Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Stuu]

Already done.

Fail.

Tell us more about how Darwinists are never interested in talking about evidence, Stripe.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Fail.

Nope.

It's right there in my omnibus post.

Darwinists hate ideas.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stuu]

The link said you cannot simply count rings and be accurate.

It depends who 'you' are.

Christianity isn't going to die. There is a God. This is a projection that just isn't going to come true. You are overtly hopeful about what is just not going to happen.

I'd give it 50 years at the most, before there is only a small minority of a rump of christianity, effectively irrelevant. It might not seem like that where you live, but you many not appreciate just how much of a freak the US is compared with the rest of the developed world when it comes to christianity.

Disagree. I've seen the theory. Often, it is an uncommitted 'scholar' that starts these bad rumors and poor theories in the first place, NOT exegetical acrobatics. Higher Criticism is exegetical acrobatics and incredulous theorizing because they cannot believe it. Not my problem. Theirs, and yours for being the dupe.

Obviously you are welcome to a fact-free opinion that disregards the overwhelming consensus of scholars.

Nope, that'd be indoctrination. I realize you don't believe so, but I rather give them "this is natural selection." It is up to a student to decide if it is the 'best.' You and I aren't (imho) doing students a favor when we tell them how to think past understanding. They have to categorize in their own minds.

No, that would be a form of intellectual child abuse, and an abrogation of a young person's basic right to know about what has really happened in natural history on this planet, so whether it is for the young person's general education towards being a responsible educated citizen in a democracy, or into further education in a biological science, that student must not be hamstrung by the neglect of a backward cult that believes and perpetrates lies. Every argument we hear from a school board who want to qualify the education about science that students get, to try to underplay the importance of evolution by natural selection, makes that county and that state a laughing stock around the rest of the world, and you should know that.

Obviously there would be ways to allow students to engage, explore the concepts and understand critically how they work, but this is not a matter of anyone 'deciding for themselves' because there is no decision to be made. Unless you want to have them choose between the science of their futures and a backward conspiracy theory for the gullible and unemployable. Well, I guess creationists do find work in the US, but that's nothing to be proud of.

I disagree. It doesn't even happen here on TOL without the converse being placed beside it in every discussion. It just doesn't happen, imho, that people don't have information available to them that they want to know. I'm by no means into indoctrination when there is a debate about the content.

There is no 'debate'. Evolution by natural selection is a factual account of natural history, and creationism isn't.

OR you could ask me how I know.

You've told me before that I am blind, I can't see red or something, and that it's a special thing that you can do. Why would I ask you anything, if you are so special and I am so blind?

It really depends how committed or not one is to finding out. You are responsible as I am. We can't believe or change one another. Barring God intervening, you have no place to think He exists. If that is true, what must happen for you to believe He exists? That really is the only thing on the table because the rift between you and I is too far. I'm not able to bridge it. Only God could.

So it does depend on my commitment, or is it irrelevant what commitment I make because your god might make it impossible anyway? You can't even show me that your god exists, and yet you know all about what it thinks. Time for the straightjacket?

Some atheists would argue with you. Those have been harder to nail down. One is not 'against' Christianity, another is against the notion of His existence, another is self-described rather as 'without' the need (agnostic).

Outside the one believe that defines atheism, the claim that there are no gods of any kind, atheists obviously hold a range of opinions.

Atheist don't generally believe in being nailed down. That's for your lot, not ours.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Here are the errors you made, fallacies on your part, or a correction/clarification by myself:

1.) Here is my first point of fallacious approach on your part; you have provided a list of people who you claim "cannot be rejected," with no evidence or argument as to why this is the case. Yet, further on in your post, you project a claim lacking evidence onto me, as some sort of fallacy on my part.

I do not disagree with the persons you mentioned being accurate in their claims. I am just pointing out an already bad approach to dialogue, when you hypocritically call for evidence form the opposing side, while never providing any of your own.

Thank you for pointing out my supposed hypocrisy. Since you have disconnected the original post from your reply, it is more effort that I can be bothered to invest to investigate it any further. Even typing this has taken more of my precious one life than I should have devoted.

