The Demise of Evolution

[roman2819]

And here come the threats...

@Bungle_Bear isnt afraid, he doesn't feel threatened, so don't you worry.

 

[roman2819]

Not constantly contradicting oneself is a good starting point.

By the way, "no proof" is your problem too. Why would you complain about those other religions not having any proof while you have none either? This is why understanding what is and what is not evidence can be so helpful. All you have is confirmation bias, the exact same "proof" that those religions have.

The proof is substantial.. There are both direct and circumstantial evidences. Today, how do we prove somthing in court? Don't we use circumstantial evidences if we cannot see an event life or in real time? We use them to reconstruct what happened to support or establish the truth. Legally, circumstantial evidences are admissible in court, we know that.

For existence of God, the indirect evidences include the lifeforms and ecosystem around us (they are around us in an overwhelming if people do not deny their senses). The Bible also offers more than sufficient evidences supported by historical accounts, archaeological findings and even science - - which i have stated in n earlier posts.

Direct evidence can only happen after people turn to Jesus and observe how He work in their lives. This cannot be explained in a few lines.

 

[roman2819]

This doesn't actually answer my question.

If the evidence can be tested and the testing shows that it corresponds with reality, yes, of course.

I am after the truth, I'm not just going to believe what I want to believe.

Read post #1522

 

[Subduction Zone]

The proof is substantial.. There are both direct and indirect evidences. Today, how do we prove somthing in court? Don't we use indirect evidences if we cannot see an event life or in real time? We use indirect evidence to reconstruct what happened to establish the truth. Legally, indirect evidences are admissible in court, we know that.

For existence of God, the indirect evidences include the lifeforms and ecosystem around us (they are around us in an overwhelming if people do not deny their senses). The Bible also offers more than sufficient evidences supported by historical accounts, archaeological findings and even science - - which i have stated in n earlier posts.

Direct evidence can only happen after people turn to Jesus and observe how He work in their lives. This cannot be explained in a few lines.

Claiming that there is evidence does not mean that there is evidence. For example people turning themselves around is hardly evidence since all religions make that sort of claim. It only demonstrates that with proper support people can change their behavior.

You, like most believers, appear to be conflating confirmation bias with evidence.

Also I am not sure what you mean by "indirect evidences<sic>".

The historical accounts for the Bible are rather weak. In fact historical accounts refute the existence of Moses and anyone before him. If you are going to rely on historical accounts cherry picking is not allowed. The historical evidence for Jesus is rather weak. There is some. Enough to say that the probably was a real person, but that is all that you can say about him. There is no real historical evidence for any of the things that make him special in the eyes of Christians. There is some historical support for the existence of some of the leaders mentioned in the Bible, but that is not surprising. Again, no evidence that is for your religious beliefs.

Please be specific. Tell us what this evidence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read post #1522

Handwaving but no evidence presented in that post.

 

[roman2819]

Claiming that there is evidence does not mean that there is evidence. For example people turning themselves around is hardly evidence since all religions make that sort of claim. It only demonstrates that with proper support people can change their behavior.

You, like most believers, appear to be conflating confirmation bias with evidence.

Also I am not sure what you mean by "indirect evidences<sic>".

The historical accounts for the Bible are rather weak. In fact historical accounts refute the existence of Moses and anyone before him. If you are going to rely on historical accounts cherry picking is not allowed. The historical evidence for Jesus is rather weak. There is some. Enough to say that the probably was a real person, but that is all that you can say about him. There is no real historical evidence for any of the things that make him special in the eyes of Christians. There is some historical support for the existence of some of the leaders mentioned in the Bible, but that is not surprising. Again, no evidence that is for your religious beliefs.

Please be specific. Tell us what this evidence is.

Instead of saying indirect evidence, the more familiar word normally used is Circumstantial Evidence..... Had a mental block when i was typing that , thanks for pointing it out.

Do you mean what evidence there is in Bible to suppprt existence of God.? I have stated taht that a few timed in previous posts.

You did not comment on overwhelming circumstantial evidences of millions of lifeforms and ecosystem around us. To most people, they point to the existence of a Creator God. It explain why people in past 6000 years give offering to God.

It also explain why people today still engage in debate about existence of God. While the critics try to deny His existence, however, they cannot totally deny that sonehow, He is around. If they could dismiss His existence easily, they would not bother to engage in further discussion.

