Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, I believe that and I believe He used evolution to do it.Evolution is not fundaments of biology, you don't even need evolution to be good in that area, and its a lie, we have a soul and spirit compatible with our body that means God made us.
we have a soul and spirit compatible with our body that means God made us.
Prove any of this is true.
Yes, I believe that and I believe He used evolution to do it.
Don't you think your god could put evolution in motion fully knowing how it would turn out? If so, your concerns about putting "a soul and spirit into something made by chance" is unfounded.But if our soul is made for our body or viceversa, then either our body was made for this, or our soul changed to fit our bodies, i don't believe God would put a soul and spirit into something made by chance, too much things that can go wrong, and i don't belive evolution has the power to make animals in the first place without his intervention. Theistic evolution is another thing completely different from the normal one, and it implies design by God.
Evolution is not fundaments of biology, you don't even need evolution to be good in that area, and its a lie, we have a soul and spirit compatible with our body that means God made us.
Evolution is not fundaments of biology
you don't even need evolution to be good in that area
, and its a lie, we have a soul and spirit compatible with our body that means God made us.
But if our soul is made for our body or viceversa, then either our body was made for this, or our soul changed to fit our bodies, i don't believe God would put a soul and spirit into something made by chance, too much things that can go wrong, and i don't belive evolution has the power to make animals in the first place without his intervention. Theistic evolution is another thing completely different from the normal one, and it implies design by God.
Hey hey "the iconoclast". You seem to be spending just as much time announcing your forthcoming answers as actually answering questions. Is there a point to that?
Don't you think your god could put evolution in motion fully knowing how it would turn out? If so, your concerns about putting "a soul and spirit into something made by chance" is unfounded.
Hey hey tmoney you beautiful individualI'm not responsible for your education. Don't expect me to give you a biology course on an interwebs forum. Go do your own homework.
So its not intentional, it is not random and it is non-random. How can a process be non random?non-random.
Filtering what?I'll go along with it. Natural selection = a filtering method.
So its not intentional, it is not random and it is non-random. How can a process be non random? Need nore from you?Non-random.
Ouch! Are you ok?/facepalm
So why would you use a machine designed by human hand - created and designed to perform a task - as your example?It's an example to illustrate how "random" and "conscious decision" are not the only two options in the output of a process.
Its an example to show non-random behaviour using a machine that was designed and created. Can you show me using an example of something which is non-random and not a created thing?It's not an analogy to body plans.
Yes. The problem is your example. Have another try and get back to me?I can see that. But the problem doesn't seem to be the example...
Show me how to use an analogy for non-random behaviour that would satisfy a main concept of an analogy ie similarity?I think you need to learn how analogies work.
Your analogy so far cannot escape design ie a coin machine created by human hand and designed to perform a process. This is supposed to show a non random process by comparing it to a designed process?Your mind certainly doesn't seem to be able to.
Fascinating!That's kind of the problem with taking on theological obligations to argue against anything that disagrees with your theology.
Well show me then? What have you got to prove your case?I'm not sure what you are asking here. It seems that you simply are having difficulty with understanding how gradually accumulating microchanges filtered by a process like natural selection, will result in seemingly optimised and complex body plans.
I was never taught evolution at school. You assume!Stuff like that is what you learn in introductory courses of evolutionary biology.
I love homework but I have you to show me what i need to know and you are showing it to me.Again, it would help heaps if you would actually do your own homework first.
Why does your link suggest different? Who is correct you or the authority on the subject which contradicts what you say? - remember that link you sent me?No. Homosexuality is factually common in the animal kingdom.
Im going to save this one for later. Remember, i record our conversationsI don't think anything in particular about individual scientist's statements and ideas and theories.
Why did you send me that link if it contradicts what you are saying? I refer you to the previous quotes from your page - you supplied me.I quoted the resource for the many examples therein where homosexual relations, including long term homosexual pairing, has been observed in species throughout the animal kingdom.
What are the facts? Show me, give me one example to chew on?No matter what theories and ideas scientist's come up with - the facts are what they are and you can't argue the facts. Not reasonably anyway.
Homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction show it is no use to the gene pool ie varitaions to pass on. Does that suggest from an evolutionary pov, homosexual is unnatural? Lets get into it? Give me detailsPlenty of individuals never get to reproduce. Even more is the set if we also add those that do reproduce but of which the off spring never reaches sexual maturity. Some of them are gay, sure. So what? What is the problem?
