McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Homo Phobosciencis
-
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!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Do they? I know of some cosmologist who do but not of any atheist
Here, a hypothesis of how a univers could arise from nothing. You probably won't read it, I've only known of one creationist who has and he misunderstood it.
[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
Plus time, bucket loads of time. That's evolution for you.
in short: from nothing to intelligence.and this was just after the BigBang
Bull, the bb was around 13.8 billion years ago humans have been around for less than half half a million years. Again you misrepresent time
What was before the BB? No one knows but some people strive to find out and some guess.
Falsifiable evidence please
Bingo, so i repeat some people strive to find out and some guess.
Again you are ignoring time. The timeline of evolution is well understood.
But hey, lets all ignore the facts and say god dun it
I end as i start, cosmologists. And I'll add particle physicists
I know of 32 accepted hypothesis of how the universe began and where it came from. Including several multiverse hypothesis. The thing is, to make such a hypothesis that is acceptable to the relevant sciences there must be some evidence, real or mathematical that can show the basis of the hypothesis.
Interestingly none say a god did it
gnostic
The Lost One
You are speculating a scenario that haven’t happened, so to speculate this that “evolutionists” are saying this about human intelligence emerging in world that was lifeless, is simply strawman.
Single-cell life (domain Bacteria and Archaea) have existed for at least 3.5 billion years, while complex multicellular organisms have been around for the last from 6 to 7 hundred million years.
As to this…
…this is another scenario that haven’t happened, if this Superior Intelligence is either “God” or “Intelligent Designer”, then this is not strawman, but it is wishful thinking, and it is confirmation bias.
if anything, the beliefs in any deity, by whatever names (eg Yahweh, Ra, Osiris, Zeus, Odin, etc) or titles (eg Creator, Designer, Father, Holy Spirit, etc) that you might want to attribute to it, all religions of supreme beings, are imaginary invented by humans…where there are followers who revered beings that don’t exist.
saying they are immortal, eternal, are just speculative and wishful thinking.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You are not answering the question.
I don't understand this word salad.
gnostic
The Lost One
What atheists say:
NOTHING -:> something -:> life w/o conscience -:> rational human brain (consciousness)
in short: from nothing to intelligence.
We, believers, say that the beginning was not after the BigBang ... that is what we are allow to know ... so, before the BigBang>
Intelligent Designer -:> something -:> life -:> BigBang and another universe.
Since no one can say there was not a BEFORE the BigBang, it is not impossible, logically talking, that there already was God before our beginning.
Atheists believe in from nothing to intelligence, but don't want to believe from Inteligence to intelligence. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Give me a break.
Atheism only deals with the theological question of God's existence and nothing else. In short, atheism is about who don't either don't believe in god's existence, or lack the belief in a god. That's all.
Atheism say nothing about any science field, not biology, and not in any of the cosmology. These are outside the scope of atheism.
All of the above in your reply are loads of strawman and absurdities.
But since Intelligent Design is really a religious concept, not a scientific concept, then I would suppose that atheists don't have to believe in the existence of Designer.
Designer is just another title for God, because the Discovery Institute are just bunch of mainly Christian creationists. Intelligent Design is just another creationism, created by creationist fundamentalists, and they provide no better argument than those YEC creationists, although Michael Behe is an OEC creationist.
And speaking of Behe, Eli.
You talk of the people who believe in Intelligent Design, as if they don't believe in the Big Bang theory.
Well, guess what, Eli. Some do and some don't.
Behe is not only senior member of the Discovery Institute and a supporter of Intelligent Design, Behe also accepted the Big Bang theory. He bring it up every chance he get, when was in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial.
So not all your claims about ID proponents being anti-BB is true. Some do accept BB theory.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Truly remarkable and indicative of what I'm up against. I said; "I don't take your meaning.", and you call it word salad.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Facts, logic, evidence, experiment, and knowledge (visceral) all stand on their own. Conclusions are shared by peers, students, and scientismists. Such conclusions derive from paradigms which periodically change. More importantly though is that each thinker, believer, or reader builds his own distinct models of this paradigm some of which are weak or incorrect. Most are constructed of extrapolation and interpolation rather than experiment.
It's one thing to have a lot off respect for individual experts and all experts.
Conclusions are cheap. We are homo omniscience hear us brag. Everybody has conclusions. Of course good scientists are aware that conclusions are tentative and dependent on premises.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily.