2.) More of a clarification point here; surely you accept ideas of philosophy and science, outside of just mathematics and "occasional" physics? My guess here is that you are attempting, as you have demonstrated with prior responses, to distance yourself from any philosophical leanings. Just a guess. I could be wrong, and apologize if I am.

The ancient Greeks didn't really do much in the way of science. The philosophy of science, for example, Karl Popper's work, is an important set of caveats about the limitations of scientific knowledge, but I don't think I need to detain myself on the question of what yellow sounds like.

3.) Again, you are making a claim, absent a provision of evidence. The ancient middle eastern people built pyramids, performed successful surgeries, and knew the antibacterial applications of brass. Surely, you do not classify this as ignorant? (Rhetorical question)

They didn't know brass was antibacterial. They were ignorant of the germ theory of disease. They didn't know why their surgeries failed so often. Piling rocks on top of rocks, no matter how impressive the pile, is mostly about brute force and psychology, none of which would have been that sophisticated.

4.) ID has not been disproved; rather, simply rejected by atheist and anti-theist scientists and persons. ID actually rests on an absence of evidence, just as the question of the origin of life within various alternate origin theories. So, to claim it has been disproved is false (granted, there are various ID theories which have been disproved, just as various global shape theories were disproved).

So it is still true that ID has been disproved, though isn't it. And each new ID claim will always be disproved, because Darwin's theory is so fundamental to biology that a pre-existing version of every phenotype exists, and so often it exists in a slightly altered form performing a slightly (or very) different function. And that is the death of every ID claim when that different function is found and the irreducible complexity is shown to be a fantasy. It is particularly amusing that ID creationists 'accept evolution', but they don't believe evolution goes right to the bottom of things, when actually it does.

5.) Something cannot come from nothing. This is a natural, cosmological law. Also, you have no natural evidence to support "nothing" existing before the Big Bang. Thus, you are making an extraordinary claim, with no unambiguous evidence. (yet, further on, you claim this is the fallacy on a my part; hypocritical, much?)

There is no such thing as 'before the Big Bang'. The Big Bang is the event that brought time into existence. And it turns out that the total energy of the universe is zero. All the positive energy / matter that exists is perfectly cancelled out by the negative gravitational energy of the inflation of space-time. So, actually there is no such 'natural, cosmological law' as you claim. The unambiguous evidence for this is the red shift of light from far galaxies that shows the universe is expanding, and actually it is expanding at a an increasing rate, and also the cosmic microwave radiation and cosmological principle, which establish the Big Bang at 13.7 billion years ago.

6.) I never claimed a temporal cause. I know that here you are just clarifying your point, however, it could quickly lead to a straw man argument. While you are not making that fallacy in this instance, it could develop. This point is just more of a word of caution for ensuring progressive discussion.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by a cause then, and justify its necessity.

7.) The issues within your own stance abound with this point. The easiest and lowest hanging fruit to utilize is the immediate hypocrisy on your part. As demonstrated in point 5, you have made such a claim, yet now are criticizing my position (despite my statement regarding the existence of God being philosophical, not scientific). Also, it shows that you require evidence for opposing positions, while not requiring it for your own. The claim, "there is no god" is extraordinary, yet, there is no evidence for it. Rather than addressing this logical fallacy, you instead project it onto your opposition, while claiming to have a superior ground.

You appear to have forgotten that it is not possible for me to prove a negative. But it looks like your whole use of the word 'god' is the logically fallacy of special pleading. In fact, that is all any god believer has.

8.) This is false. Negatives can be proved. If I say Stuart is not in my home, I can prove it using natural evidence. You seem to simply be trying to preserve your position by making more claims of absolute, despite them being false.

You cannot prove I am not in your house. If you said, ok, I'll have all the walls and floor taken out, and there will be nowhere to hide, so then we can see there is no one, well all I have to do is redefine my own abilities to include invisibility at will, and then I can be there without you seeing. And then you say, ok, I'll get an infrared camera and that will show up any human, and then I'll retort that my invisibility includes being transparent to infrared light. I can make up any condition to foil your latest attempt at proving a negative. Think this is far-fetched? It is exactly what god believers do with the properties of their gods. See Bertrand Russell's Teapot for the original version.

