proving evolution as just a "theory"

[HitchSlap]

Wont do no good to demonstrate even classification errors, which then would lead to the rest.

How can anyone falsify it, you wont accept anything but the lies because they tell you to believe them. Finches separate species, the lie by DNA testing and what is happening right in front of their noses.

Defining a species

"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

But then you makes excuses in your own mind to continue to believe the lie. It cant be falsified because you accept no evidence against what your high priests of evolution tell you to believe, even if in contradiction to what they understand is the truth.

I'm not sure you even understand what you're saying, much less qualified to opine on their merits.

 

[Shemjaza]

If you are looking for Conan the Barbarian, then look at the reality of this current civilisation you are living in and discern that it is one big LIE. This fictional story has been under your nose the whole time and your looking to a book for your inspiration of fictional characters. If you are looking for fictional characters, look to the fictional characters in the media, in politics, in Hollywood and in your own Australian Greens circles.

Neo, you have been sold a lie all your life and it is High time to make a choice, either you choose the truth of Jesus Christ or the LIE of the world.

I was entertained by a book that even most Christians would see as pious fiction at best and outright heresy at worst.

I believe in things that can be demonstrated, or justified to my satisfaction.

I try to avoid just taking things on faith. I give my trust in proportion to how reliable they have been in the past. I don't worship

I accept the Theory of Evolution, it has evidence and a coherent explanation for reality. While I am dubious of Creationist claims due to a history of logical flaws and outright lies.

Either way.....

After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth.

More references to science fiction that uses the imagery of religion and spirituality, but is mostly materialistic and atheistic.

You have worldly taste for someone so focused on your religion.

 

[The Times]

I was entertained by a book that even most Christians would see as pious fiction at best and outright heresy at worst.

Ok. Interesting!

I believe in things that can be demonstrated, or justified to my satisfaction.

But how do you know for sure, that what you perceive is truth?
You can believe in wireless communication, but how is your demonstration of this technology by using your smartphone a true picture of what you perceive. What if I were to tell you that if intermediate conditions change slightly, then wireless communication will have multiple dropouts. Would this decrease your belief in such a system? Yet you previously believed it with absolute because it was demonstrated. What if what you thought were absolutes are nothing more than a relativistic mindset that changes with time and what you believe today may not be what you believe in the future.

This also apllies to your satisfaction, as it to is relative and continuously changing.

I try to avoid just taking things on faith. I give my trust in proportion to how reliable they have been in the past. I don't worship

But you unwittingly apply faith, everytime you step out into the real world, unless you want to redefine faith as a naturalistic phenomena. You do worship, that is faithfully rely on things demonstratable, otherwise your ego would not be satisfied, right?

These beliefs are also relative and changing.

I accept the Theory of Evolution, it has evidence and a coherent explanation for reality. While I am dubious of Creationist claims due to a history of logical flaws and outright lies.

It doesn't change that evolution theory is a belief system like other contenders.

More references to science fiction that uses the imagery of religion and spirituality, but is mostly materialistic and atheistic

We are physical beings and we use worldly things to give meaning to spiritual things.

You have worldly taste for someone so focused on your religion.

No, I am simply a human being demonstrating my points through physical earthly objectivity. If I used something totally alien, then how do we understand one another.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hello friend sorry for the delay

No Worries!

Correct my dear.

Trust based on evidence is not exactly the same as trust based without evidence but both hold a firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something. Proven or not.

Trust is the key here friend.

The original substance of my discussion re faith and trust was to show times when faith with out evidence (an appeal to authority) can be acceptable.

Ie mother, child and a hot stove as one instance or 3yr old and power socket.

More about this later on

I disagree.

The definition of Faith noun 1 uses the word trust. Words are used to describe words.

Sorry but this will cause confussion my dear

Again the original substance was to do with faith re noun 1. Google faith meaning

Trust

firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something.

I know it is not easy but i would highly recommend you go back and read all my posts in relation to this discussion.

Okay, I'm not going back to reread definitions so if you insist on using your definitions, then Faith without evidence is something I don't do. I require evidence or reasoned logic to have faith ( -_- geez, that feels weird saying I have faith...). I generally don't use the word 'Faith' because of the religious connotation it implies. A majority of people (including Theists of all stripes) generally accept Faith to be the religious form of "Trust without, or in lieu of, Evidence". I still feel this will cause confusion, but whatever.

You have a friend who uses faith exactly the same way i do, yet we disagree with each other as to which is correct.

Your friend and i accept something. We accept a belief.

Faith (trust, noun 1) is the key to accepting that something exists or is true - religious or non religious. To have a belief one must first trust it is correct, we do not trust in the incorrect?

After you have complete faith in Jesus then you get the proof. Its like eating your dinner before you get dessert

How do you tell the difference between my claim and the claim your friend?

This question of yours leads us to the a discussion highlighting Christianity's claim of Jesus and the claim of Islam re Jesus.

Lets explore some points.

- Christianity predates Islam by 500-600 years.
- Islam claims Jesus as a prophet and not God the Son
- islam borrows stories from gnostic texts.
- islam rejects the trinity.
- islam - cannot have a relationship with God, Christianity you can.
- allah not the true name of God.
- islam influenced by nestorianism, gnostic and possibly aryan religions.
- Quran not accurate re bible stories.
- islam claims re Jesus contradict what Jesus claims of Himself, islam contradicts NT.

Islam also makes a claim that it is the final conclusion to both Judaism and Christianity.

The quranic verse of surah ahzaab tells us that mohammad was the last prophet and messenger sent to mankind.

Mohammad is not a prophet sent from God.

Jesus says

Rev 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Jesus specifically says.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Matthew 24:11
and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

Mohammad is a false prophet.

Mat 24:11 is aimed at persons like mohammad. We know their claims are not inspired by God because of what Jesus blatantly says.

I debate muslims as regularly as i debate atheists. Islam cannot have a personal relationship with God or experience God.

