Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Pogo]

Actually, you are the one claiming the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as portrayed in the Bible is a liar. And many would agree with you, including those who ostensibly go to church, synagogue or other houses of worship. I have come to believe that the Bible is God's word, as you know I did not always believe that. If you think I can prove or show every detail as evidence, guess what? I can't. That does not prove or show in my opinion that the Bible is not true. Or inspired by God, to men. Or that evolution as considered by Darwinian theory adherents is true. But that's me and I realize not everyone will agree with that. As also exemplified in the scriptural account. Some believed, others did not.

You are not understanding a simple concept, you as a fallible human may well be mistaken in your interpretation of the Bible or do you believe yourself infallible in your interpretation. This is not about whether the Bible is true or not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Alright, then what is your filter? What do you believe and what do you not believe? Even the Adam and Eve myth is enough to say that you are calling God a liar.

As you may know, I do not believe that humans are 30,000+ years as posited by some in the realm of evolution. I see no evidence that they came from (evolved/emerged) from an "UCA." (Unknown Common Ancestor) That is why we got into a discussion of shifting soil and sediments, which you vociferously denied in certain cases. So it would behoove you perhaps to stop claiming I say my God is a liar. You are saying that but so far don't want to say that. And I'm not playing games. You want me to explain every detail in the Bible. I cannot do that. I will say, however, that there are some theories or theses, that are taken from the Bible which I do not agree with.
The Bible makes sense to me, so does the fact as written that Adam and Eve were created about 5,000 years ago. The earth and other life itself was formed way before that.
"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." John chapter 5.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are not understanding a simple concept, you as a fallible human may well be mistaken in your interpretation of the Bible or do you believe yourself infallible in your interpretation. This is not about whether the Bible is true or not.

I do understand that concept, so please do not say that I do not understand that simple concept.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and this is why I so often try to get creationists to understand the concept of evidence. The scientific evidence against the myths of Genesis are endless. The ones for them are nonexistent. That means that for those myths to be true that God would have had to have planted endless false evidence. Planting false evidence is a form of lying so one is claiming that God is a liar when one says that those myths are true.

If God cannot lie then the book of Genesis cannot be read literally.

P.S. Not all who believe in creation by God believe the same way, so it's probably best if you don't place me in the category of all these considered creationists.

 

[leroy]

typical of some evasive answers. Go back to Stephen Hawking and agree with him, why don't you? Yes/no, maybe--

I don’t understand it ether, ………. But I wont make the same mistake of entering an other 100+ discussion on the correct definition of words

 

[leroy]

You are not understanding a simple concept, you as a fallible human may well be mistaken in your interpretation of the Bible or do you believe yourself infallible in your interpretation. This is not about whether the Bible is true or not.

If God didn’t created the universe, (all physical reality)

Them what other alternative do you suggest? And why is that alternative better than God?

1 the universe came from nothing

2 the universe has always existed

3 somethign esle

In this context I am using a classical defintion of universe,

Universe simply means all physical reality, or all space time and everything in it, this includes all parallel worlds, dimensions or bubbles that might exist…………… you can use the word cosmos if you want, or any other words, I simply mean “all physical reality”

Please answer the question directly ………. Do not make this another endless series of 100+coments of semantics and word games.

 

[F1fan]

logic

From the fact that elephants exist it doesn’t follow that elephants created the big bang

How is this logic? This comment is nothing more than deliberate absurdity.

From the fact that natural mechanisms exist it doesn’t follow that the big bang was created by natural mechanism

There is no other plausible option since natural causes is all we observe. What other options can any of us observ e as causes in the real world?

Why is this so hard to understand

The lack of understanding is clearly yours. You don't seem to understand anything about science and logic.

And science has revealed that known natural laws cant create big bangs….

The known natural laws came after the BB. We can't know what the natural circumstances were before the BB. We certainly can't assume any supernaturalism since none is known to exist outside of human imagination.

in fact know natural laws say that matter(energy) can´t be created nor destroyed……………… so ether

That rules out any religious stories that suggest a God created anything.

