• 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!

Existence

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I do not understand your comment. I guess you are claiming evolution occurs with rocks? Interesting.
My point was that you formed a poorly asked question. You do not get to make an unsupported statement as part of it. You said this: "You need a living organism with which to start."

That was an unwise claim on your part. You just put the burden of proof upon yourself before you even found out any possible answers.

Would you care to try again, or are you going to support your statement?
 
You will find that people that can support their claims with facts and evidence tend to agree with each other when it comes to well understood scientific concepts. I am willing to bet that if we each calculated the trajectory of an object on a simple two dimensional grid using a constant force of gravity that we would come to the same answer for that.

It is when everyone's answers about something are different that your ears should perk up.
Not if you don't have the same initial conditions. But you know that... conditions at the beginning...

Tag team. Very well.
 
My point was that you formed a poorly asked question. You do not get to make an unsupported statement as part of it. You said this: "You need a living organism with which to start."

That was an unwise claim on your part. You just put the burden of proof upon yourself before you even found out any possible answers.

Would you care to try again, or are you going to support your statement?
No need. I see that you believe evolution occurred sometime in the past when there were only rocks? stars? unified force? Interesting.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No need. I see that you believe evolution occurred sometime in the past when there were only rocks? stars? unified force? Interesting.
It is not proper or honest to post such blatantly false claims.

You screwed up. You could not ask a proper question and I will not answer bogus questions. And you took on a burden of proof. When a person makes a clear claim, as you did. and then runs away from supporting it in a debate, as you have, then it looks as if the person knows that he is wrong.

You could simply apologize for your poorly asked question and try again.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm in agreement with you that the Genesis account is not symbolic, but not because I think it's historical - because I think it is a wrong guess like all creation stories (apart from the scientific account).

A wrong answer is not a symbol. Nor is it an allegory or metaphor. All of those imply substitution of a symbol for something literal. The five Olympic rings are symbols representing continents. An apple is a symbol for something appealing and desired in, "She was the apple of his eye." Gulliver's Travels is an allegory in which fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent figures in British politics of Swift's era.

But these creation stories don't stand for anything but wrong answers, like misadding a sum of numbers, and then later, when somebody comes along and adds them properly, we are told that the old sum was a symbol, that is instead a timeless truth and life lesson not to be taken literally, and that scripture is not meant to be understood a math book (or science, or history).

I think mistake is a better description, unless one wants to believe that scripture doesn't contain errors, in which case he must find other words like symbol.

Maybe your question should be how one knows the Genesis account is incorrect. That's a longer answer, but in a nutshell, science has shown us that the story is incorrect. If you want those answers - what scientists have determined to be the case and the evidence supporting those tentative conclusions, you'll need two things: skill in critical thinking and a basic understanding of science, meaning you'll need to develop those things to have access to those answers.

But the good news is that millions before you have done so. One has to value such knowledge to make the effort to obtain it. My experience with creationism apologists is that they aren't interested in the science even when they ask about it. They don't do even a cursory survey of the Internet for information, and if one provides them with links, there's no evidence that they've even opened them much less made the effort to try to understand them.

That's how I know that the Genesis account is incorrect: I've learned the science.



That is incorrect. If you don't have the data base and the critical thinking skills to recognize and accept sound conclusions, everything looks like unsupported belief (faith) to you.

There are other ways of thinking, other methods for deciding what is true than the simple willingness to believe, methods involving belief by reason applied to evidence. If you're unsure whether these are both faith, note that there are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone, a faith-based activity, and just one periodic table of the elements, derived from the proper application of reason to physical evidence.

Of course, recognizing evidence is also a problem for the faith-based believer, as when we are told things like what you just wrote, that belief in evolution is faith-based, or that trust in science is not different than trust in God. The difference is the evidence for the scientific method - it stunning successes. To claim that it's all just faith that got man to the moon and back is to ignore the evidence that the success of the missions provides in support of the assumptions underlying the design of the mission.

