The Miracle of Water.

[nPeace]

Because physical things have properties, and those properties determine behavior. The same properties will give rise to the same behaviors.

The physical laws are...
Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.

 

[Polymath257]

The physical laws are...
Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.

The physical laws are *descriptions* of how things behave. They are not 'affected' because we try to describe things in the most general way possible. That includes time invariance.

 

[Jose Fly]

Weird how that works.

I have a troubled relative who, after problems in school, dropped out in 10th grade and hooked up with a Christian cult in New York. Before he went off the deep end, sold his belongings and gave all his money to the cult, and moved out and to live in a commune, he was still living at home and had Facebook, and shared a link to a creationist site and declared that anyone still believing in evolution was an idiot.
I perused the site (and ended up having a rather typical back and forth with the site's author, a retired engineer who, despite claiming to understand evolution and science, ended up - after only 1 exchange - copy-pasting page after page of creationist website garbage and declaring victory...) and replied to this relative, asking if he would like me to explain all of the things that were incorrect on it.

He was at the time only 17 - and recall, a 10th grade drop out - but went on a multi-paragraph tirade against me, calling me an 'academic elitist' and blabbered on about how I was deceived and wrong and how he KNEW 100% that evolution was a lie.

So yeah, most creationists that I have encountered have the same basic mindset. Some express it almost violently like my drop-out relative, others are slightly more nuanced, but it is the same basic psychology at work.

I've known people like that too. While it's weird, I always thought it was overcompensation for obvious insecurity. It must be hard to not achieve academically while seeing those around you do well.

 

[Bear Wild]

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



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



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

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



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



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



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



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

Thor has an impact on the world daily. He is the god of sky, thunder and fertility which are clearly important to humans. So important that in English speaking countries we celebrate him every week on Thor's day. He clearly impacts us all of the time. Not as familiar with Zeus but I am sure there are others that can help you understand how much Zeus does for us every day. Jesus may have walked on water but Thor can fly through the sky with his chariot and create impressive thunderstorms.
Can a single celled organism morph into a dinosaur? That is fantasy just like the ark and the great flood. Clearly you were not trying to imply anything about evolution with a statement like that.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

There you go again this concept of proof. You will not get absolute proof for complex problems such as evolution. In fact one of the most impressive aspects of Science is that ideas can be challenged and newer information can correct concepts. That is its sciences strength. What is undeniable is how much overwhelming evidence the is for evolution and how much it explains.
What is the absolute proof for creationists? A myth written by people who wrote the myth down after ages of oral tradition which never repeated exactly the same over time and never intended to be an explanation of our world.
So lets look at proof again in terms of evidence. Evolution- impressive evidence explaining the geologic record, coordinates with ecological theory, improved with time as new research continues to be supportive of Darwin's theory discovered by Wallace at nearly the same time from studying the real world. Or you have a myth written from generations of people telling the story as best they remember then written down by humans with no evidence from the actual world unable to explain what is found in the actual world. One with evidence and one without.
Which one would you choose? I can see by the little round figure searching for answers you are still confused. Do not worry though there are many here that will help you understand. Start with one point at time and avoid long narratives that confuse ideas, that may help. Where do you want to start?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I know how much saying those words probably meant to you, but I had to actually look back at my post to be sure they were really not logically following from anything I said.
I made no assumptions. I asked questions.
I don't have an agenda. If I do, it's a little different to yours, but that would mean we both have one.
Since I made no assumptions then it wouldn't be me making assumptions or statements based on ignorance.
...and you did give me a whole lot of information based on assumptions.


You apparently ignore the fact that you don't know that evolution shaped anything beyond what we know it did - which a basically changes in our genetic makeup, and what they allow us to do, and look like.
So there seems to be no clarity or reason coming from that angle.
My faith started from my reason.


What do you mean you don't filter out any evidence at all? You don't accept evidence for intelligent design. Why not?
You have no verifiable evidence of evolution, so what is the difference?
...and now you are making assumptions about what I would or wouldn't do. That is a demonstration of how clear your filter is. It believes assumptions are right because you believe them, so they are right. What is that called? Confirmation bias.
That's not a clear filter, is it.

