|
2 registered members (Akow, 1 invisible),
1,404
guests, and 9
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: NITRO777]
#78130
06/28/06 15:43
06/28/06 15:43
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I find it the irony of ironies that you cannot properly understand the words of Christ, yet most children and uneducated people can...it is because you are blind.
Right, whatever you say. I'd say they are simply easier to influence and just 'stupid' or ignorent enough to fall for the traps. Ever wondered why a lot of better educated people instead do not believe in the bible??
Quote:
No, the blindness Jesus was referring to was not the physical condition of blindness, but rather a spiritual condition. He outlined this differnce between physical and spiritual dozens of times.
What made you think I meant otherwise? Off course I know Jesus meant this spiritual blindness. Hare Krishna also claim that people are spiritual blind because they are unaware of the perfect truth, and can only see when they know the perfect truth, it doesn't really mean anything.
No offense meant but, I could say that you seem almost physically blind, considering all the evidence that contradicts the bible and creation. What makes the 'spiritual' more truthfull than the physical if I may ask?
Quote:
Just because you dont understand it does not make it nonsense. Jesus even addressed this issue of people not comprehending His teachings:
Yes, and that's a rather weak argument.  A book or person can't tell wether or not I understand something on beforehand.
If I would write a book to create a religion I will remember to put those kind of lines in it too, just to make it more easy to influence the followers. It has psychological trap written all over it, but you don't understand.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78131
06/28/06 17:45
06/28/06 17:45
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Right, whatever you say. I'd say they are simply easier to influence and just 'stupid' or ignorent enough to fall for the traps. Ever wondered why a lot of better educated people instead do not believe in the bible??
Thats the exact point Im trying to make, I think that God, in His wisdom, has hidden the deep mysteries of the universe from the "wise", rather choosing to reveal his Plan to the low of spirit, and humble of heart. This does not just include the poor, the children, and the uneducated, but rather includes everyone who has a willing heart, and child-like faith. This HOWEVER does not exclude scientists, as long as those scientists come to Jesus with a child-like heart. It has nothing to do with "stupid" or "ignorant", it rather has to do with goodness and purity of heart.
Quote:
What made you think I meant otherwise?
Because you talked about literal blind people in the context of spiritual blindness, I am sorry if I misunderstood you 
Quote:
Hare Krishna also claim that people are spiritual blind because they are unaware of the perfect truth, and can only see when they know the perfect truth, it doesn't really mean anything.
Hare Krishnas, like most religions, have partial truths, this would be a truth I agree with.
Quote:
No offense meant but, I could say that you seem almost physically blind, considering all the evidence that contradicts the bible and creation. What makes the 'spiritual' more truthfull than the physical if I may ask?
I dont see much science that contradicts the bible, and I have often times have wondered why both you and I, looking at the same exact feature of nature, such as a leaf, could have such differeing opinions about the origins of that same leaf.
Just yesterday i was looking through a book of different reptile and amphibian species, and the differences were just so many there is no way to conclude that they evolved...the differences within the major types themselves, the crocidile, the frog and the snake are absolutely defined; how could they have evolved? which one evolved first? Its utter foolishness, nobody here knows how species evolved, or in which order, yet everyone believes that it happened, that is so stupid to me.
Quote:
Yes, and that's a rather weak argument. A book or person can't tell wether or not I understand something on beforehand.
Well you said it was nonsense, that seemed to imply that you dont understand the teachings of Christ, because if you really understood His teachings, you would know it was not nonsense. You might disagree with it, yes, but it is certainly not nonsense.
Quote:
If I would write a book to create a religion I will remember to put those kind of lines in it too, just to make it more easy to influence the followers. It has psychological trap written all over it, but you don't understand.
Please eleaborate on your psychological trap, I dont know why you make this description.
Anyway, dont get angry, life is too short...however, if you are going to hell when you die I wouldnt be wasting my time in an internet forum, I would be enjoying every inch of my time. eat, drink, and be merry for tomorro we die 
And I dont want you to die and go to hell 
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: NITRO777]
#78132
06/28/06 22:10
06/28/06 22:10
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Yes, you are right, intelligence has got nothing to do with it, but I didn't bring it up either. I understand that wise people don't get excluded, but why does it look like that? Also, remember that eventhough I see where your previous reply came from, it's not that the 'educated people' I was talking about don't believe for no reason. Most of them have a rather good amount of reasonable arguments for believing in what they do. I doubt this has much to do with Gods plan, unless he's out to mislead a part of mankind. Quote:
goodness and purity of heart.