So, no not the same, even if there are some who are unaware that it is possible to think without faith. One can train oneself never to swallow an idea unexamined as surely as one can train himself not to swallow unexamined food. One can learn to apply the smell test to ideas as well and recognize and reject unproven ideas for their failure to meet the criteria for justified belief.
Okay, so you can explain the difference to me, yes? Please do so.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's right to those who believe and have faith in things they do not see.
On what basis do you not believe in Aphrodite then?
Faith in God is based on evidence for things though not seen.
As far as I know, it's based solely on stories. 'Things unseen' here don't refer to the wind or radiation outside the visible band or the mice in the wainscoting. They refer to beings that exist solely as concepts / things imagined in individual brains, which is why they're unseen, and why you can't show them to others, no?
Can you explain the difference between the two - belief in God, and belief in the ToE?
Very simply, the modern theory of evolution is derived from examinable evidence which has been submitted to reasoned skeptical enquiry.

Belief in God is derived from family and cultural stories and not from examinable evidence at all, let alone reasoned skeptical enquiry.

Which brings us back to why you don't believe in Aphrodite. Or Loki. Or Kali. Or the Rainbow Serpent. Or ...
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Maths calculus for the living.

Sun is the size it is today. Once it was a huge energy mass now gone.

I can only be as old highest when I am young as I begin to age.

When I am my human youngest I own my sun equals answer.

As the sun gets consumed I age die deteriorate and exist no more like the sun.

Compare maths light by sun theism is my suns answer.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Comparing data science use of humans in sciences.

Theisms. Bones dug up of mutated human life monkey type.

Reasoning I compare both a whole monkey form and a whole human form to the ancient human bones.

God themes said by man is talking on behalf of God.

Who named God?

Men did for mans purposes, the sciences. As natural man never did. Wait a minute natural man had invented science.

Two statements first stated about one man presence. Where coercion in human science began.

As to teach you have to state the string of coercion itself. The history.

In data which science imposes as maths equations comparing equations and formulas about presences.

A whole human type healthy human data. Stated data exact for one human body.

A whole monkey or ape healthy monkey or ape data. Stated data exact for one ape or monkey body.

Those bodies have similar used bio chemistry.

humans do. The monkey conscious is not by consciousness involved in their body study. as owner.

Science hence says the same type. Yet two separate living bodies own them. Is one of their coercive lies.

As that equals status then leaves a comparing of other body types to claim what is the same and what is not the same.

To conclude a list of data imposing how a monkey life body is separately lived with a human not owning that amount or detailed bio chemistry. Is just data. Looked at as data and then coerced. by status data.

How you came about claiming maths data human imposed owned bio chemical status. As you imposed it yourselves.

Anyone would think you believe that the chemicals were speaking to you and claim I am this number give me the number then tell me what I did as a God.

What coercion is.....trying to identify data that does not even exist as data to impose your belief of ideas not even data.....hence even maths says you are lying.

The human teaching you began lying as you displaced natural human man conscious ownership....then claim separately you speak as a man God self.
 

Firelight

Inactive member
Are you sure that the reason people accept evolution is because it's "taught in school"? Are you really sure that that is the reason?

I said “some people.” Yes, I am really sure that is the reason for some people. Various forms of the Theory of Evolution are written in textbooks and taught in schools. It may get taught without even being labeled as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Teaching it will influence people to accept it and develop beliefs for it.

How about a mammal? Were your ancestors mammals?

No. All of my ancestors were human beings. They go back nearly 7000 years to Adam and Eve, who were created by God and were the first human beings placed on this earth by Him. Adam and Eve did not evolve from apes. God gave human beings sophisticated brains, which separates them from the animals. Human beings are not animals or mammals.

psssst: humans = apes. And mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.

Says who? Darwin and his followers? They simply look at a few similarities and then create various classification systems to group human beings, plants, and animals into. Big deal! Their systems do NOT prove human beings are animals, apes, mammals, etc. They simply labeled them as such because they wanted to. I do not wish to label them as such, so I am not going to. Darwin doesn’t make the rules for me.

Phylogenetics reveal a family tree comprised of all species. Both extant as well as extinct.

What do Phylogenetics prove? Not much. It’s just another classification system created by a scientist to group the history or “family tree” of various species of plants and animals into. The methods used to classify and complete a tree are varied and questionable. Evidence is lacking, therefore, many assumptions must be made to complete a tree.
 
It is not proper or honest to post such blatantly false claims.

You screwed up. You could not ask a proper question and I will not answer bogus questions. And you took on a burden of proof. When a person makes a clear claim, as you did. and then runs away from supporting it in a debate, as you have, then it looks as if the person knows that he is wrong.

You could simply apologize for your poorly asked question and try again.
No need. I will stand by my first impressions.
 
Top