Do non-experts really appreciate the work and knowledge of experts?

[Aron-Ra]

Those may be your only options because you don't believe in a higher being. You are prone to accept theories and explanations that are worldly, that's to be expected, no surprise there.

If I am being deceived what are the consequences? None that I know of, my life doesn't change whether I believe in evolution or not.

Now for you the stakes are much higher.

Not true. One of the factors that first involved me in this debate was when a group of Christians tried to convert me by telling me things like, we needed to have more babies so there would be more souls for the lord, and it didn't matter what we did to the environment because these were the last days, and Jesus was going to roast everything soon anyway.

And on the topic of overpopulation and environmentalism, I said to them;
"If I'm wrong, and the world followed my lead, then when Jesus comes back, there will be clean air and plenty of food, resources and natural beauty left in the world when Jesus arrives. So if I'm wrong, there's no harm done. Now what if you're wrong?"
"I'm not wrong."
"But what if you are?"
"I'm not."
"OK whatever, hypothetically then. What if you're wrong."
"I'm not wrong."
"You're not even capable of objective thought, are you?"
"Let me pray for your soul."
"Talk to yourself all you want to. But worry about your own soul."

If I'm wrong, there's no harm done.
If you're wrong, that very well could be trajic.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Insidently, I wonder if he will reply again. Its been a while!

I don't expect to ever hear from him again.

 

[vossler]

Not true. One of the factors that first involved me in this debate was when a group of Christians tried to convert me by telling me things like, we needed to have more babies so there would be more souls for the lord, and it didn't matter what we did to the environment because these were the last days, and Jesus was going to roast everything soon anyway.

I don't what kind of Christians were pushing that, must have been some sort of clut. I've never heard anything even remotely like that.

And on the topic of overpopulation and environmentalism, I said to them;
"If I'm wrong, and the world followed my lead, then when Jesus comes back, there will be clean air and plenty of food, resources and natural beauty left in the world when Jesus arrives. So if I'm wrong, there's no harm done. Now what if you're wrong?"
"I'm not wrong."
"But what if you are?"
"I'm not."
"OK whatever, hypothetically then. What if you're wrong."
"I'm not wrong."
"You're not even capable of objective thought, are you?"
"Let me pray for your soul."
"Talk to yourself all you want to. But worry about your own soul."

If I'm wrong, there's no harm done.
If you're wrong, that very well could be trajic.

No there is no harm done taking care of the environment and ensuring there is plenty of food, however neither will do anything to ensure your status in the next life. Like I said earlier, if I'm wrong it will have no bearing on anything.

However for you...the consequences of being wrong are far different.

So yes there won't be any harm done here on earth, but then again that wasn't my point, was it?

 

[dad]

Not true. One of the factors that first involved me in this debate was when a group of Christians tried to convert me by telling me things like, we needed to have more babies so there would be more souls for the lord, and it didn't matter what we did to the environment because these were the last days, and Jesus was going to roast everything soon anyway.

The burning of the surface of the earth comes at the end of a thousand years after He returns to earth. After which, there will be no more oceans, or high mountains. This alone frees up the majority of the earth surface for possible human living.

...For those who look to God, have all the babies you want, He will help care for them. There will be lots of room soon, not to mention the city that is a thousand and a half miles skyhigh out into space.

... After all, we are not animals and beasts. He loves children, and they all come from Him. The devil hates children, the enemy of our souls, and would like to kill em all if he was allowed. But he isn't. Look how the old punk inspired Herod, and Pharoah to kill the babies! That who is behind the wars also, almost every time.

...The universe was made for us, and the world, and we will have all the room in the universe and more if needed. After all, it only took several days to make this one!

Yes, we are to not destroy the wonderful earth He gave us, but take good care of it. But we are not to be more concerned and worship this nice creation more than the One that made it.

If I'm wrong, there's no harm done.
..

True, not all should have babies, the less some breed, the better. I wouldn't feel pressured there, it isn't for everyone.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I don't what kind of Christians were pushing that, must have been some sort of clut. I've never heard anything even remotely like that.

Lots of denominations have told me the same thing over and over again,

"Any minute now, my family and I will disappear from the Earth, called up to Heaven, -while you will find yourself trapped in a lake of fire with all the other sinners ....unless you beg Jesus to forgive you for your abomnable sins!"

No there is no harm done taking care of the environment and ensuring there is plenty of food, however neither will do anything to ensure your status in the next life. Like I said earlier, if I'm wrong it will have no bearing on anything.

However for you...the consequences of being wrong are far different.