So, can we both agree to maintain integral arguments? Thus far, you seem to be making absolute claims, using falsehoods as support. I would argue that is a lack of integrity.

No, I am just dismissing your god claim as a delusion, on the basis that there is no unambiguous evidence for any. And there is no other kind of reason to believe you are right, and there are many reasons to believe you are deluded.

Also, burden of proof lies with both parties.

In a criminal case, there is no burden of proof on the defence. In this case you are prosecuting the case for the existence of a god, and I cannot prove the non-existence, so you have the burden of proof exclusively.

10a.) Again, you have committed the very act that you are inferring is fallacy. This is hypocritical.

No, I am asking you for unambiguous empirical evidence for your claim. Your complete failure to provide any does not make your claim invalid, but it does mean you give me no reason to be impressed by your special pleading.

10b.) Most early scientists were Christians. So, unless you reject genetics, hydraulics, etc, then you are claiming a falsehood (which, it totally is).

The fallacy of composition. Newton was right about physics and wrong about alchemy. Next?

11.) So, you do not respect my correct connotation and definition of "supernatural?" Seems like you are basing your "respect" on which facts align with your own ideas. This is not logical, reasonable, nor bearing integrity.

Respect is entirely within my personal gift. You don't define what gains my respect. But I am a reasonable person, and I will listen to good reasons to believe in your god. Do you have any?

12.) Oh the gish gallop. Anti-theists love to claim that a gish gallop has been made by theists in their arguments. In my experience in conversations, I have been accused of making a gish gallop, having never done so. Now, granted, my experience is limited to solely myself; other theists may make them all the time. This is a presumptuous approach to discussion. I have not made a gish gallop thus far, so expecting one seems to be arrogant. I am not stating that you claimed I made a gish gallop, for the record. I am just gleefully pointing out that a common anti-theist approach of mislabeling my arguments as a gish gallop is already being set up, whether intentionally or not.

You sound anxious.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Cause, while existing naturally, most often occurs within the temporal plane (see, that is philosophy and science both). Examining the Big Bang, the Big Bang requires a cause, as every action requires an equal and opposite reaction. So yes, something must have occurred before the Big Bang, in order to cause the Big Bang.

You have not justified the necessity of a cause. You have just asserted it.

If the Big Bang, as you seem to suggest, was the inception of time itself, then how was time, a metaphysical property, created? There is always a point of origin. This is evidenced by science. So, if you claim that "nothing" existed before the big bang, then what is your evidence of this? I would be willing to speculate that your theory of pre-big bang lacks science, and relies on personal theology.

Time is a component incorporated into each of the three dimensions of space, to give a continuous four-dimensional 'space-time'. Please see my earlier comments for the unambiguous evidence for the Big Bang. As modelled mathematically, the inflation of space-time generates gravitational energy (the force of gravity is actually a distortion of space-time; mass distorts space-time, and distorted space-time produces matter with an energy equivalence to the inflation of space-time). Regarding my capacity for a personal theology of Big Bang, while I might have the occasional good day, I am in no way capable of the insights and creative mathematical modelling that Einstein was able to produce, and I don't count a brilliantly successful theory in the same category as the wishful thinking of theology.

So, how did this condition come about? Again, you are relying on a "because it did" scenario, absent of evidence.

How did what condition come about, exactly? How did DNA become a molecule? How did DNA become the replicating molecule of all life, thus establishing the common ancestry of all living things on the planet?

Biology teaches that fitness is an innate drive of survival. Now, here you are claiming it is not. If any organism lacks the ___insert preferred term___ to survive, then it dies. (The terms, which biology considers synonymous are drive/will/etc.)

Molecules do not have 'innate drive to survival'. Natural selection provides a test of fitness. Animals display behaviours that indicate motivation to survive, and behaviours are related to brains made of proteins coded in DNA.

I speculate that you are attempting to remove the aspects associated with the distinction, in order to limit the conversation to your own realm of preference and comfort (I could be wrong, but that seems to be a theme throughout your responses). So, I would say that the distinction between supernatural and natural, which exists in reality, does need to be present, in order to have a progressive dialogue on this particular subject.