I know mohammad to be wrong because i followed the steps of christianiry 101 and got the my personal evidence/proof.

Once you have faith in God the intangible proof is being filled with the Holy Spirit.

I know Jesus to be true because i followed the steps and got the proof. More about this later on

Islam view of Jesus contradicts what Jesus says about Himself. Wanna know more ask as this subject is big.

So to highlight my point, You accepted the position that Christianity is true before you looked at the evidence. He does the same with Islam and the teachings of Mohammed. Both of you make claims of fact based on your respective positions of faith (or as you insist, trust without evidence).

I had him give me a quick hand in responding to your claims regarding Islam and Mohammed - To highlight the similarity of your respective positions, he is still very convinced you're all mistaken (as am I according to him ), this is how he responded:

"- Christianity predates Islam by 500-600 years." <== Judaism predates Christianity - your point?
"- Islam claims Jesus as a prophet and not God the Son" <== Judaism agrees with Islam, in fact the Jews (of which Jesus was one) are still awaiting their Savior, Emannuel Christ. Jesus shared may traits with Mohammed, he was born of a virgin, witnessed and coralled God's miracles, and ascended to heaven in his bodily form.
"- islam borrows stories from gnostic texts." <== Both the Qur'An and the Hadeef are original works and teachings of Mohammed the Prophet. The 'Bible' is a mish-mash collection of writings from largely unknown authors, many of which may themselves be false prophets, or not prophets at all (this is a big thing with Muslims apparently, they consider much of the bible, which wasn't canonised until well after Islam carried the last message from Allah to humanity, is blasphemy against Allah).
"- islam rejects the trinity." <== As does Judaism. Many Muslims consider Christianity to be polytheism and a cult because of it - especially because Allah stated "There shall be no other gods before me".
"- islam - cannot have a relationship with God, Christianity you can." <== All True Muslims are in unity with Allah and have a direct relationship with him.
"- allah not the true name of God." <== Nor is 'God' depending on which Christian he talks to - that said, Allah simply means 'God' in arabic.
"- islam influenced by nestorianism, gnostic and possibly aryan religions." <== unfounded nonsense from a disbeliever
"- Quran not accurate re bible stories." <== bible not accurate itself. As mentioned, Christianity carried many scriptural stories that weren't included in the bible, yet the bible mentions and references - there are also many scriptures that were carried and preached throughout the history of Christianity that weren't included in the Canonical writings even though they were written by the same author with work that is included in the Canon.
"- islam claims re Jesus contradict what Jesus claims of Himself, islam contradicts NT." <== there are many false teachings in the Bible (that wasn't canonised until well after Islam

Islam also makes a claim that it is the final conclusion to both Judaism and Christianity. <== This is True.

The quranic verse of surah ahzaab tells us that mohammad was the last prophet and messenger sent to mankind. <== This is True

Mohammad is not a prophet sent from God. <== This is False, and Blasphemes Allah and his prophet Mohammed.

So, this response of his sums up the problem succinctly. You both believe you're right because you both accept something as true first before looking at the evidence. You both have ample points that refute the other and claim the 'Truth' of your respective religions. He, like You, was born into a family that was islamic from the outset and has always known Allah.

My friend iam so delighted in you. Justification. Love it!!! Justification is the action or fact of showing something to be right.

Action - a process - series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end

Fact - is a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Lets compromise friend.

It is a formal or explicit statement, by action or fact, to show an absolute trust in God.

You have discovered the first step to reach God!!!

This is a statement of justification to unbelievers. You take the leap - invisible God -and then you are rewarded with an experience of God and proof He exists.

God is not a thing in the universe so His ways - spiritual - are invisible to us.

Do you know anything of confirmation bias as studied in psychology? Are you aware of the scientific literature that demonstrates confirmation bias?

Going by the last point I raised, I can quite easily accept Allah as the true creator of the Universe and Mohammed as his final prophet on the same amount of evidence, and then like 1.2 billion muslims before me, accept all the rewards after this as confirming my presuppositional acceptance of Islam. His mum is funny about this, she has a thousand stories of 'miracles' that prove Allah is wonderful. If I took your position (as Mr Khalafalla's mother has), then this would equally confirm that predisposed position of trust without evidence.... in Allah and Islam!

Please excuse me. I was not apart of those conversations. They may have been.

Im using faith noun 1. Not faith noun 2.

Below is the definition for noun 2 which im not using in relation here.

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"

Im not discussing faith re religious belief in that context yet. The original susbtance was times when faith (complete trust in something) is acceptable ie an appeal to authority.

Thank you for joining the discussion, I had a purpose for discussing noun 1 (faith= complete trust).

My purpose is to do with trust and faith in something, in this case evolution and atheists.

I was going to show that there seems to be occassions where Evolution is accepted as an appeal to authority.

There seems to be atheists out there who accept evolution on faith. Atheists do not consider this faith to be religious. Hence noun 1.

I want to show that atheists have faith. This is not the same as noun 2, i will be exploring noun 2 towards the end.

I think that there are some atheists out there that accept something with out personally and physically observing it themselves. An appeal.to authority.

These sorts of people accept the thoughts and observations of people who reason with facts.

Im want to show that christians and atheists have one thing in common. They have faith in something.

The example of the stove was to show an appeal to authority amd faith.

The part about a faith based reward ie not be hurt. This example was going to be in relation to christianity

So, Again, No! The Child has previous experience! Whether by force of authority or by prior experience, the child is making the decision to obey because it knows there are repercussions! When a child first starts becoming mobile (and may not yet speak), the first thing it has to learn is when the parent says "No!" - it never starts out knowing what "No!" means, you have to teach it, often with a light tap on the wrist - this becomes experience and it eventually knows to obey because of the repercussions - "Trust" with "Evidence" - in this case, that is personal experience of the repercussions.... otherwise it'd be a matter of time before it chews on something it shouldn't, or swallows something that will hurt it, etc.

