Let's look at the evidence: 1. You made eleven posts before I entered this thread. Seven of those posts contained reference to or dogma from your particular theism. 2. After I entered the thread with some posts, you made an additional four posts, three of which reference your particular theism. 3. I then asked you the question, "Are you polytheistic?", a simple yes or no question which you did not answer directly but provided some apologetic. Based on this evidence, I conclude: 1. You infected a science thread with your particular religious beliefs and dogma before I even entered this thread. 2. You continued to do so after I entered this thread. 3. Now, you claim the reason you have made at least 10 posts referencing your religious beliefs is to answer one theistic question I posed which was asked after you made your religious posts. 4. You are disingenuous. 5. You take little, if any, responsibility for your actions, at least in this thread. 6. QED. I ask again, why do you talk about your religious beliefs and related dogma in a science thread?
Somebody who goes through that much effort to disseminate a posters comments has larger issues then the person they are addressing. In fact, in this post you are doing the very same thing you are accusing me of so I will ask you why you are injecting this into a science thread when you could pm me or contact a moderator with your concerns.
Great premise for a rational debate! "Provide the details for the stupid and imagined creation event, vs the proven and scientifically settled reality of abiogenesis & evolution." Can't frame it any better than that! Ok.. let's see if I can figure out the right answer.. the one that fits the phony narrative for progressive indoctrinees.. Creationism is based COMPLETELY on religious superstition, and all arguments against universal common descent are based on bible verses and shrieking from superstitious, unscientific fools, who hate doctors, technology, believe the earth is flat, and demand that the bible be used as the only science textbook.. by law. So then, of course, atheistic naturalism is not a belief, but is proven by science, is the source of all knowledge over the millennia, brings social peace and harmony to all who follow it, and is based ONLY and completely on empirical, verifiable scientific evidence. It seems plainly obviously to me, that laws should be passed, preventing the hysterical, anti-science deniers from upsetting people with their religious views, which are clearly hate speech. They should be re-educated in camps designed to accommodate hateful science deniers, and not allowed to disrupt the social harmony of society with their lies and superstitions, which are just a front for their goal of ruling the world with some bible mandated theocracy. I think that is the right answer.. at least those are the responses whenever I attempted any evolution debates, here. ..hmm.. i was trying to remember your replies in my last one.. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/origins-the-evidence.512854/ Perhaps you just missed the bashing of 'Religious People!' and you started a thread to ridicule theistic beliefs? I don't remember you presenting any science in the above thread.. i was about the only one who did that. But i am evolving! I've realized that nobody wants to examine any science, or debate rationally.. you want hysteria! Evil, snarling enemies you can demonize! Furtherance of the Narrative! Science is the furthest thing from the dogmatic minds of atheistic naturalists.
Umm... because the OP requested it? Isn't ANY 'supernatural' explanation AUTOMATICALLY 'religious beliefs!'? How do you ask someone to frame their views, then bash them for doing it? And btw, i have not seen ANY 'Science!' to support your belief of atheistic naturalism.. is that not just religious dogma and opinion that you are trying to pass off as 'Settled Science!'?
This is, of course, why the OP specifically stated, "Hopefully we can avoid mythical arguments...." Apparently, you suggest discussion of religious beliefs and related dogma belong in a science forum. You're a funny guy. When I suggest it does not belong in a science forum you claim it is "bashing". Again, you're a funny guy...biased as heck...but still entertaining. I'm not surprised. Your frequent attempts to invoke false equivalence has become boring and quite trite. You need a new schtick.