It looks to me like you are inventing something you call 'the supernatural' as a convenience to your comfort. I already find attempts at comprehending 'the natural' are not a matter of what is comfortable, so it will not be me rejecting that which is difficult. But you have still not established that the model called 'the supernatural' refers to anything real or relevant.

I did not know that this was a position taken by various creation theories, probably due to the niche followings of such theories. Yet, I did not see any precluding my response regarding speeds of light. If such an example does exist, the fault is my own for not noting it, and I apologize.

It is quite niche, so niche that I'd struggle to count how many people take two-way differences in the speed of light as a serious proposition.

Now, you claim that no god exists; I would even presume to suggest that you would make the claim that the Christian God does not exist. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Yes. There are many here who claim they have unambiguous evidence for their god claims. But no one has ever given unambiguous evidence for their claims. So I cite the fact of the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for any god claim ever, that such claims are in fact hot air, and thus god claims are invalid. You can try for 'lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack' if you like, but lack of promised evidence is evidence that god believers can't support their claims as promised.

You arguments thus far have demonstrated a thesis of "any extraordinary claim, made absent of evidence, can be rejected." (quote a summation made by myself) Yet, surely you accept the following three claims, yet are unable to posit evidence of their existence. If you can, then please do so:
Logic exists, numbers exist, thought exists.
Logic, numbers, and thought are not ideas which can be proved. One can claim that numbers represent a quantity, but that just dismisses the question of how numbers are a part of reality. One could argue that through chemical and electrical elements in the brain, we can draw a direct correlation between those occurrences and ideas being projected. Yet, the same correlation can exist between the sale of ice cream and murders occurring. Obviously, I accept the science; but that does not explain what a thought is, nor how it exists.

So, do you accept that logic exists? Numbers exist? Thought exists? If so, what is your argument and evidence for such existence? (If we agree that these exist, absent of evidence, then we can progress onto our discussion of divine deity)

Mathematics, logic and thought are the products of a brain that works in a particular way. Mathematics is a modelling system and so is logic. They are tools invented by humans.

...that these exist, absent of evidence, then we can progress onto our discussion of divine deity)

Well, indeed. Gods are tools invented by humans too.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Nope.

It's right there in my omnibus post.

Cite, please.

Stuart

 

[6days]

6days....are you seriously arguing that no population has ever increased in fitness, ever? Are you arguing that in an environment with antibiotics, a population of bacteria that's resistant is less fit than one that's susceptible?

Jose... would you like to argue against what I actually said? Or, are you better at beating up on strawmen? What I said "they have usually lost fitness. When the resistant bacteria are removed from the antibiotics, they have less fitness than than the parent population. (Similar to how highly adapted island and coral populations are highly adapted and unable to survive environmental change."


And... "adapted populations have LOST genetic variation. That is what selection does... it eliminates.

Example: "It is well established that a decrease in genetic variation can lead to reduced fitness and lack of adaptability to a changing environment."http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/2/1/47 "


As Jose Fly once said, "would you at least pretend to pay attention?"

 

[Bee1]

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)

My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion? After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?

Ever heard of "irreducibly complex"
http://www.jameswatkins.com/articles-2/heavy/evolution

States;

Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research).

Also;

Biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box) argues that many biological systems are “irreducibly complex” at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:

Behe starts with the example of a mousetrap; he claims that a standard mousetrap is “irreducibly complex”. Such a mousetrap consists of:

1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base

2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse

3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged

4) a sensitive catch that releases the hammer when slight pressure is applied

5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and charged hammer (there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)

Behe then continues with his logic as to why this system is “irreducibly complex”:

Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it…

A mousetrap cannot “evolve” slowly, bit by bit. All of the parts must be in place at the same time. The same with such things as DNA.



Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose... would you like to argue against what I actually said? Or, are you better at beating up on strawmen? What I said "they have usually lost fitness. When the resistant bacteria are removed from the antibiotics, they have less fitness than than the parent population.