There is no objective, verifiable evidence that supports any rational assumption that an Intelligent Designer exists. Maybe you can provide a fallacy-free example for us "puny humans"? Comparing Evolution to Intelligent Design is a fallacy. Saying that there is no evidentiary difference between the two, demonstrates a true confirmation bias, that is totally based on ignorance. Even though there is absolutely no independent verifiable evidence supporting ID, you simply filter out any evidence that would threaten your belief bias. Your top-down logic is transparent, and your assumptions are not based on any facts at all. I have only your words to base my assumptions on. You are the one that brought up ID, where a complex brain comes from, the origin of human emotions and self-awareness, and spiritual energy. You support your suppositions with, "This seem reasonable to me, than to suppose non-existing particles popped into existence, and self arranged to evolve to a higher intelligence." Then you ask the question, "Hmmm. How did all of that come to be built from nonexistent intellect? Now comes the conclusion based on these created assumptions, "Does it not make sense that an intelligent mind caused it - even if you don't know that cause? The simple answer is, yes it does make sense. You are entitled o your own opinions, but not your own logic.

If you can present any facts(verifiable), it would not be filtered out. Evolution maintains a very high degree of certainty. Its Theory is based on the convergence of evidence from many other physical and non-physical fields of science. Virtual particles(fluctuations in the quantum field), also have the evidence to back up its claims. So, yes, it makes perfect sense to accept the evidence supporting virtual particles and Evolution, then it does to accept no evidence supporting a myth. You don't seem to understand, that if your slippery slope fallacy would becomes valid, it would open the door to ALL religious origin claims. What makes you ID origin claim any more valid than say Nyame, Amma, Nommo, Shiva, or Zeus? The only thing these beliefs have in common, is that they all lack any evidence supporting them. So my lenses do filter out myths, superstitions, and fallacious logic, but not evidence for myths and superstitions, and logic.

I know how much saying those words probably meant to you, but I had to actually look back at my post to be sure they were really not logically following from anything I said.
I made no assumptions. I asked questions.
I don't have an agenda. If I do, it's a little different to yours, but that would mean we both have one.
Since I made no assumptions then it wouldn't be me making assumptions or statements based on ignorance.
...and you did give me a whole lot of information based on assumptions.

This sounds like a "Trump Response" to a question. Your agenda is very clear. By defending the ID position, you are demonstrating your belief in ID. You know that Evolution and Virtual Particles are the results of experimental, verifiable, and predictable data. This data also validates many of the rational and practical assumptions made. There is a big difference between assumptions validated by facts, and those validated by belief. But just in case I'm wrong, do you believe that a cosmic interdimensional Intelligent Designer created and designed all life-forms on this planet? Including all the 99.999% of life-forms that went extinct?

You apparently ignore the fact that you don't know that evolution shaped anything beyond what we know it did - which a basically changes in our genetic makeup, and what they allow us to do, and look like.
S

I admit that I don't know anything beyond what I do know about Evolution. If the environment, the Endocrine system, and our genetic make-up, will collectively shape who we are, what we are, why we are, and how we are, then what exactly did the Intelligent Designer do? Or did He/she design Evolution, the endocrine system, and our genes? Then we're just back to who designed the designer(begging the question), aren't we?

 

[ecco]

You have no verifiable evidence of evolution,

What evidence is there for your God? A series of oral tales cobbled together and put into book form 3000 years ago. A second set of stories cobbled together and put into book form 2000 years ago.

In the first book, there are many fantastical stories. Stories so fantastical that most researchers and lay people read them as allegory.

The authors of the stories of the second book are unknown. Many of the stories are written from the standpoint of eyewitnesses. Research has shown that the authors could not have been eyewitnesses, so there is an obvious element of fraud. There are no independent confirmations of any of the stories. This is further evidence of fraud.

For you to ask for evidence of anything is hypocritical since you deny the evidence concerning your God and the Holy Scripture you believe in.

 

[ecco]

Conclusions are based on what? Evidence?

What evidence is there for your God? A series of oral tales cobbled together and put into book form 3000 years ago. A second set of stories cobbled together and put into book form 2000 years ago.

In the first book, there are many fantastical stories. Stories so fantastical that most researchers and lay people read them as allegory.

The authors of the stories of the second book are unknown. Many of the stories are written from the standpoint of eyewitnesses. Research has shown that the authors could not have been eyewitnesses, so there is an obvious element of fraud. There are no independent confirmations of any of the stories. This is further evidence of fraud.

