Religion, crime and atheism

[terminalg92]

There's a lot here. My response, I should be clear, is mine. I can't speak for all Christians, nor do I want to try. Some Christians adopt views that I, as a Christian, find extremely problematic (such as a literalist reading of Genesis).

The first point I want to make is that I am not one who believes that an individual can be argued into (any) faith. That's precisely why it's called faith - there comes a point where one has to bridge a gap and accept, "I can't explain every detail, but I believe." Now, I recognize that that answer can be taken as a cop-out, and I don't mean it as such. I'm not saying that faith should be logically inconsistent or irrational - my approach is that faith needs to be as consistent and rational as possible. However, it would be a mistake to think that it can be entirely either. After all, if God (or Allah or YWHW or any other name given to a higher power by any religion) is completely within human ability to comprehend, then God is not worthy of worship. Faith and mystery interact in all religions, whether they admit it or not.

As far as your numbered responses:

1-2. No one should be forced to accept the claims of any religion. Period. The test of the validity of any claim to reality is dependent on several factors. For my theological tradition (Methodism - the school of thought founded by John Wesley), we approach the test of validity through four lenses. Scripture - this is the most important and foundational question - is it consistent with the overall message of the story of God's people; Reason - does it make sense within the framework of a Christian worldview; Experience - does it fit with my experience and the experience of others; and Tradition - how does it approach what the Church (big "C," meaning the whole of Christian faith over the centuries) has always lived and taught. That's how we approach it from within the system.

When discussing with someone who approaches faith from the outside, we have to define our foundational assumptions, which form the basis for our worldview. In a nutshell, those foundational assumptions are defined in the Nicene Creed. I usually boil them down to: There is a God who created (however we understand creation); God is love; God's love ultimately wins. Now, I cannot conclusively prove the existence of God (any more than one could conclusively disprove the existence of God). If one is not willing to grant the existence (or at least the possibility of the existence) of God, then all reality claims between that individual and a Christian become moot. And that's okay - again, no one should be forced to accept the claims of any religion.

3. The way the books of the Bible were "chosen" relied on several lines of thought. The closer to the time of Jesus a book was written, the more likely it was to be included. If a book was written by someone famous in the church - like a disciple or someone like Paul - it was more likely to be included. The most important test, though, was extent of use. That is, if a book was widely used by churches throughout the known world (Roman Empire), it was more likely to be included. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written in or right at the end of the first century, and were widely known and used in the early church, so they were included as "orthodox." The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas and others were not widely used and were written much later. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it goes deeper than "if it's old, it's true."

4. It's not as clear as you might think. Christian theologians have argued for centuries that God will ultimately "save" everyone, and there are some Scripture verses that seem to take that approach. It's too much to try to get into in detail in this post, but the idea of universalism is present in both Christian theology and Jewish theology.

5. You are right that there are other stories of "Jesus"-like figures that predate the Bible. However, there is something to be said for the fact that the stories of Jesus have endured for 2000 years and retained their power and influence. Others have not. The enduring impact of these stories speaks to a long tradition of credibility. I also find compelling the argument that the early Christians - Peter, Paul, etc. - who died because of their faith in Jesus would not have endured what they endured if they had known the stories of Jesus were definitely false.

These are not perfect answers - I don't know that perfect answers exist to your questions. I hope that maybe I was able to provide a little food for thought. Thanks for challenging me to think through some of these things again.

Great post, it's refreshing to see that you've thought through these various aspects of your faith very thoroughly...not surprising given that you're a pastor but nonetheless it's still good to see.

I didn't take your initial "faith" answer as a copout. In fact if I ever speak to anyone about religion from a more "evidence-based standpoint" and they simply say, "look I realize some of my beliefs are faith-based", then I'm fine with that. I don't personally have faith for things outside of observation, but I don't hold it against others if they want to. Where I tend to be more "argumentative" for lack of a better word is if someone denies that faith is even a necessary component of their religion, e.g. if they claim to have a fully evidence-based and logical approach to what their religion teaches and so forth. Religion does require faith, precisely because there are parts that can't be "proven" per se.

