Creationist questions evolution

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Nov 10, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    It is certainly curious, because Jan obviously is pretty smart. One has to be to be able to avoid making any definitive statements, except for the assertion that "God IS", without a coherent explanation why this merits logical conclusion, which needs no further explanation or understanding.

    However, if this is the case, I would chide Jan for presenting a false front when debating an issue. It certainly would not be in the spirit of "honest" debate.

    But then today alternate truths abound and Jan seeks to represent one. As long as we celebrate the birthday of Mickey Mouse, a fictional cartoon character, we cannot really complain.

    But IMO, Jan's God is his Tulpa.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Avoiding making definitive statements does not require intelligence. Any fool can do it.
    Write4U likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    It does require a certain duplicity....political or theological savvy......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Jan is just not any fool.☺

    Personally I am most happy to get to chat with Jan its good harmless fun.
    Some of Jans profound statements and spiritual understandings gets me thinking.
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Unlikely. Occam's Razor and all that.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Does Alex care about razors?.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I applied Occam's Razor when considering both my options the other being that Jan was an alien interacting with humans to select those best suited to take back to his planet.
  11. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    This statement just gives you away.
    Science is neither respectable, or i respectable.
    However you believe your house of cards worldview is science, and science is your worldview.
    If nothing else you are amusing.
    I thank you for that.

    Write4U likes this.
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    That shadow space monster, in you wonderful picture, is my dad.
    If you happen to see him again, can you somehow ask if it would kill him to call once in a while.

  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Theism is a vocation, as opposed to a title one assigns to them self. The same can be said of atheism.

    One can easily forget God in a moment of forgetfulness, and in that moment one can act as though one does not believe in God.

    The same can be said of atheism. For example. Atheists constantly draws from the atheist worldview to make the their arguments and assertions to justify their worldview. But in their conscious state act as though there is no God.

    Overall though, we both have to accept that the world is intelligible, and utilise this fact to make sense of anything.

    The intelligibility of the world is due to an intelligent agent that causes the world to be so.
    You will convince yourself, in your mind, the world just happened to arrive, in its present condition, willy-nilly. Allowing yourself the temporary notion that its intelligibility came about via a blind process.

    My base position is an acceptance of this intelligence. From this position, comes my theism. You on the other hand choose not to accept this agency. Your atheist position is derived from that.

    So don’t make the mistake of thinking I am an atheist, unless you witness me not accepting the intelligibility of this manifestation as the result of an intelligent agen

    Sure, some religions, IMHO, appear to be quite silly, because they do not accept all that God offers regarding knowledge of His Self.
    In this way they become stuck in a lot of ways, and have to rely on blind faith to fill in the gaps of their understanding.

    But religion, in relation to God consciousness, like material

    I don’t understand how you arrive at this conclusion, and you do not not offer any intelligent reason as to why this is so.
    The idea of it being borrowed from other, more ancient sources, is not true.

    One example is the personality of Lord Krishna being born in December the 25th, creating the idea that Jesus, being born on the same date therefore proves it is just a copy. Complete nonsense.

    Wise up!?
    Don’t you mean brainwashed

    Alas, I am not. Definitely not as educated as some appear to be on these forums.
    The reason I like coming on these forums, and I suspect it is the same with you, is that there appears to be a lot of folk who are highly educated. James R, Sarkus, Baldeee,Iceaura, DaveC, off the top of my head, seem to have a good standard of formal education (I may be wrong).

    They always have objections to God and theism, and I really appreciate that, as it allows me to look at my position, critically.

    I prefer their objections over the objections of religious people. Because as I mentioned earlier, religious folk tend to focus only on their particular religion, and are not open to all scriptures, concepts, and ideas regarding God, and theism.

    But saying that, the folk I mentioned, seem locked in the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
    But due to their atheism, are not accepting of it.