Okey, well I don't know if I have that, I mean, the goodness is there alright, but I'm not sure what to understand under 'purity of heart'. That sounds a bit like the 'spiritual blindness' example to me.
Quote:
Hare Krishnas, like most religions, have partial truths, this would be a truth I agree with.
I think you already understood, but my point was that everyone can claim such things. It's like kicking a door in while it's already open. Adding such 'truths' does give a feeling that the bible is more correct, but it still says exactly nothing. I'm having a hard time trying to explain this in english, however it's clear that no religious text would not add these kind of remarks and that's exactly why they appear in many other religions too.
Quote:
Well you said it was nonsense, that seemed to imply that you dont understand the teachings of Christ, because if you really understood His teachings, you would know it was not nonsense. You might disagree with it, yes, but it is certainly not nonsense.
It's possible to both disagree with the teaching and think that parts of it are nonsense at the same time, like I said a book or person can't tell wether or not I understand something on beforehand.
Why and what's the purpose of all these kind of remarks in the bible? (the remarks warning about others not being able to understand and thinking different etc. etc.) That are the psychological traps I'm talking about.
Tell someone often enough that the world is evil and they will start believing this. Especially when you warn them on beforehand about others who will strongly disagree with the ideas in the bible and react with disbelief etc. and they automatically see 'hey, the bible was right indeed, so it must be true'. Hopefully this clears up what I meant.
Quote:
Anyway, dont get angry, life is too short...however, if you are going to hell when you die I wouldnt be wasting my time in an internet forum, I would be enjoying every inch of my time. eat, drink, and be merry for tomorro we die:(
And I dont want you to die and go to hell:)
Thanks , I can relativate enough to never be really angry though, eventhough sometimes I do get irritated. I never let it ruin my days though.
I definately don't want you or anyone else for that matter go to hell either.
You seem to assume that I will go there nevertheless, which I can understand , but don't worry about me, there's enough goodness left in me. I know, according to your worldview one cannot judge himself, and I can't/won't either.
As for my literal personal well being, I guess I'll see what happens, it will however take some time before I will find out what's past the light at the end of the tunnel ... at least that's what I expect at the moment.
But you do make a good point though, I'm wasting quite some time on these forums  ...
(Oww and on a little sidenote here, if my replies look to be somewhat or a lot emotionally loaded, as in agressive or annoyed then it's just my disbelief about what theist tend to believe in expressed in words. Please do not take anything I write as an offense, not personal either, because I never mean anything I write like that.)
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 06/28/06 22:28.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Machinery_Frank]
#78133
06/29/06 22:25
06/29/06 22:25
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
No, even if modern evolutionary theory is completely false, it in no way validates any part of creationism.
Yeah, because then we could have come from space. Blah, blah, blah.
Quote:
This is not a logical neccesity--perhaps life developed because of the way the wind blows, and molecules are atrracted together by n-forces in the sixth dimension.
Eh
Quote:
In any case, science must deal with purely natural explanations, so it has nothing to say whatsoever on a creator or a god. Why cant you see that? How does it hurt you to admit it?
That you cannot see the logical problems with this isn't very surprising.
Let's say, hypothetically, we were created. But we had the rule that we could only deal with natural explanations? How would we ever discover this? Is science about limiting possibilities? No.
In fact, just because we deal with natural explanations doesn't mean we specifically discount creation. It just means science would only deal with natural evidence for creation. Not that we immediately know creation didn't happen, simply because God isn't natural. In that case, we just can't scientifically know God.
However, let's give you that we must immediately pursue a natural explanation. Why don't scientists present EVERYTHING to people so they can compare different origins? Why don't they tell people that the fossil record doesn't back up evolution? Why don't they tell them that they have no idea how life might have started on its own? Why don't they tell them that cosmic evolution doesn't happen, nor have we seen any evidence of it happening? Why don't they tell them we can't observe macroevolution? So on and so forth. Just present the information fairly. If your assumption that only natural explanations can exist, science can come up with the natural explanation, but then tell people that its full of holes, and ultimately makes no sense. You guys are essentially pushing lies as truth. You'd have people believe that the mystery of a natural explanation for biogenesis is possible. This is why your beliefs are a religion. You don't use them as explanations, you use them as gospel.