Is there science after Darwin?
Survival of the fittest causing a gradual change in species is not "science". It is a conclusion derived from false assumptions.
And for the one millionth time all science is derived from assumptions some of which might well be wrong. Egyptology is the poster child of bad assumptions.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Everything in reality has an effect on everything else in reality. The big bang and its nature certainly has a massive effect on your car's mileage.
Very little ever affects the beliefs of individual humans so science changes one funeral at a time.
Better educated and more rational members who accept science and respect expertise. Could it be your distaste for science is bias? Can you acknowledge it is possible given you are alone here?
What effect is that? Notice yet another weird statement and no clear and lucid explanation of what your point is.
What? Do you mean you resist being corrected in your flawed beliefs, and that random people having funerals daily doesn't change your mind? Thanks for the morning word salad, I am full now.
cladking
Well-Known Member
!
I'm starting to wonder why I try.
Are you aware that reality is always dependent not only on all other reality but also on INITIAL CONDITIONS. Where would your car be today without the big bang? Or if the big bang had occurred in even the slightest possibly different way? I suppose you believe time would heal itself and you'd be exactly the same thing because we are homo omniscience which makes us robust.
Yes!!!! This is what homo omnisciencis does.
You are obviously trying not to parse my words as I intend them. I'd be curious to know what this sentence or the previous one means to you.
Have you considered that your beliefs are not correct? Could that be why you fail to convince anyone that you are correct?
What is true about how things are today has a history going back 13.7 billion years. That's just how it is. Our aims is to understand how things happened and craft explanations via the evidence.
Who cares? My three cars are what they are based on the history of how things have been. What use is there to ponder alternatives? None.
I've had close calls that could have been my death. Guess what, I survived and I don't ponder on the close calls. I joke that God has many times intervened to save an atheist.
Time heals itself? I didn't know time was sick. That's bad luck.
What, believes in irrational ideas?
It's your responsibility to be clear and comprehensibel to others. Your short and vague statements are insufficient to mean anything coherent. You don't seem able to adjust your style to acheive what you want.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You missed your own second sentence. Or what you tried to pass for it anyway.
cladking
Well-Known Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
There's nothing in post 66 that is relevant. Except you pointing to your own failure to accurately quote your own statements from post 27. You know. The one I was actually quoting.
It did. It helped settle the dispute over the age of the universe and introduced the concept of dark energy. The universe is older than the faster rate of expansion suggests if one extrapolates it back to T=0. The problem there was that using that as the expansion rate from T=0 made the universe appear younger than the oldest stars.
It's a fascinating story that begins with the Hubble's identification of a second standard candle, type 1A supernovae visible beyond the furthest previously (pre-Hubble) visible Cepheid variables. The closer Cepheids are receding from one another faster than the older type Ia supernovae in the more distant, younger universe.
What I noticed is that the theory has been demonstrated to be correct in the main beyond reasonable doubt. I also noticed that 150 years of support for the theory and new science has added a genetic understanding to the mechanism.
Besides being impossible, is that really a worthy goal? I try not to have any false or unfalsifiable beliefs, which is rather easy using the methods of critical thought and empiricism, which not only identifies those ideas fit for rejection, but also identifies correct beliefs fit for inclusion in one's belief set and worldview.
Two things. The use of the term scientism is essentially a shibboleth for those who resent critical thought and its rejection of faith-based thought. I see it exclusively from those who I call soft thinkers (synonym: non-rigorous), people who think they see further and resent those tethered to reality who reject such a way of knowing.
Also, you're in Dunning-Kruger territory there. Be careful. This is exactly what distinguishes such people from two other classes of people who DO recognize expertise - experts and educated lay people aware of what critical thinking is and does. The D-K people are those, who when presented with expert opinion, answer, "Well that's just your opinion" as if their own uninformed opinions were equal. Why? Because they are aware of only one way of accumulating beliefs - guessing, or as it is often called, belief by faith.
All belief is either justified by this method or is a faith-based belief. Many of the faithful understand this and respect this other path. They're the people who couldn't read the hospitalization and death data in vaccinated and unvaccinated people, but understood that others like Fauci could and took the vaccine. The Dunning-Kruger set had to guess what to do, and you can rest assured that many if not most who rejected the experts' advice belong to this group.