1. To the naturalists, any 'supernatural' explanations are 'mythical arguments!' ..by definition: Creationism is religion! Atheistic naturalism is science! This is not based on reason or science, but by assertion and loud, indignant repetition. So, any attempt to critique the naturalistic belief of origins, or to compare the facts in either model is dismissed by the asserted definition: Creationism is religion! Atheistic naturalism is science! 2. False equivalence. This is the central flaw of universal common descent. I had a long thread on this some years back: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-central-flaw-of-evolution.442211/ Here is an argument and analysis of a study on canids from that thread: It's a dog eat dog world. Dogs are common human companions. We have domesticated & bred them for centuries. Here are some interesting facts & studies about dogs, & their genetic base. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/8/990.full This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin. I'll try to define the problem as they present it. 1. All of the variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old. 2. Fact: Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take thousands or millions of years to come about. 3. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent. 4. the recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety. You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA: From the link: "Phylogenetic tree of wolf (W), dog (D), and coyote (C) mtDNA sequences. The tree was constructed using a Bayesian approach. The same topology was obtained with a neighbor-joining approach. Support is indicated at the nodes as percent bootstrap support for 1000 neighbor-joining replicates and Bayesian posterior probabilities. Four clades of dog sequences (I to IV) are indicated as in Vilà et al. (1997). Internal dog branches are marked in orange, and internal wolf branches are marked in light blue. The branch leading to wolf haplotype W1 was basal to the rest of the tree and it was also considered internal. Internal branches that could not be conclusively associated to dogs or to wolves are indicated in discontinuous green." As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canidae not listed. I have seen them in other genetic studies. But all this does is PROVE descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years. So postulating evolution as an explanation of the canids is flawed. It did not happen as the ToE suggested, & there is still no mechanism for 'creating' variability. And the assumption of genetic additions are absurd. That cannot happen at all, yet it is assumed as fact. It is a myth, based on conjecture, flawed assumptions, & faulty science. It is a RELIGIOUS opinion, nothing more. It is a lame attempt to tack a 'science' label on a speculative, philosophical opinion of naturalistic origins.
I will point out, in the above study of canidae mtDNA, that the lineage and descendancy fits within the ID model, and not the UCD model. (ID =Intelligent Design, UCD=Universal Common Descent) 1. The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly, and contained all the genetic information for each haplotype. 2. The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy within canidae, but the time frame is incompatible with the UCD model. 3. The child branches within canidae show REDUCING variability, as the diverse genetic information became localized in the various haplotypes. Now i know that this kind of scientific analysis is not wanted in the science subforum, but only propaganda that supports the popular beliefs. But this simple examination of canidae reveals flaws in the UCD model. There are many more, but the Defenders of the Faith will not allow scrutiny or questioning of the sacred tenets of the atheistic naturalism religion. Loud, indignant, repeated dogma is their preferred method of indoctrination, not scientific methodology or critical analysis.
Fake Science: e.coli have evolved to a different species! Neanderthal is a separate species! Horse tree is proof of evolution! Whale ancestor proves evolution! Vestigial organs prove we have evolved! the 'tail' in the embyo shows we came from a fish! archaeopteryx is a transitional species between bird & reptile! Time proves evolution! Given enough time, anything is possible. Fruit flies prove evolution! Etc, & etc. There are a lot more, but this should prove the point. Now, the Real Science: e.coli are the same species, that have adapted to digest citrates Neanderthal was a tribe of humans, & their dna is evident in living humans now. The mtDNA in equus can be traced, & descendancy evidenced for some haplotypes, but many speculative 'horse ancestors' are just speculative. There is no evidence that they descended. That is believed, only. Whales are the same as equus or canidae. Just because you can imagine a sequence of drawings, does not provide evidence that it happened. There is no evidence, genetic or otherwise, that this is true. Almost all of the original 86 vestigial organs listed in the 1800s have been proven to be necessary, important organs in the human anatomy. They are NOT vestigial, just assumed, wrongly. It is not a tail. It is a developing embryo. Any imagined similarity to a tail is a 'looks like!' fallacy. There are multiple, conflicting theories about archaeopteryx. It is impossible to make a definitive statement about this extinct creature, that has much more evidence of it being a bird with claws & feathers. ..like many living birds do. Time has no mechanism to affect major changes in the genome. There is nothing evidenced to support this claim. It is a belief, not a scientifically evidenced theory. Fruit flies, even after millions of generations, remain fruit flies. They are of the same haplogroup, & the same genotype. That is the difference between asserted science, & critical examination. Fake science is merely declared, with no evidence. Real Science examines the claims, applying the scientific method. IF the 'theory' does not stand under scrutiny, it is debunked. If it is asserted without evidence, it is dismissed without evidence.
