You are wrong. There is no god.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. Evolution is how traits change as they are passed along from parent to child. I'm sure you agree with this right? You are not a clone of your parents right? You express genes that your parents didn't express right?

I am talking about absolute origins, Frankie. You are talking about what happened after the fact. How did this blind and mindless process that we call "evolution" get to the point where highly complex and specified functions like brains, minds, eyes, ears, etc...how did we get all of these things from such a process that didn't know what it was doing and also couldn't think or see? I can understand completely how a intelligent mind can do these things, but what I can't understand is how a blind and mindless process can.

2. How can a mindless blind process create eyes and brains? Pressures to survive. The fear of death is a powerful motivator. Remember the 1st part about evolution is how parents can pass on traits, these traits mutations that occur arise because of pressures and can just as easily die off.

You are talking as if evolution knew that survival was a good thing. In order to do what you need to do to survive, you have to KNOW what to do in order to survive.

What exactly is the brain though? Rats have brains, would you say your brain and a rats brain is the same? Or are you curious about the issue of the mind? What's the difference between your eyes and an octopus?

And that is my point. Any kind of organism that has any kind of cognitive faculty, the same thing applies to it. Regardless of how complex it is, the same thing applies. So not only do you have to explain away these things for humans, but any kind of organism...bats, rats, flies, frogs, ANYTHING.

Shrug you don't need to answer these questions because you already believe what you believe. I see nothing wrong or a flaw with that. Humanity has always been like that since the past, it's a good diversity for us.

I just want answers to my questions, Frankie. We know so much right? Well, enlighten me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

By having no goal in mind*.

Evolution is the monkeys with typewriters writing Shakespear.


*figuratively "mind"

Thanks for not answering the question, Willa.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am talking about absolute origins, Frankie. You are talking about what happened after the fact. How did this blind and mindless process that we call "evolution" get to the point where highly complex and specified functions like brains, minds, eyes, ears, etc...how did we get all of these things from such a process that didn't know what it was doing and also couldn't think or see? I can understand completely how a intelligent mind can do these things, but what I can't understand is how a blind and mindless process can.



You are talking as if evolution knew that survival was a good thing. In order to do what you need to do to survive, you have to KNOW what to do in order to survive.



And that is my point. Any kind of organism that has any kind of cognitive faculty, the same thing applies to it. Regardless of how complex it is, the same thing applies. So not only do you have to explain away these things for humans, but any kind of organism...bats, rats, flies, frogs, ANYTHING.



I just want answers to my questions, Frankie. We know so much right? Well, enlighten me.

But the origins is not what evolution discusses. It's why I gave you the definition of Evolution. I.e non-life to life isn't the domain of evolution. How did the blind process get to the point of brains and eyes? That's a question of natural selection, Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Evolution doesn't know Survival is a good thing, all it means is that if you survive you pass on your genes. What does that mean? That means that you can live for one millisecond, but if in that millisecond you get to pop out an offspring congrats you've participated in evolution. Some species of insects spend their entire time as a grub eating, then when they become adults they live only long enough to mate and die, Salmon die after mating, bacteria multiply at astounding rates, viruses as well. The race is to "who can make more of themselves" that is the survival. It's not the "phew I dodged a bullet so now i'm still alive" it's "phew I got to rub one out to a chick before I died lol"

So what does that mean? That means that the things that couldn't pass on offsprings, they died and that was the end of their line. The things that could produce offsprings, they kept passing on those traits, over time those traits change, why? Because of mating. You introduce genes that you don't normally express, genes that you don't have activated, but they may have, genes you have deleted but they dont'. Sometimes even deletions in the same chromosome but just from a different parent is enough to cause a change, take for instance angelman syndrome and prader-willis syndrom. Then you put the pressures of the environment as well. That is the big thing people miss, the environment influences if you will pass on offsprings. But just because you made offsprings doesn't mean they will produce offsprings.

But when you say ID, I know you are talking about a particular God, but the thing is they are not mutually exclusive. I hope you do realize that.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But the origins is not what evolution discusses.

Actually that is what evolution discusses. Charles Darwin wrote the ORIGIN OF SPECIES, which is like the bible for evolutionists. So what is the keyword? ORIGIN!!!