My feiend i was asking you if you were a materist. nothing to do with trust. Just asking. Wanna know your position.

Values - principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life.

Spiritual - relating to religion or religious belief.

Spiritual values - principles or standards re religious belief.

Values link to your 'standard'.

Righto, I don't have a religious outlook, so we can drop 'Spiritual' then... I have plenty of principles and standards though, and I have material things, though my life certainly doesn't revolve around them. I'm well off financially though, not rich by any means, but well off. I spend much of my time and money helping others - I give to Fred Hollows foundation (in honour of an Aussie Eye Doctor who passed away some time ago) and the Red Cross, I support my kids, and step kids wherever possible and generally keep active doing a number of sports and hobbies.

For me evidence re God would be something that proves he exist. An experience, message, dream, etc

How do you know your experience, message, dream, etc came from God? How do you verify this to yourself, or do you just accept it has to be from God without contest?

Have you asked yourself what type of evidence you would consider?

What defining characteristic would exemplify evidence re God?

What would you expect as 'proof' re existance of God?

A damascus road experience would do it, I guess? Even a risen Jesus appearing to me would also do it, I'm sure.

Please excuse me friend, reasoned!?!

If i may Ill refer you to a statement you made previously my dear.

"if I see a chair work, see other people use a chair, have the operation and purpose of a chair explained to me, how is my use of that chair as prescribed then some kind of Assumption"

Reasoned - based on logic or good sense.

Unless you 'rock' the chair and examine it. You have accepted it as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

An assumption.

What you think?

If we follow the course of this particular discussion.

"So, on my experiences with chairs point:"

Bugs - "I go into construction sites all the time. Back to this point though because this is hilarious, if I see a chair work, see other people use a chair, have the operation and purpose of a chair explained to me, how is my use of that chair as prescribed then some kind of Assumption?? Are you trying to tell me that everyone's reality is only real for them? Do we not share this same reality with everyone else??

On my trust in my coworkers:"

Icon - "You have accepted a thing as true or as certain to happen, without first proving it. It worked for someone else so therefore it will work for you. You put trust into seeing someone sit on the chair so therefore it is safe. That is your reasoning.

Nothing wrong here. We all do it."

Bugs - "Great! so now you understand why I don't have "Faith" then."

This above response seems confusing to me and suggests you agree that the plank/chair scenerio is an assumption and not - as you say - reasoned trust?!?

Because it isn't an assumption, I have first hand experience witnessing the plank and/or chair in operation, even if it is by others and not me. I can touch the chair, I can test it tentatively before I sit on it (i.e., I can check its tensile strength by rocking or shaking it, leaning on it or pushing down on it, etc. Same for the plank across the trench. I have a reasoned position to put tentative trust in the chair and/or plank to do their intended jobs. My tentative trust is not 100% and may change if new data comes in, but I DON'T have to assume they work without ever experiencing these things to at least some degree. An assumption that would be a parallel for your God would be if I was blindfolded (or let's just say Blind from Birth), having never known of a chair let alone what it's used for and how to use it, then having someone I don't know read me a description of a chair and instructions on how to use one (these instructions are from unknown authors, mind you) then being told to take a seat without so much as even knowing it's behind me let alone touching it beforehand...

If I took a seat expecting it to be there and work as intended, then THAT would be an assumption.

In my case. An experience - an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone.

What happens if you interpret the facts wrongly?

Reason with wrongly interpreted facts?

Please friend, we are not discussing 'if you know your wrong'.

I qas trying to ask you the what is the result of misconstrued facts?

Sure, I don't have a problem being wrong - in fact, I have to be quite open to the idea I could be wrong in order to accept evidence that I am wrong. Otherwise, I'd be locked into thinking I'm right about my worldview in spite of evidence that contradicts it.... Sadly, I see quite a lot of people who can't accept evidence against their worldview on these forums all the time. We call this cognitive dissonance and/or compartmentalisation.

If I'm wrong about something, then I'd have to change my understanding in light of the facts. We get things wrong all the time. As humans, we're faulty and our senses (if not doublechecked) and the conclusions we draw from them are often not exact, and in plenty of cases can be outright wrong! This is why we need to be open to the idea that we can be wrong about something and not just assume we have it right straight off the bat. We can be fooled so easily whether by intention or by accident, an illusionist at a show does it all the time and fools us with sleight of hand, even when we expect it! Of all the miracle claims people conclude they experienced, I can likely find an illusionist on youtube repeating the feat, often putting on a more convincing show to boot. Why would I therefore come to believe that there was a "Miracle" when so many naturally occurring explanations are available? This is what self-questioning should involve each and every time we think we've witnessed a "Miracle". In the entire history we've known of the scientific method, everytime a "Miracle" has been investigated, it's failed to be verified. Why is that? Are you going to then posit like everyone before you that a "Miracle", for whatever reason, can't be tested?

This only took 5mins and yielded these results. Imagine if i had more time.


Florida Teen Arrested for Performing Exam as Fake Doctor, With Own Offices: Authorities
doctor faruded 13 years - Google Search


Man who allegedly pretended to be doctor worked in NSW hospitals for over a decade

doctor pretended 13 years - Google Search


Trust me, I'm a fake doctor: how medical imposters thrive in the real world

doctor pretended 13 years - Google Search


Prosecutor: Mom lied about being doctor, faked son’s cancer

Redirect Notice


reference from dead professor to get KGH job

Redirect Notice


You have faith (noun 1) that the right thing is being done. You have faith in the honor system - unless you are trying to poke holes in everything i say and dont mean what you say.


You reply does show that you have faith (noun 1) in the legal system, government and people.

Now i finding out more about you friend.

Again, I don't have Faith - as in "Trust without Evidence" - I have proportioned my belief according to the evidence at hand. What you're doing here is highlighting the very principle I brought up before that nobody can be 100% sure of anything, this is impossible position to have for the reasons I stated earlier.