Well, if Campbell and other minds are correct, and we live in a virtual reality, with the foundation being consciousness and information, then a metaphorical computer outside of this universe is the Creator. And that metaphorical computer used evolution as the means to get where we are today. So when you delve into the mechanics of evolution, you are just trying to understand the program used by the metaphorical computer. Campbell has crowd funded a series of experiments that he thinks will shed light on the hypothesis that this universe is a virtual reality. He admits that we will learn something from these regardless of what the results end up being. Of course if we can ever find evidence for this universe being a VR, based upon information and consciousness, what happens to materialistic evolution? It will no longer be the materialistic foundation that science believes it to be, today. A shift in paradigm. And it will not suit the atheists who try to use science to back up their beliefs. There will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth, and they will have to eat a piece of humble pie. Or more than likely, go into the state of denial, and rely upon faith in order to maintain their belief system. Like the religious are accused of doing today. ha ha My primary problem with those that believe they know the truth, is the arrogance that comes with that. ha ha. And there is no greater group of arrogant arses than atheists who think they know the truth, while not actually in reality knowing sh*t from shinola. I don't know what the truth is, and it gives me humility, as I am surrounded by the ignorant arrogant, on both the religious and atheistic side. I think it might be possible to finally know the truth, but we are nowhere close to that today.
It seems to me, that there IS an Objective Reality. Regarding origins, and the nature of the universe, there is a simple dichotomy of possibility: 1. Intelligent Design 2. Naturalism Every imaginable scenario for origins of life, man, and the universe is one OR the other. Goddidit, or Nuthindidit. Now regarding BELIEFS, about these 2 possibilities, there are a great number of beliefs and opinions. They can be: 1. Absolutely right 2. Absolutely wrong 3. Partially right and/or wrong We have no way of 'knowing,' with our current knowledge base, if any of the beliefs about the nature of the universe are right, wrong, or partial. So the dogmatic insistence of some, who adamantly demand that their view is Absolute Truth, is nothing but delusion.. there is no way to prove or disprove the basic beliefs about origins. They have become religious dogmatists, and worse, religious bigots, who attack, censor, and demean those with different opinions. But, such is the nature of man, and the advances from the Enlightenment are slowly giving way to dark ages mandates and conformity. Freedom of conscience, aka 'religion', is an archaic concept that will die with the American Experiment.
You expect reality based creation or evolution, yet nobody can provide verifiable non-opinionated data to show the big bang ever happened or that what you perceive as physical reality (evolution) really exists and God did not imagine all of this; you might simply be a file in a folder named "Earth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Two_Worlds You can dwell on evolution, others on creationism, until someone intelligently designs us out of existence, and they argue humans were evolved to frack themselves out of existence; a good spirit is all that matters, all the rest of creationism is the "washing of pots and cups."
You renamed "naturalism" to "Nuthindidit" in order to better set apart your personal and unsupportable belief. The theory of evolution certainly does NOT suggest that "nuthindidit". In fact, science has demonstrated specific mechanisms of change at the dna level and the steps from there to the level of how our broadly differentiated life forms have arisen. That's not "nuthindidit". You need to come up with an honest argument, not silly word games.
I did it for both.. why no indignation for 'Goddidit!'? Ok, nobodydidit... means the same to me. I try to inject some colorful language, to make a point, but there are always those who are offended. And of course, you have NO 'mechanisms of change at the dna level..' that is assumed and believed, but there are none.. unless you are wanting to play word games ...