Again 6days, at least pretend to pay attention. I already pointed out how the above shows fundamental ignorance of basic biology (i.e., that fitness is relative to environment).

And... "adapted populations have LOST genetic variation. That is what selection does... it eliminates.

Already responded to that too by noting how that process also increases fitness as with antibiotic resistance. The evolved population that has resistance is less diverse than the original population, but it is also more fit.

And here's the funny thing....if we change the environment and remove the antibiotic, the selective pressures that favored the resistant strain are removed, and the population becomes more diverse again.

These are basic BIO 101 experiments that I did as an undergraduate. We even sequenced the portions of the genomes that evolved. And the experiments showed that variation in a population and fitness can both increase and decrease.

But then, you have to interpret all that through your anti-scientific lens and find some reason to object and keep this going in weird circles, don't you?

 

[Jose Fly]

This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.

Demonstrably false. The field of phylogenomics utilizes evolutionary relationships between taxa to discern genetic function.

Evolutionary theory also informs us on how viruses and bacteria evolve around our vaccines and antibiotics.

Looks like your source isn't telling you the truth.

 

[CabinetMaker]

And do you not suppose that could be because humans have doggedly pattern-seeking brains that causes us to see patterns even when patterns don't really exist?

No, I don't. I think it is because God gave us a soul. No other animal in this creation is as inquisitive as the human animal. I think that is because God created us in His image and that image is an inquisitive soul, in part.

When you ask 'what is the purpose of life?', that is begging the question of life already having an existing purpose. If you ask 'does life have a purpose?' there is a danger of the fallacy of equivocation, because the usage of the word purpose could be ambiguous. The latter depends on what you think a purpose is. But we all seem to be able to set our own life purposes, to the degree that we are able, and I think there is no problem asking what an individual has decided is their self-determined life purpose. You could also ask what a person's function is in a particular social context. Then you would be free to answer for yourself, that you see your purpose in terms of the bible and one or more gods. I don't think it is reasonable to make that claim on behalf of all of humanity unless you can demonstrate reasonably that it is true, which I think it isn't.

I think this is another philosophical BS argument. You can sit around over beers and discus the subtleties of "what is the purpose of life" versus "does life have a purpose" and end up drunk but no wiser. But I do think all people ask this question and arrive at some sort of answer. Their answer my be self-determined and self-serving or it may be gleaned from listen to what Jesus taught when He walked the Earth. I think that people who conclude that life has no purpose frequently suicide. Nihilist believe this and they tend to have a higher rate of suicide than other beliefs.

Yes, although not completely. Because the genes of someone without children are also carried by their siblings, nephews and nieces (and parents). So the survival of those people is also of interest to your genes. And it is in the interests of your genes that all the people who provide services that maintain your health, from food to quite a lot of other things, also survive.

And if my aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, etc. are not competing with your aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, etc. then my genes still stand a better chance at survival. This is not an unprecedented concept within the animal kingdom.

Indeed, well put. And those are some of the factors that lead to typical tribe sizes in nomadic tribes. The meeting and marrying part is the prevention of inbreeding.

Well it really depends on what you mean by a god. My favourite argument against a god is an appeal to aesthetics: the universe appears to be beautiful. A world with an invisible meddler, working undetectably, would not be beautiful because it would be a deception.
While this is very weak syllogistically, I think a god-driven universe is too ugly to be worth exploring, and the universe is too beautiful for that to be credible.

I don't agree. I think God's creation is magnificent. It is a delicate balance between planned and random. People naturally seem to bristle at rules regarding our behavior. For some strange reason people seem to think that if God was real He would lets us do whatever we want. We don't let our children do whatever they want. Mostly because we are trying to protect them from injury and hurt. God's rules for us are the same. Religious organizations create their own rules for their own benefit. Sometimes those rules correspond to what God has said. More often than not, they don't.

Well, if you need any literature...

I don't have any literature I can give you in return. I do have time for a beer or two. :cheers:

Stephen Hawking is the only one providing any useful information in that scenario. You are just speculating based on what you reckon, whereas he is give a fact about the universe, one that forces a god believer then to be a bit more specific. So it has forced you to be more specific about your unsupported speculation. But perhaps you expected Prof. Hawking to give you some insights into the nature of your god. Well, I think he was doing exactly that too.