  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    On average theists and atheists act exactly the same. God or no God.
    Even animals act morally, without God.
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I understand theists think that those who do not accept the notion of a creator believe everything happened by chance in an unordered way but that is a simplistic almost strawman opinion.
    I think there are rules which are not willy nilly but that their application may be so in so far as things become variable dependant upon conditions and presence of various elements.
    Our understanding is of certain chunks of the we may understand evolution and the building blocks of life but at this point cant nail down how chemicals become life.
    I suppose what we do know is there is much we do not know and in those areas do not merely insert a place card called God.
    I understand how folk reach for a creator but I do not understand how they are so sure of "his" intentions given they really are just guessing.
    The world view I hold is reasonable in so far as the processes I accept to be in play have been well evidenced and are very certain in contrast to a creation view where little is evidenced and really the view is no more than belief that things "must" be the way they are due to some ill defined and unevidenced intelligence.
    I think limiting ones view to what we actually know avoids inventing beings or gods and must create an enviroment to search for more answers.
    I have not forgot a god because a god has not been reasonably evidenced.
    The likelyhood of a god is very remote but the likelyhood that if such a god exists we are its pets is even more remote.
    It is strange that a god has not appeared in the modern era and strange that folk believe a god appeared to a small group 2000 odd years ago presenting with similar traits to many other human gods in prior history all of which are clearly attempts to link humans to what they percieved as happenings in the heavens.
    Religions of today can not except that their origins were in Sun worhship and astrology.
    Why is it we can look at most everything and understand how it works yet this unevidenced God leaves no opportunity for us to establish conclusively his existence...if its all about him and us one could think this God would have shown himself very clearly indeed.
    The movement appeals to humans who are lazy and not prepared to seek real answers and content to imagine what they wish simply because to do so avoids rational thought about anything really.

  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I doubt if you are aware of the astrology link to all these "human gods".
    There are many who enjoy the 25 th December and that is because they all are astrology based.
    I expect that you are ignorant of all of this and will remain so because you dare not even consider that what I am presenting is historical fact.
    You see if you look at the various JC copies you will realise it was common for the human god to have 12 followers in the same way ancients percieved the Sun to have 12 followers (the 12 constelllations) ...the dieing on the cross also a common feature of the various human gods came from the Sun (god) dieing on the cross...the cross formed by stars...and there is a clue here that the stories came from Eygpt at 30 degrees latitude North where such an observation would have been made.
    You see if you look outside the scriptures and understand a great deal of influence came from astronomy or perhaps in the context astrology it becomes rather easy to see how we find many JC copies in prior history.
    I see the old testament as a selection of stories and a reflection of thoughts of our ancestors and I see the new testament as founded upon a common astrological theme running around in those times...
    You say without God we would have no morality...I dont think so...but one must recognise that the bible contains various things that are contains a great deal which is bad and not appropriate in our era as well...but we pick the good bits...and so finally we each select our morality this way and given we live in a society where the bible is well known and often referrenced a great deal of our morality actually does come from it...but remember it is selective...I pick parts of the teachings of whoever but ascribed to JC because they work..
    Forgiveness turn the other cheek love your fellow man are all practical solutions...else spend your time seeking revenge crippled with hate and wallowing inany percieved hurts and loses...and ironically I believe JC was just another mythical human god based on astrology.
    Unfortunately children are brainwashed in some way or another by their parents ... some are taught that the bible is the literal truth and of course that wont stand the light of day so going to college throws enough light for a normal rational person to conclude that religion needs to be looked at in the context of how humans tried to explain the world when they were ignorant of so much and did not even know where the Sun went at night.
    Yes same here.
    In my world strangly I am just so far more knowledgable than those around me ...I find that so alarming cause I am just a mug.
    But they know so little and have no interest in understanding anything outside their sports or cooking shows...all nice people but just not interested in knowing about anything.
    Mostly I can talk about many things but here I feel like a child ... I feel so very priveledged to get to read what the wonderful minds here have to say and their expression is just something else.
    And I like you and I love your ability to argue and although I complain that you side step questions I really admire the way you do it.
    I find trying to get one up on you a challenge that I am never met with in my world.
    You cause me to keep my mind active.
    I do really enjoy the times when we each lower our gaurd and be a little open ...I really enjoyed your post today.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No Jan, that is the Scriptural assertion, 6 day creation of the universe, including the earth, willy nilly, in its present condition.

    Whereas science estimates that it took some 4.54 billion years to gradually form from cosmic dust and

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Hardly "willy nilly".

