I'm glad you are here to tell me what I know and don't know
But, yes, lack of full knowledge of any area doesn't mean you can't be a decent human, even not knowing about God
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Disproof of Darwinism
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
But, yes, lack of full knowledge of any area doesn't mean you can't be a decent human, even not knowing about God
I would agree that sacrificing doesn't make someone superior. Certainly in the TaNaKh, even God said that. But, none the less, a spiritual act IMV
Heyo
Veteran Member
You haven't offered new information.
And remember also that you aren't going up against biology here. It's maths you have to fight. Classification is applied set theory. And from that comes the principle that you can't outrun your ancestry.
Adding new traits doesn't change your heredity. You have to show that you lack traits that put you in the cladogram first time.
Biology doesn't consider the spiritual side. Even in biology, a doctor may say, "Now it is up to the patient and how much he wants to live" regardless of biology.
My ancestry is Adam and Eve created by God. But you can be a monkey's uncle if you so choose.
A free-will spiritual being that has a soul and temporarily lives in this body. IMV
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
it is interesting that for someone who whines as much as you do about personal attacks, you do not hesitate to throw them out yourself.Biology doesn't consider the spiritual side. Even in biology, a doctor may say, "Now it is up to the patient and how much he wants to live" regardless of biology.
My ancestry is Adam and Eve created by God. But you can be a monkey's uncle if you so choose.
But this would be factual to some degree if you believe that today's man came from evolution
At the very least, a cousinPS. I don't whine
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Factual does not negate personal attack.But this would be factual if you believe that today's man came from evolution
PS. I don't whine
Otherwise all your whining about it in this thread is null and void.
I don't whine. Is that your perception? Or is it a strawman attempt.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I didn't feel attacked. I consider his non sequitur as an admission of defeat.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
You "better do", because otherwise we, Christians, will be persecuted by authorities.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Tell me yourself. It is trolling to send me to school. I got the gold medal for school completion. I know that Darwinism is absurd because no known fish has become ape. And if unknown fish in the Pacific Ocean during 2020 has become ape, the reality is absurd. The reality can not be absurd by definition of reality: reality is that comes from God of Reality.
The fossil record is not tape-recording, not film. Thus, it is interpreted by Theory of Evolution, which makes the theory false tautology: theory is "proven" by fossils, which are interpreted by theory.
The fossil record is not tape-recording, not film. Thus, it is interpreted by Theory of Evolution, which makes the theory false tautology: theory is "proven" by fossils, which are interpreted by theory.
It may take longer than an hour for this fish to be converted to ape.
And it goes both ways. Apes can become fish:
Simply claiming that a human being is not an animal is wrong, unless you don't mean by animal what a biologist does. Perhaps you have a religious definition that excludes man, which seems to be the case, but that wouldn't have any value to a person who does not believe in gods or the teachings of any religion, who has no use for concepts like spirit and soul. They have no referent in reality - nothing you can detect evidence for out there with any naked or aided perception and say, "There, that's the thing I was talking about."
Science does fine without such confounding and unjustified assumptions, which violate Occam's principle of parsimony, or the idea that adding complications to an explanation of observed phenomena that are all accounted for by a simpler narrative is undesirable. And we can see why. It's got people saying that human beings aren't animals or apes based on unjustified assumptions about man not being a twig on the tree of life. Religious beliefs have us visualize man as unrelated to apes or other animals, which causes one to make logical errors.
Why is that spiritual? Because it's based on a belief in the existence of spirits? I'd say that the gorilla and orangutan have a leg up on those performing such acts.
And many human beings have returned to that state. We don't perform what we consider meaning acts to appeal to nonexistent gods. Mans religious phase is the period connecting the time when man first developed to intellect to ask about how the world came to be the way we find it, and when he got his answers.
In between, gods were invented to stand for natural processes. The sun appeared to move through the sky, so Apollo was assigned the task of pulling it. Someone seemed to be rumbling in the heavens and throwing bolts of lightning, so Thor was invented. Their services are no longer needed, and they have been excused. But we have further to go. There are still gods invoked to account for that for which gods are not needed, but far more people jumping ahead back into atheism with the other apes than ever in man's history since the advent of religion.