I do not expect Stephen to give me any useful information about a God whose existence he denies. Hawking is also speculating about the time just before the Big Bang. He says nothing existed and then, quite sudden, everything existed. But because Hawkings said it, you accept it as a fact. When a Christian says the same thing you reject it as fantasy because a Christian is will to say that God did it.

So your god was tested on the question of whether it wanted to be tested, and the result was a no. That's hardly surprising, is it. Aren't you suspicious of humans who would rather not be tested, say when they might be fraudulently claiming social support payments or driving without a license?

I don't equate humans with our limited perspective and imperfect justice with God. We, at least in this point in history, are far more concerned about the accumulation of wealth than anything else. We go after fraud because that person is taking money out of our pockets and we don't like that.

But anyway, you have a mystery to maintain, lest a thread come loose and lead to a great unweaving.

I haven't found any lose threads.

Well then why would you have even read the scriptures to gain the knowledge that tells you that in the first place? With christianity the logical fallacies are just left to pile up all around.

Because scripture is what God has given to us so that we can know who He is and understand what He sees as right and wrong. As you well know, scripture is by no means interpreted the same by every person who reads it. The Bible is not intended to contain absolute certain knowledge about God. It provides us direction to find God. But God wants a relationship with us so once you have found God one starts to rely more on prayer and less on printed words to develop that relationship.

You could write a long detailed dating profile and a person could read that and know a lot about you, but nowt everything. They would never truly know you until they met you and you shared many conversations. Same thing,

I guess a widespread cultural belief that is barking mad, when it doesn't materially lead to harm, gives no good reason to lock up its mad adherents. After all, I'm sure after enough picking at what I believe, I could be locked up on the same grounds if that were not the case. But as you point out, there are people who have caused harm by acting on that same belief. So would it be fair then to characterise christianity as a safe activity as long as it's not put into practice as written? You shouldn't leave your family to follow Jesus, for example. You shouldn't love your enemy if that enemy is a foreign state intent on destroying you. You shouldn't put gay people to death by stoning, as recommended by the zealot Paul.

Tough line to walk. We have to be careful who we call enemy. A person who is actively trying to kill me or my family, I can defend myself and family with deadly force. An enemy persecuting me for my faith, that person I treat with love and respect. There are certain sexual sins that God does not tolerate. Adultery and homosexuality are not acceptable to God. Regardless of what is politically correct, there are certain truths within God's law that will not change.

I know you, as much as I do, as an intelligent human being. When you write down your doctrine, I'm sorry, but it makes you sound like an idiotic robot. You aren't engaging in any kind of exercise in logical discourse here, it's like you are a different person when you are spouting dogma. Quite striking, and almost frightening. You really do write as if a meme has taken over your rational brain. I'm a bit shocked by the immediacy of it.

Sorry you feel that way. I am a man of faith and believe that God exists and that He is just and loving in ways I do not fully comprehend. Believing in God does not make one illogical, but it does form a different foundation upon which reason is based.

Right, so that deals with the 'atheists have no uncaused cause' nonsense. It is hypocrisy, and again an equivocation on the question of what the word 'cause' could even mean at the beginning of time, and a begging of the question of whether the concept of an uncaused cause has any necessity at all. It looks to me like a platitude from the time of the philosopher-Archbishops of Canterbury.

What caused the Big Bang?

To Einstein, that's not what a god did, that's what a god is:a comprehensible universe. That god of Spinoza already sounds better than a petty god that needs to burn what it made because it doesn't like it. That is an action of a petulant child, not a great ruler.

God will not force you to be with Him if you don't wish it. God is not choosing you to burn, He chose you to be saved. If you reject that invitation then that is on your head, not God's. Yes, that is honestly how I see it. We each must make a choice and GOd honors that choice. God's justice will perfectly allow for those who never heard the Gospel.

