Just the Facts Ma’am

essentialsaltes said:

Facts lead to the scientific theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

Facts can be misinterpreted.

inquiring mind said:

Nope, it's about following God's word. Matthew 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." King James Version

Click to expand...

That might be what your life's about, but I don't care much for your explanation for your observation of presence of mine.

AV1611VET said:

Facts can be misinterpreted.

Click to expand...

They end up being of practical use for all of us, however.

Evolution and the evidence for it is so flawed.
"Life came from non-life." and "It rained for "millions of years" on non-life rock and became soup.
The universe "just happened". Something happened to nothing when there was nothing there for something to happen.
Even better, "Humans came from poo flinging monkeys."

BravoM said:

Even better, "Humans came from poo flinging monkeys."

Click to expand...

Given the behavior of some, that doesn't seem so unreasonable.

Do you have any plan to discuss the topics raised in the thread or just make some assertions?

BravoM said:

Evolution and the evidence for it is so flawed.
"Life came from non-life." and "It rained for "millions of years" on non-life rock and became soup.
The universe "just happened". Something happened to nothing when there was nothing there for something to happen.
Even better, "Humans came from poo flinging monkeys."

Click to expand...

100% fail on all counts there!
Perhaps a record for CFs!?

SelfSim said:

100% fail on all counts there!
Perhaps a record for CFs!?

Click to expand...

I'm sure many have hit 100% fail on this board alone. The tiebreaker surely must go for volume of errors (with a perfect record).

inquiring mind said:

Again, my point (simplified) is that belief in a Creator is not just the result of religious indoctrination. It must have also been an intuition placed in early man by God

Click to expand...

No, that's begging the question. It may be an intuition, but it's just as liable to be faulty as the intuition that a stone that is twice as heavy falls twice as fast.

inquiring mind said:

Religion is often made out to be the culprit by evolutionists when it comes to Creationism,

Click to expand...

That's because it is.

Large C Creationism as we understand it today is a product of a couple of (mostly) US religious traditions, specifically new forms of biblical literalism and Christian Fundamentalism which developed in the period after the Civil War and into the early 1920s, and the Creation Science movement, which gathered momentum through the late 1950s and 1960s.

These didn't occur in isolation though. To an extent, these traditions are continuations of the biblical centrism of the Protestant Reformation of the mid 1500s onwards, as well as some of the Christian rejections/reinterpretations of new scholarship seen in the second part of the Enlightenment.

(Yes, I know there's Islamic Creationism too, but to a large extent it's just a rehashing of Christian Creationism and largely a modern phenomenon. Jewish Creationism is rare-ish, and Torah literalism is rarer still.)

inquiring mind said:

yet early man with no bias at all, never having attended a day of school or church, intuitively reasoned there was a Creator.

Click to expand...

Different cultures developed different stories/myths to provide a narrative to describe the origin of the world around them. These stories are fundamentally incompatible with each other though - so they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

inquiring mind said:

No hint that they ever considered themselves a product of evolution… a freak of nature so to speak.

Click to expand...

People who lived before evolution was a concept didn't have a concept of evolution? How surprising!

If you think that evolution is a "freak of nature" event, then I'm rather afraid you're so poorly informed on the topic that what you say could be dismissed at hand.

inquiring mind said:

And, I would also argue, they probably always recognized the uniqueness of their being in the natural world.

Click to expand...

That sentence can be interpreted two distinct ways. Both of them are patently rubbish propositions though.

inquiring mind said:

What facts (are there any) overcome those instincts, without questions of the interpretation? Are there any that cannot be disputed, reasonably of course?

Click to expand...

Instinctive answers are attractive because they're simple and satisfying. However, as we've got better and better at examining the universe, we've also learned that they're quite often flatly wrong.

We feel like the sun orbits the earth, but we know that's wrong.
We feel like the world was deliberately created for us, but we know that's wrong.

BravoM said:

Evolution and the evidence for it is so flawed.
"Life came from non-life." and "It rained for "millions of years" on non-life rock and became soup.
The universe "just happened". Something happened to nothing when there was nothing there for something to happen.
Even better, "Humans came from poo flinging monkeys."

Click to expand...

Displaying such silly ignorance in public is less
dignified than monkey behaviour, as monkeys are
not equipped to comorehend human standards of
dignity.

inquiring mind said:

Religion is often made out to be the culprit by evolutionists when it comes to Creationism, yet early man with no bias at all, never having attended a day of school or church, intuitively reasoned there was a Creator.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that ignorant uneducated pre historic people arrived at a conclusion? And that means we should trust it?

inquiring mind said:

I like the way you designate the ideas of historical creation ‘c’ from Creationism ‘C’ as in religion. That may give the discussion more clarity. However, I think you’re unknowingly agreeing with me when you say “Historical creationism ‘c’ was just what people knew at the time.” That’s really my point, that it was intuitive without bias of any sort. It was there long before religion, which you deem the culprit for Creationism ‘C’. I think early man’s ‘filling in’ was with this God-given intuition, and long before anything became religious. So, ‘c’ became ‘C’ much later, and as such an organization of earlier God-given intuition. But, the contradiction with your suggestion that “Modern day Creationism, as seen on this forum, is based heavily and almost solely on a weird sect of American Protestantism that is at odds with science for no good reason and seeks to isolate itself” was around long before religion. That is the point of the OP.

Click to expand...

The closest we today can get to early humans with your suggested intuition to the origin of the universe and life would be the australian aborigenes.

I don't know if you are familiar with the intricacies of the dreamtime mythos, but I can assure you that it does not resemble the judeo-christian god in the slightest.

This alone is fact enough to discard your idea. You can't prove that what other early humans believed was close to your diety of choice, so your argument is completely baseless.

inquiring mind said:

Somehow, you have managed to miss the point of the OP completely. And, have I said that God's communication with humans is limited?

Click to expand...

You have asserted that they "knew something intuitively" without proving that statement.

This is where your argument fails.

inquiring mind said:

No, I'm saying they knew it instinctively to some degree (at first), God-given without bias of any sort. I think we know it instinctively today, even before bias.

Click to expand...

You are confused. Knowing and thinking
are not the same.
You are not a time taveller who knows mental
processes of people thousands of years ago.
Your use of the word instinct lacks precision
or correspondence to definition.

You might like to read something about the history of
medical diagnosis and treatment.

You trust cave men to accurately guess the
origin of the universe. Would you figure their
magic cures would suit as well

.

inquiring mind said:

I said in post # 14 that man instinctively recognized a Creator (evidenced by the development of religion, not because of it).

Click to expand...

This is not evidence for ancient mans thought patterns.

Your claim is unprovable.