It's why I gave you the definition of Evolution. I.e non-life to life isn't the domain of evolution.

I never said that life from non-life was the domain of evolution, so I don't know why you are setting up straw man.

How did the blind process get to the point of brains and eyes? That's a question of natural selection, Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I don't normally do links, but I went on ahead and read it to prove a point. There is a lot of question begging going on within the link, just like I knew it would be. So here is what I want you to do; I want you to quote the exact paragraph or whatever, which explains how a mindless and blind PROCESS could ever get to the point of generating EYES. That is what I want. I've scanned the link, and I just don't see it. A lot of question begging.

Evolution doesn't know Survival is a good thing, all it means is that if you survive you pass on your genes. What does that mean? That means that you can live for one millisecond, but if in that millisecond you get to pop out an offspring congrats you've participated in evolution.

Ok so what does that have to do with my question? I am asking how does a mindless and blind process produce eyes and brains, all things that it lacks, and you are telling me about survival?

Some species of insects spend their entire time as a grub eating, then when they become adults they live only long enough to mate and die, Salmon die after mating, bacteria multiply at astounding rates, viruses as well. The race is to "who can make more of themselves" that is the survival. It's not the "phew I dodged a bullet so now i'm still alive" it's "phew I got to rub one out to a chick before I died lol"

All of that is fine and dandy, but my naked question hasn't been clothed with an answer.

So what does that mean? That means that the things that couldn't pass on offsprings, they died and that was the end of their line. The things that could produce offsprings, they kept passing on those traits, over time those traits change, why? Because of mating. You introduce genes that you don't normally express, genes that you don't have activated, but they may have, genes you have deleted but they dont'. Sometimes even deletions in the same chromosome but just from a different parent is enough to cause a change, take for instance angelman syndrome and prader-willis syndrom. Then you put the pressures of the environment as well. That is the big thing people miss, the environment influences if you will pass on offsprings. But just because you made offsprings doesn't mean they will produce offsprings.

Frankie, when you talk about passing on traits, you are fast forwarding to what happens AFTER the "eye gene" was created. That is the question, how could this blind and mindless process create specified things that it lacked.

But when you say ID, I know you are talking about a particular God, but the thing is they are not mutually exclusive. I hope you do realize that.

Absolutely. ID doesn't tell us who the ID'er is...it just makes the case for...ID..at the very minimum.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Actually that is what evolution discusses. Charles Darwin wrote the ORIGIN OF SPECIES, which is like the bible for evolutionists. So what is the keyword? ORIGIN!!!



I never said that life from non-life was the domain of evolution, so I don't know why you are setting up straw man.



I don't normally do links, but I went on ahead and read it to prove a point. There is a lot of question begging going on within the link, just like I knew it would be. So here is what I want you to do; I want you to quote the exact paragraph or whatever, which explains how a mindless and blind PROCESS could ever get to the point of generating EYES. That is what I want. I've scanned the link, and I just don't see it. A lot of question begging.



Ok so what does that have to do with my question? I am asking how does a mindless and blind process produce eyes and brains, all things that it lacks, and you are telling me about survival?



All of that is fine and dandy, but my naked question hasn't been clothed with an answer.



Frankie, when you talk about passing on traits, you are fast forwarding to what happens AFTER the "eye gene" was created. That is the question, how could this blind and mindless process create specified things that it lacked.



Absolutely. ID doesn't tell us who the ID'er is...it just makes the case for...ID..at the very minimum.

There is no Eye gene though...and whether you realize it or not, you are essentially claiming that evolution means life came from non-life, and you have made the comment before.

Another mistake you make is thinking that people still stick to the Darwinian view of evolution, and I can tell that you have not actually read Origin of species if you are going to think that it is talking about the origin of life itself.

Survival has everything to do about it. The things that got "eyes" and "brains", got them because as the pressures of the environment changes, the things with those slight minute changes are what survived to reproduce.

The things however that were able to keep surviving in environments didn't develop "eyes" or "brains", why? Because they were able to pass on the genes that didn't require them.

It's about survival to pass on your genes. If you survive to pass it on, you pass it on, if you don't you don't. You say what would make something develop an eye? But what is an eye? What is the difference between a flatworms eyes and our own? What is the point of the eyes?