 

[Kylie]

A response you made to Subduction Zone, but you said it also replies to my post, so...

For existence of God, the indirect evidences include the lifeforms and ecosystem around us (they are around us in an overwhelming if people do not deny their senses).

Evolution explains life and the ecosystem much better than God does.

The Bible also offers more than sufficient evidences supported by historical accounts, archaeological findings and even science - - which i have stated in n earlier posts.

Nothing that supports the miraculous claims of the Bible though. I'd be happy to address any specific examples you care to give.

Direct evidence can only happen after people turn to Jesus and observe how He work in their lives. This cannot be explained in a few lines.

Once again we have the "Just choose to believe and you'll lower your standards of evidence when it comes to things you want to believe because you want to believe that what you believe is true" argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Instead if saying indirect evidence, the more familiar word normally used is Circumstantial Evidence..... Had a mental block when i was typing that , thanks for pointing it out.

Do you mean what evidence there is in Bible to suppprt existence of God.? I have stated taht that a few timed in previous posts.

You did not comment on overwhelming circumstantial evidences of millions of lifeforms and ecosystem around us. To most people, they point to the existence of a Creator God. It explain why people in past 6000 years give offering to God.

It also explain why people today still engage in debate about existence of God. While the critics try to deny His existence, however, they cannot totally deny that sonehow, He is around. If they could dismiss His existence easily, they would not bother to engage in further discussion.

Stated is not the same as presented. I can say that there is evidence for invisible pink unicorns. Those claims are worthless without presenting any evidence.

And no, the Bible is not a source of evidence for the existence of God any more than the Vedas are evidence for the existence of Brahma.

Your circumstantial evidence appears to be only confirmation bias. What you need to do is to put yourself in the shoes of others and see what they claim as evidence for their gods. If their evidence is not convincing to you from a Christian perspective then your evidence is almost certainly not evidence for others. It is not reliable evidence.

And one quick question, is the plural of sheep "sheeps"?

 

[roman2819]

Evolution explains life and the ecosystem much better than God does.

You sent about 5 links before to ofer proofs of origin of life, I haven't read them yet, but I will over the weekend. But to show that you understand them substantialy, can you explain them with some elaborations? If you are deeply convinced about them, you would explain (assumiing they are not just head knowledge to you) - just like I explained biblical evidences substantially to non-believers or critics.

Nothing that supports the miraculous claims of the Bible though. I'd be happy to address any specific examples you care to give.

Many events that happened yesterday or 3000 years ago do not leave evidece, does this mean they didn't happen?

Christians who have experience with God will believe biblical miracles in the past when He sent some miracles and answered prayers to them. Regarding this , your response is as folow:

Once again we have the "Just choose to believe and you'll lower your standards of evidence when it comes to things you want to believe because you want to believe that what you believe is true" argument.

How can you know how apples , beef stew or salmon sushi taste like if you haven' eaten them. If someone try to explain them with words , can you understand? I didn't lower standard, it is you who are not there to experience or understand it (and maybe never will be).

 

[Kylie]

You sent about 5 links before to ofer proofs of origin of life, I haven't read them yet, but I will over the weekend. But to show that you understand them substantialy, can you explain them with some elaborations? If you are deeply convinced about them, you would explain (assumiing they are not just head knowledge to you) - just like I explained biblical evidences substantially to non-believers or critics.

Are you referring to post 1217? They were links to posts where I described how life may have got started. So it kinda doesn't make sense that you would ask me to put it into my own words when the links you are talking about already are my own words.

How about you actually read those links first, okay? The Demise of Evolution

Many events that happened yesterday or 3000 years ago do not leave evidece, does this mean they didn't happen?

Can you give me an example of some event which is taken as factual which does not have any actual evidence to support it?

Christians who have experience with God will believe biblical miracles in the past when He sent some miracles and answered prayers to them. Regarding this , your response is as folow:

And I'm suggesting that they didn't examine that evidence as critically as they should have because it told them what they wanted to believe.

How can you know how apples , beef stew or salmon sushi taste like if you haven' eaten them. If someone try to explain them with words , can you understand? I didn't lower standard, it is you who are not there to experience or understand it (and maybe never will be).

What something tastes like is a subjective experience. If we are talking about an objective fact, then that's not the best analogy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many events that happened yesterday or 3000 years ago do not leave evidece, does this mean they didn't happen?

Sometimes the answer is yes. Events that would have left clear evidence that left none, such as the flood of Noah, are disproved by the lack of evidence for that event.