Despite your fringe cases, there is a system in place which is the best practice for ensuring the medical practitioner I consult is a bona-fide and fully qualified practitioner of medicine. To think these particularly isolated cases mean we ought to discard all of the millions of actually qualified medical professionals looking after our health is just absurd. This thinking leads to things like idiot anti-vaxxers killing the weak in our collective societies with their inane belief they know better than scientifically verified medicines, etc.

Exactly. Its called an assumption.

.a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Do you check the plank to make sure it is fine. Do you 'rock' the chair?

If you are not 100% certain then what are you?

Yes, I check the plank to make sure it is fine, and Yes, I Do 'rock' the chair. I might be 99% certain, but to say that anything less than 100% certainty is an assumption is just plain crazy. Nobody can be 100% certain of anything and I'll challenge anyone who believes as such. To say you can be 100% certain is to say you know 100% of everything there is to know about at the very least, that thing you claim to be 100% certain of. I'm sure I can ask a question about a thing that would not have a straight forward answer, if an answer is even possible in the first place - therefore you CANNOT be 100% certain of it.

What method would you use to be 100% sure of God?

"TheScientific Method and an understanding of what evidence is, are paramount to that process, "

How do you prove God through science?

Not my problem. If God exists and cares, I'm sure the omnipotent creator of the universe could think of something... That said, here's a quick list of things that I would consider evidence towards a God:

1. Original Writings, either directly scribed by said God or divinely inspired through man that isn't written in forgotten languages and doesn't require translation (i.e. some kind of universal language understood by all from birth because of divine caveat, like "written on your heart" or similar?),
2. Original Writings that don't require interpretation (i.e. bible study isn't required to understand what can be plainly read, for example, to be evil if another human were to do it)
3. Original Writings that wouldn't lead to fracturing of followers, and thousands (or tens of thousands) of denominations all believing slightly to vastly different things (such as 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth through to 4.5billion year old earth, special creation through to biological evolution from a universal common ancestor including all the various flavours in between, etc.)
4. Some kind of personal and undeniable contact with this divine being, perhaps at the age of reasoning or similar (i.e. a Damascus Road experience) <== this could be personal since everyone would have the same experience and there would be no doubt about who this divine being was - even if it couldn't be scientifically verified, everyone would eventually have this personal contact and would come away knowing some previously unknown thing about reality we didn't before.
5. Original Writings that don't contradict themselves in any way, not even in a perceived way, and certainly not by non-believers (if such a thing were possible given the other points above).

True Scotsman?

Any true God knows

Friend, this is why He sent His only Son, why we have a bible and why ppl like me try. So you might know God!

I don't even know his only Son actually existed, let alone that I was so bad he had to die in my place so I could possibly go to heaven... not sure why you invoke a "No True Scotsman" fallacy here either, so please explain this - I quite adequately pointed out that people tend to take on the religion of the society they were born into. Middle easteners tend to be Islamic, Americans tend to be Christians, People born in India tend to be Hindus, far east Asians tend to be Bhuddists, etc. Where is this "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

The Bible has only been the bible since it was canonised in the 1600's CE. Before this, all kinds of writings were used and not all of them were included in the Canon either, despite canonised texts referring to them. At least the Muslims both have their original texts AND they know who the author was. This alone is a big plus for their religion and in fact, To a non-believer like me, their holy texts are more indicative of Allah than the Bible is indicative of YHWH/Jehova/God/Jesus for that point alone. Even the language used in the Qur'An and Hadeef isn't a forgotten language, and they at least require true adherents to learn Arabic to read it in its true unfiltered way.

The reason I couldnt find it friens is because it doesnt happen. You can appeal to them to stop their malice but you cannot prayer to them to heal a friend, look after ppl in need or judge injustices. It is not the same.

Why would i pray to an inanimate object?

How bout this, Ill throw the ball back to you. You made the charge, you prove it - burden of proof.

Like I said, an inanimate object has a measurably comparable success rate as prayers to anything else - that is, chance. Although it was YOU that claimed the success of prayer as a demonstration of the truth of your religion, I just so happen to have the evidence you asked for that demonstrates its equality with a desklamp all the same (i.e. Chance!).

From Studies on intercessory prayer - Wikipedia :

Galton Study - In 1872, the Victorian scientist Francis Galton made the first statistical analysis of third-party prayer. He hypothesized, partly as satire, that if prayer were effective, members of the British Royal Family would live longer than average, given that thousands prayed for their well-being every Sunday, and he prayed over randomized plots of land to see whether the plants would grow any faster, and found no correlation in either case.

Sicher - In 1998 Fred Sicher et al. performed a small scale double-blind randomized study of 40 patients with advanced AIDS. The patients were in category C-3 with CD4 cell counts below 200 and each had at least one case of AIDS-defining illness. CD4 counts and scores on other physiological tests had no significant variation between the two groups of patients.

Mayo Clinic - A 2001 double-blind study at the Mayo Clinic randomized 799 discharged coronary surgery patients into a control group and an intercessory prayer group, which received prayers at least once a week from 5 intercessors per patient. Analyzing "primary end points" (death, cardiac arrest, rehospitalization, etc.) after 26 weeks, the researchers concluded "intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit."

The MANTRA Study - A 2005 MANTRA (Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings) II study conducted a three-year clinical trial led by Duke University comparing intercessory prayer and MIT (Music, Imagery, and Touch) therapies for 748 cardiology patients. The study is regarded as the first time rigorous scientific protocols were applied on a large scale to assess the feasibility of intercessory prayer and other healing practices. The study produced null results and the authors concluded, "Neither masked prayer nor MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome after elective catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention."[38] Neither study specified whether photographs were used or whether belief levels were measured in the agents or those performing the prayers.