I took it literally because you are making a claim about how your god achieved something. And now it appears you are not making a claim about a finger, but a claim about divine solar flares or magic radiation. Your attempts are a decent cut above the usual attempts, but you can see why you should be ignored, can't you. You are not saying anything useful, and actually you are really trying to deflect to maintain mystery while trying to pay some lip service to the language and power of science, which destroys mystery. There's a dilemma.

What I am saying is that God created everyting and knows how it works in ways that we do not. He can use His creation in ways that we cannot. I believe that God uses His creation is ways that we will learn to understand as time progresses.

I had to take you literally to demonstrate that no scientists need concern themselves with the claims of christians, and that especially includes creationism, which is an industry dedicated to telling lies to support their god finger hypotheses. Of course, as soon as scientists do the right thing and ignore the religious noise, some creationist will complain that there is discrimination against the possibility of their god, built into the mechanism of science. Actually, science will take on anything that involves unambiguous evidence, and given the success of science and the failure of any religious person ever to provide any unambiguous evidence for any god, you would think that might suggest something about the existence of any gods.

And all science can conclude is this is how something works. That is it. It cannot say that a God was not required nor can it say that God does not exist, it can only ever say this is the way something works. People, human hearts, at guilty of taking the next step to proclaim that because something works like this, God does not exist. Human pride, not sicence rejects God.

Well, I think I did concede I might be destroyed. But that would highlight the kind of fascist totalitarian regime we are discussing.

We are free to make any choice that is available to us. God has stated what is acceptable to Him and what is not. That does not make Him totalitarian, it makes Him just. You know the rules and cannot claim other wise. The speed limit is 65. You can go 85 but when the cop pulls you over, you cannot claim that either you didn't know what the law was or that the law doesn't apply to you because you do not agree with it.

That really calls into question Genesis 1:27 then.

I do not think it calls that into question at all. In fact, that is why we can do science in the first place.

I have learned a lot from reading scripture too.

Stuart

You have certainly drawin your own conclusions based on what YOU think good and evil should be.

 

[Derf]

If you read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding he lays out why empirical observations are trustworthy. The nutshell is: they are consistent. It is reliable to depend on knowledge that has been proven by empirical observation. It's not to be taken on faith that empiricism gives reliable information... that's why Locke spends a whole book ARGUING IT. He makes the case that it is rational and reasonable to rely on that which has been empirically proven. At no time does he say: "Trust me, I'm right about this."

Where does consistency come from?

 

[Bee1]

Demonstrably false. The field of phylogenomics utilizes evolutionary relationships between taxa to discern genetic function.

Evolutionary theory also informs us on how viruses and bacteria evolve around our vaccines and antibiotics.

Looks like your source isn't telling you the truth.

Obvious that you are much more experienced and knowledgeable than I about such things but were is the crictal missing link the positively show human (we) evolve direct from lower primate. Where in the fossil records, as of this point in time, shows this direct connection? Man as we are today suddenly appeared overnite in regards to hunting, shelter, tools, handmade weapons and controlling fire. Where did we acquire such skills so quickly in so short of time (geography speaking) ? I in favor of saying that we came as we are, how or what or who, I don't know but I also think that these questions will be answered in due time.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

were is the crictal missing link the positively show human (we) evolve direct from lower primate. Where in the fossil records, as of this point in time, shows this direct connection?

There a many, many fossil specimens that are intermediate between humans and our last common ancestor with other apes. If you'd like to go over them, we can certainly do that.

But let's not lose focus on the original point. The source you linked to said that evolutionary theory hasn't helped in the progress of science. That's been shown to not be true.

In these sorts of circumstances, I'm always curious to hear what a person such as yourself thinks about something like that. Does it bother you that your source gave you false information?

 

[Bee1]

There a many, many fossil specimens that are intermediate between humans and our last common ancestor with other apes. If you'd like to go over them, we can certainly do that.

But let's not lose focus on the original point. The source you linked to said that evolutionary theory hasn't helped in the progress of science. That's been shown to not be true.

In these sorts of circumstances, I'm always curious to hear what a person such as yourself thinks about something like that. Does it bother you that your source gave you false information?