If the conclusions are contradictory - in part or whole mutually exclusive - then at least one is wrong. If two people add the same column of numbers and come to different conclusions about their sum, at least one is wrong, and we have a means to determine if either is correct. If you have your own way of adding that is faith - based rather than based in pure reason, your results aren't useful.
And therein is the crux of the matter. The faith-based and reason and evidence-based thinkers don't merely come to different conclusions. They have different methods of processing information to arrive at them. If we can agree on the rules of arithmetic and we come up with different sums (conclusions), we have a means of resolving our differences using our agreed-upon method for adding and seeing who made the mistake.
This is the process called dialectic, wherein two people with shared critical thinking skills can decide which of them is in error and one learns from the other in the process. This is not a competition or debate. It's a cooperative effort toward attaining a common understanding.
If you allow faith-based thought into the process, then that ability to come to agreement is lost. If we can agree that 2 + 2 = 4 in every case, and one of us has mistakenly come up with 5, then we can locate the error and come to an agreement.
But if one of us says that he chooses to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 because he read it in a book, then all is lost.
Not proof enough for me. When I look around, I see a world that is proof of nothing other than that it exists. It either has no source, or it has either a conscious or unconscious source. None of these possibilities can be ruled in or out. If you have decided that the conscious external source is the correct answer, you have made a logical error. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the proper application of reason to the relevant data or evidence. You have jumped to a faith-based conclusion.
If those are rules of the reason you follow, then I can't really use any of your conclusions about the significance of evidence.
What I a doing now is what is usually called attacking. Most of us reject that description. You might feel beset by answers like these, but they are part of dialectic. When we disagree with somebody's reasoning and conclusions, we explain why. It you are receptive to that and take it in the spirit of a pursuit of truth, you don't feel attacked. You appreciate the interest, and if the argument is compelling, you appreciate the help..
But if you simply don't like being disagreed with or your having your thinking constructively criticized, you will feel beset. That's a fundamental difference in the spirit of dissent in the academic setting and in church, where independent thought is considered an attack on the agreed-upon dicta of the faith.
I assume that you mean a conscious creator, or a god, since you capitalized the word. If so, that's a circular argument, since your definition of creation implies a god, which presumably is the conclusion your are aiming at. By that reasoning, you cannot call rows of parallel sand dunes in the desert a creation of the wind acting on the sand, or if you did say that the wind created the sculpture, you would be inserting your "Creator" again.
Acknowledging and tolerating another's right to hold an opinion and holding that opinion in high regard are different things - both unfortunately called respect. As I explained, I have no regard for faith-based thought or its output, but am polite to people indulging in it as long as they are also polite in return. I hope that you feel that this has been the case here and don't characterize this as attacking your beliefs.
As noted before, Biology doesn't look at "Is there a God" as an option. They claim as they see it within the parameters that they themselves set. I'm ok with that.
To say that 7 billion people, who are spiritual, that there is no spirituality, I just couldn't see that.
Absolutely. However, we aren't talking about numbers. We have varying viewpoints on how what we see started. yes, not all are right, but we haven't reached a definitive conclusion, IMV
I can acknowledge that.
I don't see it that way. You were cogent, laying down your viewpoints and why... i call that sharing or at the most debating.
I certainly don't at all....
a little humor.. what you are saying "Ain't Necessarily so"
And, of course, that goes both ways I do hope you have a great day.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There should be absolutely no doubt that the basic ToE is spot on because: 1. it's observable [Speciation - Wikipedia] and 2. it's logical [all material things change over time and genes are material things].
IMO, the main issue should be how all of this started, and here's the answer if we look at it 100% objectively: "We don't know". Beliefs are beliefs, and we all have them, but beliefs are not intrinsically facts.
IMO, the main issue should be how all of this started, and here's the answer if we look at it 100% objectively: "We don't know". Beliefs are beliefs, and we all have them, but beliefs are not intrinsically facts.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If humans did not evolve from apes, then the apes and humans have separate origins.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Biology, like all of science, isn't looking for anything more than generalizations about nature that help us anticipate its vagaries better. If evidence that is best understood by invoking a god is uncovered, only then should that idea be entertained. This hasn't happened, so no gods are imputed.