The STEP Project - Harvard professor Herbert Benson performed a "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)" in 2006.[39] The STEP, commonly called the "Templeton Foundation prayer study" or "Great Prayer Experiment", used 1,802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients at six hospitals. Using double-blind protocols, patients were randomized into three groups, individual prayer receptiveness was not measured. The members of the experimental and control Groups 1 and 2 were informed they might or might not receive prayers, and only Group 1 received prayers. Group 3, which served as a test for possible psychosomatic effects, was informed they would receive prayers and subsequently did. Complications of surgery occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). There were no statistically significant differences in major complications or thirty-day mortality. In The God Delusion, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote, "It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered additional stress in consequence: performance anxiety', as the experimenters put it. Dr Charles Bethea, one of the researchers, said, "It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?'"

Watch out this is a presumption and a false argument. This is more so a category error.

Fairies are mythical, therefore so is God. God answers prayers, therefore so do fairies and by extension they must both answer them the same.

As above, quite a number of studies on the efficacy of intercessory prayer have been done for the Judeo-Christian God and results tend to be equivalent to praying to fairies and desklamps.... which is Chance.

This is an appeal. It can go both ways friend.

I could say you have potentially incorrect beliefs that could damage others as well.

And if you have evidence in support of your conjecture, then I would have to listen to you. If your evidence is valid, I'll be forced to change my belief, if not worldview in light of it.

Now, you still didn't answer my question, do you make decisions about those beliefs you have because of your unevidenced worldview?

Got it! You are linking Christianity and islam together.

See post 2 of this reply.

Watch out this line of thought is turning into a strawman arguement. You are misrepresented something to make it easier to attack. I assume you do so because Islam has a bad image right now. ;p

No straw man required. Both you and any Muslim (and for that matter, any religious belief one may hold, I'm not narrowing to just these two religions) have exactly the same support, and use exactly the same justifications in 'Faith' based belief. Before you pick up any scripture (because as you admitted, you adopted your belief first, then went looking for justification post-hoc just like my Muslim friend did), what foundation do you have that my friend doesn't? Remember, this is BEFORE you look at any holy texts whatsoever...

The only way this will work for you is if i agree with the mormon war. I do not friend.

Many ppl have done many things with bad outcomes whether or not they believe them selves to be right, wrong, informed or uniformed.

I wasnt there and know nothing of the mormon war, other that there was one. I do not know if it was unevidenced faith.

It doesn't matter. In fact, this could be evidence that people using 'Faith' as their justification acted to kill Mormons can affect you as a Christian. In this case, not against you, but in your name as your representative in Christianity!

This is an appeal.

...to common sense? Yes, I Agree! You SHOULD CARE whether your beliefs are true, especially about a proposition that governs the universe we all collectively live in together.

Do you know much about pancreatic cancer?

Nope. Are you saying that scientifically founded medical care wouldn't help in any way whatsoever?

Sin is diobdeiance to God. We are disobediant.

I know what sin is, and as soon as I know God is more than an imaginary being made up by people who didn't know anything better, then I will revisit this claim.

"What the data shows is business as usual: that scientists can be biased (not news), and that most scientific theories, in the end, are thrown on the garbage heap." - Dr Sylvia McLain.

Atheism accepts the thoughts and observations of men who reason with facts. Please dont pretend it is not

Atheism is the position on only one question - that is "Are you convinced that a God or Gods exist?" and to that, I have to say no. Rational thinkers and sceptics tentatively accept the thoughts and observations of men who reason with facts, sure, but at any time, I can re-examine those facts for myself and even re-run the experiments if I care to - something I can't do with any God or Gods. This is the difference between a believer of any religion who simply and unquestioningly adopts a position before evidence, and a rational thinker who tests the proposition before adopting it wholesale in the first place.

This is the thing - you could be folowing the wrong God - all the justifications you use to profess confirmation of your religion are equally brought forth by other people of other religions for their beliefs too - you can't all be right - but you can all be wrong. Why would your God allow them the same measure of justifications for their religion if he cared about them? Likewise for their God allowing you to use these justifications for your God unchallenged...

What reasons do you have?

Give me something brother!

In no particular order - Multiple Religions professing other Gods, many of which are older than your religion - Multiple versions of your religion - Lost Scriptures - Conflicting texts in the Bible - no confirmed miracles, ever - no evidence of the supernatural - the huge preponderance of evidence that supports an entirely natural universe and life as an emergent property of it.

Can you give me an instance of why the evidence contradicts the existance of God.

the Theory of Evolution, all the various forms of dating (both radioactive and not) that show deep time, a 4.5 billion year old earth in a 13.7 billion year old universe, all the sciences that show a global flood never happened, etc.

This is why you really should read the conversation before jumping in.

You have just showed and agreed to a scenerio where faith without proof is acceptable - an appeal.to authority

Not even a little bit. Read the following carefully, I'll even write slowly so you don't miss it - The Child Listens to the Parent Because IT KNOWS IT WILL BE IN TROUBLE IF IT DOESN"T LISTEN. It has NOTHING to do with "faith without proof" at all because it knows it will be in trouble if it fails to heed.... but I tell you what - if you can find a toddler that can't speak or understand spoken word yet with a propensity to explore the world around it that hasn't been previously conditioned to obey an authority figure first (first time crawlers are Great for this) - here's an experiment to try: find someone the child doesn't recognise as a family figure and have them tell the child (at distance in a non-threatening tone and without threat of punishment) to not play with something it wants to play with. Youtube the video experiment from beginning to end, including the first meeting of an unknown adult. I look forward to seeing this experiment run.

Yep experience through faith without proof.

Could you have said anything more oxymoronic? I don't think you could. How does one have "experience" if not through prior experiences?? The Child HAS PROOF THAT IT WILL SUFFER THE WRATH OF THE PARENT IF IT DOESN'T OBEY!

Ill refer to something you said.

"A 3 year old doesn't know any better let alone realise the correlation between not touching the stove because a parent said so, and an unburnt hand being a reward for not doing so"

He makes a correlation but doesnt know any better?