    When will you admit that religious scripture is not valid as a scientific document.
    You posit that scripture is metaphorical, then assert it is factual. Which is it?
    Please do make up your mind.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018
  18. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    I agree. We are the same on the basic human being level, differing only in our perceptions. But that is so even if we were all theists, or atheists.

    I don’t think anyone doubts that we are moral, regardless of whether or not we believe in God.
    The only discrepancy is whether we believe that there are objective moral principles, or morals or the result of evolution.

    Write4U likes this.
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Yes but 6 days in God time is equal to 13.5 billion years in human time☺ so clearly the science supports the God did it story.

    So one God day is approximately 2 billion plus human years and you know how on the last day he rested...well that was 2 billion years plus and does not end until another 500,000 human years ... so he will be back when he has finished his day off but unfortunately by then all his pets probably will have all died☺.

    The key to understanding the bible is to realise that it is not the word of God but that it is the words of various (usually unidentified) men who claim they know the word of God and of course any reasonable thinking person would know that they can not and that they did not even know where the Sun went at night but that did not stop them making stuff up.

    Fortunately we now have science to help us understand such unknowable mysteries such as the question as to where the Sun goes at night.

    Mind you science has done little else for us other than giving us better food, better transport, technologies that the ancients would call miracles and a rather good understanding of most everything.

    And so science is not such a big deal because if you have your faith you can invent everything... even a second life...its just such a pity that these made up faith inventions can not become real...a real pity.

    But look at the good things religion the illusion that ones kid gets a better education at a church school, drives a number of industries, building, clothing, catering services and private jet sales☺...just think if you stopped religion how the economy would suffer..true...and if religion was scrapped would head shrinks have a clientel?

    And perhaps the military would suffer...just think if not for the countless religious wars thru history the world population may well be double.

    Last edited: Dec 9, 2018
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's backwards.
    The products of evolution would be objective moral principles.
    The products assigned to creation would be subjectively determined.
  21. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    I do not understand how anyone can question evolution. The fossil record includes (among other examples) the following.

    A set of related fossils starting with Eohippus & ending with the modern horse. Not sure about the existence of other sets of related fossils started with Eohippus & ending with other modern animals. I suspect that the Zebra is the end of one branch of fossils starting with Eohippus.

    Various sets of fossils starting with some early primate (or primates) & ending with Homo Sapiens, gorillas, chimps, baboons, & other primates.
    Evolution seems like the best explanation for the above sets of fossils & should be accepted unless some other explanation can be devised which better explains those fossils.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Jan Ardena:

    You're a long way behind in this thread. Your latest response is to my post #58. Since then, I've posted a number of subsequent replies to you, some of which have directly answered some of the questions you have asked me in your latest response.

    It would be useful if you could read the entire thread to date. I have no problem with your replying in chronological order, but asking me questions that I have already given you answers to is a waste of your time and mine.

    In this reply, I will reference replies I made to you in this thread that you have apparently not read yet. I am happy to take questions on those when you get to them.

    Why, you are of course, Jan. You talk about God in every post.

    I'll wait for you to catch up on my posts where I answered this specific question.

    Basically, it comes from the processes that organise things in the universe. Our universe is not random, but is governed by physical laws that determine how it evolves. Certain such processes produce concentrations of useful energy in certain places in the universe, and that energy has locally anti-entropic effects. This is a very general answer to a very general question. A more complete answer would require us to delve into physics, which would be better done in a different forum.

    I'll wait for you to catch up on the posts where I answered this specific question.

    It was most likely something rather virus-like.

    I notice that, in your reply, you skipped over where I asked you to explain your understanding of "Darwinian evolution", as opposed to the "evolution" you say you accept. This is now the third time I have asked you to clarify that. Each time you have ignored the question, pretending it wasn't asked? Can you or will you respond, or do you intend to keep avoiding this question? To me, this avoidance of yours looks a lot like the behaviour of a troll arguing in bad faith.

    I already told you a little of it with the comet example in the post you're replying to. Basically, a lot of experiments have been done to show that basic chemistry tends to produce things like amino acids from simple ingredients. Moreover, observations indicate that this kind of thing even happens in apparently "hostile" environments such as space.