My dear that does not sound fair. You would leave me in the dark and not bring me to the light of your position. Im saddened!!!No, actually. I don't plan on doing anything more then just bringing your ignorance to your attention and to advice you to first inform yourself on the subject you wish to argue against.
You have played chess with pidgeons? What a story. How about this one for youThis is why there is a meme that says: "Debating evolution with creationists, is like playing chess with a pidgeon. It knocks down all the pieces, craps all over the board and then flies away claiming victory".
Morality is made up of principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. To be ethical, it is relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. When we consider morality - which is the key word here - to reason right or wrong, a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning is needed. (.eg a statement or belief to compare an action to) Lets say i steal a small amount of money from you. You can reason to say i have made you a victim but i have not harmed you, i have not tricked you or injured you. We could suggest i have constructed a form of misfortune for you. We could suggest i took something from you without consent. How do you make a distinction for wrong behaviour and what principle serves for a chain of reasoning here? What is demonstrated everyday here?As demonstrated every single day
The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically. To use one's mind actively to form - interpret or view - considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. Do you have no set principles or standard to compare a situation or behaviour to?Reason.
What type or form of evidence would you require? Please be specific. So a comparison is still being made. There is an equal amount of objective evidence for both? I want you to show me how this is so? Give me an example of this?No. Rather: there is an equal amount of objective evidential support for unicorns and leprechauns, as there is for gods. I don't believe in leprechauns and unicorns because of the lack of evidence. I don't believe in gods, for the exact same reason.
Do you know how to recognize evidence for God when you encounter it? What evidence do expect?If not having evidence is the reason not to believe in unicorns, then why would not having the evidence result in a different stance on gods?
You wanted proof. I gave you my personal experience with God which is authentic and happened to me. This was my experience and many have had their own. If i did not have this experience and it was false, i wouldnt be talking about it. Its like a comet, either you saw it or you didnt. Just because you did not see it does not mean it did not happen. I was once told a man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man who hasnt had one. You are only interested in evidence if you can make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified? For this ill have to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument? Lets look at testing. I have an experiment which is going to be the rate of sugar cubes dissolving in water at different temperatures. Basically, I will drop sugar cubes into cups of water with different temperatures and time how long it takes the sugar cubes to "disappear" (dissolve). To perform part of this test i will need a range of tempered water and some ice cubes. If i were to test for God would i not have to follow a categorical method ie to perform the necessary actions and steps that are intregal? For example - using my sugar cube test - it would be no good for me to use a range of tempered sand or only cold water? To test for God should i not test using His prescribed way, to prove if it is genuine or false?I'm only interested if you have verifiable evidence. I've no use for your personal opinions, beliefs and unverifiable anecdotes.
My dear it was not meaningless to me, in fact it effected me and changed me. Id say that it was important and worthwhile. What would you do if that happened to you?I say this is a meaningless unverifiable anecdote.
I supplied it to see how you would react. Im seeing it now my dearDid you expect this was going to convince me?
Why cant you bring yourself around? What is stopping you?If I can't bring myself to "just believe" your religion, why do you think I would "just believe" you and by extension then "just believe" your religion?
Why do you have an issue with opening your heart to Jesus? What bad thing is going to happen to you?"just believe" is exactly the issue I'm having.
Why does it make it worse?So giving me even more things that I can only "just believe" (because it lacks evidence to justify reasonable belief), is only going to make it worse.
Why does it become more impossible?The more things I am expected to "just believe", the more impossible it becomes.
I have only so far, given you a personal experience - i had - that has effected me to my core. My heart is cut and the wound never heals.You're just taking bare claims and piling on even more bare claims.
Don't be shy. What do you need to be convinced to give yourself to Jesus?This is not the way to convince me. At all. Au contraire.
Excellent so we have an absolute certainty?Yes. Things work the way they work and not the way the don't work.
Excellent. So to perform this test we must choose materials according to what you want to prove ie classified into categories. To perform a test involving hydraulics i wouldn't use a method which is associated with brewing beer or an inert gas?Objects with mass are under the influence of gravity, the force of which can be calculated very precisely. We can do this, because things work the way they do and not the way they don't.
Please correct me if im wrong. So far i have only made one claim, Jesus is real and you can know Him? What evidence do you need to justify or be convinced of this claim?You made a bunch of claims. That's not evidence. Those are just claims.