Quote:
There will probably never be an evidence for a creator. This is only guessing and guessing with no proof at all is not the way science works.
No, just things like biogenesis and evolution.
Quote:
Evolution has enough proofs and there is no need to discuss this further.
Oh yeah, the fossil record with a clear line of evolution. Mutations that write information. Genetic trees that match paleontological trees. Oh wait....all of that stuff actually contradicts evolution. Ooops.
Quote:
Just study it and you will be overwhelmed with info's and articles that come from thousands of authors over a very long period.
I've studied it and was hardly overwhelmed. Its all assumptions, or they'll find proof against evolution and claim its proof for evolution. For instance, genetic similarities will exist in animals that should have nothing in common, but that's because evolution can do the EXACT SAME THING twice, or dozens of times. Evolution is nondisprovable pseudoscience. You can rationalize anything as evolution.
Quote:
It is really simple: Why should so many smart people over such a long period be wrong?
Creationists are scientists too. Why should they be wrong? This is a pathetic appeal to authority.
Quote:
Why should Irish_farmer suddenly appears and is the smartest guy in the whole world and falsifies everything. Please be realistic.
I didn't invent the idea that things were created. Nice try, though.
Quote:
I never said we have found the 'exact same species in the fossil record',
I didn't need you to, paleontologists say it.
Quote:
I didn't say they didn't change at all.
The fossil record says they don't change. So regardless of what you say, if you want to contradict 150 years of digging through the fossil record to prove evolution, then go ahead.
Quote:
I would agree to restricting science to natural explanations, but this does not necessarily exclude a creator - as long as there's a natural explanation for that creator.
For instance, if we one day find evidence that extraterrestrials have created life on earth, science had to deal with those extraterrestrials. Especially with the question how they evolved and became able to create life.
So then let's imagine an alternate universe, where God created the universe. The people in the universe might not know it, but for the purpose of this demonstration we're omnipotent so we know it. In this universe they say, "Well, things can only have a natural explanation so we automatically weren't created."
We would wrinkle our brows and go, "Why would their science cut off possibilities? Now they're going to get it wrong."
Science never said that we had to assume their was no creator. We can find natural explanations for the universe, and life. But at least be fair in presenting them. I have no problem with evolution, I just want evolutionists to stop using their monopoly to mislead people. For instance the numerous lies the evolutionists on this board STILL keep using as evidence for evolution. Things that have been known to be false for years.
Quote:
Fortunately, at the moment it does not look as if life were created by gods or extraterrestrials
Says the man who looks at a watch and goes, "How did it create itself?"
Quote:
Blind people can have sins too, not just that, but why would people that can see be blind? Blind people often are just as biased. The sole purpose of that little line amongst many similar lines is to keep you from asking yourself the right questions ...
Wow, Phemox, its amazing to see how you absolutely refuse to even understand a single word in the bible. Regardless of whether or not the bible is true, even the smallest of understanding would tell you that much of Jesus' actions and words were.....metaphorical. He didn't always speak directly, and when he was referring to blindness, it wasn't physical blindness. But I doubt you've read the bible beyond the skeptic's annotated version.
Quote:
The design of nature is fantastic and impressive. I agree with you in that point. But that is absolutely no proof of a designer / creator. There are explanations for every detail in plants and animals. You just have to explore them. Open your eyes.
Just because someone comes up with a guess besides 'creator' doesn't make it true either. So why are you so sure?
Quote:
If you will not do that then you have to explain everything that is beyond your comprehension with something that has to do with god. And that is a really cheap method of thinking. Maybe C-Script is a result of god?
After thousands of years, no one has come up with a better explanation.
Quote:
Just yesterday i was looking through a book of different reptile and amphibian species, and the differences were just so many there is no way to conclude that they evolved...the differences within the major types themselves, the crocidile, the frog and the snake are absolutely defined; how could they have evolved? which one evolved first? Its utter foolishness, nobody here knows how species evolved, or in which order, yet everyone believes that it happened, that is so stupid to me.
What I love is nature is so varied, you could come up with any arbitrary tree of life you want, and guess what? You'd be right every time.
Quote:
Yes, you are right, intelligence has got nothing to do with it, but I didn't bring it up either. I understand that wise people don't get excluded, but why does it look like that?
