Irony of the evolutionary belief

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you dont have evidence for natural mechanisms capable of causing big bangs

We have evidence for a big bang, and we have evidence of natural mechanisms, but no evidence for the supernatural.

We have evidence for designers (people for example)

But not for designers of a big bang.

From the fact that natural mechanisms excist, it doest follow that natural mechanisms caused the big bag

You'd need to provide evidence for an alternative mechanism for the idea to be taken seriously.

You're begging me about putting you on my ignore list.

Do you see that as some kind of leverage? Maybe you think that when you do that, others can no longer see your posts.

It seems to me that evolutionists like to exaggerate things too much to make them look more impressive.

You claim your god knows everything and is all-powerful. Is it possible to exaggerate more than that?

You are indoctrinated and you don't even notice it.

Says the creationist.

 

[F1fan]

That is why logic really doesn't play a part in the minds of some believers in evolution as if that's how we all came about, although I can understand their viewpoints (sometimes). Gorillas remain gorillas, chimps stay as chimps.

Your belief and attitude illustrates the negative influence of evangelical Christianity and it's creationism. You do realize that no one else in the world believes in creationism except these conservative Christians and some Muslims. There is no intellectual or educational basis for your negative beliefs about evolution. I'm always curious how creationists got duped, and who they believed when they were indoctrinated into a false belief like creationism. Was it family members, was it a church? It isn't learned in public schools or universities.

 

[F1fan]

Many scientists are saying now what Dr. Sagan proclaimed some time ago -- aside from death via evolution, things don't look too good scientifically speaking by scientists for the human race. Hey! Have a good one while you consider this, if you will. Take care.

Why should anyone trust what you say when you constantly refuse to accept results from experts in science, and repeat false claims? Creationists have ruined any reputation they might have. The educated have the advantage of rejecting the fraud of creationism, and all we can do is correct the errors that you have been duped into believing ONLY because you hold conservative Christian beliefs. The fraud of creationism doesn't work on well educated Christians and Muslims. It doesn't work at all on Hindus, or non-believers.

 

[wellwisher]

Your belief and attitude illustrates the negative influence of evangelical Christianity and it's creationism. You do realize that no one else in the world believes in creationism except these conservative Christians and some Muslims. There is no intellectual or educational basis for your negative beliefs about evolution. I'm always curious how creationists got duped, and who they believed when they were indoctrinated into a false belief like creationism. Was it family members, was it a church? It isn't learned in public schools or universities.

The problem began by Atheism fixating on the first chapter of the Bible, while ignoring the rest. As the mirror religion, they saw evolution as their political reflection. The effect is similar to a sports fan, insulting a fan from the other team. This insulting will cause the once calm fan, to get emotional and make a line in the sand, where they will not budge in terms who is better Then the first insulting fan, sees the line and he will not budge. This is not even rational, from either side, but it is a battle of the reflected clans; rivals.

I have suggested looking at Genesis, as connected to the evolution of human consciousness; ego will and choice, but neither clan will move the line. It is not about seeking solution, but irrationally towing the original line.

I can accept the conceptual foundation of evolution; Darwin's natural selection. Where I differ is the casino math approach used by science, which is the statistical modeling still used by all the life sciences. This is that same math assumptions used by a mafia run casino. Reason is not needed, if you accept the house of cards always wins. This is too irrational for me. The weatherman who uses the same math and is never accountability for mistakes, if he faithfully uses this system.

Evolution based on dice and cards, cannot be called rational, since it is not based exclusively on reason. That explains the emotional clan fight. It is hard to transition to rational discussions, if your base arguments are not based on reason, but who will win the lottery.

I made the point that science can show that parts of the DNA rarely mutate, while other aspects of the DNA are much move active to change. How can use casino math when you known you are playing with loaded dice, or will be dealing from the bottom of the deck, using marked cards? Is this how the house always wins?

Again I believe in the process of change we call evolution, but not a theory that gets to cheat common sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

I read it, I understood it. You did not understand it, you cherry picked it.

There is more than one article by scientists stating that lava can certainly move sediment. You can check it out yourself. Sorry that it's so hard for some to admit what's there. It's kind of sad and it helps because I'm not so surprised anymore. Also, it helps to see why the world is in the situation it is because of people's recalcitrance and refusal to admit/see the truth even as the trees in the forest are before them, figuratively speaking, of course. Good morning and certainly hope you are having a good day today!

 

[F1fan]

The problem began by Atheism fixating on the first chapter of the Bible, while ignoring the rest. As the mirror religion, they saw evolution as their political reflection. The effect is similar to a sports fan, insulting a fan from the other team. This insulting will cause the once calm fan, to get emotional and make a line in the sand, where they will not budge in terms who is better Then the first insulting fan, sees the line and he will not budge. This is not even rational, from either side, but it is a battle of the reflected clans; rivals.

