Creationists -- Please answer David Attenborough for me...

[tas8831]

We just look at the evidence and go where it leads us.
You on the other hand, have your beliefs and whenever you encounter evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs, you just invoke god magic to "explain it away".

We don't get to do that. We don't get to invoke "magic" whenever it suits our argument.

THAT ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[tas8831]

A chariot like the one Achilles would have used was 3 feet wide, 4 feet long and had wheels that were 3 feet in diameter. Thus, The Iliad is based on real events.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't get that line of argumentation - I have written many times that I HOPE some, even much of the bible is at least somewhat 'real' - I should hope that the places mentioned and even many of the people discussed are/were real, lest the entire thing be fiction.
But that Jericho was a real place does not - at all - lend credence to any of the magical/supernatural things claimed to have occurred there, shouting angels and trumpet blasts and all that. If that were an archaeologist's standard of evidence, then we must accept that Aphrodite took on human form and fought at Troy.

In the same vein as your point, which I appreciate by the way, I've seen some folk, who describe the bible as a Journal of their Walk with their God.

Which, I cannot refute logically, as it puts the onus back on the author's experiences-- which could very well be valid, within their own world-view.

I would not deny someone's experiences as having happened. The only thing I would question, is their conclusions with respect to the Real World.

So, the bible as a Journal? Or a kind of Diary Of A People? That works for me. It's very subjective, which is the only way you can read it, IMO.

And indeed, since most of it's narrative comes from Story Telling? Which we humans excel at? I expect the majority of the bible's authors would agree that it's subjective, and it's supposed to be subjective.

I do find it odd, this modern idea that the bible must be Magic and/or Literal, instead of a Morality Play, or Parable.

 

[tas8831]

In the same vein as your point, which I appreciate by the way, I've seen some folk, who describe the bible as a Journal of their Walk with their God.

Which, I cannot refute logically, as it puts the onus back on the author's experiences-- which could very well be valid, within their own world-view.

I would not deny someone's experiences as having happened. The only thing I would question, is their conclusions with respect to the Real World.

So, the bible as a Journal? Or a kind of Diary Of A People? That works for me. It's very subjective, which is the only way you can read it, IMO.

And indeed, since most of it's narrative comes from Story Telling? Which we humans excel at? I expect the majority of the bible's authors would agree that it's subjective, and it's supposed to be subjective.

I do find it odd, this modern idea that the bible must be Magic and/or Literal, instead of a Morality Play, or Parable.

Interesting, I'd never heard that.
But sure, if a person just wants to use the bible as a source of inspiration (hopefully, they will only read the non-violent parts), or it gives them solace, or whatever - fine with me, go for it!
My only beef is when the bible-ists try to force it into the public arena and use it as a tool for social/politcal power, or an all-purpose escape clause for justifying their prejudices. Or, as we see on here, as a means of denying science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Don't want to talk about what?

That's what I asked you. You said "I also told you point blank, that I have no desire to discuss this topic with you anymore". What topic were you referring to?

Will somebody just punch me.
I'm absolutely amazed. Okay. I'm the obtuse one.
Did I not explain how created things came to be?

No. Remember, I put it to the group and asked if anyone understood how you believe the traits of the organism in the OP came to be, and those who weighed in said they didn't. So clearly you're not communicating your views very clearly.

What you were asking me... is it about creation or evolution?

That depends on how you think those things came to be. If you believe God created them then it's about creation; OTOH if you believe they evolved then it's about evolution.

...with ridiculous questions, yes... while being unreasonable and dishonest about it.

Unsubstantiated accusation noted.

Let's hear again what it is I don't want to talk about, and since you understand, surely you must be able to say why, as well.

See above.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Interesting, I'd never heard that.
But sure, if a person just wants to use the bible as a source of inspiration (hopefully, they will only read the non-violent parts), or it gives them solace, or whatever - fine with me, go for it!
My only beef is when the bible-ists try to force it into the public arena and use it as a tool for social/politcal power, or an all-purpose escape clause for justifying their prejudices. Or, as we see on here, as a means of denying science.