Of course, you might. For one, you may have picked the wrong god, and so you are going to burn in hell forever. Second, you have surrendered your faculty of incredility, which may bleed into other facets of your life, causing you to believe other utter nonsense that may come at a cost. Third, you may let your only, actual life -- your time on Earth -- pass you by as you hold vigil for baby Jesus. Fourth, you may end up making poor choices because you defer to a supposed absolute moral code dictated by a made up sky wizard, instead of applying reason and evidence.
He wasn't "offended". He explained quite civilly and neatly why your choice of language was poor and misleading, which was the correct and rational thing for him to do, in this discussion.
I was a horrible person before God saved me. All I did was think of myself, I focused on greed and having a good time. I had no focus on anything towards the future. God changed all that for me. I've even volunteered to work with charities when time permits, something I never would have ever, ever done. Do you know why? God doesn't tell me, I do it because I'm a new person. I'm a new person because of God. I've lost nothing......I've gained so much.
But that's the thing about a strong delusion...you may have already lost very much indeed, and don't know it. And you wouldn't yet be aware of future losses, anyway.
What is your criteria for stating that? What do you think I have lost? Because of God I went to college and am studying to be an elementary school teacher, before God I had no desire to go to college. Before God I would spend every penny I had as soon as I got it, now I don't and yes I may still be broke but not because of foolishness. Before God I would sleep around a lot and well I still do but now I feel guilty in the morning. I've lost nothing.
I don't know you well enough to say. I am stating that pascal's wager is a steaming pile of hot garbage, because you could experience losses, like the things I described. I am happy for you that your faith has brought you benefits. Similarly, i am happy for people who point to meditation for the same benefits, or who point to jogging or mountain climbing. That doesn't lend any truth to the proposition of the existing of gods, though.
I am not betting, I know it for a fact. I cannot prove it or convince you but I have zero doubt in my heart or my mind. I have seen things happen in my life, radical things that I will not go into, that could have only happened because of God. He has proven Himself to me over and over again. He would do it for you also if you would be brave enough to ask Him. You think we may be losing something but you are so far off the mark.
I am not asking you to doubt it, nor would i ever try to disprove the existence of gods or magic. By their very magical nature, they could never be disproven, as they defy evidence and causality. You alluded to pascal's wager, and I will stomp out that nasty little pile of garbage whenever and wherever I see it. Nothing personal.
I'm not offended. I have lots of relatives who don't know jack about any kind of science. Here's a paper titled " Plant speciation through chromosome instability and ploidy change: Cellular mechanisms, molecular factors and evolutionary relevance" It includes the following quote: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214662814000103
Thank you and yes, many are involved with that but it won't save them. God knows who is being honest and who isn't. If I die and God is not there, well, I have lived my life as a better person for it and am much happier now then before. If I've lost out on things then so be it, I don't feel so and its my life so isn't that what matters? When I cried out to Him He was there for me when nobody else was. For that reason I follow Him and as I've grown in my faith its become even clearer to me. I will never change nor stop believing and trying to live a better life, not only for Him but because I want it for me also. Its a relationship. I am just sad you can't experience what I do.
Yes, out of my whole post, full of insightful revelations about the human experience, rational points driven home with impeccable logic, and unfolded mysteries of the universe, he complains about, 'Goddidit, or Nuthindidit..' ..makes me wonder why i even bother.. i can leave you to your dull, unimaginative and illogical delusions, and don't have to deal with the straw men, insults, and ridicule! But i get it.. nobody is interested an a systematic discussion or debate about origins.. the naturalist's debating style is parsing 'gotcha!' phrases or words from a post, completely ignoring the points made. It used to annoy me, but I'm evolving and getting used to it... So I'll make my points of reason, craft lengthy articles defining terms and analyzing scientific studies, only to have them dismissed and ignored, with no rebuttal. ..makes it easier on me.. why bother with rational, logical, and factual debate? Nobody here wants it, anyway.