Not at all. According to your Bible, unless I accept Jesus as my savior, then I will have no eternal life. I will die for real, -permanently- both in the body and in the soul, just like everything else. Without a posthumous eternal life, I can't even be damned to hell. A soul that no longer exists can't "go" anywhere. And since I don't believe souls ever existed in the first place, then I'm just going to die (and stay dead) anyway either way. So it doesn't make any difference what I believe in that sense.

So yes there won't be any harm done here on earth, but then again that wasn't my point, was it?

I have no idea what your point was. However, only accurate scientific knowledge can have practical application in the real world. So it makes no sense to avoid or ignore that as you do.

 

[vossler]

Lots of denominations have told me the same thing over and over again,

"Any minute now, my family and I will disappear from the Earth, called up to Heaven, -while you will find yourself trapped in a lake of fire with all the other sinners ....unless you beg Jesus to forgive you for your abomnable sins!"

Now that is something similar to what I've seen and heard before. It is a bit incomplete and not worded quite right, but otherwise true.

Not at all. According to your Bible, unless I accept Jesus as my savior, then I will have no eternal life. I will die for real, -permanently- both in the body and in the soul, just like everything else. Without a posthumous eternal life, I can't even be damned to hell. A soul that no longer exists can't "go" anywhere. And since I don't believe souls ever existed in the first place, then I'm just going to die (and stay dead) anyway either way. So it doesn't make any difference what I believe in that sense.

We all will have eternal life, it's just a matter of where we spend it. So yes you can be damned!

I have no idea what your point was. However, only accurate scientific knowledge can have practical application in the real world. So it makes no sense to avoid or ignore that as you do.

There are many things that can have a practical application in the real world which have no scientific background whatsoever. I don't avoid or ignore anything. If that were true I certainly wouldn't being hanging out here in C&E. I assess everything and then make a decision as to what importance said item has on my life and well-being.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Yes, I do stubbornly hold onto what I know and resist things that make little to no sense.

teachability.

Alrighty, what from your own experience *Helping people develop their own futures*, are you able to, additionally, teach?

learning captured in the phrase "willing suspension of disbelief".

Yes, that goes with the above question too

The idea is that in order to learn, we need to open ourselves up and accept things... without the normal filters we have in place.

Excellent! ~ that you agree . Many happy learnings can await you!

Annie

 

[SimplyNothing]

Without the experts, the non experts would have nothing to pretend to know a lot about.

WOW!! I feel profound!

*Pats back*

 

[caravelair]

I'm not going to reply to the majority of your post for a couple of reasons.

yes, i think i know what those reasons are:

(a) you cannot refute anything i said
(b) you don't wish to acknowledge that i refuted everything you said.

it seems to me that you are just not willing to learn anything that might contradict your current beliefs.

My original intent was solely to make a point,

and i believe that point has been refuted.

No I don't read science journals and to tell you the truth I'm not much interested in them.

so then how on earth could you possibly know what goes on in the field of evolutionary research, as you claimed you did?

So this then tells me at best 20% of scientists are Christian.

which is still thousands upon thousands of christian biologists who accept evolution.

Then of those a highly significant percentage are evolutionists.

why do you suppose that such a high percentage of christian biologists accept evolution? i would say that it's because unlike you, they are not in a position where they can willfully ignore all the facts that support evolution.

That doesn't leave a lot left for those that believe the Bible as it is written.

that's because there is no scientific reason to deny evolution or to consider a literal interpretation of the bible to be valid. the ONLY reason is adherence to ones religious beliefs.

So what are they all seeking? IMO, for many it is fame and $$$.

oh yeah, all those rich and famous biologists i'm always hearing about, driving around LA in their souped up caddilac escalades...

 

[Loudmouth]

That's right, you're free to believe it if you wish.

However, I am not free to throw away objective evidence due to beliefs held without evidence. This is exactly what you are doing. You hold a position who's only defense is trickery by the Devil. You might as well claim the Earth is flat and all other evidence is just trickery by the Devil. We now know that no amount of evidence will ever convince you so there is no need to present it.

 

[vossler]

However, I am not free to throw away objective evidence due to beliefs held without evidence. This is exactly what you are doing. You hold a position who's only defense is trickery by the Devil. You might as well claim the Earth is flat and all other evidence is just trickery by the Devil. We now know that no amount of evidence will ever convince you so there is no need to present it.

Faith doesn't require evidence, if it did it wouldn't be faith.