Most of the major scientists who formed the foundation of modern science were christians or some other major faith. If we were having this discussion at that point, could I use that as proof that religion is superior to atheism?
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78134
06/30/06 14:40
06/30/06 14:40
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
In fact, just because we deal with natural explanations doesn't mean we specifically discount creation. It just means science would only deal with natural evidence for creation. Not that we immediately know creation didn't happen, simply because God isn't natural. In that case, we just can't scientifically know God.
Science is about explanations. But explaining something with a cause that "isn't natural and can not be explained" is no explanation at all.
Quote:
Why don't scientists tell people that the fossil record doesn't back up evolution? Why don't they tell them that they have no idea how life might have started on its own? Why don't they tell them that cosmic evolution doesn't happen, nor have we seen any evidence of it happening? Why don't they tell them we can't observe macroevolution?
Because scientists normally dislike lying.
Quote:
For instance, genetic similarities will exist in animals that should have nothing in common, but that's because evolution can do the EXACT SAME THING twice, or dozens of times.
Genetic similarities between species are in fact strong evidence of a common ancestor... and thus one of the big problems of creationism.
Quote:
So then let's imagine an alternate universe, where God created the universe. The people in the universe might not know it, but for the purpose of this demonstration we're omnipotent so we know it. In this universe they say, "Well, things can only have a natural explanation so we automatically weren't created."
You do not need an alternate universe. Just imagine a computer simulation that contains artifical, intelligent people. If they knew that they live in a world that was created by a programmer, would their scientists deny it? Of course not. The programmer is a natural, scientific explanation.
Creation per se is not unscientific. Only believing in creation despite otherwise evidence, or believing in a supernatural creation that can not be explained, is irrational and unscientific.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: jcl]
#78135
06/30/06 22:10
06/30/06 22:10
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Science is about explanations. But explaining something with a cause that "isn't natural and can not be explained" is no explanation at all.
So your replacement to this is to say that even though we don't see evolution in life, in genetics, or in the fossil record, we should accept it simply because it doesn't include a creator?
I'm not saying scientists should conclude that God exists, but it isn't outside the realm of science to admit that geology better fits a flood conclusion.
Or better yet, to admit that we don't have the fossils to back up evolution. We don't have the genetic comparisons to back up evolution (except like any good pseudoscience, when the genetic comparisons don't match up, its just because we would expect things to look contrary to evolution if evolution is true, and besides we can just ignore those instances for the most part and focus on the comparisons that do match up) and so on and so forth. I'm not saying science needs to return to God. But putting science in a box just because you don't like the idea of God isn't any smarter. Its just limiting your thinking.
Quote:
Because scientists normally dislike lying.
Gould would disagree with you. Should I quote him at length again?
Quote:
Genetic similarities between species are in fact strong evidence of a common ancestor... and thus one of the big problems of creationism.
Except where you consider that genetic similarities create more problems than they solve. You're right, a lot of genetic similarities match up with the pre-conceived tree of life. But the problem is that there are just as many that don't. So you could come up with any tree you want, even one in many aspects completely opposite of the accepted tree, and you'd still find similarities that match your tree.
Quote:
You do not need an alternate universe. Just imagine a computer simulation that contains artifical, intelligent people. If they knew that they live in a world that was created by a programmer, would their scientists deny it? Of course not. The programmer is a natural, scientific explanation.
No, because the programmer wouldn't be made out of numbers....so they would have to conclude that the programmer is extra-universal, however they conceive their universe. Its kind of subjective, because no one knows what artificially intelligent scientists would think if they lived inside of a computer.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78136
06/30/06 22:30
06/30/06 22:30
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
So your replacement to this is to say that even though we don't see evolution in life, in genetics, or in the fossil record, we should accept it simply because it doesn't include a creator?
How can you make such blanket statement that have no basis in fact at all? All the evidence does point to natural evolution by natural selection.
As I said before, you mst be living in a dream world, becasue all the evidecence is right there for you read about and see. If you insist on argueing in this manner, just continually ignoring every peice of real evidence, and claiming that it is all wrong, you just work yourself into a corner you cant get out of--according to you, only you are able to properly understand evidence, and only you know the truth.
It sounds as though you are grasping at straws, trying to hold your sanity together by denying reality.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: JetpackMonkey]
#78139
07/01/06 01:10
07/01/06 01:10
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
I can't believe this is still going. Ahahahaha.
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
|