I certainly understand why you accept your view, it's easier to accept. IT doesn't leave any questions, and it doesn't involve having to dig far. You want answers that fit the conclusions you already had. If that is satisfactory to you and if that helps you sleep at night, by all means keep it. Unlike some on here perhaps, I don't look to change your view point, there are points that you mention about evolution which are just wrong by what it explains and explores, and so I offer the explanations to the best that I can. I don't expect you to change your view from a conversation with me, but I do hope you will fix your arguments to actually represent what evolution is. It's fine to be against anything you want, but you should at least know the facts about what you are arguing against I think.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There is no Eye gene though...and whether you realize it or not, you are essentially claiming that evolution means life came from non-life, and you have made the comment before.

What I said was; evolution ASSUMES that life came from non-life. If you don't have a viable empirical theory as to how life came come from non-life, then you cant logically bypass that key factor and just fast forward straight to macroevolution. That is putting the cart before the horse fallacy.

Another mistake you make is thinking that people still stick to the Darwinian view of evolution, and I can tell that you have not actually read Origin of species if you are going to think that it is talking about the origin of life itself.

I've never said that evolution is the theory which attempts to explain life from non-life. Once again, straw man.

Survival has everything to do about it. The things that got "eyes" and "brains", got them because as the pressures of the environment changes, the things with those slight minute changes are what survived to reproduce.

You are telling me THAT it got it. I want to know HOW it got it. I don't for one second believe the theory, but for those that do believe it, explain how can such a thing occur.

The things however that were able to keep surviving in environments didn't develop "eyes" or "brains", why? Because they were able to pass on the genes that didn't require them.

That is the theory. I want to know HOW it occured. Gen 1 is my theory. You've told me yours, so I've told you mines.

It's about survival to pass on your genes. If you survive to pass it on, you pass it on, if you don't you don't.

You just don't get it, do you? If I pass something on, I have to possess it, right? How did I ever get to the point of possessing it from a previous point of NOT possessing it? How can we get eyes and brains from a process that doesn't have eyes and brains?

You say what would make something develop an eye? But what is an eye? What is the difference between a flatworms eyes and our own? What is the point of the eyes?

I certainly understand why you accept your view, it's easier to accept. IT doesn't leave any questions, and it doesn't involve having to dig far.

I can certainly understand why you people accept naturalism over Christian theism. No accountabilty.

You want answers that fit the conclusions you already had. If that is satisfactory to you and if that helps you sleep at night, by all means keep it. Unlike some on here perhaps, I don't look to change your view point, there are points that you mention about evolution which are just wrong by what it explains and explores, and so I offer the explanations to the best that I can. I don't expect you to change your view from a conversation with me, but I do hope you will fix your arguments to actually represent what evolution is. It's fine to be against anything you want, but you should at least know the facts about what you are arguing against I think.

Its funny how you are saying all of this without even answering my question. I have reasons for believing what I believe. We exist. We didn't have to exist. I can either believe that a IDer created us with brains, eyes, ears, etc. Or I can believe that eyes, brains, ears, etc, came from a mindless and blind process. I just can't believe that. If believing in that is the price of naturalism/atheism/agnosticism....then I will leave you to it.

And not only that, but you are clearly attacking straw man. I never claimed anything you accused me of. I don't know what part of this you don't understand, but please, lets not be disingenuous.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What I said was; evolution ASSUMES that life came from non-life. If you don't have a viable empirical theory as to how life came come from non-life, then you cant logically bypass that key factor and just fast forward straight to macroevolution. That is putting the cart before the horse fallacy.



I've never said that evolution is the theory which attempts to explain life from non-life. Once again, straw man.



You are telling me THAT it got it. I want to know HOW it got it. I don't for one second believe the theory, but for those that do believe it, explain how can such a thing occur.



That is the theory. I want to know HOW it occured. Gen 1 is my theory. You've told me yours, so I've told you mines.



You just don't get it, do you? If I pass something on, I have to possess it, right? How did I ever get to the point of possessing it from a previous point of NOT possessing it? How can we get eyes and brains from a process that doesn't have eyes and brains?







I can certainly understand why you people accept naturalism over Christian theism. No accountabilty.