How do you reconcile these 2 statements you made?

If the child knew the stove would burn its hand, it wouldn't reach for it in the first place. What the child Does know is that the parent will punish it if it doesn't do as its parent tells it, so that experience is why the child does as it's told and NOT because it has 'faith' of any sort.

I glad we got to here. How do i know there is a God.

I was brought up christian from a very young age. As long as i have 'known', i have 'known' of God.

In order to have a relationship with God, one must first believe he exists and you can get to Him.

I was taught to pray at my first church. You block off everything around you and you focus on the name of Jesus. Prayer is really communication. You focus your heart to God, close your eyes, praise God and Jesus, say His name or even say hello and continue to focus your heart - waiting for a reply or experience.

I experienced joy, peace and a sensation many times when i focussed on God. I felt His presence many times and have interactions. These interactions were like an intuition, someone or something would tell me things in my heart. I knew this to be God, as i was developing a relationship with Him and had faith in what seemed invisible and not physical.

I continued to believe and seek a relationship with God and I was certain. I was baptised at 8-10 and immediately felt like a new person. I stopped swearing - i watched too much tv and thought it was cool - didnt want to steal or be a bad person. I felt new.

It was around 10-11 that i got my big experience.

I was in sunday school, had 'hands laid on me' and the 2 ladies were speaking in tongues and i was praying in deep focus to God.

I was sitting on a chair upright at 10-11am on sunday. I went into a dream like state and found muself soaring through the air. I could feel the wind on my face and could not have made this image up.

When i finally got the courage to look around and see my surroundings i noticed a volcano starting to get closer. On further inspection i realised i was heading straight for the lava.

I started to struggle and became stressed. Just as i was about to hit the point of 'no return' and hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus (help)'. Immediately i was 'caught' in the air and lifted up. I felt the relief and was still slightly stressed.

I was point back in the air - by invisible hands or force field - and continued to soar.

Then the picture suddenly 'flamed' over and i was presented with 3 silhouettes all joined together and overlapping each other. There was fire everywhere, i could hear the sizzle. I stared for what seemed like 10-15 seconds. It was remarkable.

I came to and 'woke up'. The 2 ladies were puzzled and looked worried. They asked me what just happened. I told them what i told you and left sunday school and joined the main congregation. I was changed again and now more so. I got the proof!.

During highschool i was challenged many times on my faith (noun 2). So i went out and read up about other religions. I could find holes left, right and center - wanna know ask.

I read the bible again and could only say amen. The bible made sense to me.

One particular part of the bible shot me in the heart. The wound never healed. My heart will always bleed for Jesus

Jphn 10:14
I am the good shepherd; I know my sheepand my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

This passage has context to Jesus talking to the pharisees. The pharisees could not accept Jesus because they were not His sheep and could not hear His 'call'.

This effected me. I was reading the Gospels and i could hear His 'call'.

I gave my self to Jesus as a conscious decision.

My experience started with

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Then ended with a situation similar to Thomas, I got my proof

John 20:28

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas got to stick his hands in and feel the wounds. I did not get that same proof, my proof was intangible. My experience was felt!

My faith (noun 1) in Jesus is in bedrock. A followed the mainstream christian formula and have no doubt in Jesus. I can assure you He is real!

What u think friend

Cheers hey. Look forward to your reply

You only exemplify the problem of 'Faith' with your story. We shouldn't be required to adopt confirmation bias first before addressing the most important question of our existence, especially since the exact same position of 'Faith/Absolute Trust' that leads you to conclude Christianity is true, is used by every other person of other faiths to conclude that their religion is true.

You say in highschool that you investigated other religions - did you speak with apologists of these religions? Did you ask them what they thought of your religion? What tests have you conducted on these other religions' texts, and did you apply the exact same standards to your own religion's texts? I'll be interested to hear how you did this and so I'll ask about these holes you found left, right and center that you didn't find in your own texts...

 

[The Times]

Social Marxism and social Fascism is both bought and sponsored by school book Darwinism. Since both ideologies required the Darwinistic Theory to destroy the religions of the Gentiles.

The people behind Marxism and Fascism used Darwinism as the vehicle to corrupt the minds of people, by imposing on the young and unsuspecting generations, the make belief fairytale of Evolution, that is more focussed on destroying religion than anything else. The conspirators who want world domination as their forefathers inspired to have back in the first century, needed to kill the gentile gods, so that they can then realise their autocractic vision, under their single dictator, who is prophesied by Christianity to be the final Antichrist figure to come. The so called seventh king.

This time around they will realise their 2000 years in the making Beastly autocratic dictatorship and no doubt they will kill many in the process, like their predecessors did in Facist Germany and Communist Marxist Russia.

However their world domination will be short lived, maybe 3 to 7 years and then they will face the music as they did in the first century. This time around, the gentile God who they sought to make war with, will utterly do away with them, their dreams, their aspirations, their cunningness and their futile futile act.

It is self evident and very sad indeed, that the Evolution Theory is an extremely well funded political weapon against religion, primarily the Christian religion and that is all what its historic purpose was and is no different today. Nothing knew under the Son Jesus Christ.

The tail of the serpent has come to full circle, now we shall see the rise of the beast.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Social Marxism and social Fascism is both bought and sponsored by school book Darwinism. Since both ideologies required the Darwinistic Theory to destroy the religions of the Gentiles.

The people behind Marxism and Fascism used Darwinism as the vehicle to corrupt the minds of people, by imposing on the young and unsuspecting generations, the make belief fairytale of Evolution, that is more focussed on destroying religion than anything else. The conspirators who want world domination as their forefathers inspired to have back in the first century, needed to kill the gentile gods, so that they can then realise their autocractic vision, under their single dictator, who is prophesied by Christianity to be the final Antichrist figure to come. The so called seventh king.

This time around they will realise their 2000 years in the making Beastly autocratic dictatorship and no doubt they will kill many in the process, like their predecessors did in Facist Germany and Communist Marxist Russia.

