1. 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!

Featured Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Deeje, Mar 11, 2018.

  1. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Silent Generation - so don't expect much
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    9,603
    Ratings:
    +5,135
    Religion:
    Fellowship of the Mutable (agnostic atheist)
    What is this supposed to mean? Of course there are problems all around the world, but overall most are better off than we and they were ever before. Pointing out the huge problems around the world is a fruitless task since it will probably always be the case that there will be a spectrum of richer and poorer countries - perhaps blame religion for some of this, in keeping them in the past. And people are not more selfish than before actually - from a 72-year-old standpoint - since I have noticed how much better off we are than previously - and in many ways. Most of us don't have to feel responsible for the misfortunes of others, since as I pointed out, there is usually little we can do - unless one wants to devote one's life to such things.
     
  2. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,243
    Ratings:
    +395
    India has a rapidly growing economy and every reason to be optimistic.

    The US has borrowed from the future so long we may be almost out of future.
     
  3. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    9,895
    Ratings:
    +9,874
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    US can save trillions if it cuts down on its millitary. Further its a large resource rich land. Any blip in its prosperity will always be temporary. That's the advantage all large countries have, Russia, Australia, US, Canada especially.
     
  4. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,186
    Ratings:
    +5,549
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Which are vague and meaningless.

    Can you elaborate further, please?
     
  5. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    13,041
    Ratings:
    +6,801
    Nice dodge.

    You do know that evolution draws from many different branches of science including chemistry, biology, paleontology, botany, paleobotany, physics, biochemistry, genomics, genetics, paleobiology, taxonomy, physiology, phylogenetics, paleovirology, biogeography, systematics, and more.

    Of course, I've pointed this out several times before, so you already know this. So, the question is, which of those branches of science are the ones that have "no real evidence for its claims?"

    Uh no. We're talking about multiple thousands of scientists independently collecting data over more than a century, all over the world. When all of the data points to the same conclusion, there's only one conclusion to make.

    When all evidence backs up all previous evidence without any evidence refuting any previously discovered evidence - THAT should be the most convincing thing.



    P.S. Scientists criticize and challenge each other's work all the time. Try picking up a science journal some time.
     
    #765 SkepticThinker, Apr 2, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    13,041
    Ratings:
    +6,801
    Why respond to my question if you're not going to answer it?
     
  7. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    13,041
    Ratings:
    +6,801
    Perhaps you could outline what you think the scientific method entails.
     
  8. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    13,041
    Ratings:
    +6,801
    But you don't do any of that. You post photos of animals you think are attractive in some way and then make arguments from incredulity about them having to be designed because you can't imagine how else they got here. Which of course is a logical fallacy. Then you shun and ignore the actual in-depth information scientists have carefully gleaned about them and declare that the God you worship must have made them all because they're so pleasing to the eye. You ignore the "ugly" creations out there in the world. You make logical error on top of logical error and then declare that the people who have evidence for their claims are really the ones who have got it wrong.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    13,041
    Ratings:
    +6,801
    Why do you think atheism and selfishness are somehow tied together?
     
  10. MonkeyFire

    MonkeyFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,601
    Ratings:
    +546
    Religion:
    Faithful Jesus believer
    God and his angels existed in perfection for an eternity before and out of no where something new occurred and that was satan, and as we were, we will be for an eternity after he dies out.
     
  11. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,307
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    If they support macro-evolution then they are all in collusion for the simple reason that science, regardless of the branch, has no conclusive evidence that macro-evolution is even possible outside of their imagination. Scientists back up other scientists.....its just the way the system works.

    Passing adaptation off as "evolution" is a sly way to get their concept accepted. If a little did this...imagine what a lot could accomplish??? It is all assumption, backed up by other branches of science, because, let's face it....who could survive the ridicule if they were to oppose the basic tenet? It is a premise....a hypothesis, not a fact. It is not supported by the evidence unless it is interpreted to steer thinking in that direction. Its a classic example of the power of suggestion at work. The human mind is prone to "believe" what it wants to believe.