Its funny how you are saying all of this without even answering my question. I have reasons for believing what I believe. We exist. We didn't have to exist. I can either believe that a IDer created us with brains, eyes, ears, etc. Or I can believe that eyes, brains, ears, etc, came from a mindless and blind process. I just can't believe that. If believing in that is the price of naturalism/atheism/agnosticism....then I will leave you to it.

And not only that, but you are clearly attacking straw man. I never claimed anything you accused me of. I don't know what part of this you don't understand, but please, lets not be disingenuous.

You just said that evolution assumes that living comes from non-living, which it doesn't...how am I making a strawman?

What evolution actually would indicate is that all living organisms have a common ancestor, how that ancestor came to be...is't being answered by evolution, it doesn't assume an ID God or not. The reason it disagrees however is that ID says all organisms were created as is. Again not how something that was "not alive" became "Alive"

So that wasn't a strawman.

 

[Thief]

You just said that evolution assumes that living comes from non-living, which it doesn't...how am I making a strawman?

What evolution actually would indicate is that all living organisms have a common ancestor, how that ancestor came to be...is't being answered by evolution, it doesn't assume an ID God or not. The reason it disagrees however is that ID says all organisms were created as is. Again not how something that was "not alive" became "Alive"

So that wasn't a strawman.

I didn't think ID said any such thing.
I thought ID included evolution......with God in the background tweaking the design as it develops.
With each birth as a slightly different form...

 

[s2a]

I have had religious people tell me that deep down I must know that god does exist, and that my attempt at disbelieving god is stupid.
I always found that way of thinking ridiculous.
I never understood why people would say stupid things like that.

But something occured to me today.
I am sitting sitting in my sofa under a blanket drinking tea and feeling sorry for myself because my throat and ears hurt, looking out the window on the beautiful autumn colors. Apparently I get really philosophical in situations like this
What occured to me is that I am guilty of the exact same stupid way of thinking.

When I hear religious people talk about their deities and how their religion tells them how to live and how to look at the world, I always think "how can these people bring them selves to live like this? Deep down they must know that it is probably all made up."
I wonder how people can spend their lives pretending that something is true.

Just like those religious people who can't believe that I don't actually believe that any gods exist, I can't really believe that some people actually believe that gods are real.

To me my way of seeing the world makes sense to me, and I guess I find it very difficult to understand people who see things differently, because it so obviously doesn't make sense to me.

So my question is: Is it possible to understand, I mean really understand, other people who see the world differently from yourself?

Yes.

No.

Maybe?

Next?

Or perhaps... time to mature and seek answers for yourself as a "solitary" thinker...

...I dunno.

Even when you are lost and seek directions from an utter stranger to attain your ultimate destination... they could be ""wrong"... even purposely so...

Ooops.

Maybe, just maybe...it's just on you to get there...

 

[nazz]

I suppose people do all sorts of things out of sense of needing certainty. Personally, I don't require it, and instead use reason to provide the most likely and consistent explanations for things. You may want to give it a try some day.

I do so every day

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I didn't think ID said any such thing.
I thought ID included evolution......with God in the background tweaking the design as it develops.
With each birth as a slightly different form...

Some versions say that, but I think the type that I mentioned is the type he argues for.

 

[Quintessence]

So my question is: Is it possible to understand, I mean really understand, other people who see the world differently from yourself?

I would think this hinges on what precisely you mean by "really understand."

Arguably, humans don't "really understand" anything given we're not omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

 

[Whiterain]

Telepathy isn't accepted or proven as a form of communication yet. That study needs to
be established.

In my mind many machinations take place, things that would offend, hurt and outrage. Various Lords and Goddess' my mind has made me and proven to me, yet I along with many others remain here. Alas

So I've seen The All Father, as well as many Gods in various forms. They do change themselves like people do in appearance, regularly.

Moral of the story, apparently. Because all that has been proven to me can not be proven to others through me, to my knowledge, lest they hath similar experience or knowledge.

Thomas, "Lord, why not say something yourself?" to his people

Odin, "Bollocks to that." later, "Bollocks to all of that." (Midgard)

But not really.. The Lords devices are their own. I'm quite convinced this is how it works.

Earlier going on about his first powder gun and how happy it made him on the hunt. Quite.