However their world domination will be short lived, maybe 3 to 7 years and then they will face the music as they did in the first century. This time around, the gentile God who they sought to make war with, will utterly do away with them, their dreams, their aspirations, their cunningness and their futile futile act.

It is self evident and very sad indeed, that the Evolution Theory is an extremely well funded political weapon against religion, primarily the Christian religion and that is all what its historic purpose was and is no different today. Nothing knew under the Son Jesus Christ.

The tail of the serpent has come to full circle, now we shall see the rise of the beast.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't care about the implications to your religion. It makes no mention of it at all. Anywhere. To the extent anyone uses it to undermine any position, religious or otherwise, it's because it explains the facts about reality. That you don't like it is inconsequential. Perhaps you should find a way to reconcile the facts with your religion, or find a better religion.

 

[The Times]

The Theory of Evolution doesn't care about the implications to your religion. It makes no mention of it at all. Anywhere. To the extent anyone uses it to undermine any position, religious or otherwise, it's because it explains the facts about reality. That you don't like it is inconsequential. Perhaps you should find a way to reconcile the facts with your religion, or find a better religion.

Who is saying this, agent xxx from Spectra. It seems an agency of sorts to me. It will fail. Time will tell.

 

[The Times]

I never liked Berabbas in the Passion of the Christ. He seemed like a socialist bigot.

 

[Tanj]

Who is saying this, agent xxx from Spectra. It seems an agency of sorts to me. It will fail. Time will tell.

It isn't though. Evolution is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever.

So it's alot like the terminator.

 

[Gene2memE]

Social Marxism and social Fascism is both bought and sponsored by school book Darwinism. Since both ideologies required the Darwinistic Theory to destroy the religions of the Gentiles.

The people behind Marxism and Fascism used Darwinism as the vehicle to corrupt the minds of people, by imposing on the young and unsuspecting generations, the make belief fairytale of Evolution, that is more focussed on destroying religion than anything else.

Wow, you really don't know much about the history of biological sciences and how the tie in with Marxism/socialism and fascism, do you?

The Soviet union, and many socialist/communist blocs, famously adopted Lysenkoism and opposed Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics. At least until Lysenkoism failed completely as a scientific discipline.

The fascist states also opposed evolution.- German mostly, Spain to an extent, Italy less so.

Nazi Germany explicitly forbid the teaching of Darwinian evolutionary biology and barred German libraries and schools from holding "Darwinist" literature. Social Darwinism is not the same thing as Darwinian evolutionary biology, and PLEASE do me a favour and dont conflate the tow.

In Italy opposition to Darwinian evolution was much more muted, mostly because Italian fascism wasn't built on notions of racism and racial superiority and concerns about ideas undermining the state. Mussolini even wrote about Darwin on the centenary of his birth, but he got almost everything about the theory wrong. Teaching evolutionary biology wasn't really an issue in Italy, unless it was a subject to denounce ones opponents in the due to the three way battle between the traditionalists, the reformers and the modernists in the Catholic Church at the time.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Who is saying this, agent xxx from Spectra. It seems an agency of sorts to me. It will fail. Time will tell.

lol! It's been over 150 years already.... Time is not your friend, I fear....

 

[Jimmy D]

Sigh, have you not learned anything from watching life propagate? We will use dogs, since they clearly show you what you call evolution in a timeframe of a few hundred years instead of million if left to natural occurrences.

We will do this slowly, since repeatedly being shown the truth has failed to sink in.

Husky........mates........with........Husky........and.........produces........only........Husky. Mastiff........mates........with........Mastiff........and........produces........only........Mastif. Only........when........Husky........mates........with.......Mastiff........is........new.........forms........produced. The........Chinook.

You keep repeating this as if it's some sort of insightful observation that you've come up with, but no one would suggest otherwise - of course a dog will give birth to another dog.

Since over 100 breeds of dogs came about from wolf stock, those original wolf genes contained within them all the genetic code necessary for the creation of all the breeds we see today.

Whoa, steady on there, if you're claiming that the wolf was created with a super - genome containing all possible configurations for future dogs, you need to provide evidence.

Whether you want to admit to it or not, the Husky and Mastiff genome contains within them everything needed to create the Chinook. There was no mutation involved, no evolution.

I'm going to assume that you aren't suffering from amnesia and accuse you of lying..... We have been over this before

The IGF1 small dog haplotype is derived from Middle Eastern grey wolves
Previous research identified IGF1 as a major gene affecting skeletal size in domestic dogs [16]. In this study, we examined genetic variation surrounding the IGF1 gene in the progenitor of domestic dogs in order to uncover the evolutionary history of the gene. This study confirms the absence of the derived small SNP allele in the intron 2 region of IGF1 (CanFam1 44228468) in a large sample of grey wolves and further establishes the absence of a small dog associated SINE element in all wild canids and most large dog breeds. Thus, the absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in wild canids suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. Presumably, the absence of these two loci in wolves may reflect a unique recombination event in domestic dogs. However, we find no evidence of recombination between the SINE element and derived SNP allele in domestic dogs and the derived SNP allele distinguishes the associated common small (A, B and C) and large (D-L) haplotypes. Additionally, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the small size phenotype likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs..

...........................

How DNA sequence divides chihuahua and great dane

The "small dog" variant suppresses the activity of the gene, inhibiting growth.
The same sequence of DNA was found in other small breeds such as chihuahuas, toy fox terriers and pomeranians.
It was not there in larger breeds such as Irish wolfhounds, St Bernards and great danes, or in wild members of the dog family including wolves and jackals

How about that, ha? A DNA sequence that is present in "small dog" variants, but not in wolves or other big canines.

(originally posted by Dogmahunter).
...........................

Q. Why are some breeds small, some large, whereas grey wolves are roughly the same size?

A. The small-dog variant of IGF1.

Is this present in grey wolves?