Christians who have experience with God will believe biblical miracles in the past when He sent some miracles and answered prayers to them. Regarding this , your response is as folow:

But did they? It is more likely that they just wanted to believe and interpreted an event as a miracle. Supposed modern miracles seem to always have a rational explanation when properly investigated. This again appears to be a combination of confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

 

[ananda]

... the foundation of Buddhism (karma and rebirth) has no proof. ..

Both are directly experienced, and need no proof, imo.

Karma, simply put, is the law of cause & effect.
Rebirth is simply that law of cause & effect in reference to life (moment to moment existence)

 

[Kylie]

Both are directly experienced, and need no proof, imo.

Karma, simply put, is the law of cause & effect.
Rebirth is simply that law of cause & effect in reference to life (moment to moment existence)

Karma would seem to reward those who do wrong just as readily as it punishes them.

 

[roman2819]

Karma would seem to reward those who do wrong just as readily as it punishes them.

Why does not need proof.? To believe something is true, we need reasonable proof. If you insist on believing regardless of proof, then you won't be reborn on earth. That may be fine for you except there will be judgment. If you are not worried i, t is your choice of course. But what you think you will feel before something happen can be entirely different from what you really feel when it unfold. Real life experiences will demonstrate tbat.

 

[Job 33:6]

@roman2819

My post still awaits your review. Even if you don't have anything to say about it, if you could at least give it some thought, if appreciate it:The Demise of Evolution

The Demise of Evolution

 

[Kylie]

Why does not need proof.? To believe something is true, we need reasonable proof. If you insist on believing regardless of proof, then you won't be reborn on earth. That may be fine for you except there will be judgment. If you are not worried i, t is your choice of course. But what you think you will feel before something happen can be entirely different from what you really feel when it unfold. Real life experiences will demonstrate tbat.

Huh?

I'm just pointing out that karma seems to be indistinguishable from random events happening. There's no predictable system to it.

I'm not saying I believe in the concept of karma.

 

[roman2819]

@roman2819

My post still awaits your review. Even if you don't have anything to say about it, if you could at least give it some thought, if appreciate it:The Demise of Evolution

The Demise of Evolution

Will look at it soon when have time. Very busy indeed. Thanks for the note.

 

[ananda]

Karma would seem to reward those who do wrong just as readily as it punishes them.

The Buddhist idea of karma(kamma)-vipaka simply posits that causes produces its relevant effects on a fundamental level. It doesn't impose a value system (e.g. right/wrong, good/evil) on those causes & effects.

For example, a farmer who plants and cares for his crops may expect fruit in its season. That's simple cause & effect, and if we stop right there, we have a good example of Buddhist karma. If we go beyond that to suggest that the fruit he reaps is a "good" thing, we would be imposing our own perceived value system on that event; this perceptive imposition is not included in the early Buddhist idea of karma.

For example, to the insects who died as a result of his activity in his field, or other animals who were driven away from their homes, the farmer's causes & effects might be perceived as "evil"; they would be imposing their perspective on the event.

 

[roman2819]

Huh?

I'm just pointing out that karma seems to be indistinguishable from random events happening. There's no predictable system to it.

I'm not saying I believe in the concept of karma.

My reply to your post was intended for ananda

 

[roman2819]

The Buddhist idea of karma(kamma)-vipaka simply posits that causes produces its relevant effects on a fundamental level. It doesn't impose a value system (e.g. right/wrong, good/evil) on those causes & effects.

For example, a farmer who plants and cares for his crops may expect fruit in its season. That's simple cause & effect, and if we stop right there, we have a good example of Buddhist karma. If we go beyond that to suggest that the fruit he reaps is a "good" thing, we would be imposing our own perceived value system on that event; this perceptive imposition is not included in the early Buddhist idea of karma.

For example, to the insects who died as a result of his activity in his field, or other animals who were driven away from their homes, the farmer's causes & effects might be perceived as "evil"; they would be imposing their perspective on the event.

I wasn't talking about valie system.
.
My point is if you believe in Buddhism, what will happen to the farmer in the next life? Is he reborn as another creature? What will happen to the insect? Do you have proof that they are reborn.?, if you said you are ready to believe without proof....

I am well familiar with Buddhism. Buddhists feel that destiny is in their owm hands, and that's what people like to feel. The question is what is the real ending for people 's souls