    We are talking about mass delusion. You think it doesn't work? You think scientists can't be deluded by a good argument? The advertising industry thrives on suggestion. Give people a good spin and if it appeals to their thinking....they can sell you anything. Demonize the opposition and talk up your own product and voila!

    LOL....what "evidence" would be permitted to enter the inner sanctum without character assassination closely following? You must be joking. What scientist could survive in that environment? Best to shut up if you want to keep your job.

    Scientific journals....written by those who believe in evolution and who will publish "evidence" to back up their pet theory. They might challenge each other's research and findings, but NEVER will they challenge the first premise. Like peer review....what a joke. Would you take one Bible's scholar's word over an equally qualified scholar when they differ on interpretation? Same problem.

    The "scientific method" is the level by which science measures the accuracy of its findings. That method is dictated by scientists, carried out by scientists and interpreted by scientists who all want to promote evolution.
    Can you tell me why any person who supports ID would take notice of any of them when it comes to claims about macro-evolution? :rolleyes:
     
  12. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,359
    Ratings:
    +5,986
    So, you won't acknowledge that you don't understand what evolutionary theory actually says?

    So what you're ACTUALLY trying to say is that adaptation is not MACRO-evolution. Evolution literally means "change in allele frequency over time", so "adaptation" is literally a form of evolutionary change. Even if you don't believe in macro-evolution or common descent - you DO still believe in a form of "evolution". Do you understand?

    Why have you completely changed the subject I was addressing? Do you to do you not understand that evolutionary theory has never said that organisms evolve outside of their taxa?

    Observed Instances of Speciation
    Some More Observed Speciation Events

    So you're saying that you would absolutely believe the scientists if they replaced all their qualifiers with statements of certainty?

    Honestly, Deeje, why are you debating this subject if you don't know what evolution is or says?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  13. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Silent Generation - so don't expect much
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    9,603
    Ratings:
    +5,135
    Religion:
    Fellowship of the Mutable (agnostic atheist)
    Because she feels she has to - defend her (irrational) religious beliefs? :rolleyes:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,186
    Ratings:
    +5,549
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Only according to Christian and Islamic teachings.

    We both know Christian’s position. That a 3rd of heaven rebelled and joined Satan aka Lucifer aka the Devil and other colourful epithets and titles.

    The Muslims believed that Satan - Shaitan aka Iblis - believe that angels don’t have free-will (like Judaism), threfore they cannot oppose God, but like the Christian Devil, Satan did rebel because he was never an angel. According to Islam and their folklore, Satan was a jinn, not an angel.

    According to Judaism, Satan is still an angel of God - and agent of God, still doing God’s bidding, which is to test individual’s faith.

    The Book of Job is that Satan is working for God, not opposing God.

    And again, according Judaism there were no war or rebellion in heaven, because no angels have free-will.

    This is not to say that I accept Judaism, nor that I am Jewish. All I am saying there are 3 main versions to Satan’s characters.

    What most Christians don’t understand, that their belief in the evil Satan didn’t originate from earlier Judaism (before the Exile to Babylon, 586 BCE), but in adopting foreign Hellenistic Greek and Egyptian religions, during 3rd to 1st century BCE.

    The root of Satan being God’s evil archenemy, has it root in the Hellenistic and apocryphal Book of Enoch, which were influenced by Greek and Egyptian cults. The idea of the Christian afterlife in Paradise and punished the wicked in Hell and the final judgement (with God or Jesus), all come from the Greek Elysian Fields and Tartarus, where the shades were being judged by Hades or Persephone, and from Egyptian Field of Reeds and Daut, and the ba (soul) being judges by Osiris.

    Well, that’s another thing that Christians stole from the Egyptians.

    Christian whole idea of salvation are based on pagan concepts, a copycat, just as Islam is a copycat of Christian, Jewish and pre-Islamic concept.