Regarding point 4, I'm not sure I can agree how credibly one should take this notion of "universalism" though. What I mean is the Christian Bible does have some verses that point in the "everyone will get saved" direction, but as you know there are hundreds more verses that really lay a stake in the ground about exactly what needs to be believed and the consequences if that doesn't happen. I would expect some overlap with Jewish Faith here. But I don't think there's nearly as much "wiggle room" or "overlap" when it comes to some other large religions. Either way to be honest this one does feel like a "convenient out" in some ways to believe in universal salvation. The very reason holy wars happen (and are happening today, are these substantial differences. Universalism also feels like it minimizes the importance of following a religion's precepts in order to be saved, if pretty much everyone is getting saved anyway. I think those who TRULY believe in both God and universalism are the ones who watch football on Sundays instead of going to church. I know you saved some details for brevity but I just wanted to comment on that.

Regarding similar stories predating Jesus, I'm not sure how many others have but the Hindu deity Krishna has survived the test of time as well. I believe he originated several centuries before Jesus. And similar to Jesus, Krishna was born of divine conception, healed the sick, raised the dead, etc. A Hindu friend of mine tells me Krishna could take Jesus in a cage match because Krishna has better "powers" such as being able to take many forms at once and lift mountains. Not sure if he's right about that or not haha.

And to @Boilermaker, that's right, Boiler Up!!

 

[qazplm]

No, it's what you're being hyper critical about. But, that is your norm. And their is a very distinct difference between accepting that evolution occurs within a species and whether it happens between species. I challenge you to show me proof of evolution between species.,

Hyper critical? Lol no just plain critical. You post a link that says there's no difference in the mechanisms and you read that as "the mechanisms are different." I mean if you want read up as down that's your Bobby Brown, but you don't know wtf you are talking about. The processes are exactly the same for "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution except one takes place on human life time scales and one takes place over longer time scales.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Hyper critical? Lol no just plain critical. You post a link that says there's no difference in the mechanisms and you read that as "the mechanisms are different." I mean if you want read up as down that's your Bobby Brown, but you don't know wtf you are talking about. The processes are exactly the same for "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution except one takes place on human life time scales and one takes place over longer time scales.

I would clarify that evolution takes place on a generational time scale. I think you're trying to say this, but it needs be pointed out that the scale of a human life could be several generations of moths, beetles, etc. If a beetle has a trait that makes it more likely to have offspring than a beetle without that trait, those genetics are more likely to be naturally selected. A good analogy for micro/macro would be an animated book where consecutive pages are nearly identical, but the first and last show a noticeable difference.

There is also evolution of groups/communities that may have been addressed earlier in this thread, but I have yet to read every post. Groups that show a strong cooperative spirit tend to progress quicker than groups laden with selfishness, a concept Ayn Rand obviously failed to grasp.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

There are two basic pillars of evolution that are total theory at this point. How did a "primordial ooze" generate the first single cell organisms, and then how did single cell organisms develop into multi cell organisms.
So the theory goes.
1. ooze
2. ?????
3. profit single cell
4. ?????
5. profit multi cell

But since steps 2 and 4 have NEVER been duplicated. It's still theory, and a far cry from airtight.

 

[qazplm]

There are two basic pillars of evolution that are total theory at this point. How did a "primordial ooze" generate the first single cell organisms, and then how did single cell organisms develop into multi cell organisms.
So the theory goes.
1. ooze
2. ?????
3. profit single cell
4. ?????
5. profit multi cell

But since steps 2 and 4 have NEVER been duplicated. It's still theory, and a far cry from airtight.

It's ALWAYS going to be a theory. Saying "it's still theory" is meaningless and shows you don't understand what a theory in science is. You are confusing it with a colloquialism. We have plenty of evidence that the four base molecules for DNA AGCT are present in meteorites for example.

But you are also confusing evolution, which describes how life evolved on this planet, with the question of how life started on this planet...two different things. It's possible we didn't start from ooze on this planet, but instead the relevant building blocks of life came from outer space. Mars could have had life before us for example before it lost it's atmosphere and water. The theory of evolution is a LOT farther along then the theory of how life started at all whether it is panspermia, abiogenesis, or some other cause.