As for the evidence needed to convince me, well yes to some degree you're right, it would take some very strong evidence to convince me. I have yet to see anything that is very convincing. Does that mean my standards are higher or that I'm not able to see because of my clouded vision. I have my answer and you have yours and I'm sure they're not the same.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Faith doesn't require evidence, if it did it wouldn't be faith.

not according to:
Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

it is not that there is no evidence it is that there is not enough evidence for hope without faith.

faith is not irrational, but exceeds rationality, is built on reason but doesn't stop with reason. faith is built on inadequate evidence, for if the evidence was adequate then there would be no reason for the faith, the evidence alone would be convincing.

there is a world of difference between a faith that claims no evidence for its principles and one that claims inadequate evidence....

 

[vossler]

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

it is not that there is no evidence it is that there is not enough evidence for hope without faith.

faith is not irrational, but exceeds rationality, is built on reason but doesn't stop with reason. faith is built on inadequate evidence, for if the evidence was adequate then there would be no reason for the faith, the evidence alone would be convincing.

there is a world of difference between a faith that claims no evidence for its principles and one that claims inadequate evidence....

I'm sorry I didn't expand on this here, I should have. In another recent post I did, but somehow I failed to here. Yes, you're right rm and thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Apos]

Faith doesn't require evidence, if it did it wouldn't be faith.

not according to:
Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

it is not that there is no evidence it is that there is not enough evidence for hope without faith.

faith is not irrational, but exceeds rationality, is built on reason but doesn't stop with reason. faith is built on inadequate evidence, for if the evidence was adequate then there would be no reason for the faith, the evidence alone would be convincing.

there is a world of difference between a faith that claims no evidence for its principles and one that claims inadequate evidence....

Uh, no. Evidence demonstrates exactly and only what it demonstrates. It doesn't justify further jumps in a particular direction. A faith jump from evidence is just as unjustified as a faith jump from no evidence at all. In both cases, it's the jump that's unevidential.

 

[Loudmouth]

Faith doesn't require evidence, if it did it wouldn't be faith.

There is evidence that evolution has occurred in the past, and yet you ignore it. So it would seem that you have faith that is held in contradiction to the evidence.

As for the evidence needed to convince me, well yes to some degree you're right, it would take some very strong evidence to convince me.

From what you have said, no evidence would ever convince you since it is all a deception contructed by Satan. This would also make it dishonest for you to request evidence to begin with.

I have yet to see anything that is very convincing.

Of course not, all of the evidence is a lie and a deception set up by Satan. No matter the quality of the evidence, it doesn't matter. Right?

Does that mean my standards are higher or that I'm not able to see because of my clouded vision. I have my answer and you have yours and I'm sure they're not the same.

Your standard is that anything that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible is a Satanic deception. I would say that your standards are unreasonable.

 

[dad]

There is evidence that evolution has occurred in the past, and yet you ignore it. So it would seem that you have faith that is held in contradiction to the evidence.



From what you have said, no evidence would ever convince you since it is all a deception contructed by Satan. This would also make it dishonest for you to request evidence to begin with.



Of course not, all of the evidence is a lie and a deception set up by Satan. No matter the quality of the evidence, it doesn't matter. Right?



Your standard is that anything that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible is a Satanic deception. I would say that your standards are unreasonable.

I'd have to agree. Any evidence for 'evolution' does not include the common ancestor as the starting point, and is just as readily applied to evolution starting from Eden. I would make clear, however, that the deception is not in the evidence all around us, but in what it really says.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd have to agree. Any evidence for 'evolution' does not include the common ancestor as the starting point, and is just as readily applied to evolution starting from Eden.

ERV's and chromosomal fusions clearly link chimps and humans. You don't have to assume common ancestory, it is concluded from the data.

I would make clear, however, that the deception is not in the evidence all around us, but in what it really says.

You have only moved the problem one level down. No matter what the evidence is, any conclusion that contradicts your interpretation of Gensis is suddenly a deception from Satan. If you decide that 2+2=5 because of your interpretation of scripture, then any evidence contrary has to be Satanic deception. It's not a matter of "what it really says" since you have already decided what is and isn't allowed.

 

[dad]

ERV's and chromosomal fusions clearly link chimps and humans. You don't have to assume common ancestory, it is concluded from the data.

But wicked pre flood beastiality in a world where genetics were clearly different means a common ancestor. It also means the bible is true, if that or some other old world difference accounts for the evidence. So, the common ancestor was Adam, and the evolution started there. 6000 years ago.

You have only moved the problem one level down. No matter what the evidence is, any conclusion that contradicts your interpretation of Gensis is suddenly a deception from Satan.