For you to ask for evidence of anything is hypocritical since you deny the evidence concerning your God and the Holy Scripture you believe in.

 

[tas8831]

Can a single celled organism morph into a dinosaur? That is fantasy just like the ark and the great flood. Clearly you were not trying to imply anything about evolution with a statement like that.

Come now, surely you are aware that the 'common sense' and 'wisdom' of people with no science background or knowledge trumps anything anyone can produce!

 

[tas8831]

I don't have an agenda....
My faith started from my reason....
You have no verifiable evidence of evolution, so what is the difference?

The Miracle of Water.

Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, of course I am not a mind reader, but I believe that the person said this without going into detail.

I could say A, and A is true, but because I did not say B, it doesn't mean that Bis not also true. It's just that I saw no need to mention B.

You can believe whatever you want. Interact with them, and we’ll see what you believe then.

I'm not suggesting you don't challenge person's views.

I'm saying you are going about it the wrong way. What I mean is, say you ask for evidence that God is, which by the way you have been on my thread - "Evidence God Is", which has been open to challenge, but for some reason, I wouldn't name anyone, but some seem not able to get past the first post.

However, when you ask that question and persons provide an answer, and you drill in with more questions. Okay.

I “drill with more questions” in hopes of understanding aspects of the other person’s argument. Oftentimes, I don’t get answers. Other times, I do.

Now follow me closely.

This is you...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you ask questions - for evidence.

You get answers - the evidence.

You dismiss the answers, because you don't believe them.

You ask more questions - basically repeats.

You get answers which you don't believe.

...and the cycle continues.

So, where in there, did you provide evidence for the designer you believe in and for the mechanisms said designer uses to create things?

That is why I cite faith. Because that’s all I get in terms of answers.

I mean, you seem to think that if you can show design in nature (which I don’t think has been demonstrated) that it immediately gets you to the God that you specifically believe in and worship. But it doesn’t. You also seem to think that if you can poke holes in evolution, that would somehow make your design assertion true. But it doesn’t.

The cycle continues because faith is not a pathway to truth and proper evidence has not been presented to back up the design claim.

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

Yes, because quoting the Bible is not anywhere near the same thing as providing actual evidence. The Bible is a book of claims. Not evidence.

There is a pattern here, and it's not that you haven't gotten answers.

It's simple - You are not looking for answers. You are here to ridicule.

Oops, your mind reading abilities have failed again.

You should probably give that up, since you’re not very good at it.

It's like the apostle Peter said, "First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning."

He further went on to mention the flood, stating, "For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people." 2 Peter 3:3-7

Are you seeing the picture yet?

Yes. I see more claims.

Christians have been ridiculed since the beginning, so that’s not a “last days” kind of thing. It’s just a thing.

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

Sorry but providing a book that makes even more claims is not the same thing as providing evidence. Just because you believe everything in the Bible is true, doesn’t make it so.

The Bible asks these questions.

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

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

There isn’t much that you could say that could help me? LOL Okay, then. Glad that’s cleared up and you admit you have no evidence.

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

What is the Bible supposed to be clear evidence of?

Bent out of shape. Me?

Just take note that no one minds being asked questions.

However, have you ever babysat a 10 year old and they ask you the same question 50 times? I think the next time the parents call you, you would suddenly remember you had an appointment.

There was a man who found himself in a similar situation - John 9:26-28

26 Then they said to him: “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27 He answered them: “I told you already, and yet you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become his disciples also, do you?” 28 At this they scornfully told him: “You are a disciple of that man, but we are disciples of Moses.

I don’t know why you’re still quoting the Bible at me. This isn’t a place to prosthelytize.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I could only mention Thor, if I heard about him. It would not just pop in my head, and roll off my tongue now, would it? Do you get the picture?
It is knowledge, that causes one to make utterances - wherever that knowledge comes from.

Many people being born and given the knowledge that everything came from nothing, will likely believe that.
Others even though taught it, will likely not. Why? Because they think about what they are taught, weight it with other things they hear and see, and guess what?
"Goddidit!" rolls off their tongue.

Can you claim that they grew up in the dark ages? No. They are born in this era.
Can you claim that they were brainwashed by religion? No. The were not raised by godless parents. They are raised by evolutionist - perhaps even atheist.

Most people in North America were raised by parents who practice some form of Christianity. That includes most people who now call themselves atheists.