I have suggested looking at Genesis, as connected to the evolution of human consciousness; ego will and choice, but neither clan will move the line. It is not about seeking solution, but irrationally towing the original line.

I can accept the conceptual foundation of evolution; Darwin's natural selection. Where I differ is the casino math approach used by science, which is the statistical modeling still used by all the life sciences. This is that same math assumptions used by a mafia run casino. Reason is not needed, if you accept the house of cards always wins. This is too irrational for me.

Evolution based on dice and cards, cannot be called rational, if it is not based exclusively on reason? That explains the emotional clan fight. It is hard to transition to rational, if your base arguments are not based on reason, but who will win the lottery.

I made the point that science can show that parts of the DNA rarely mutate, while other aspects do much more often. How can use casino math when you play with loaded dice or deal from the bottom of the deck using the marked cards? Is this how the house always wins?

Again I believe in the process of change we call evolution but not a theory that cheats common sense.

I know you don't answer questions to your outlandish posts, but who told you your religious beliefs are true, and why did you believe them? Family? Being forced to go to a church that said these things?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think that this helps you in any way?

You should try to learn how to make a rational argument.

Hi, Subduction Zone! Hope you're doing well today. As the world heads, according to the result of evolutionary belief which is death, of course, and that of mankind's own doing, which you can find at the Doomsday Clock. Hope you're having a good day. I must say I'm happy to be where I'm at today and no longer an atheist. Take care and again, hope you're doing well today.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem began by Atheism fixating on the first chapter of the Bible, while ignoring the rest.

What problem is that?

Atheists aren't atheists because of Genesis. That's just one god. They're atheists because they have no reason to be theists, and they understand that.

Also, the entire Bible can safely be ignored. My life and the lives of millions of others are testimony to that.

This is that same math assumptions used by a mafia run casino.

Most casinos make money. Trump's were the only exceptions I know of.

Reason is not needed, if you accept the house of cards always wins. This is too irrational for me.

Is this a reference to the theory of evolution? That theory is based in reason applied to evidence. Rejecting it is not.

Again I believe in the process of change we call evolution, but not a theory that gets to cheat common sense.

What's your common-sense alternate explanation for the process? Supernaturalism?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think that this helps you in any way?

You should try to learn how to make a rational argument.

I find it funny and sad at the same time that you feel it's not a rational argument. Would you say it's realistic as far as you are concerned to summarize the theory of evolution that all humans are headed for death from the moment they take their first breath? Which brings to another subject, but I'll leave that for now. Except to mention the scientists promoting the Doomsday Clock predictions. Closer than ever -- As the saying goes, Let us eat, drink, and be merry -- you know? Going back to the certainty of what the theory of evolution teaches in conjunction with the Doomsday Clock and the fact that some people deny the fact that lava flow can certainly move sediment... I hope all is going smoothly for you as life flows.

 

[leroy]

Naturalistic explanations only require that nature exists, and we know that it does. Supernatural explanations for nature require that both nature and an unseen, insufficiently evidenced supernatural realm exists.

You are familiar with Occam's parsimony principle, but in the past, you've had trouble applying it. This is similar to a discussion we had last year regarding resurrection. I've corrected some spelling errors here for the sake of legibility, and will continue to do so throughout this post and into the future if you don't mind:

(For context, my origianl comment)
Consider these 2 claims
1 the big bang was caused by God
2 the big bag was caused y an unknown natural mechanism
If I understand your view, there is no evidence for none, so why do you pick option 2 over option 1 ?

Good morning, thanks for your reply but I Am confused.

The assumption behind my original question is that “there is no evidence for ether 1 nor 2”

But if you think that Okams Razor favors option 2 over option 1 then you would have evidence for option 2. In other words being more parsimmons counts as evidence…………..which would mean that my assumption is incorrect you don’t claim that there is zero evidence for both statements (1 and 2) you claim that there is evidence for 2 (which is why you prefer 2 over 1)

Is this correct?

 

[leroy]

Who says? Based on what facts?

Experts can't really point to any specific cause. No one can rule out that the singularity that expanded into the universe wasn't just unstable and self-caused. There are many self-caused phenomenon.

I want to know why cancer exists if a creator/designer caused all things. Do you have that answer?

All I am saying is that from the fact that nature excist it doesn't follow that the big bang was caused by the laws of nature .....
ether agree or refute the claim........ any attempt to change the topih will be ignored.


If you want to talk about cancer open a new thread and I might participate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But if you think that Occam's Razor favors option 2 over option 1 then you would have evidence for option 2. In other words being more parsimonious counts as evidence…………..which would mean that my assumption is incorrect you don’t claim that there is zero evidence for both statements (1 and 2) you claim that there is evidence for 2 (which is why you prefer 2 over 1) Is this correct?

I was referring to physical evidence for a god. I wouldn't call that principle evidence, but if one does, then there is evidence for the more parsimonious hypothesis.

The physical evidence only supports a naturalistic hypothesis. Occam says that that is the preferred hypothesis, not that it is the correct one.