Exactly! Bible literalism is relatively new. Back in the day, the bible was never so much seen as literal, but more of a Story or Narrative.

Many people who study this sort of thing, see the rise of literalism as a reaction to the Renaissance Age, where the Power Supreme that the church held over folk, was eroded with the rise of Reason.

Of course, the church evolved-- it had to or it would have died out entirely. And indeed, it nearly did in many parts of the world, as Reason supplanted "God Did It" as a method of Explaining Reality As We Understand it.

The push-back came largely from those folk with... shall we say, more humble educational opportunities?

I do find it ironic that the Protestant Revolution also enabled literalism. Prior, the Catholic Church pretty much controlled the narrative, and never did take the bible literal. But once mundane folk discovered they could read the book for themselves? Things kind of went into a decline, with respect to thinking.

But I've gone down a real Rabbit Trail here-- way off track from the original thread.

 

[nPeace]

That's what I asked you. You said "I also told you point blank, that I have no desire to discuss this topic with you anymore". What topic were you referring to?

@Deeje and @Hockeycowboy I need your help here. The Panadols don't seem to be working for this headache. It seems to be a unique headache. <GROAN>

Can you guys tell me if I was clear, and specific in this post, about what I was not discussing in this thread.
Also, does it appear to you that there seems to be a huge communication problem between Jose Fly, and myself?

No. Remember, I put it to the group and asked if anyone understood how you believe the traits of the organism in the OP came to be, and those who weighed in said they didn't. So clearly you're not communicating your views very clearly.

@Deeje and @Hockeycowboy can you tell me if the statements in this post say how, organisms develop a variety of traits. I think Deeje's explanation here, which I agreed with, was clear enough.

That depends on how you think those things came to be. If you believe God created them then it's about creation; OTOH if you believe they evolved then it's about evolution.

@Deeje and @Hockeycowboy from this, would you conclude that Jose Fly is paying attention, or understands what I say? Did he really pay attention to anything I said in Post #66? I don't think so.
If he claims to be paying attention, something is very wrong
I'm not going to say what, again. Though there is one possibility, I didn't mention.

Unsubstantiated accusation noted.


See above.

What I said is true, even though you won't admit it,
I know why I am getting this headache.

Why I keep doing it...

 

[Jose Fly]

@Deeje and @Hockeycowboy I need your help here. The Panadols don't seem to be working for this headache. It seems to be a unique headache. <GROAN>

Can you guys tell me if I was clear, and specific in this post, about what I was not discussing in this thread.
Also, does it appear to you that there seems to be a huge communication problem between Jose Fly, and myself?


@Deeje and @Hockeycowboy can you tell me if the statements in this post say how, organisms develop a variety of traits. I think Deeje's explanation here, which I agreed with, was clear enough.


@Deeje and @Hockeycowboy from this, would you conclude that Jose Fly is paying attention, or understands what I say? Did he really pay attention to anything I said in Post #66? I don't think so.
If he claims to be paying attention, something is very wrong
I'm not going to say what, again. Though there is one possibility, I didn't mention.


What I said is true, even though you won't admit it,
I know why I am getting this headache.

Why I keep doing it...

Putting all that together, it looks like you believe God created the original organism that was the first of the worm's "kind", but it didn't have any of the life history traits, biochemical pathways, or genetic sequences that the organism in the OP uses to cause river blindness. Those all arose after Adam and Eve's fall, via a change in the environment, genetic changes, and a variety of other completely natural mechanisms that God had no part in (other than creating the mechanisms prior to the Fall).

And you're not here to talk about evolution.

Is that about right?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

100%, absolutely FALSE. There you go-- lying yet again about what others do and think.

Does that ever bother you? To lie about other people as often as you do?