How did it get into the dog population?

.........................................

And in your words.....

"Sure, I'm not denying the occasional quadrillionth mutation which writes what already exists into a new format. But still nothing new was created, only what already exists was written into a new format. Regardless of the number of mutations that might successfully write a portion of the genetic code into a new format, that code was already existing, just in a different format. No new DNA has been created.

But you wouldn't be denying what the most common outcome of mutations are, would you?"

Justatruthseeker

............................................

Yet now your are claiming no mutations can occur, why is that? I'm sick of your dishonest tactics, the repetition of the same old strawmen you are repeatedly corrected on, and the hipocrisy of pretending your unevidenced and wild claims (specifically this "super genome") must be the "truth" whilst the well evidenced findings of actual peer-reviewed science is wrong.

Now, as to the Asian, you may like to pretend in fantasy land they came about from one evolving into more than one. But like the original wolf, the original human genome contained all the genetic code needed to create every race we see today. There was no mutation involved, no evolution. Learn the lesson dogs teach you and apply it.

Pretending mutations don't exist... a lie.

Why are you ignoring observed evidence?

Supposition and heresay. Have you seen with your own eyes these minimal mutations cause changes over millions of years? No.

Yes chihuahua's have emerged, from breeding, not mutations, not evolution. Again, what you see in dogs is what you believe evolution to be except in a small time frame due to man bringing them together instead of waiting for famine or geological changes to bring them together. And this is what you wont admit to yourself, even when you admit it is the same process except for timescale, they are all still the exact same species....... Learn the lesson dogs have taught you and apply it.

Pretending mutations don't exist... a lie

Why are you ignoring observed evidence?

You have observed the emergence of new subspecies. That you incorrectly classify them as a new species is the error. Just as you refuse to accept those finches are the same species, even if they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of the researchers noses. Even if the DNA told them they had always been interbreeding and so were never reproductively isolated and so never underwent speciation. You deny the truth even to yourself. Are you so lost that you cant even face the truth set before your eyes?Do you need people that lie to you to tell you what to think? Learn the lesson dogs have taught you and apply it. Think for yourself.

They know the truth........

Defining a species

"For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

But continue the lie for their own purposes which has nothing to do with science.

Nor does anyone on here that continues the lie when they know the truth, have anything to do with science.

What a hypocrite.

I'm done with you. It's a waste of time if you are going to continually make things up, lie and ignore even your own previous postings.

 

[The Times]

It isn't though. Evolution is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever.

So it's alot like the terminator.

Really, like the terminator or terminated theory. No intelligent spiritual being accepts Evolution Theory and its OUT THERE assertions and claims. We humans are meant for better things and we know where we came from and to whom we belong. There are more people who are in knowledge of the truth, than those who deny the truth.

I mean, look at communist Marxist and socialist fascist countries, how they tried very hard to rid the thoughts of the majority of people and they failed miserably. How can Evolution Theory on its own convince the majority when communism and socialism couldn't?

 

[The Times]

lol! It's been over 150 years already.... Time is not your friend, I fear....

All I see friend, repeated failed attempt over and over again. It seems the protocols of the learnered Atheistist is not too good in the department of deception. Where is the motto by deception we shall wage war against the Christian.

 

[The Times]

Social Darwinism is not the same thing as Darwinian evolutionary biology, and PLEASE do me a favour and dont conflate the tow.

It was the totalitarian tiptoe from biological Darwinism to social Darwinism and not the other way around, after the social came from the eugenists who represented mainstream evolutionary biology.....Ooops!

Here we have facts and please do check other sources to confirm the source below.....

Eugenics was the science of human breeding, and it resulted in the compulsory sterilization of more than 60,000 presumed “defectives” in the United States by 1958, including many who probably would not be considered mentally deficient today.

The intellectual leaders of the eugenics crusade were largely university-trained biologists and doctors, and they pushed for eugenics because they thought it was fully justified by Darwinian biology. It should be stressed that eugenists represented mainstream evolutionary biology, not the fringe. They were affiliated with institutions like Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and Stanford. They were leaders in America’s most prestigious scientific organizations. Biologist Edwin Conklin was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

As the Evolutionist motto goes, by deception we shall wage war on the Creationist.

Here is the link for everyone to read....

Darwin's Theory and Social Darwinism: There Is A Connection | Center for Science and Culture

 

[Jimmy D]

All I see friend, repeated failed attempt over and over again. It seems the protocols of the learnered Atheistist is not too good in the department of deception. Where is the motto by deception we shall wage war against the Christian.

Equating the Theory of Evolution with atheism again?

How foolish.

 

[The Times]

You see friends....

All Atheists are Evolutionists
All Atheists are Liberals

Studies have shown that Liberalism leads to Anarchism.

So to fix that problem, the only authority that can govern this mentally and egoestically deprived cultural institution is a dictatorship style autocracy.

These are the fruits of Evolution Theory. Historically it has shown that it is detrimental to the health, safety and existence of humanity and if not stopped leads to death and carnage.

The fruits of Evolution Theory has also been a platform for eugenics and autocratic dictators.

 

[The Times]

Equating the Theory of Evolution with atheism again?

How foolish.

It is the cornerstone of Atheism. How can we even question this fact.

 

[The Times]

As a few posters have indicted what the fruits of Evolution Theory are, as follows....

It isn't though. Evolution is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't care about the implications to your religion. It makes no mention of it at all. Anywhere. To the extent anyone uses it to undermine any position, religious or otherwise, it's because it explains the facts about reality.

So it's alot like the terminator.

So that all roads of Evolution Theory lead to eugenics and mass culling of non performing humans, those underperforming useless eaters.

Evolution Theory historically and factually has proven to be the weapon of mass destruction against humanity.

Evolution Theory a historic road to genocide.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is the cornerstone of Atheism. How can we even question this fact.

Because biology has got nothing to do with religion, as the fact that the majority of Christians accept it testifies.