 

[SDBoiler1]

What difference do you believe there is between "micro" and "macro" scales? All "macro" evolution is, is a series of "micro" evolutions over time. Sure, there are probably instances of "instant" evolution as well or evolutionary "jumps." But much of "macro" evolution is simply "micro" evolution plus time.

It takes a long time to go from a chimp to homo saipiens. You probably aren't going to observe that in a few lifetimes.

Don't you think that by now archeologists would have found the "missing link" if man truly did evolve from apes? Isn't it more plausible that man and apes started as different species to begin with?

One big problem I have with evolutionary theory is the idea that in nature things go from a state of disorder to order over long periods of time - just wait longer and it will change into what we predict it should. There is scant evidence that nature becomes more orderly as time increases. Nature does just the opposite of this. Things become less orderly over time.

 

[qazplm]

Don't you think that by now archeologists would have found the "missing link" if man truly did evolve from apes? Isn't it more plausible that man and apes started as different species to begin with?

One big problem I have with evolutionary theory is the idea that in nature things go from a state of disorder to order over long periods of time - just wait longer and it will change into what we predict it should. There is scant evidence that nature becomes more orderly as time increases. Nature does just the opposite of this. Things become less orderly over time.

There is no one "missing link." And there never will be. Because it's a continual process. So there are multiple links (which we have found) but creationists will always find a gap. If we found another, then where's the "missing link" between this new one and us. Most of the current missing links are so close to use that the only real differences are really small. There's not a ton of difference between neanderthals and homo saipiens and plenty of evidence that they could and did interbreed. That's a sign to me of a pretty darn close genetic relationship.

Why do man and apes share approximately 99% of the same DNA? Why do we see a progression from pure monkey/ape to beings like Australopithecus and homo erectus and homo habilis and neanderthal to beings like humans? Creatures that were clearly somewhere in between our final form and monkeys/apes?

What are you looking for that would satisfy you as a missing link, and why do these various creatures from the fossil record not satisfy that?

Entropy is a concept for a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. It has a constant infusion of energy. Thus, it is not required for things to go from order to disorder only. The universe is (probably) a closed system...thus it will, over time, go to disorder (heat death of the universe). The Earth will eventually (assuming it isn't swallowed up) once the Sun stops being a constant energy pump. But until then, it's an open system and the rules of entropy don't apply the same way in an open v closed system.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

But you are also confusing evolution, which describes how life evolved on this planet, with the question of how life started on this planet...two different things. It's possible we didn't start from ooze on this planet, but instead the relevant building blocks of life came from outer space. Mars could have had life before us for example before it lost it's atmosphere and water. The theory of evolution is a LOT farther along then the theory of how life started at all whether it is panspermia, abiogenesis, or some other cause.

I'm not confusing anything. Every evolutionary theory I've ever seen has life on earth starting from single cell organisms. Are scientists changing their minds since they can't get single cell organisms to evolve into multi cellular ones? I don't know. Don't really care, except to say that either way, *causation* is not well understood in either the case of evolution or global warming. And when it's not understood, the likelihood of making bad predictions based on these theories goes way, way up.

 

[qazplm]

I'm not confusing anything. Every evolutionary theory I've ever seen has life on earth starting from single cell organisms. Are scientists changing their minds since they can't get single cell organisms to evolve into multi cellular ones? I don't know. Don't really care, except to say that either way, *causation* is not well understood in either the case of evolution or global warming. And when it's not understood, the likelihood of making bad predictions based on these theories goes way, way up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution doesn't focus on how life started on Earth, it focuses on how life evolved on Earth. Two different questions. So no, scientists are not "changing their minds."

Scientists can't "create" gravity. Nor reconcile quantum mechanics with the macro world. Doesn't make the theories tied to those various areas of science weak or not "well understood."

Few theories of any kind have all the answers. What causes gravity? We still don't know. Is it a force carrying particle (graviton) or a force field that imbues gravity (Higgs) or is it tied to mass altering spacetime (Einstein). Or is it a bit of all three? But somehow, the theory (theories) of gravity don't have quite the same "attention" that evolution has, even though in some respects the latter has more evidence for the mechanisms than the former does.