... That is beyond your ability to dispute. Unless you have proof that the bible is a lie, and there is no God, and evolution started from Granny in the pond, and the old world was the same genetically etc as the present one.

......If you decide that 2+2=5 because of your interpretation of scripture, then any evidence contrary has to be Satanic deception. It's not a matter of "what it really says" since you have already decided what is and isn't allowed.

But it is a matter of what it really says, unless you can prove otherwise. The secret to unlocking what it says is the mystery book of ages. Without it, you are groping in the darkness, knowing not whither you go, or where you were, hardly able to see what it now going on!!!!!
Now, if we use the known differences in genetics in the past, present based conclusions simply do not apply.
See, the first "2" in your equation is unknown. It's more like this 'a = 2 = 4'. The past is "a". We know that when added to the present, we get a certain outcome. But my "2" fits at least as well as yours! You have no monopoly on twos. You have no momoploly on the unknown.
What you would need to carry the day in the equation is proof or solid observations and tested evidence that genetics were exactly the same then, and lifespans, and matter, etc etc. You don't have any thing of the sort. It doesn't cut it looking at present genetic limitations, and assuming it was always the same. Have you seen Adam's DNA?

 

[Loudmouth]

But wicked pre flood beastiality in a world where genetics were clearly different means a common ancestor. It also means the bible is true, if that or some other old world difference accounts for the evidence. So, the common ancestor was Adam, and the evolution started there. 6000 years ago.

For your statement to be true you need to supply evidence for:

1. Beastiality in the past that would account for ERV's, and the phylogeny of mutations within shared ERV's.

2. Evidence fo "old world differences".

... That is beyond your ability to dispute. Unless you have proof that the bible is a lie, and there is no God, and evolution started from Granny in the pond, and the old world was the same genetically etc as the present one.

I have no proof, or evidence, that the Bible is true. In fact, there is evidence that a literal interpertation of the Bible is wrong.

But it is a matter of what it really says, unless you can prove otherwise.

I don't have to prove the negative. It is up to you to prove the positive. As someone said earlier, statements based on no evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

What you would need to carry the day in the equation is proof or solid observations and tested evidence that genetics were exactly the same then, and lifespans, and matter, etc etc.

Genetics is based on chemistry. Everything we see in geologic and cosmologic sciences says that the laws of chemistry are the same in the past as they are today.

You don't have any thing of the sort. It doesn't cut it looking at present genetic limitations, and assuming it was always the same.

It's not assumed, it is concluded from evidence.

Have you seen Adam's DNA?

Have you seen Leprechaun DNA?

 

[dad]

For your statement to be true you need to supply evidence for:

1. Beastiality in the past that would account for ERV's, and the phylogeny of mutations within shared ERV's.

2. Evidence fo "old world differences".

Well, since the chimps are said to be so genetically close to man, that could be an indication? Also, what is there about any ERV's, and the phylogeny of mutations within shared ERV's, that it could NOT account for!?
AS for evidences of pre flood genetics, no one I have heard of has any, old age evolutionists, or creationists. This means I HAVE AS MUCH AS YOU!

I have no proof, or evidence, that the Bible is true. In fact, there is evidence that a literal interpertation of the Bible is wrong.

No there isn't! It is your physical only assumptions about evidence and how the world was that lead to that conclusion only. How light now travels, how decay now happens, how genetics now work, etc etc. The only way any of it has the slightest validity regarding the past or future is if you clearly evidence and heavily support that the past and future must be in all ways relevant, the same as the present. That is one little fly in your old age ointment.

I don't have to prove the negative. It is up to you to prove the positive. As someone said earlier, statements based on no evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Great, then I dismiss your PO past!!!!! Glad you said that.

Genetics is based on chemistry.

Of course it is. What we now see and test and observe. And it is great for that. Now, if you want to drag that puppy back to the future, or the past, you better show how it was the same same same.

Everything we see in geologic and cosmologic sciences says that the laws of chemistry are the same in the past as they are today.

Really? What cosmic chemistry testing on the past is this?! What chemistry in geology addresses this exactly? You went and made this claim, and frankly, I don't believe you. Better back it up here.

It's not assumed, it is concluded from evidence.

I can say the same!

Have you seen Leprechaun DNA?

Sounds a bit like "If it isn't under my nose it doesn't exist"
For all I know, the Irish may have seen some little spirits at some point, and spawned the tale. But what dna do spirits have? Some angels, or sons of God did marry women, and had babies, many interpret in the bible. I doubt they were small and drunk and green, but maybe man's dna was affected.