If you are unable to provide an example, you cede my point, and are saying that all things are designed.

I am not ceding anything, I just told you it was not my point. But if are really so obsessed about this design thing, I give you one undesigned thing: God. Am I right?

3. Further, if you don't know how to compare designed with undersigned things, you have not earned the right to say the universe is undersigned/random OR designed/created.

Well, I think you are unable to do that. Necessarily, since you never saw an undesigned thing in all your life, if we take at face value your claim that design is everywhere.

By the way, the dichotomy random/ undesigned contains so many fallacies that it is a pain to count them. For instance, that would entail that God is random, by being undesigned, allegedely. And physics is full of true random things that would automatically provide you evidence of undesigned things, if random = undesigned.

By the way, what do you mean with random? Do you have a particular probability distribution in mind? Random does not mean anything without specfying the set of possible outcomes and the experiment to reach one of them. And this specification must be exact and unambiguous. Otherwise it is just nebulous and fuzzy thinking, even thought I am aware of its great importance in order to be "spiritual"

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

2. I asked you for an example of an undesigned thing. If you are unable to provide an example, you cede my point, and are saying that all things are designed.

An example was given, snowflakes, you completely ignored it...

3. Further, if you don't know how to compare designed with undersigned things, you have not earned the right to say the universe is undersigned/random OR designed/created.

YOU have been the one who seems unable to tell the difference between designed and undesigned.
For you have been flat out asked numerous times to describe what an undesigned thing would look like and you have flat out ignored the request every time.