You are most likely a Christian based on your and your parent's place of birth. If you lived in Saudi Arabia, you'd be more likely to be worshiping Allah right now.

So what happened?
The skeptic's narrow-minded view of things crumbles, that's all.
There is no truth to what is said by those critics of God or religion. They just feel they are smart.

The real reason ancient people believe in gods, is because of their knowledge and experience.
Later legends and stories were exaggerated and mystified, and people created gods of their own, and gave them names, etc., but it was all based on knowledge in the past.

What else.... That knowledge is here to stay. Do you know why? The creator of the universe isn't going anywhere, and no puny human will get rid of him either. On the contrary...just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
Matthew 24:37-39 The ungodly will be removed - plucked out of the earth just like that.

I would say that "narrow-minded" is the person who sees only the God they want to see. Narrow-minded is a person saying things like, "there is no truth to what is said by those critics of God or religion," and "people who lived before me were using their knowledge of God(s) even though they misidentified them and I'm the one who's got it right."

Skepticism is not narrow-minded; rather it's much more open to wherever the evidence may lead. Skeptics simply don't buy into everything they hear.

 

[joelr]

There is no substance on earth as vital for life as water is.....can it be just a fluke of nature?...or is it evidence of purposeful design?

Please watch the video and see what logical conclusion you come to.....

Jehovah's Witnesses BROADCASTING

For one, if one of the multiverse theories are correct then there are uncountable universes each with different laws of physics, most unsuited for life to form. We find ourselves in one that supports life because we are life.
So there is that.

But also the idea that the universe had some type of creator is possible but it doesn't have anything to do with the myths humans have created about gods. A being that created a universe wouldn't give us a book that appears to know no more science than humans knew at that time, to be super similar to pagan mythologies popular at the same time and one that our current science of archeology considers to be mythical.
For these reasons, while there may have been a creator, our religions are man-made mythologies.

So saying the universe was created doesn't lend any credibility to whatever religious dogma you are really pushing.
Your using a logical train of thought to deduce that.
Now if we use that same logical thought to examine religions - archeology and biblical historicity studies - we get the information that these are old myths. So you're picking and choosing when to be logical.

 

[tas8831]

Ah yes,
Phylogenetics (From Wikipedia)..."

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

Ah, Wikipedia and the argument from bolding - and the usual dishonest disregard for who science operates.

The arrogance of ignorance - the Dunning-Kruger effect in all its glory.

Pity that the most arrogant yet uninformed person on here cannot learn from what people post for her.

That 'ah, phylogenetics' that you do not understand? Yeah, that was this stuff:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "

​

Oops - 14 whole instances of science 'jargon' that the resident expert on all science despite having no actual understanding of it deemed to tough to swallow...


Inferrences from data, using tested methods.

You? You need scientific terminology removed and concepts explained to you at a child's level, only so you can then dismiss it in the most arrogant and uninformed fashion. Your deity must be so so proud of how you interact with people that you are supposed to be sharing your 'message' with...

 

[nPeace]

I admit that I don't know anything beyond what I do know about Evolution. If the environment, the Endocrine system, and our genetic make-up, will collectively shape who we are, what we are, why we are, and how we are, then what exactly did the Intelligent Designer do? Or did He/she design Evolution, the endocrine system, and our genes? Then we're just back to who designed the designer(begging the question), aren't we?

The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do, and the misuse, or mismanagement of the proper functions of life, by humans, contributed to the problems in that design.

 

[nPeace]

The Miracle of Water.

Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

 

[nPeace]

Most people in North America were raised by parents who practice some form of Christianity. That includes most people who now call themselves atheists.

You are most likely a Christian based on your and your parent's place of birth. If you lived in Saudi Arabia, you'd be more likely to be worshiping Allah right now.



I would say that "narrow-minded" is the person who sees only the God they want to see. Narrow-minded is a person saying things like, "there is no truth to what is said by those critics of God or religion," and "people who lived before me were using their knowledge of God(s) even though they misidentified them and I'm the one who's got it right."

Skepticism is not narrow-minded; rather it's much more open to wherever the evidence may lead. Skeptics simply don't buy into everything they hear.

Again, it seems you did not understand what I said.
Are there persons being born to atheist and evolutionist? Yes.
Do some of these turn to Christianity, or some other religion, and do some reject evolution? Why?
It's not because they were brainwashed to believe in God, from birth.
They weight the knowledge they gained - both the brainwashing from their atheistic upbringing, and what they heard from the religious side. Using their reasoning ability, they reached a conclusion.
Will that continue? Yes.