It's 36'F Noon, October where I live. Record breaker. Weather cain't be God.

 

[George-ananda]

So my question is: Is it possible to understand, I mean really understand, other people who see the world differently from yourself?

I think in the classic western Theist vs. Atheist debates both sides understand the basic arguments of both sides. For whatever complicated personal reasons and history, people often identify themselves with one camp or the other. Probably personality types are involved. Some present a false bravado of certainty as there is a threat to their sense of 'what they are about' by the other side.

My opinion is the 'Does God exist?' question in Abrahamic culture is not satisfactorily answered with 'Yes' or 'No'. It's more complicated than fundamentalism on one end and materialism on the other end. I looked east myself.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You just said that evolution assumes that living comes from non-living, which it doesn't...how am I making a strawman?

You said that I thought the Origin of Species was the same thing as the origin of life...as if that is my view.

What evolution actually would indicate is that all living organisms have a common ancestor

And what Christian theism "actually would indicate is that all living organism have a commone DESIGNER".

, how that ancestor came to be...is't being answered by evolution

Not only is it not being answered by evolution, but it isn't being answered by science, period.

, it doesn't assume an ID God or not.

Never said it did.

The reason it disagrees however is that ID says all organisms were created as is. Again not how something that was "not alive" became "Alive"

The origin specimen of any particular "kind" was created as is. There are many different varieties of these kinds, but they are all limited to their kind.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You said that I thought the Origin of Species was the same thing as the origin of life...as if that is my view.



And what Christian theism "actually would indicate is that all living organism have a commone DESIGNER".



Not only is it not being answered by evolution, but it isn't being answered by science, period.



Never said it did.



The origin specimen of any particular "kind" was created as is. There are many different varieties of these kinds, but they are all limited to their kind.

It's very much implied in your message, sorry if I misread what you wrote.


Right, so you do not agree that traits change as they are inherited.

Got it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I do so every day

Yeah, I suppose not everyone has the same capacity for reason.

 

[s2a]

Telepathy isn't accepted or proven as a form of communication yet. That study needs to
be established.

Allow me to understand better then...


...is telepathy a science without foundation. or a fact lacking any evidence (as yet)?

In my mind many machinations take place, things that would offend, hurt and outrage. Various Lords and Goddess' my mind has made me and proven to me, yet I along with many others remain here. Alas

Alas indeed that neither existence nor capacity of thought are uniquely human...

So I've seen The All Father, as well as many Gods in various forms. They do change themselves like people do in appearance, regularly.

Of course... any examples pop to mind for study or comparison?

Moral of the story, apparently. Because all that has been proven to me can not be proven to others through me, to my knowledge, lest they hath similar experience or knowledge.

"If I can't understand it or accept it, then it can not be true"

*rolls eyes*

Thomas, "Lord, why not say something yourself?" to his people

Odin, "Bollocks to that." later, "Bollocks to all of that." (Midgard)

But not really.. The Lords devices are their own. I'm quite convinced this is how it works.

How's that workin' out for you?

Earlier going on about his first powder gun and how happy it made him on the hunt. Quite.

It's 36'F Noon, October where I live. Record breaker. Weather cain't be God.

Get back to us when sobriety takes hold again...ok?

 

[Thief]

Allow me to understand better then...


...is telepathy a science without foundation. or a fact lacking any evidence (as yet)?

If you can muster any belief in the life after death.....
Telepathy will be the manner and means of communication.

Here in this life....I write it...you read it.
I speak it....you hear it.
And the same in return.

Next life....no such thing can happen.
If you 'hear' anything at all....it will go straight to your thoughts.

Therefore, it is written....
Fear not who ever might harm the flesh.
Fear instead He who can rend the soul.

I suspect this to be true.

 

[Khubla]

Let it be remembered that all religions of the world was born in the childhood of our species. Children make religion, Grown-ups create science. A child’s imagination is more active than its power of reasoning. It is easier for it to fancy then to see. It thinks less then it guesses. The wild flight of fancy is checked only by experience. Religion is the science of the child. Science is the religion of the mature. The multitude is ever joined to its idols; let them alone, I speak to the discerning few. I speak to the mature minds who have left their idols, toys, fancies, and childhoods behind.