And predictions? What bad predictions tied to evolutionary theory are there? What exactly about it do you question? What's your alternative?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

There is also evolution of groups/communities that may have been addressed earlier in this thread, but I have yet to read every post. Groups that show a strong cooperative spirit tend to progress quicker than groups laden with selfishness, a concept Ayn Rand obviously failed to grasp.

I think you've made a broad mischaracterization of Rand here. Sure, selfishness and ego are prevalent throughout her work, but generally focused on generation of ideas and advancements not for the sake of everyone, but for the sake of the challenge to that individual mind and for their own profit. Her point would be that there is no stronger motivation to develop one's own ideas than one's self (selfishness/ego/greed), and I think that's accurate. It's human nature. It's why Communist societies end up with corruption - people can't help but try to advance themselves over the commune because it's what we do. To deny that - to suppress individual greatness in the name of "the collective good" - is a travesty in the eyes of Rand.

/threadjack

 

[qazplm]

I think you've made a broad mischaracterization of Rand here. Sure, selfishness and ego are prevalent throughout her work, but generally focused on generation of ideas and advancements not for the sake of everyone, but for the sake of the challenge to that individual mind and for their own profit. Her point would be that there is no stronger motivation to develop one's own ideas than one's self (selfishness/ego/greed), and I think that's accurate. It's human nature. It's why Communist societies end up with corruption - people can't help but try to advance themselves over the commune because it's what we do. To deny that - to suppress individual greatness in the name of "the collective good" - is a travesty in the eyes of Rand.

/threadjack

I think Rand only grasps one portion of human nature, the desire to better one's self, but misses all the rest. Scientific studies show the benefits of altruism pretty strongly. I also am not sure there is no stronger motivation than individual greatness. There are too many big and small circumstances of folks sacrificing self for the collective whether it's a mother/father for a child, a sibling for another, or a citizen for his or her country, or someone who volunteers all their time at a not for profit or helping others.

I think her philosophy works better in a less tethered, complicated society. An agrarian society for example. Where one could truly master everything life needed on one's own. That's not modern society.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think Rand only grasps one portion of human nature, the desire to better one's self, but misses all the rest. Scientific studies show the benefits of altruism pretty strongly. I also am not sure there is no stronger motivation than individual greatness. There are too many big and small circumstances of folks sacrificing self for the collective whether it's a mother/father for a child, a sibling for another, or a citizen for his or her country, or someone who volunteers all their time at a not for profit or helping others.

I think her philosophy works better in a less tethered, complicated society. An agrarian society for example. Where one could truly master everything life needed on one's own. That's not modern society.

I think a lot of it is that people are wired differently. Some work well with others and thrive; some not so much. I don't think it makes one nor the other "evil" as she calls it, but instead it points to how we should foster a society that is tolerant of both, works to some extent for both, and allows for growth because of both individualism/profit/greed and altruism. I think we do OK with that here, though we started pretty far towards Rand and creep away over time (as is the necessary nature of things as your last paragraph points out).

 

[qazplm]

I think a lot of it is that people are wired differently. Some work well with others and thrive; some not so much. I don't think it makes one nor the other "evil" as she calls it, but instead it points to how we should foster a society that is tolerant of both, works to some extent for both, and allows for growth because of both individualism/profit/greed and altruism. I think we do OK with that here, though we started pretty far towards Rand and creep away over time (as is the necessary nature of things as your last paragraph points out).

Don't disagree...in fact I think our movement into techno-superpowerhood from an isolationist, agrarian nation has gone faster than our political/societal theories and beliefs could quite keep up with.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution doesn't focus on how life started on Earth, it focuses on how life evolved on Earth. Two different questions. So no, scientists are not "changing their minds."

Scientists can't "create" gravity. Nor reconcile quantum mechanics with the macro world. Doesn't make the theories tied to those various areas of science weak or not "well understood."

Few theories of any kind have all the answers. What causes gravity? We still don't know. Is it a force carrying particle (graviton) or a force field that imbues gravity (Higgs) or is it tied to mass altering spacetime (Einstein). Or is it a bit of all three? But somehow, the theory (theories) of gravity don't have quite the same "attention" that evolution has, even though in some respects the latter has more evidence for the mechanisms than the former does.