    You know the concept of “Lake of Fire” in Revelation (19, 20, 21)?

    The New Testament authors are nothing more than thieves, plagiarising other religions’ ideas.
     
    #774 gnostic, Apr 3, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
  15. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,307
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    I understand a whole lot better than a lot of other folks who take it for granted that scientists are people of integrity who have actual proof for what they assert.....it is because I understand all too well what scientists are describing that I expose their assumptions....suggestions masquerading as facts. I acknowledge that evolutionists do not know what intelligent creation actually teaches and that it is, in many people's estimations, the more logical scenario. All scientists have to do is acknowledge that there could be an intelligence higher and more powerful than themselves. o_O

    Just because scientists call adaptation "evolution" doesn't put it in the same league as macro-evolution.
    Using one to prove the other is wishful thinking because there is no way to substantiate what is claimed.
    The limited changes in adaptation do not explain how scientists arrive at their wild conclusions. Interpretation is everything. Without their interpretation of the "evidence", it would be no evidence at all. Fossils can't talk. Scientists put words in their bony mouths.

    :facepalm:
    Then how is it that scientists put forward the notion that....amoebas became dinosaurs and dinosaurs evolved into chickens....what do you have to substantiate that scenario offered to me by one of the 'scientists' here? How does an unintelligent, non-sentient single celled organism pop into existence (for no apparent reason) and then "evolve" itself undirected into all the lifeforms that we see on earth, both past and present? Life is clearly designed, just like the planet that supports it. They are not just an endless series of fortunate accidents.

    Can you tell me who the authors of these links are? Can you describe what "speciation" is. Is it not simply the process of adaptation that produces variety within a single taxonomic family. There will never be a shift outside of it no matter how much time elapses. If changes occur, they are minor adaptations for environmental of food changes....nothing more.

    Absolutely NOT. The qualifiers in their statements are suggestions covered over with fake evidence. Biased interpretation ensures that the suggestions sound like facts, but you know there are no facts in this branch of science. If they replaced the qualifiers, they would be spouting out and out lies. They can't tell outright lies and maintain any credibility, so they put suggestions and assertions in their writings to cover it up. Its pure dishonesty really.

    Honestly IF.....I don't believe that there is any honesty on the part of evolutionists in this subject.
    Debating is about giving two sides of a story. Why are evolutionists always whining about creationists having no proof for their Intelligent Designer when they have absolutely no proof for what they believe either?

    We all know what evolutionists claim....but we never see the real substantiated evidence.....why? Because it doesn't exist....MIA like the missing links. What has been offered to date is pathetic compared to the magnitude of what is claimed. The supposed "mountains" of evidence are nothing but molehills of suggestion.
     
  16. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,307
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Apart from breaking the rules here, you don't seem to be able to see that your own beliefs are as irrational to us as ours are to you. I believe that you will hold onto them for as long as God allows you to. :D
     
  17. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,359
    Ratings:
    +5,986
    You have repeatedly asserted erroneous things about evolution, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of even the basic definition of "evolution". You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

    I never said it did. The point is that it's still EVOLUTION - something you still have yet to admit to misunderstanding.

    Except fossils and DNA.

    If you say so, but you don't know anything about the subject.

    Because none of those things you just said involved evolution outside of taxa like you asserted. You're just plain wrong here.

    You're asking questions that, if you understood evolution, you would already have the answers to.

    Speciation is evolution at or above the level of species - i.e: one population diversifying into two populations that can no longer interbreed, thus becoming two distinct species. Also known as macro-evolution. The list of sources in the articles are exhaustive.

    So it doesn't matter if they use qualifiers or certainties, so why are you so hung up on them?

    So, to you, it is dishonest to admit uncertainty, even if you wouldn't believe them even if they asserted certainty?

    Makes total sense.

    Then you're wrong.

    And wrong about this too.

