An open challenge to evolutionists.

[mikkel_the_dane]

And off you go on yet another tangent....



Yet again arguing against something that I've never claimed. You can't reason somebody out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into...

I am a part of the universe and so are you. It may very well be that the universe is logically self-consistent, but it doesn't do you any good, because it doesn't apply among humans for the 4 Fs(biology) and when we compete for resources, power and prestige.
So you can have your: "The universe is logically self-consistent", because it doesn't apply to biology in humans as human live that as animals and funny enough they are a part of the universe.
You are not used to this, right? I don't bow to your: "The universe is logically self-consistent". How? Because I actually look at human behavior and see that your logic doesn't apply.

We are debating everything within the universe and humans are part of that and then it gets messy and your logic breaks down in practice.

You can magically invoke logic all you like and I will still behave differently than you. And again we are both parts of the universe, no matter how many times you magically invoke logic as "The universe is logically self-consistent".
Your claim doesn't work in practice. Great idea, poor in practice.

 

[ChristineM]

Here we go.
Start with just short of the Big Bang. Time passes and now we have humans. Then universe is not human, yet the humans are in the universe and so are mind games. You couldn't be speaking of mind games, if they weren't a part of the universe/reality.

So here it goes. The universe is logical and causes the illogical as mind games. There wouldn't be mind games unless caused by the universe, so the logical is causing the illogical.
That is called a reductio ad absurdum.

Where does the words "mind games" connect to in the rest of the universe? How come you can speak of them as facts, because you only use facts, yet deny they are facts.

Would you please start checking your thinking and don't make free-floating claims. Your claim is open to falsifiability and the test is this:
You are look at a part of the universe and the universe is logical. Now you observe that I answer: No! But you can't explain your observation, because you explain it away.
You can't explain other humans. so their thinking aren't a part of the universe.
You know what? Here is what would happen if you and I were placed in brain scanners. They would show that both our brains are working and producing thoughts, which exist and are in the universe.

You are doing a false dichotomy of real and unreal. Mind games are real, otherwise I couldn't be doing this and exposes your thinking as absurd and itself a mind game.

"Yes reality is logical, mind games aren't. And the universe is not human." are as claims themselves mind games and they are real, because you think them and that caused you to write them down on a computer in the universe.
Your really have to learn to check your own thinking and test it, before you try to fool me into believing in your mind games. I don't have to and I know this. So I just return the favor: Your mind game about mind games is a mind game and I spotted that.

Humans did not evolve for more than 13 billion years after the bb thats time seriously passing

Sheesh, you are confused. Maybe study some logic before making stuff up.

It doesnt connect, that was my point

Yes of course our brains exist. The thoughts though are just chemical reactions. I dont think you realise this

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Humans did not evolve for more than 13 billion years after the bb thats time seriously passing

Sheesh, you are confused. Maybe study some logic before making stuff up.

It doesnt connect, that was my point

Yes of course our brains exist. The thoughts though are just chemical reactions. I dont think you realise this

So mind games are real?

And I can in fact behave differently than you and think differently. Is that facts or what?

 

[ChristineM]

And "god magic" beats your private universe/reality, because we are still here and that is really real
You are not that good at subjectivity.
A religious person believes differently than you. As long as that person's subsequent behavior works as part of the universe, the beliefs works as they give rise to subsequent behavior.
And yes, the beliefs are subjective, yet really real, exist and cause subsequent behavior. Just like in you.
Religion is caused by biology and not gods. So religious beliefs are natural and a part of the universe.

So show me a god. I'll wait while you find one.

Religion is just a little of that chemical reaction.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am a part of the universe and so are you.

Wow - really!?

So you can have your: "The universe is logically self-consistent", because it doesn't apply to biology in humans as human live that as animals and funny enough they are a part of the universe.

Off on another tangent and another bold and unsupported claim.

You are not used to this, right?

Irrational nonsense? Oh, I'm very used to it.

You can magically invoke logic all you like and I will still behave differently than you.

When did I ever claim anything else?

Your claim doesn't work in practice.

It does, actually - that's why we have science and technology that allows you to claim that the basis of the technology you are using to communicate doesn't work in practice....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So show me a god. I'll wait while you find one.

Religion is just a little of that chemical reaction.

I didn't say god, I said "god".

Atheism is just a little of that chemical reaction. Atheists can chemical reaction and so do religious humans. Yes, we agree and now what? It doesn't settle anything!

 

[ChristineM]

OK, perhaps I have misunderstood. What then was the point you wanted to make in post 60?

Exactly what post 60 says

That the standard cosmological model is confirmed.

It was not me who wrote the piece

 

[exchemist]

No, that we e.g. are exactly the same because we all need water or we will die. But that is not the case, it is the case that all humans as individuals need water and if I don't get it, you won't die.
Same, similar and different.
When we do the universe with humans in it, then you need all 3: Same, similar and different.

