1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Human Evolution

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by doubtingmerle, Jul 18, 2022.

  1. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,619
    Humanist
    Private
    Gotta laugh sometimes and send oneself up a little, eh?

    On a more serious level though, it helps to occasionally recognise that we're all humans who perceive things slightly differently.
    It would be helpful if the various claims made on reality made 'round these parts would also, somehow, encompass those dissimilarities, yet still include them alongside our ideas about how all humans think in similar ways about the world around us (ie: compared with how we think other species/taxa/'kinds' might do that, that is ;) ).
     
  2. expos4ever

    expos4ever Well-Known Member

    +5,275
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    Evolution is not completely random.
     
  3. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +2,161
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    What's "obious" to Aussie is not the same as what's a fact.
    What is obvious is the combo of ignorance and strawman.
    ToE is no more about the origin of life than auto mechanics is aboutthe origin of oil.
    Anyone who STILL cant learn that little and OBVIOUS thing has
    nothing sensible to contribute to any discussion of the subject.
     
  4. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,228
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    On and on and on. Let me try again. To say that there is something God cannot do, is to imply that he might at some point wish to do such a thing, and it implies that our words arranged just so, throw some real meaning onto a logically self-contradictory thing. Sorry, but it's plain silly.

    God is not like us; it is not that he is limited, like us, nor is it to say that he can do a logically self-contradicting thing, but that both are plainly bogus, human considerations.
     
  5. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Exactly. God cannot do self-contradictory things. You cannot do self-contradictory things. I cannot do self-contradictory thngs. AV1611VET cannot do self-contradictory things. Neither can Estrid, or anybody else here. It is simply impossible.

    God cannot create 2 sided triangles. He cannot make 2+2=53,567. He cannot make married bachelors. He cannot be a lying being that never lies. He cannot be always honest while sometimes lying. Nobody can do those things. It is just the simple nature of reality that these things are so, and God could do nothing to change it.

    2+2=4. That's just how it is. We didn't need God to invent that. It is just the nature of reality. God could not have possibly invented the relationship that 2+2=53,567.

    Mathematics is simply the expression of what intrinsically is. We do not need anybody to invent it. We just need people to discover the laws that intrinsically exist.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2022
  6. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    No, that is not substantially the same as mine. I told you where are thought the universe came from, the Big Bang. You will not tell us if you think the universe came from the Big Bang. Why not?

    We have very good evidence that there was a Big Bang. You have not made the slightest effort to tell us whether you think the universe was caused by the Big Bang.

    I am curious how a Humanist can have no answer when asked if he thinks the universe came from the Big Bang.
     
  7. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    You say this in response to, "But how do you know that God might be something different from how you define him?"

    Ah, so that is how you know that God is not something different from how you define it? Sounds like wishful thinkin to me. Just because you have an interest in God being a certain way does not prove God is that way.
     
  8. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    OK, then I guess you are an atheist. For you have said repeatedly that God cannot do things that are self-contradictory. You have admitted over and over that there are some things that limit God. He cannot do things that are self-contradictory. He cannot make 2 sided triangles. He cannot make married bachelors. He cannot lie and never lie. There are a lot of things that your God cannot do.

    Your God is subject to the restriction that prevents anybody from doing self-contradictory things.
     
  9. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    So far you have not listed one such reason. What reason do you have for believing the first cause of the universe had intent?
    Flapdoodle. There can be a sum total of whatever it is that is the root explanation of the universe that is more than just mechanical fact.
    And yet your God is restricted from making 2+2=53,567. Even if God wanted to make 2+2=53,567, your God could not do that. Therefore, by your definition, your God is not first cause.
     
  10. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +42,786
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Yes I can't.
     
  11. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,619
    Humanist
    Private
    Good .. we're making progress then.
    The 'Big Bang' commonly refers to the currently (mainstream) prevailing Cosmological model which has been specifically developed to allow study of our fundamental questions about the origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate of the universe.

    Your question however, conflates that type of model with 'the universe', (the latter of which is also a model .. of a different type).
    I've already provided my answer and also mentioned to you that my focus is from the scientific viewpoint and is not just some other belief-based religious opinion.
     
  12. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,619
    Humanist
    Private
    No .. you can!
     
  13. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,619
    Humanist
    Private
    Logic, (and thence mathematics), is 'the simple nature' of human minds.
    'Reality' is whatever we decide it means.
     
  14. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,228
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Very good.
     
  15. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,228
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    What is real is not subject to our concepts nor language.
     
  16. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,619
    Humanist
    Private
    Then what are we supposed to think you mean whenever you type the phrase 'is real'?

    If its not 'subject to our concepts or language', then why do you specifically, deliberately, use our concepts and language to tell us what is and isn't real?
     
  17. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I disagree. Objective reality exists. I cannot just decide whatever I want reality to mean and call that reality.
     
  18. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    On this we agree. Cheers!
     
  19. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Because that is the way humans communicate--with language.

    Objective reality exists. There are real things that are following real laws of nature.

    You and I (and AV1611VET and others) observe that reality. Being humans, we like to talk about what we observe. The primary means of doing that is by using language, by using words.

    And yes, language is limited. But humans find a way to use it and to communicate with others.

    All the words in the dictionary are defined with other words. And all those words are defined by still other words that are defined by still other words. But, no matter where you start, you always loop back around to find that the definition of words end up in an endless loop, such as A is defined with B, that is defined with C, that is defined with A, ad infinitum.

    But in spite of its limits, we still make language work.

    You cannot get from "Our language cannot express everything precisely" to "therefore reality does not exist."
     
  20. doubtingmerle

    doubtingmerle I'll think about it. Supporter

    +2,190
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    No sir or mam, the Big Bang was not simply developed to allow study of these things. We have been studying the origin of the universe for centuries. That study has led all of mainstream science to conclude that our observable universe began with an event commonly referred to as the Big Bang.

    I asked you a specific question:

    Do you or do you not agree that the universe almost surely began with the Big Bang?​

    I notice that you will not answer this specific question. Rather, you drone on about the need for study. Why study, if we know that, no matter what is found, we will just pass it off and ask for more study? Your refusal to answer tells me a lot about what is going on here. Please answer.

    For good measure, let me ask you a different question:

    Do you or do you not agree that humans evolved from other animals?​

    I really want to know where you are coming from. Because, from every thing I see, your posts are against humanism and the scientific view of origins. If I am mistaken, please let me know what you think about these things. Instead, you post things that seem to be opposed to mainstream science and refuse to answer simple questions about what you actually think.

    Huh? You say this in direct response to this quote, which lists only one question. And yet you somehow claim that the question in this quote conflates a model with the universe:

    I told you where are thought the universe came from, the Big Bang. You will not tell us if you think the universe came from the Big Bang. Why not?​

    We have very good evidence that there was a Big Bang. You have not made the slightest effort to tell us whether you think the universe was caused by the Big Bang.​

    There is only one question there--"Why not?" And I would like an answer. Why will you not tell us if you think the universe came from the Big Bang?

    If you answered, what was your answer? Do you or do you not agree that our universe almost surely began with the Big Bang?

    And once again you appear to be attacking Humanists for belief-based religious opinion. It is the same type of attack you have used multiple times. This totally misrepresents what humanism is about. I am really curious why your posts seem to have nothing but disdain for humanism, and yet you identify as a Humanist.
     
Loading...