1 the big bang was caused by a supernatural mechanism (something that doesn’t have to respect the laws of nature) (God)

What supernatural mechanism are you referring to? The one you assume exists due to your religious indoctrination?

Can you point to any confirmed supernatural phenomena existing?

2 or science is wrong, which would mean that you are the one who is denying science.

Experts in science are the only people qualified to hypothesize the cause of the BB.

You what to change the topic. That is why I am avoiding it…………….feel free to open a new thread about cancer, and I will participate.

I don;t blame you for wanting to avoid the topic of how your God created cancer, expecially those that affect little children. and young mothers whose children have to deal with the loss of their mom. You have so many other bad explanations to offer, but nothing about this? Cancer is part of evolution, but you are afriad to touch the issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, you are the one claiming the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as portrayed in the Bible is a liar. And many would agree with you, including those who ostensibly go to church, synagogue or other houses of worship. I have come to believe that the Bible is God's word, as you know I did not always believe that. If you think I can prove or show every detail as evidence, guess what? I can't. That does not prove or show in my opinion that the Bible is not true. Or inspired by God, to men. Or that evolution as considered by Darwinian theory adherents is true. But that's me and I realize not everyone will agree with that. As also exemplified in the scriptural account. Some believed, others did not.

How am I calling him a liar? I do not claim that the myths of Genesis are true. That is what you do.

Once again, if God cannot lie, then Genesis cannot be read literally. I never claimed that God is a liar even when I was a Christian. That is why I did not believe the myths of Genesis. You claim that at least some of those myths are true, therefore you are claiming that God is a liar.

 

[leroy]

The known natural laws came after the BB. We can't know what the natural circumstances were before the BB. We certainly can't assume any supernaturalism since none is known to exist outside of human imagination.

Can you point to any confirmed supernatural phenomena existing?

Can you point to any law that existed before the big bang? NO, so even if I failed to provide a confirmed example of “supernatural” we are still even, you haven’t score any points.

Here is the thing

1 you blindly believe in different laws before the big bang

2 you blindly believe that these laws are somehow solve the problems that your world view has.

How is that different from a YEC blindly beliving in a talking snake, just because his world view says so?

I don;t blame you for wanting to avoid the topic of how your God created cancer, expecially those that affect little children. and young mothers whose children have to deal with the loss of their mom. You have so many other bad explanations to offer, but nothing about this? Cancer is part of evolution, but you are afriad to touch the issue.

Yes I am willing to admit that cancer counts as evidence against God…………..unlike you and your fanatism, I am willing to admit that my world view has weak points.

 

[F1fan]

I affirm that God is the best explanation for the big bang, you affirm that some unknown natural mechanism is the best explanation………..then way I see it we both have to present evidence, not just me

Thanks for your confession of what many of us have been pressuring you to admit: that you have a non-rational bias to believe in a cause that not only lacks evidence, but is implausible as an honest guess. As I have asked, what supernatural phenomena do any of us observe that suggests it exists outside of human imagination?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As you may know, I do not believe that humans are 30,000+ years as posited by some in the realm of evolution. I see no evidence that they came from (evolved/emerged) from an "UCA." (Unknown Common Ancestor) That is why we got into a discussion of shifting soil and sediments, which you vociferously denied in certain cases. So it would behoove you perhaps to stop claiming I say my God is a liar. You are saying that but so far don't want to say that. And I'm not playing games. You want me to explain every detail in the Bible. I cannot do that. I will say, however, that there are some theories or theses, that are taken from the Bible which I do not agree with.
The Bible makes sense to me, so does the fact as written that Adam and Eve were created about 5,000 years ago. The earth and other life itself was formed way before that.
"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man." John chapter 5.

Okay, so long story short, because you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence you are still calling God a liar.