    Evidently, you don't. You had no idea that evolution doesn't require evolution outside of taxa, you had no idea macro-evolution had been observed, and didn't even understand the actual definition of "evolution" itself.

    You have no idea about evolution despite MONTHS of being on these forums, Deeje. Why is that?

    I've provided you with countless links.

    Why must you lie and say evidence hasn't been presented one post after evidence has been presented to you?
     
    #777 ImmortalFlame, Apr 4, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  18. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    2,243
    Ratings:
    +395
    It would seem as though if we understand neither the mechanism nor cause of "evolution" then we shouldn't be making pronouncements about what they are or are not.
     
  19. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Silent Generation - so don't expect much
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    9,603
    Ratings:
    +5,135
    Religion:
    Fellowship of the Mutable (agnostic atheist)
    Oh yeah - what if I don't believe in God - will he be punishing me anytime soon - I seem to have had all the punishment I need, ta very much. :rolleyes: The default is - no belief - it is your job, or someone with better reasoning skills, to demonstrate otherwise. And yes, I will hold on to my non-belief for as long as it makes sense to me - despite your god apparently interfering - not that I have ever noticed. :D
     
  20. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,186
    Ratings:
    +5,549
    Religion:
    Pi π
    I understand both the Old Testament and New Testament in the last 18 years better than I did as from 15 to 34, when I didn’t question the New Testament and Christian interpretations of the Old Testament.

    I understand that all the supposed OT “prophecies” of being fulfilled by Jesus from like that from gospel of Matthew, are false fulfilments.

    For instance, when I read the bible as a teenager (I was15, when I read it), like Jesus’ birth, I had believed in the author’s claim that Jesus did fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, as the author stated in Matthew 1:22-23:
    And church teachings alway agree with this gospel’s false fulfilment, including JW.

    And I had believed in author’s claim, without question for nearly 20 years, without double-checking Isaiah’s original sign (Isaiah 7:14-17).

    Matthew 1:22-23 was the first passage that I disagree with, when I re-read the whole chapters in 2000 (I was 34 then), Matthew 1 and cross-checking it with Isaiah 7 (not just 1 verse, but the complete chapter).

    Back then, as a teenager, I apparently didn’t do much cross-checking with the bible, so I took the gospel author of Matthew at its face value.

    Re-reading Matthew 1 together with Isaiah 7, in 2000, was really my first clue to as why Bible and the authors to the gospels shouldn’t be.

    Matthew’s author only quoted a single verse from Isaiah (7:14), but the complete sign of Isaiah is 7:14-25, hence to the very last verse...BUT the core sign relating to the child is Isaiah 7:14-17, read as follow:

    Matthew’s sign is missing 3 crucial verses from Isaiah, relating to Immanuel.

    By reading all 4 verses - Isaiah 7:14-17, I now know that the author of Matthew was wrong regarding the sign:
    1. That Isaiah’s sign (7:14-17) had nothing to do with the messiah.
    2. That the woman (Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:23) has nothing to do with Mary.
    3. That the sign has to do with virgin birth is a false interpretation.
    4. That Immanuel isn’t Jesus.
    5. That Jesus didn’t fulfil the sign as stated Isaiah 7:14-17, because Jesus isn’t that child.
    Isaiah 8:1-4 verified that the child wasn’t Jesus, because the sign of Immanuel had to with the war between Judah and the Israel-Aram alliance:
    And Immanuel reappeared in 8:5-10, relating to the war, and to Assyria.

    The gospel of Matthew made me re-examine and rethink both the Old Testament New Testament, including Genesis Creation and Flood, and look at them without the Christian baggage.

    Matthew 1 & 2 misuses of OT prophecies (eg massacre of Bethlehem, return from Exile in Egypt) were my first step towards agnosticism, so it had nothing to do with evolution vs creation, or with atheism.

    The New Testament and Christian teachings of messiah are their own worse enemy.
     
    #780 gnostic, Apr 4, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...