Lets back track Connie - "How do you know God only exists in our imagination?" Tmoney - "For the same reason that you understand today that Poseidon only existed in the imagination of ancient peoples and that there is no god with a pitchfork ruling over the tides of the seas. " Connie - "What reason is that? I gave you my testimony - evidence - it would only be fair for you to give me yours?" Tmoney - "I can't give you what I don't have. As I said, I have zero rational reasons to believe in your religion. Zero." So poseidon exists in the imagination of peoples but you cannot give me a reason as to why this is so. You cannot give what you dont have, you just have an irrational, rational. So this is speculation rather than fact. What is it called when you accept as true - that poseidon only existed in the imagination of ancient peoples - without proof?I can't give you what I don't have. As I said, I have zero rational reasons to believe in your religion. Zero.
Please excuse my attention to detail. Lets back track, please remember this reply is relevant to the previous post. Connie - "How do you know God only exists in our imagination?" Tmoney - "For the same reason that you understand today that Poseidon only existed in the imagination of ancient peoples and that there is no god with a pitchfork ruling over the tides of the seas. Or that there is no Jupiter throwing lightning bolts during storms. Or that there is no Thor smashing his hammer to create thunder." Connie - "What reason is that? I gave you my testimony - evidence - it would only be fair for you to give me yours?" Tmoney - "We know what thunder and lightning is. It doesn't require supernatural entities." So God exists in my imagination because of what we know about thunder and lightning, it does not require supernatural entities? God exists in my imagination because "there is no Jupiter throwing lightning bolts during storms. Or that there is no Thor smashing his hammer to create thunder". So far it looks like you are suggesting that Jupiter and thor do not exist, therefore God does not exist?We know what thunder and lightning is. It doesn't require supernatural entities.
Connie - "Please indulge me my dear. What data do you refer to or authority for this data and how did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary?" Tmoney - "The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to. The data of the world. There is no data pointing to any gods. Hence all data is consistent with gods not existing." Connie - "My dear if i were to give you this answer that explains nothing, you would not accept it either." Tmoney - "I'm not giving you something that is supposed to explain anything." So you prefer to make statements rather than defend your position or arguements. Interesting. Ill give you another shot to redeem your self. Please indulge me my dear. What data do you refer to or what is you authority for this data? How did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary? What lack of data? What do you expect to see that you do not?I'm not giving you something that is supposed to explain anything.
Dude it is such a laxed position. I dont need to expain everything, you do! You need to keep up to date and change when new evidence will be presented. You will never have rest!The claim that a god exists, is the model that is supposed to explain something.
What lack of data? What do you expect to see that you do not?I'm saying that there isn't any data in the world that suggests such a god exists. Hence, the "god model" has zero explanatory power.
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. Lets review this section of our conversation. Good thing i record all our discussions, it takes mins to see what the substance is. Tmoney - "The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to. The data of the world. There is no data pointing to any gods. Hence all data is consistent with gods not existing." Connie - "What data do you refer to or authority for this data and how did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary?" Tmoney - "I didn't say it proves anything. Stop strawmanning." My dear when we consider the context and the substance of our discussion, could you please show me how i committed this fallacy?I didn't say it proves anything. Stop strawmanning.
And im asking what or who's data do you refer to. Show me?I said the data of the world is consistent with the idea of no gods existing.
So we have a consistent theme from you. Santa and unicorns do not exist, therefore God does not exist? Why is this agruement you frequently use - i suspect as a form of ridicule - not a category error? How is santa and unicorns related to God? Please give me as much detail as possibleJust like the data of the world is consistent with the idea that santa or unicorns do not exist.
No data supports the idea of santa or unicorns. That means that the data we DO have is, is consistent with a model that does not include God. Did i get it right? Do i get an A? I want you to expand this answer. I want you to be more extensive. Show me what supports this evidence?No data supports these ideas. That means that the data we DO have is, is consistent with a model that does not include these ideas.
Please excuse me, it may the case that you are smarter than me! Congratulations my dear.I don't know what is so hard for you to comprehend this basic concept.
Please excuse my inability to learn fast. How does this relate to God?If you have no data to support X, then by definition the data you DO have is consistent with not-X.
How do my religious beliefs and experiences - lets use my testimony as an example - conflict with this world view you speak of?I think the problem is rather you not knowing how to deal with a worldview that doesn't include your religious beliefs.
Evolution is in fact a plurality of theories and suppositions. Why is the theory of evolution human psychological problems, an alternative to Creation for those who reject God?Humans have psychological problems with "not knowing" things. To the point that humans will just invent things and pretend them to be the answers to their unanswered questions for their own piece of mind.