Why is it false, it has just as much vaidity as your statement from my perspective, as I mention before, I am not expert that why I as questions. Ok, let take your argument, where exactly is our immediate predecessor in the fossil regards? Any material you want to use is fine as long as it I can validated.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

....that fitness relative to environment

"It is well established that a decrease in genetic variation can lead to reduced fitness and lack of adaptability to a changing environment."http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/2/1/47 "

The evolved population that has resistance is less diverse than the original population, but it is also more fit.

"It is well established that a decrease in genetic variation can lead to reduced fitness and lack of adaptability to a changing environment."http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/2/1/47 "

 

[Jose Fly]

Why is it false

The claim was that evolutionary theory hasn't added to scientific progress. I provided documentation that it has. Do you have any specific reason to reject the information I provided?

Ok, let take your argument, where exactly is our immediate predecessor in the fossil regards? Any material you want to use is fine as long as it I can validated.

Lets get through one issue at a time. I'll be more than happy to continue this line of discussion once we resolve the one above.

 

[Bee1]

Why is it false, it has just as much vaidity as your statement from my perspective, as I mention before, I am not expert that why I as questions. Ok, let take your argument, where exactly is our immediate predecessor in the fossil regards? Any material you want to use is fine as long as it I can validated.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens



Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo sapiens that may be answered with future discoveries:

Who was our direct evolutionary ancestor? Was it Homo heidelbergensis,like many paleoanthropologists think, or another species?

Evolutionary Tree Information:

Fossils and DNA confirm humans are one of more than 200 species belonging to the order of Primates. Within that larger group, humans are nested within the great ape family. Although we did not evolve from any of the apes living today, we share characteristics with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans (the great apes), as well as other apes. We most likely evolved from Homo heidelbergensis, the common ancestor we share with Neanderthals, who are our closest extinct relatives.



Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

"It is well established that a decrease in genetic variation can lead to reduced fitness and lack of adaptability to a changing environment."http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/2/1/47 "

Again, pay attention.....I've already noted that under some circumstances, such as significant reductions in a population, reduced genetic diversity can lead to decreased fitness. But I also described how in other circumstances (e.g., antibiotic resistance), reduced genetic diversity can lead to increased fitness.

BTW, I always love it when you try and cite a scientific paper. I'm wondering....did you read the full paper? If so, what did you take away from it?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Take note of what I bolded. Sensory information (aka empirical evidence) is important to forming correct ideas. This does not mean that any idea formed from sensory information is correct. After all, sensory information leads to the conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth. It does not, but how do we know this? Because Galileo made some more precise sensory observations which suggested otherwise.

Keeping in mind what I said above about imprecise conclusions derived from sensory experience, how do you know that a person's mystical experience "proves" the existence of Yahweh? I have read about many having the experience of a "divine and holy" presence that cleansed them or comforted them. And these are taken to be evidence of Yahweh, but only perhaps because the individuals that have these experiences were raised in a Christian culture. Allow me to play devil's advocate here: how do you know those were not experiences of Lord Vishnu, a deity in the Hindu pantheon who, according to Hindu scriptures, lends comfort to the righteous in their times of despair? How do you know that when a Christian says that he communed with Yahweh, that he did not actually commune with Vishnu?

Feeling a divine presence hardly proves the existence of the Christian god. Just like the sun revolving around the earth, one might examine these mystical perceptions more closely and find the opposite of the immediate inference is true.

Let me clarify that I think that Vishnu is just as imaginary as Yahweh. Your argument suggests that Yahweh and Vishnu are equally real. After all, if mystical perceptions of the presence of Yahweh (which are on record) prove the existence of Yahweh, then mystical perceptions of Vishnu (which are on record) would, by your logic, prove the existence of Vishnu.

By the logic you are using, the facts that there are sensory experiences of mystical beings prove that mystical beings exist.
The question of who the mystical beings are must be identified through further research and study.
Mystical beings are described as gods, spirits, angels, and demons.
Different mystical beings have different powers.
The Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible has claimed to have the power to fulfill prophecy.
The Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible has satisfied the test of fulfilled prophecy.
Vishnu has not.
Thus, we can be assured that the Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible is the mystical being that is the supreme God.