 

[leroy]

We have evidence for a big bang, and we have evidence of natural mechanisms, but no evidence for the supernatural.

Yes but from the fact that

1 there was a big bang (BB)

And

2 the laws of nature excist

It doesn’t follow that that the big bang was caused by the laws of nature………… by that logic we also know that elephants exist…………does this mean that the BB was caused by elephants

But not for designers of a big bang.

Ok so we have evidence for designers (humans for example) but we don’t have evidence for the particular designer that could have caused theBB (agree)

This is analogous to “we have evidence for natural mechanisms, but not for the particular mechanisms that would produce a BB)

You'd need to provide evidence for an alternative mechanism for the idea to be taken seriously.

The way I see it, we both have to present evidence, not just the theist.

If you agree on that both have to present evidence, we can open a new thread and discuss such evidence........... if you think that just the theist has to present evidence, then I would prefer not to have a debate

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes but from the fact that 1 there was a big bang (BB) And 2 the laws of nature exist It doesn’t follow that that the big bang was caused by the laws of nature

Correct. Did you think I claimed otherwise? What I said is that a naturalistic explanation is preferred to a supernaturalistic one because natural mechanisms are known to exist, but there is no evidence that supernaturalism is a real thing, and that the simplest explanation that can be correct is the preferred one.

The way I see it, we both have to present evidence, not just the theist.

If you claim a supernatural explanation for the universe, it's you that needs to present evidence. Did you want me to provide evidence that naturalistic mechanisms exist? Probably not.

 

[F1fan]

All I am saying is that from the fact that nature excist it doesn't follow that the big bang was caused by the laws of nature .....

Why not? Everything else that science investigates reveals natural phenomena. There’s no examples of any supernatural phenomena or causes that can be confirmed. So supernatural claims are dubious and irrelevant.

ether agree or refute the claim........ any attempt to change the topih will be ignored.

You have your personal bias and motives, and none of us care what you think. We are committed to correcting your errors and pointing out your flawed thinking.

If you want to talk about cancer open a new thread and I might participate.

I bring up cancer as a trap for you creationists because it illustrates how your assumptions and beliefs are flawed. Of course you want to avoid it. It’s a no win for your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it funny and sad at the same time that you feel it's not a rational argument. Would you say it's realistic as far as you are concerned to summarize the theory of evolution that all humans are headed for death from the moment they take their first breath? Which brings to another subject, but I'll leave that for now. Except to mention the scientists promoting the Doomsday Clock predictions. Closer than ever -- As the saying goes, Let us eat, drink, and be merry -- you know? Going back to the certainty of what the theory of evolution teaches in conjunction with the Doomsday Clock and the fact that some people deny the fact that lava flow can certainly move sediment... I hope all is going smoothly for you as life flows.

You have to quit this. I am not the only one that has had to point out when you do this.

Why is reality so hard to face? You seem to want to claim that your God is a liar, why is that? Can you answer that question?

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to quit this. I am not the only one that has had to point out when you do this.

Why is reality so hard to face? You seem to want to claim that your God is a liar, why is that? Can you answer that question?

Now all face death. By natural or unnatural forces, like humans inventing nuclear weapons, destroying the atmosphere, evolution for you and there isn't anything you or science can do to stop it. Now when I see birds or beautiful sights I think of God. And think of Him. I did not always.

Romans 5:1 1Therefore, since we have been made right in God’s sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us.

I have come to terms with that and the hope and beauty it engenders. For me and many others it is a realistic hope based on faith and education.
Life simply canNOT be explained in detail by men, including scientists. They can say what they see and this is good.
According to scientists per the Doomsday Clock, the time for destruction is looming ever closer.. So when people have babies, celebrate their existence, do they think that soon enough, for one reason or another, it might all be over? Darkness. Blank. Essence perhaps? Simulation as one poster here said might be possible? One reason for calamity can be sickness, mutations and disease. Another can be war.
As I said, I now have a considered hope that I did not have earlier in my life.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to quit this. I am not the only one that has had to point out when you do this.

Why is reality so hard to face? You seem to want to claim that your God is a liar, why is that? Can you answer that question?

You're the one that seems to want to claim that.

 

[Eli G]

You're the one that seems to want to claim that.

He's been saying that for a long long time. I wonder why he asks believers for an audience to say something about a god he doesn't believe in...

If he wants to express himself, he should express himself and stop asking others for help to do so.

He looks like a circus actor who is tired of rehearsing pirouettes waiting for some spectator to arrive to do his act.

It got boring before even starting the act.

 

[leroy]

Occam's razor.



The "designers" we know about, are physical entities that live IN the universe and are dependend on a relatively matured universe (with star systems, chemistry, bio-chemistry, etc). They are not "supernatural" entities that exist "outside of time" and other such magical mumbo-jumbo.

And the natural laws that we know about can´t create big bangs ………. We are both postulating something that we don t know about