This is why you should try to understand the concept of evidence. You cannot refute evidence just by claiming that "I don't see it". Scientific evidence puts the burden of proof upon the denier. I will remind you, scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Human evolution is a scientific hypothesis within the theory of evolution. It has been tested and confirmed many times. I can explain to you how. The finding of "Lucy" was strong scientific evidence for human evolution, Again, I can explain to you how we know this. Please note, whether you accept it or not is besides the point. Your opinion does not count when it comes to evidence. What it does do is put the burden of proof upon you.

This goes on millions of times. It is why scientists know that evolution is a fact. It is why we know that you keep calling your own God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

P.S. Not all who believe in creation by God believe the same way, so it's probably best if you don't place me in the category of all these considered creationists.

You have demonstrated that you do claim that God is a liar. That is good enough for me.

 

[F1fan]

Can you point to any law that existed before the big bang? NO, so even if I failed to provide a confirmed example of “supernatural” we are still even, you haven’t score any points.

Yet you are saying thast you think it's a God. So this suggests a hypocrisy that we can't assume a natural cause (since natural causes are observed and all that we can say exist), but you get to assume a cause that isn't even plausible.

Occam's Razor says a natural cause is most likley.

Here is the thing

1 you blindly believe in different laws before the big bang

I never said any such thing.

2 you blindly believe that these laws are somehow solve the problems that your world view has.

I never said this either.

How is that different from a YEC blindly belting in a talking snake, just because his world view says so?

It is a matter of what the facts say, not world views. Your's not only lacks facts, but is contrary to fact. That's why your's is irrelevant.

Yes I am willing to admit that cancer counts as evidence against God…………..

Good for you. But it's more than that. As you continue to believe in your idea of God you have to reconcile that it created cancers, and it kills children. That is your burden, and it must feel stressful. It's also the trap that religion imposed on you and other believers.

Cancer exists. Your idea of God? Not so much. But you being correct in your world view means your God is a sociopath and mass murderer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well you are alone on this one………….. everyone in this forum would grant that the claim of a local man is evidence for the location of the restaurant.

In other words a local man telling you that restaurant A is closer than restaurant B would be evidence , that A is closer.

"Evidence is data that matches (or contradicts) predictions / expectations of falsifiable hypothesis. Good, reliable evidence is objective and independently verifiable."

I am curious, in your opinion, what part of your definition is not meat with the claim of the local man?

- If A is closer to B then we woudl predict local men claiming that A is closer to be. (so the data mathces the predictions)
- The existance of the man and existance of the testimony and the location of the restaurants are objetive and verifiable

So given your definition , how does the claim of the local man, fails to be evidence?


Perhaps someone like @Dan From Smithville would-be a fair judge



Assume that you are a tourist on some city and that you have no idea about the locations of restaurants A and B

Assume that you ask a local man (say someone that works in the hotel)

Assume that this local man says that Restaurant A is closer than Restaurant B

Would you (Dan) say that the claim of this local man counts as evidence in favor of A being closer than B?

I'm not sure I want to be drug into these discussions anymore. It seems like such a waste of energy to try and convince people for whom no amount of reason and evidence is ever going to be considered against personal belief, apparent indoctrination and apparent self-appointed expertise in logic, science and the mind of the biblical God.

With that editorial out of the way, I suppose I can give you my opinion based on the reasoning I would use.

1. The man is in the city in question. One would expect that a person that is apparently working and likely a resident of the city a person is in would have a greater chance of knowing local dining choices.

2. The man is local. The expectation would be that a local person would know local restaurants better than one that is not local to the area. Just as I know what is local to my area having frequented those places.

3. The man works in the hotel and restaurant business and the expectation is that choosing someone in that profession would increase the odds that they would know restaurants in the city.

4. Experience teaches most of us that spend any time in hotels that employees there frequently are questioned about local dining choices and have taken the time to know the local restaurants to be able to inform their guests.