Biology shouldn't be looking for a god. That's not good science. Science goes where evidence leads it. We can take a lesson from the intelligent design movement. Their mistake was that went looking for a god in nature that they assumed was there. Millions of dollars were allocated to this pursuit, all in vain.
People see what they want to see or expect to see. This is why the ID people kept seeing irreducible complexity where there was none. They were looking for it - a mistake. It the mistake that double blinding a medical trial hopes to eliminate. Both the patient and clinician are hoping for a good response. If you let them know when the tested medication is being used, they are prone to giving positive results, and the opposite with placebo.
Science has looked into the cosmos and into crystals to see what secrets nature holds. None of the discoveries requires a god, so why posit one? The predictive and explanatory power of no scientific theory is improved by the ad hoc insertion of a god into it. So it has never been done.
If a god or gods exist, we can conclude that they are non-interventionalist (no miracles, no revelation, no prayers answered, etc.), and it either doesn't want to be found, cannot manifest itself, no longer exists, is indifferent to man's problems, or is unaware that we exist. I don't see where identifying the existence of such a god (basically, the deists' god) is of any value. Did the universe come from an unconscious multiverse, or a conscious god that abandoned us like a reptile (usually) abandons its eggs after laying them. Why should the newborn turtle or snake care either way?
I don't know what people are actually claiming about themselves or others when they use the word spiritual. They don't seem to be able to give a good answer, either. What is spiritual truth? Nothing like what I call truth.
Was it you that defined spirit as the combination of will, mind, and emotion? To me, that's all mind. I can't use that idea for anything.
Or when I read people talking about duality and non-duality. What's the value to them there? Are they having issues with ego or attachment or something else that's partially resolved with these ideas? If so, that's great for them, but I have no such need or issue. Such ideas clarify nothing for me. Nor do they help me understand our world.
It seems to me that many people need magic in their lives. They need to believe that they have arcane knowledge and great insight not available to the less evolved mind. They need to believe that there is more to reality than what they can experience with the mind and senses.
But what I see is people chasing their tails, usually for a lifetime, holding out their endless search as a token of their desire to keep learning, when in reality it appears to be the opposite - a fruitless chase, like somebody looking for his keys for a lifetime, and seeing that as a virtue compared to the man who found his keys and quit looking.
So until somebody can give me a clear description of what they're talking about, and evidence that they are doing more than just massaging their minds with ideas that give them pleasure, I will continue to hold the position that this is a dead end pursuit after more than a few years of exploring. I did that in my thirties, found a worldview that worked for me, and the searching was over. I found the keys, so why keep looking?
I thought that you had. Haven't you concluded that the world is proof of a god for you? You wrote, "Just look at everything around you... proof enough IMO." I gave you an alternative interpretation - either a god or a naturalistic explanation, and that no definitive conclusion could be reached as neither possibility could be ruled in or out at this time.
Can you explain how you eliminated the multiverse possibility? Or perhaps you haven't, and like me, consider it a viable possibility and alternative explanation to a supernatural answer.
You, too.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's a non-sequitur. Modern apes, much like modern humans, have had their own process of evolution over the more recent millions of years, but there is very likely a link that connects them probably around 6 million years ago. One find in Chad that's over 5 million years b.p. has so many shared early ape/early human characteristics that it is impossible to classify it as being either the last time I read.
Life forms evolve over time, and we well know this applies to humans as well, and this has been known for over a century now. However, this still does not answer how it all started. If we are truly being objective, we are not ever likely to know the answer to that question with any certainty of being correct. And, as I mentioned before, the terms "beliefs" and "facts" are not synonymous.
OTOH, I believe there is "Something" out there that seems to connect with us, but I simply cannot prove that nor explain Its "parameters".
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Consider thing A. From thing A came humans, and from thing A came apes. Humans did not came from apes, but directly from thing A. We call thing A - Act of Creation.
Moreover, the apes did not come from fishes, but directly from thing A.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You're ignoring the probability of what's called a "common ancestor".
Secondly, you use the words "Act of Creation", so let me turn the tables and ask you for scientific evidence for that? Not "beliefs", just "facts".