Just Accidental?

[Polymath257]

That is my guess about Deeje's definition for it. My guessing definition is talking about things exist without God create them, i'm not refer to the decay of nucleus or tree falling.
You have to ask her what she means by accidents of nature.


You make claims, you then say you don't need to provide evidence to support your claims.
Why do you think you don't need to provide evidence to support your claims?


I don't understand your meaning.

The hypothesis of the involvement of a deity isn't required to explain the observed changes in species over time. So, if there is such involvement, the extent is below what we can observe.

 

[Jose Fly]

A person can't be a JWs if he verbally and persistently disagrees with the One Mind thing. That is what I do. I am a certifiable troll according to my dear, dear friend @Deeje
Haha. I only do it online so I am not a disfellowshipped JW. Which just goes to prove to me that Jesus doesn't care about the One Mind.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

 

[savagewind]

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Was. I suppose I am still in line to get on The Ark because I am not disfellowshipped. Haha
The ark? Oh yes! Believe it or not, the modern day Ark means the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses' present day official doctrine. Did you not know that?

 

[savagewind]

All I have to do is shut up in real life and I will get to live forever even if I do not want to!

 

[Jose Fly]

Was. I suppose I am still in line to get on The Ark because I am not disfellowshipped. Haha
The ark? Oh yes! Believe it or not, the modern day Ark means the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses' present day official doctrine. Did you not know that?

Thanks for answering. And yes, I knew that.

 

[ArtieE]

No God does not have to create creates exactly how they are now.

So which organisms did he create when and how many?

 

[ArtieE]

Stevevw has given an eloquent reply.

He said nothing of any use. I'm waiting for your answer. Again: "Are you actually trying to make us believe that a god on and off for a period of 4 billion years sat down and personally designed and then assembled the DNA of millions upon millions of organisms, most of which are extinct now? Or what exactly is it you want us to believe?" Just give us some details so we know what we're supposed to believe Deeje.

 

[gnostic]

I understand completely that lots of people have many different opinions and views concerning what they see. One only has to hear eye witness testimony to see how many versions there can be of the same event. Its human nature to see things as we wish to see them a lot of the time.

I cannot look at those pictures and NOT see the signature of the Creator. If you don't see it, then perhaps you don't want to. Others will look at those amazing creatures and praise their designer.

You speak of many eye-witnesses will see different versions of the same things, because they are biased and will only see what they want to see or what they wish to see...and you think YOU are immune to this bias or this wishful thinking?

Sorry, Deeje, but that exactly describe you to the tee.

You keep posting images of bugs, birds and fishes, post after post, showing them in their wonderful arrays of colours, and say that God designed them that way.

You are merely conjecturing your own baseless bias and wishful claims that there are links between the divine and nature, without ever providing the evidences to such links.

Those images that you say are designs from your Creator is merely YOU rationalising your personal belief and personal opinion, which are your bias and wishes.

There are no evidences to show that your God exist. You are just rationalising that he exist. Your rationality and your belief are not the same as "evidences"; you are merely expressing your FAITH, Deeje, there were never any evidence to your Designer.

You are clearly using circular reasoning to prove your claim. There has never been evidences to support the existence of God, your Creator, your Designer; just your wishes and you using circular logic that there is one.

Actually, the only person who is seeing what's not there, is you.

What is absurd that you can state that other people can have these biases and seeing only what they wish to see, but you are claiming that you are immune to it.

I'm afraid not; that's your hubris, because you are exactly what you have been describing other people to be.

 

[Deeje]

Again you avoid a set of questions Deeje.

Which one of these statements is not correct?

One cannot be an "evolutionist" and a Jehovah's Witness.

If you were to become an "evolutionist", you would have to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If you were to no longer be a Jehovah's Witness, your friends and family who remained in the faith would shun you until you returned to the faith.​

You do understand the difference between answering questions and being the subject of an inquisition? It tends to get personal when you guys run out of actual evidence. The jargon used to make it all sound legitimate just makes me laugh.