"mean spiritedness"? Dude! We are not the ones telling people they are born worthless, and Magically Deserving Of Infinite Torture!



What? Do you mean Magic? Because you must invoke magic to make your bible even work at all!

You must think that all the posters on here, who speak and have interaction with their spirit guides, their gods, etc., must either be liars, delusional, or on medication, eh?

There’s quite a few on here who state such things.

And they are what?
Liars?
Delusional?
On drugs?

When Winston Churchill candidly stated that he saw Abraham Lincoln’s “ghost” while staying in the White House, he was lying?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But where you get it spectacularly wrong -- and I'm truly surprised you wrote it -- is saying, first, that "the worm evolved from other worms...and would never become a scorpion." In this, you deny the possibility of new species arising out of other species. BUT THEN, you go on to say that you don't agree that "God creat[ed] every species." Well then --- where did they come from?

What?
@nPeace is not contradicting himself...
Are you implying there’s only one species of worm? Sounds like it.

DK Science: Worms

And from just where did these 1,000,000 species come from? They evolved from other worms, like nPeace stated. What’s the issue?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hee-hee! Gotta love it! In one breath you say "nothing comes from nothing" and then immediately that "'something' created it all."

If you can't see why that's too funny...

“Nothing comes from nothing”, means “nothing stays nothing.”

Or are you taking issue with @Deeje omitting the word ‘material’, as in ‘nothing material’?

Do you know the source of energy? Apparently, science supports the view that energy can change form, but it can’t be created, nor destroyed....IOW, it’s always existed. We agree!

 

[Deeje]

So just follow orders and shut up about it because the boss says so.

That's the same in any organization. Disobey the boss and you lose your place in that company. Shocking isn’t it! What the boss says...goes. Why should God be any different? He is THE authority figure....there is no one that outranks him. He doesn't make rules for no reason. Disrespect them at you will regret it.

I fail to see what's moral about that.

I think you fail to see a lot of things that I see.....since God is the author of morality, how can he be immoral? How does evolution explain morality since it is a uniquely human trait? How does morality even fit into evolution?

Because scientists are not gods, their writings are not scripture and science is not a religion in any sense of the word.

That is exactly what they are to the outside observer. Denying it doesn’t make it otherwise. If you have no proof...you need belief. Belief requires faith. You guys have as much of a belief system as I do....but it galls you to even think about it.

Faith is not necessary when we're dealing with carefully collected observations and measurements - aka empirical evidence.

“Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).” (Google search)

This describes what Bible believers base their faith on as well.
We have senses and we can observe creation and rely on the documentation of the who is responsible for creation. We see patterns of behavior and our own lives testify to how amazingly well designed we are.

But you already knew that. You're just one of those people that insists on dragging science down to the level of religion.

No one needed to drag it anywhere...it was already there. Scientists just pretend that science fiction is science fact....its a snow job. Evolutionists have already told me several times that science has no proof for anything.....when you have no proof, then you 'believe' on 'faith'.....faith in the 'religion' of science....how is that not obvious?

We all observe things through our own lens.....we just have different 'opticians'. If God exists, where does that leave atheists? If he doesn’t where does that leave believers? I'll leave you to answer that.....

 

[Deeje]

I notice you say "said to be eternal." But not so said by ME, nor by a lot of other people.

Suit yourself. You can believe whatever you wish. Isn’t free will a wonderful thing?

And since this "being" never makes any sort of appearance that science can observe, science can have nothing to say about it.

What makes you think that science has to observe the Creator in order for him to be real? You think scientists are intelligent enough to detect an immaterial being of his magnitude? He is described in the Bible as pure dynamic energy. Can energy create matter? How big is the universe? How big does God have to be to produce it? Bigger than science I think...

Same as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, science must remain forever mum on that, too.