Straw man. Ask a critical thinker what they actually believe. It's not that gods are impossible or cannot have existed eternally. Most are agnostic atheists.
Here's another shibboleth: militant atheist. Translation: anyone who rejects my unfalsifiable religious beliefs is an angry god-hater.
I've been called a militant atheist for challenging the wisdom of belief by faith in these threads. The faithful aren't used to that. My grandparent's generation saw the Scopes trials. How dare that teacher teach evolution? By my day, atheists were still largely silent. We had no voice, no platform, and we were disesteemed by Christian society, which still considered atheists too immoral to teach, coach, or adopt, were considered unfit to serve on juries or give expert testimony, and they were unelectable. Those were the good old days in these people's estimation.
But then came the modern telecommunications beginning with televangelism and the church's endless litany of hypocrisies and scandals, followed a host of best-selling atheist authors that made atheism more tenable for many, and the Internet, which gave the atheists a voice. That wasn't OK with people who were used to atheists being unheard. This was framed just as it was when blacks were called uppity for resistance to racism and women were called "independent" in a disapproving manner for pushing back against inequality. The analogous word for atheists is militant.
Today, this is considered militant atheism:
More straw manning. Try this: universal expansion begins -> matter evolves into filaments of galaxies of solar systems including ours separated by large voids and comprising the periodic table of elements after a few generations of stars -> Life arises naturalistically (abiogenesis, chemical evolution) -> the tree of life begins evolving (biological evolution) -> consciousness followed by intelligence evolves in animals followed by intellect and then language in human animals) evolve from life (psychological evolution) -> Technological culture evolves in human life (cultural evolution).
Last edited:
What atheists say:
NOTHING -:> something -:> life w/o conscience -:> rational human brain (consciousness)
in short: from nothing to intelligence.
We, believers, say that the beginning was not after the BigBang ... that is what we are allow to know ... so, before the BigBang>
Intelligent Designer -:> something -:> life -:> BigBang and another universe.
Since no one can say there was not a BEFORE the BigBang, it is not impossible, logically talking, that there already was God before our beginning.
Atheists believe in from nothing to intelligence, but don't want to believe from Inteligence to intelligence. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Give me a break.
So not only do you misrepresent what atheists say, you yourself say some crazy things that sound suspiciously something like you heard in your kindergarten.
cladking
Well-Known Member
As a child I was fanatical about having no false beliefs. I refused to take anything at face value and didn't accept anything until it fit everything I already knew and was internally consistent. This complicated the learning process but i could normally remember what I was expected to "believe" and spit it back on tests. I had to rearrange all my models at the age of twelve and then again at fourteen because things I knew to be true didn't really fit. I'm not sure I even could do this any longer but then I do rearrange whole segments from time to time so maybe.
It's only in the last twenty years I've been excising my beliefs. I did this because I see what they are doing to others. I see how entire countries can go mad and murder their own citizens. I see how it is belief that underlies all mayhem through human history.
In part it's just a matter of a new way to think that has me losing beliefs. I guess I'm trying to learn to think more four dimensionally rather than linearly. Results thus far are mixed at best but my puns are better.
Don't forget I've "always" been strictly intuitive (since 14) and still am. I've also been a generalist since a very young age and still am. This resulted from accepting very few axioms so expunging beliefs may be just a natural progression.
Then there's my belief that I understand two metaphysics which has an effect on just about everything.
One of the ironies of evolutionary belief is that it causes the mind to see changes in living things that don't exist but still rhyme with reality. "Natural selection" is still real even though it probably doesn't cause the changes Darwin saw but rather is the chief driver of sudden changes such as the peppered moth. It has nothing to do with the sudden changes that cause the emergence of new species nor apply to the fossil record.
The irony is the bible likely better explains change in species than any modern textbook even though much of what appears in the latest textbooks is essentially accurate. "Punctuated equilibrium" is probably fairly close as is most of what is known about genetics and mutation. It is highly incomplete but likely accurate.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I don't get it. Why is the atheist holding a bible and when did anyone get creationists to stay quiet. [ducking]
cladking
Well-Known Member
Words are just words. They are for communication. At least some people will know what i mean. You'll note I usually use the term "believers in science" rather than "scientismists" because it is more accurate.
True scientists don't have belief in science. They trust the process and the results but are aware this trust can be misplaced. They don't kowtow to every thing called "science" nor even to their own opinions.