It is a claim. It can be tested by seeking and finding the restaurant. It is supported with those pieces of evidence I have listed. But, by itself, it is a claim. If you just asked a random person the same question, much of that supporting evidence would not be attributable to the claim. You can still test it. You may get lucky. But the former, better supported claim should offer the best odds of succeeding.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the natural mechanisms that you need for creating big bangs are not known to exists

Maybe what you mean is that we can't explain where whatever began expanding most of 14 billion years ago came from, but natural law explains most of everything that followed such as symmetry breaking and the condensation of matter leading to filaments of galaxies of solar systems comprising the chemical elements.

I affirm that God is the best explanation for the big bang, you affirm that some unknown natural mechanism is the best explanation………..then way I see it we both have to present evidence, not just me

I gave you my argument. You didn't address it then.

I wont make the same mistake of entering an other 100+ discussion on the correct definition of words

That's growth. Definitions don't change reality. Nor do we need to use the same definitions to communicate if we explain what we mean when we use the word and long as we understand and acknowledge these differences. There's another prolific RF poster who means what I mean by gnostic atheist when he uses the word atheist. We could still communicate except that he refuses to acknowledge my usage. This, he tells me I'm not an atheist because I'm what I call an agnostic atheist, which pretty much ends communication.

The bids in contract bridge form a language of sorts. One of the main areas where even experts disagree is whether one should bid one notrump (1NT) when holding five hearts or five spades (the so-called major suits). I never open such hands 1NT, but I can play with a partner who does. I just have to modify the rest of my bidding to accommodate that as he does if he wants to play as I usually do. In fact, we can be playing both ways at once. When partner opens 1NT, I know he may hold a 5-card major (5CM), and he knows that when I do, I will never have more than four cards in either major suit. It's just a matter of knowing what the other guy means when he bids or uses a word in speech.

As I said, this is a much-discussed matter in bridge as you can see from the number of writers addressing it. Also, maybe some would like to see what bridge players think about and open one or two of these links. And if you know an experienced bridge player, ask them if they open 1NT with a 5CM and see their jaw drop:

one notrump and five card majors - Google Search

 

[YoursTrue]

You have demonstrated that you do claim that God is a liar. That is good enough for me.

whatever -- what nonsense on your part

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, so long story short, because you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence you are still calling God a liar.

This is why you should try to understand the concept of evidence. You cannot refute evidence just by claiming that "I don't see it". Scientific evidence puts the burden of proof upon the denier. I will remind you, scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Human evolution is a scientific hypothesis within the theory of evolution. It has been tested and confirmed many times. I can explain to you how. The finding of "Lucy" was strong scientific evidence for human evolution, Again, I can explain to you how we know this. Please note, whether you accept it or not is besides the point. Your opinion does not count when it comes to evidence. What it does do is put the burden of proof upon you.

This goes on millions of times. It is why scientists know that evolution is a fact. It is why we know that you keep calling your own God a liar.

kind of sad. not about evolution and your belief in it, but that you will not/cannot believe there is a God who cares. Anyway, I hope you get better, thanks. bye for now. As some may tell you, faith is a gift from God. So you have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

How am I calling him a liar? I do not claim that the myths of Genesis are true. That is what you do.

Once again, if God cannot lie, then Genesis cannot be read literally. I never claimed that God is a liar even when I was a Christian. That is why I did not believe the myths of Genesis. You claim that at least some of those myths are true, therefore you are claiming that God is a liar.

You are not telling the truth about what I believe. So therefore since you do not know what I believe about the account in Genesis, you really cannot say how I believe it. But thanks anyway, have a good evening. Also, since I see you could not/will not relinquish the false idea you embrace about lava not carrying sediment, unfortunately nothing you say to impugn my belief in God and the Bible now holds any credence with me. But thanks anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don’t understand it ether, ………. But I wont make the same mistake of entering an other 100+ discussion on the correct definition of words

yes, words evidently are the key factor here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

whatever -- what nonsense on your part

How would you know? I need to remind you that you have been too afraid to even learn what is and what is not evidence. Which is rather sad. Right now you are not qualified to judge whether what I said was true or not.