Therefore, the skeptic's narrow-minded view of things crumbles,
There is no truth to what they say about belief in God.

The real reason ancient people believe in gods, is because of their knowledge and experience.
Later legends and stories were exaggerated and mystified, and people created gods of their own, and gave them names, etc., but it was all based on knowledge in the past.
Their children were born into these, myths and believed them.

 

[Bear Wild]

Again, it seems you did not understand what I said.
Are there persons being born to atheist and evolutionist? Yes.
Do some of these turn to Christianity, or some other religion, and do some reject evolution? Why?
It's not because they were brainwashed to believe in God, from birth.
They weight the knowledge they gained - both the brainwashing from their atheistic upbringing, and what they heard from the religious side. Using their reasoning ability, they reached a conclusion.
Will that continue? Yes.

Therefore, the skeptic's narrow-minded view of things crumbles,
There is no truth to what they say about belief in God.

The real reason ancient people believe in gods, is because of their knowledge and experience.
Later legends and stories were exaggerated and mystified, and people created gods of their own, and gave them names, etc., but it was all based on knowledge in the past.
Their children were born into these, myths and believed them.

Some of the greatest advocates of religious naturalism were from Christian dominated lives studying to teach theology then finding Christianity to be inadequate. So it goes both ways.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do, and the misuse, or mismanagement of the proper functions of life, by humans, contributed to the problems in that design.

But if God Himself designed our genes, how can we puny humans misuse or mismanage them? How can we act in any way other then the way we were designed? Also, did God design mutagens(chemical, environmental)? Did God design disease and Evolution? In other words, did God design everything? And, how do you know?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, it seems you did not understand what I said.
Are there persons being born to atheist and evolutionist? Yes.

Why are you equating atheists with "evolutionists?" They're not one in the same.

You do realize that all people who practice religion don't all think as you do and reject evolution, right?

Do some of these turn to Christianity, or some other religion, and do some reject evolution? Why?

Various different reasons, I'm sure.
My uncle became a born-again Christian because he was approached by an evangelical Christian at a party and bought into what the person was selling him.

From my experiences, the people who tend to reject evolution are those who don't understand it.

It's not because they were brainwashed to believe in God, from birth.

People are capable of being brainwashed at any point in their lives.
It could be a result of brainwashing to "believe in God." Look at the Jim Jones cult where grown adults gave up all their possessions and moved to South America because Jim Jones painted himself as some kind of Messiah. They all believed in it so much that they poisoned their own children and then themselves just to get to Heaven. People can and will believe pretty much anything.

They weight the knowledge they gained - both the brainwashing from their atheistic upbringing, and what they heard from the religious side. Using their reasoning ability, they reached a conclusion.

Why do you think atheistic upbringing involves brainwashing? Do you have some examples of what you are talking about?

Will that continue? Yes.

Yes it will continue. And people will continue to join the church of Scientology, and Islam and Raelism and whatever else there is on offer.

Notice how membership numbers speak nothing to the truth of the claims being made by the various religions?

Therefore, the skeptic's narrow-minded view of things crumbles,

This doesn't follow from what you've said above. How skeptical are you of Raelism? How about scientology? Are you narrow-minded for being skeptical of all claims made by all religions?

And again, I don't see people who are skeptical about claims they hear that are lacking in evidence are narrow-minded people. They simply don't accept claims based on say-so.
Why don't you accept the claims of Islam, for example?

There is no truth to what they say about belief in God.

What do "they" say about belief in God?

The real reason ancient people believe in gods, is because of their knowledge and experience.
Later legends and stories were exaggerated and mystified, and people created gods of their own, and gave them names, etc., but it was all based on knowledge in the past.
Their children were born into these, myths and believed them.

The people who wrote the Bible knew far, far less about the world than anybody living today. They didn't have any special knowledge that we don't have.

We have more knowledge today about the world we live in, than any other population of humans in the history of our existence. To think that ancient peoples knew more about the universe than we do today is really a stretch of the imagination. Not to mention that if all these claims are based on knowledge and experience, then the existence of God should be easily demonstrable. Yet somehow, nobody has managed to do it in all these thousands and thousands of years.