I can assure you that no one will have to account to the Invisible Pink Unicorn.....but I think that the Creator of this planet may have grander plans for it than smug scientists would ever be capable of producing. Thankfully, I have a hope for the future that does not depend on science.....if science is where you rest your hope, then the future is not looking too crash hot. Name a single place on earth where science has not created problems.....science and industry.....what a great marriage! Mother Earth is choking to death. Climate change is causing no end of trouble with extremes on either end of the temperature gauge.
Australia is set to have its hottest day on record next week.....fires have burned out over 2 million hectares of our bushland.....and we are running out of water in many places with the worst drought ever....the weather extremes are unrelenting.....something’s gotta give.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

“Nothing comes from nothing”, means “nothing stays nothing.”

Or are you taking issue with @Deeje omitting the word ‘material’, as in ‘nothing material’?

Do you know the source of energy? Apparently, science supports the view that energy can change form, but it can’t be created, nor destroyed....IOW, it’s always existed. We agree!

Yes, we agree!

You just said it yourself: "energy can change form, but it can't be created nor destroyed...IOW, it's always existed."

But you see, that means that there never was "nothing," and therefore, saying "nothing comes from nothing" (or "nothing stays nothing") is moot in this context.

And if energy always existed, and energy can change form, then voila! No need for a creator.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What I said is true, even though you won't admit it,

"True"? Based on...????? Because You Said So?

Magic?

What????

 

[Etritonakin]

"also"?



Nore does it mean that it is correct, just because it's written in some book.

1 Thes 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I was not there for the flood -or Cain's nuptials -but I've seen enough to believe in extremely miraculous things -and learned enough about the bible and science to know that the bible does not describe a young earth, does not specify Adam and Eve were the first "humans" ever or on Earth at the time.
Most importantly, none can doubt that everyone keeping the commandments would produce a wonderful world -even in principle if God did not exist.

There is enough which can be shown to be true by in-depth study of prophecy and drawing near to God -after which he will draw near to you -that extremely specific facts are not extremely important.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You must think that all the posters on here, who speak and have interaction with their spirit guides, their gods, etc., must either be liars, delusional, or on medication, eh?.

Nice attempt to introduce What About Ism. An utter failure to provide a single counter-argument.

Another case of "Nuu UUUN" from you.

When Winston Churchill candidly stated that he saw Abraham Lincoln’s “ghost” while staying in the White House, he was lying?

Or? He was joking, or being sarcastic. Or speaking in Hyperbolie.

Or even speaking metaphorically-- as in the "weight" of the Heroic Deeds of Lincoln was weighing on anyone who knew the History of the place.

It's as if you are not even trying...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And from just where did these 1,000,000 species come from? They evolved from other worms, like nPeace stated. What’s the issue?

Here, Class, we see why a Creationist cannot understand actual Evolution.

The above comment seems to think the generic word "worms" has specific meaning in this context-- but of course, it does not.

It remains accurate: you either accept Evolution is True?
Or you simply have no clue what it is.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

“Nothing comes from nothing”, means “nothing stays nothing.”

What is really quite funny about the above? THE ONLY PEOPLE SAYING "NOTHING FROM NOTHING"?

Are Theists!

Of course-- Genesis 1 clearly says "nothing from nothing" at the start, so we can see why they are confused-- they think Genesis isn't just a Story..

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, we agree!

You just said it yourself: "energy can change form, but it can't be created nor destroyed...IOW, it's always existed."

But you see, that means that there never was "nothing," and therefore, saying "nothing comes from nothing" (or "nothing stays nothing") is moot in this context.

And if energy always existed, and energy can change form, then voila! No need for a creator.

Yes -and No. "Everything" has always existed -but some things require a creator. From our own examples, we see that some things are impossible before self-aware creativity -but our reference is a reality which is already extremely purposefully-complex.

God's reference would have been simplicity. "Everything" naturally developing self-awareness and creativity would not be at all impossible or illogical -and would allow for that which was not otherwise possible.

An "eternal" God could not have decided upon its initial existence or early development -and a developing God would always have been God because he is that which has always existed.