Go to any website designed to teach evolution to school students and you see that they can't hide behind the jargon because the intended audience wouldn't understand it. The bare bones of the theory are explained for these students and this is where you see the whole thing exposed for what it is.....unsubstantiated assumption taught to kids as fact. Millions of years are waved away with nothing in between ever found to substantiate the impossible numbers of transitions needed to prove macro-evolution ever took place. Students are never told about this.
So with that mindset, they go onto university and swallow evolution as true because they have never been taught that it can be challenged.

And you do understand that being a JW had little to do with my views on evolution. I rejected evolution on the "evidence" or should I say lack of it, long before I became a JW.

Your assumption is that I couldn't be a JW "and" an evolutionist and you would be right, but you left out the fact that the two positions are incompatible. You can choose one camp or the other, but you can't have a foot in both camps without serious compromise.
I see with my own eyes that there is way more actual evidence for deliberate, directed acts of creation than there is for a slow "accidental" (undesigned, undirected) process of blind evolution.

I don't do compromise, nor would I ever choose it to save face. I proudly take my position based on real evidence with real creatures, not assumed processes for which there is no proof apart from what scientists "think" "might have" or "could have" taken place millions of years ago when there was no one around to document a thing. The fossils can't speak for themselves, so science speaks for them....and of course it fits their theory perfectly.

You can take that position if you choose, but I care way more about how my Creator views me, than how accepted I might be in the world of academia. Science is not my religion.

If you are not an atheist, then why do you support their side of this issue? How do you describe yourself Jose Fly? It isn't obvious.

 

[Deeje]

He said nothing of any use. I'm waiting for your answer. Again: "Are you actually trying to make us believe that a god on and off for a period of 4 billion years sat down and personally designed and then assembled the DNA of millions upon millions of organisms, most of which are extinct now? Or what exactly is it you want us to believe?" Just give us some details so we know what we're supposed to believe Deeje.

What you believe is nothing to do with me.

I present an opposing argument....you choose your own position....then you deal with what that decision means for you. That is the bottom line at the end of the day. No one can force someone to "believe" anything against their will.

If there is no Creator, then there is no future other than what man and science can accomplish on this earth.....look around you..does that position fill you with confidence?

If there was no purpose to our being other than what humans can do to this planet, I would see no point in living. We are not just finite flesh.....there is a spiritual component to human nature that cannot be denied. If you nurture that aspect of your nature it draws you to the Creator just by observing his creation.....but if you are not a spiritual person, nothing will 'make a silk purse out of a sow's ear'. If you do not expect anything beyond this life.....you will get what you expect. Is that not fair? We choose our own destiny.

 

[Deeje]

You speak of many eye-witnesses will see different versions of the same things, because they are biased and will only see what they want to see or what they wish to see...and you think YOU are immune to this bias or this wishful thinking?

Sorry, Deeje, but that exactly describe you to the tee.

You keep posting images of bugs, birds and fishes, post after post, showing them in their wonderful arrays of colours, and say that God designed them that way.

You are merely conjecturing your own baseless bias and wishful claims that there are links between the divine and nature, without ever providing the evidences to such links.

Those images that you say are designs from your Creator is merely YOU rationalising your personal belief and personal opinion, which are your bias and wishes.

There are no evidences to show that your God exist. You are just rationalising that he exist. Your rationality and your belief are not the same as "evidences"; you are merely expressing your FAITH, Deeje, there were never any evidence to your Designer.

You are clearly using circular reasoning to prove your claim. There has never been evidences to support the existence of God, your Creator, your Designer; just your wishes and you using circular logic that there is one.

Actually, the only person who is seeing what's not there, is you.

What is absurd that you can state that other people can have these biases and seeing only what they wish to see, but you are claiming that you are immune to it.

I'm afraid not; that's your hubris, because you are exactly what you have been describing other people to be.

You know gnostic, I get the impression from the things you post, that there appears to be an inner conflict within you. You seem to be angry at God for not presenting himself to you in a way that "you" can accept him. But rather than how God presents himself to us...how are we presenting ourselves to God? What if this is the greatest test of who we are and we blow it? I see a need in you to believe in evolution, but I see it as a wishful thinking rather than a strong conviction.