Overall you and I are covered by the same natural laws, but closer up we are not the same, we are similar and yet closer we are different. Logic doesn't work all the way down to different, if we are different.

I'm not with this at all, I'm afraid.

 

[exchemist]

Exactly what post 60 says

That the standard cosmological model is confirmed.

It was not me who wrote the piece

No, it was you that chose to quote it. For some reason.

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't say god, I said "god".

Atheism is just a little of that chemical reaction. Atheists can chemical reaction and so do religious humans. Yes, we agree and now what? It doesn't settle anything!

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less. But as far as i know not thinking about a god doesn't actually take any thinking and so no chemical reaction.

 

[ChristineM]

No, it was you that chose to quote it. For some reason.

Because its thereto quote and relevant to the discussion

Is that a good enough reason for you?

 

[ChristineM]

Start here: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." - Aristotle
We are playing same, similar and different for different aspects of the universe and not all things at all time are the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.
What is the underlying logical BTW? You have made a positive claim, now explain it.

So back to @ChristineM and that reality is logical. She hasn't explained that and nor have you explained the underlying logic of the universe.

I claim that logic as the law of human thought in regards has a limitation, because it is about local things and not all things.
So what is the underlying logic of the universe?

I did not say "underlying logic" i said the universe is logical, please do not misrepresent what i say

 

[exchemist]

Because its thereto quote and relevant to the discussion

Is that a good enough reason for you?

No.

 

[ChristineM]

No.

Ok, then i think you are going to be disappointed

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not with this at all, I'm afraid.

Fair enough.

 

[SomeRandom]

This response should cover all feedback to me on the second page. I intend to go over the third page and respond at another time.



like rocks and meteors?



Creation is representation of Creationism and Originator.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:



So Evolution has not shown Creationism to be incorrect since it simply refers to the biological description of how species or organisms change over time?

Also does Evolution precede time?



Yes Creationism has to do with origin which would precede change.



origin precedes change



why would gradual or exponential change "have to" precede origin? No simply getting around this?



So are you trying to say it is not Evolution that contradicts Creationism but Big Bang Theory?



so highly compressed plasma randomly and / or coincidentally changing over time is why an origin of Evolution is more scientific or valid, than an origin of Creation or Intelligent design?



With the origins of all things being of an Intelligent design then why not?



Already mentioned why i created this post.



It may seem that way. However if the gods of the nations are idols, graven images, and honour of men, instead of an Intelligent Designer; then perhaps an image or two in itself is worth a thousand words to those said nations.

Psa 96:5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.






Good question. I can tell you why all things are of Creation and Originate from an Intelligent Designer but I cannot tell you what tools or creation has to do with evolution invalidating Creation.




See my response above to Audie. It's in this current reply or response.

Well maybe the creator used evolution as a tool.
Besides it’s the origin of species, not the origin of life. You want to predate ToE? Go ask a physicist about the Big Bang

 

[Windwalker]

Whether or not Evolution has any validity to it or not, I do not believe it would predate or is before Creationism.

That would be incorrect. Creationism is a modern pseudoscience invented in order to compete with the already well-established scientific Theory of Evolution. It's much newer than the ToE. So if your argument is who came first is right, you've shot yourself in the foot.

Besides, if being first makes you right, then Copernicus was wrong. The sun still orbits the earth, and the earth is the actual center of the solar system, denying what we have seen with our own two eyes flying around out there. Do you believe that is the real case, that the sun orbits the earth? Should be reject Copernicus and go with the early premodern views? Should we reject the spherical earth theory too?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well maybe the creator used evolution as a tool.
Besides it’s the origin of species, not the origin of life. You want to predate ToE? Go ask a physicist about the Big Bang

From what I have been reading here, some do say they 'know' about the Big Bang as if it really happened from some substance of sort. They really know...

 

[YoursTrue]

So the underlying logic of the universe causes not logical thoughts and beliefs.
Now explain that and not just claim it.

I was thinking something similar as you state above. The universe doesn't think, but lack of logic emerged from ?? lack of logic?? That doesn't make sense, does it. At least to me it doesn't make sense. Perhaps someone wants to make up (suppose, surmise, or guess) about unicells and how they grew (emerged and continued thereon) from something with or without universal logic.

 

[McBell]

I was thinking something similar as you state above. The universe doesn't think, but lack of logic emerged from ?? lack of logic?? That doesn't make sense, does it. At least to me it doesn't make sense. Perhaps someone wants to make up (suppose, surmise, or guess) about unicells and how they grew (emerged and continued thereon) from something with or without universal logic.

What specifically about the ToE leads you to believe its being true means Jesus was misled?