You know what coming next! Why is the evolution pattern exempted? Why do you not question evolution and why do you take it as 100% truth? Why is the case so strong for you? Please be genuine and give me more!Humans are also pattern seeking creatures. We are so obsessed with pattern seeking, that we will also see patterns where there really aren't any.
Excellant. You are in good company. "The human mind is extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes. We all suffer from that as we are all human" - dogmahunter, 2018. The scientific mind is a human mind. The conclusions of the scientific method are human reasoned. Why do you trust in evolution which is prone to error?Humans are also very prone to the cognition error of the "false positive".
Hahaha nice! So why is your excessively belief in and reverence for the evolution not human error that we all are prone to?All these things together result in humans being very prone to be superstitious.
I never subscribed to the new age movement either.This is why con-men such a sceance readers, tarrot card readers, fortune tellers, psychics, etc have such success. Even today, in just about every magazine you can read your "horoscope", as if the position of the stars and planets affect what will happen to you this week.
So you disregard the spiritual world and believe it not to exist. What testing have you done to come to this conclusion?All that together and humans are bound to invent religions.
I disagree woth these things too.We have even seen this within our lifetime, or the lifetime of our parents at least. Like scientology. Or a bit further back, Mormonism. Or Rastafari.
Do you believe scientist are not biased and do not invent things either? What have you observed that makes you reject Jesus?We have actually very recently observed humans inventing religions. We know for a FACT that humans do that.
Would you consider the Holy Spirit objective verifiable evidence? If not, why? Detail will be needed?You are more then welcome to provide us with objective verifiable evidence.
What did you think about my previous answer re Holy Spirit?But I know you don't have such.
It is known to millions of Christians and it can be known to you if you follow the formula ie 100% trust.Nobody has. If such evidence existed, it would be known by everybody.
I would advise not to do this often!So I won't be holding my breath.
My dear im fascinated by you and your position. I merely ask you questions for more depth, i like for you to explain yourself.I would prefer you to read with more attention and to not try and shift the burden of proof.
We will be looking at the Holy Spirit as an example for evidence. I cannot wait to see how we go with this.If you think I'm wrong, all you would need to do is to provide us with examples of observations that objectively and verifiably points to gods. If you fail to provide us with even just one of such evidences, then the statement that all evidence at our disposal is consistent with no gods existing, is accurate.
Actaully the Bible doesnt suggest that adam and eve were the first 2. There appears to be evidence - in text - that they were a second creation and not the 6th day creation. Wanna discuss? Lets explore?Human population size has never been below several thousand individuals. According to the bible, it was once just 2 and at another time it was reduced to 8. When the evidence of reality disagrees with a story in a book, then it is the story in the book that is incorrect.
I'm not sure what budhism has to say about it. I thought certain versions believe in reincarnation. If they believe in reincarnation, that means that they believe that a "person" is something more then just the body and brain. If "you" can reincarnate as some other animal or person, then it implies that there is some "soul like" thing that defines personhood, rather then just the physical body and brain. I'll call that a "soul".
Well i want you to explore and analyze it as a form of evidence - it happened. Why do you have nothing to say. This experience happened when you are suggesting such a thing cannot? Greetings.I have nothing to say about your anecdote. Bring me something that is actually verifiable and doesn't require me to "just believe" you.
You made the statement that all religions make the same claims. Would you say this claim by a Buddhist is compatible with christianity?IMO Buddhism teaches that there does exist a gestalt that many would identify as a "soul", e.g. consciousness, mind, will, volition, etc. However, in contrast to most other religions, we observe that this "soul" is something that is noteternal, and is therefore seen more as a "lifestream" than a "being". (If the soul is eternal, then it would not be subject to change; however, consciousness/mind/etc. does change, therefore it cannot be considered eternal.)
Lets consider my testimony, how do you show that it the same and how my testimony is useless? Need detail and depth, work at it my dear. Give me something good?To the evidence. As it stands, there seems to be the exact same kind of evidence for both. And that is "none". Evidence, is what makes the imaginary distinguishable from the real.
I would hope so or else i could not have a discussion with you my friendI'm not holding my breath.
Hey hey "the iconoclast". You seem to be spending just as much time announcing your forthcoming answers as actually answering questions. Is there a point to that?
I don't care if you disagree or not. I know what my argument was, and it is not what you seem to think it was.
Let me know if you want to discuss the argument I actually made, rather than the one you invented for me.
As usual, not holding my breath.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?