    You misunderstand. The problem is hidden in that word "for". You might well ask what speech is "for", but the answer will be different depending on which perspective you tackle the problem from. On one level, speech is "for" communication. This could be asking the question at the level of why an individual human being finds speech to be useful, for example. At another level, speech is a product of genes, and as far as the genes are concerned it is good "for" making many copies of those same genes and spreading them around the world.

    This gene-centric point of view can be misleading for newcomers like yourself, however. Genes do not really "want" anything. They are not conscious. So when we talk about speech being "good" for propagating the genes for speech, we are rather using a convenient shorthand description of the evolutionary processes that result in the propagation of genes. Genes, in the end, are only spread to new generations by reproduction (in human beings, anyway). An animal or human relies (in part) on its genetic traits to survive in the world long enough to reproduce. Genes which give certain groups survival advantages (such as genes for speech, for example) over others, make it more likely that those groups will spread the genes to future generations.

    Compare two proto-human groups, one with speech (and the genes for it), and one without. Suppose that speech allows one group to communicate important information about food sources, predator locations and all kinds of other things, whereas, lacking the capacity for speech, the other group has less knowledge about those things. Then we would expect, on average, the first group to have greater reproductive success. Over many generations, the human population would become dominated by groups which all had the power of speech. This is what is meant by "reproductive success".

    That would be an example of what is known as "sexual selection". Suppose, for example, that women were to find men more attractive if they could speak, compared to their being unable to speak. Then, speech would, indeed, get you laid, if you were a man, at least with a statistically greater likelihood than if you lacked the capacity for speech. Over time, we would expect that the gene pool would become dominated by men who could speak, and presumably also women who preferred men who could speak.

    No. Some are side effects of other things. And for the most important traits, having a better chance of getting laid is a benefit to being able to survive more effectively and for longer.

    Recall that you asked me not how we benefit as individuals, but how nature benefits. Those are two different questions, and also conceptually separate from the question of how a particular set of genes benefits.

    I don't know what you mean by using the word "true" there. We have no choice but to act in accordance with nature. We aren't immune from the application of physical laws.

    You speak as if "nature" is a personified entity that has preferences and desires. Maybe this is because you identify nature with God?

    What do you mean by "a truth according to nature"? It sounds like you think nature is a person.

    When you talk about right or wrong, you're referring to moral values. I'm not sure that a cheetah or an antelope has a good sense of morality. Therefore, it seems to me that it is you who is judging the rightness or wrongness of the cheetah's actions here, not the cheetah, and not some personification of "nature".

    I'll wait until you get to my posts in this thread where I specifically addressed the question of information in DNA, with helpful examples.

    How does this help answer the questions you asked above, like what the first life form was, or how human beings evolved? The bible is hardly a scientific textbook. If you think it is, you have a lot more to learn about both science and the bible.

    What evidence?

    Spoken like one who is truly ignorant about biological science. A brief google search ought to disabuse you of this silly notion of yours. You can google, right? Try to avoid Creationist propaganda sites.

    Already done that. I'll wait for you to catch up.

    Did you not understand the point I put to you about the cheetahs running fast, etc.? I can explain further, if you have questions.

    Non sequitur.

    From my perspective, your supposedly innate knowledge of God doesn't exist, in fact.

    Spoken like a person who knows little to nothing about evolutionary psychology.
    Write4U likes this.
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I certainly can understand.
    Those who question science in general probably have been told since they could listen that the bible is the word of God and is the absolute truth.
    Their world is the lord the lord the lord and the good book and like so many folk they would never take the time to look at any alternative that may errode their world view...their good book is as powerful to them as science is to us.
    I saw a chap on utube say if the bible daid 2+2=5 that is what he would you think for one moment reason logic research evidence and testable proof will change the mind of a fool...well it wont.
    They will not consider the evidence for starters and will find some stupod reason to ignore it...look at Ken Ham with humans with dinasour displays..
    Do you think logic is a tool available to these folk?
    It is what it is and 20% in the USA believe the bible is the literal truth...where do you think flat Earthers find their authority.

Share This Page