The Creator gives enough proof of his existence by the things we can see and observe in our own backyards and in nature generally. The natural world itself is powerful testimony to the ingenuity and personality of the Creator. If you need more than God has provided, then that is your problem. You are guilty of rationalizing things yourself. We all rationalize because we are created to be rational beings. This is how we show our true colors. We alone are conscious decision makers; our choices are based on how our thought processes work to come to our conclusions.

We take our position on God's existence based on what is in our own heart. Confidence comes when we have personally experienced God's hand in our own life. If we have not felt God's hand on our shoulder, perhaps there is a reason? (John 6:44)

Jumping to the conclusion that he isn't there because he doesn't give the proof "we" demand, might prove to be the biggest mistake we ever make.

This subject seems to divide humanity more than any other. The number of replies and hits on this thread would seem to indicate that.

 

[Deeje]

Thanks for answering. And yes, I knew that.

Ah, the blind leading the blind.....you know nothing. You just think you do....

We will all see the outcome of everything soon enough.

 

[savagewind]

If there is no Creator, then there is no future other than what man and science can accomplish on this earth....

If there is no Creator does it mean to you that there is no love?

 

[savagewind]

Ah, the blind leading the blind.....you know nothing. You just think you do....

We will all see the outcome of everything soon enough.

Actually, I think that "sudden" destruction means that there will be NO TIME to "see" anything about what is happening. 1 Thessalonians 5:3

I DID feel that jab, in case you were wondering. God. I mean "Jehovah" seems to have made me immune.

 

[savagewind]

Ah, the blind leading the blind.....you know nothing. You just think you do....

We will all see the outcome of everything soon enough.

LOL @Deeje! Surely you are lying that he knows NOTHING. I have to laugh that you would put yourself in such a corner. Why would you do that?

 

[Jose Fly]

Your assumption is that I couldn't be a JW "and" an evolutionist and you would be right, but you left out the fact that the two positions are incompatible.

That's exactly the point. JW doctrine simply does not allow you to recognize evolution as valid in any way. Thus it is completely pointless to present and explain science to you. Also, your complaints about "bias" in others is terribly hypocritical.

I see with my own eyes that there is way more actual evidence for deliberate, directed acts of creation than there is for a slow "accidental" (undesigned, undirected) process of blind evolution.

Of course you do....you have to. Were you to see it otherwise, you would have to leave the JWs and lose all your JW friends and family. That's an incredibly high price, isn't it?

If you are not an atheist, then why do you support their side of this issue?

Why do you think evolution is the "atheist side"? The vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists.

How do you describe yourself Jose Fly? It isn't obvious.

Good.

 

[Pudding]

The hypothesis of the involvement of a deity isn't required to explain the observed changes in species over time. So, if there is such involvement, the extent is below what we can observe.

You say it's not observable that whether any deity involve in the changes in species over time.

If it's not observable, how do you come to the conclusion that "there is no intelligent agent involved in the evolutionary process", "they don't have a conscious agent involved"?

There is no intelligent agent involved in the evolutionary process.

They don't have a conscious agent involved

 

[Alison Wonderland]

These are a few different species of ducks....one can only marvel at their artistic designs and color schemes.

Who could possibly think that these just evolved and turned out like this through the process of gene mutations and adaptation? What survival advantage is there in being this beautiful?

Those ducks are more intelligent than your post.

 

[Darkstorn]

Ah, the blind leading the blind.....you know nothing. You just think you do....

We will all see the outcome of everything soon enough.

This sounds a lot like something spoken by someone with nothing more to say.

You just reply with stupid one-liners or distractions to people who take the time to read your inane arguments and waste their time. You still haven't answered my last post, even though it's a reply to a post where you are replying to me... If you want us to read and "acknowledge" your points, do the same to us or stop making threads.

You're withholding responsibility for your own thread and your own argument! Shows how firm the ground you are standing on truly is.

Stop showing your dishonesty openly.

 

[Deeje]

Those ducks are more intelligent than your post.

Well I see the same degree of intelligence in your response. Got anything of value to add or are you just bored?