And predictions? What bad predictions tied to evolutionary theory are there? What exactly about it do you question? What's your alternative?

LOL ok...you just be as pedantic as you can be. As for gravity, not understanding causation actually is a big problem for scientists. They can't reconcile things that happen in the universe because of that problem. But they don't pretend to, unlike our friends pushing climate change or evolution agendas. I question everything about evolution outside the genetic code. I challenge humans evolved from monkeys, I challenge single cells became multi cells. Basically I challenge all these titanic jumps that aren't explained by natural selection. I challenge everything where causation cannot be demonstrated. I don't have a backup theory, I only ever asserted it wasn't airtight. I don't NEED a backup theory because I'm not pushing an agenda.

 

[qazplm]

LOL ok...you just be as pedantic as you can be. As for gravity, not understanding causation actually is a big problem for scientists. They can't reconcile things that happen in the universe because of that problem. But they don't pretend to, unlike our friends pushing climate change or evolution agendas. I question everything about evolution outside the genetic code. I challenge humans evolved from monkeys, I challenge single cells became multi cells. Basically I challenge all these titanic jumps that aren't explained by natural selection. I challenge everything where causation cannot be demonstrated. I don't have a backup theory, I only ever asserted it wasn't airtight. I don't NEED a backup theory because I'm not pushing an agenda.

lol I'm sure it seems "pedantic" to you, but that's probably because instead of being opening to learning you think everything is about "pushing an agenda." And when you clearly don't understand the difference between evolution and origin of life theory, because they are in fact different...when you push the same silly idea that scientists don't genuinely believe in climate change or evolution (even if wrong) but instead are "pushing an agenda" it becomes real hard to take you seriously. And when you accuse someone of listing facts and links and evidence to address those somewhat ill-formed questions as "pedantic"...well, it's a waste of time, at best.

When you expect "airtight" or otherwise it's "just a theory" then you are just playing at science, and not really participating in it.

And no, not understanding causation isn't a "big problem" for the idea that gravity exists as a fundamental force, and how it affects the universe...just like not knowing the exact mechanics of how cells evolved isn't a "big problem" for the overarching theory of evolution. Both are very strong, but incomplete theories...and that's about as good as it gets in science most of the time....but every theory gets refined, and tested, and made better over time...just as both these theories will as well...that doesn't make either of them "an agenda."

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

lol I'm sure it seems "pedantic" to you, but that's probably because instead of being opening to learning you think everything is about "pushing an agenda." And when you clearly don't understand the difference between evolution and origin of life theory, because they are in fact different...when you push the same silly idea that scientists don't genuinely believe in climate change or evolution (even if wrong) but instead are "pushing an agenda" it becomes real hard to take you seriously. And when you accuse someone of listing facts and links and evidence to address those somewhat ill-formed questions as "pedantic"...well, it's a waste of time, at best.

When you expect "airtight" or otherwise it's "just a theory" then you are just playing at science, and not really participating in it.

And no, not understanding causation isn't a "big problem" for the idea that gravity exists as a fundamental force, and how it affects the universe...just like not knowing the exact mechanics of how cells evolved isn't a "big problem" for the overarching theory of evolution. Both are very strong, but incomplete theories...and that's about as good as it gets in science most of the time....but every theory gets refined, and tested, and made better over time...just as both these theories will as well...that doesn't make either of them "an agenda."

so you think I've never heard those terms before? That I don't know what those terrible theories are that have every bit as much evidence going for them as an ancient alien theorist? please...And one of us is married to a PhD atmospheric scientist. and one of us just trots out the latest lwnj talking points on climate. I've read more papers, been to more conferences, heard more talks than you will in your entire life. So keep on hanging with the cool kids and be sure to sell your beach property for pennies on the dollar and buy a boat house!

Edit to add to the hilarity, the scientists behind panspermia actually agree with me! While accepting the fact that life on Earth evolved over the course of about four billion years, they say that the genetic programs for higher evolution cannot be explained by random mutation and recombination among genes for single-celled organisms.

 

[qazplm]

so you think I've never heard those terms before? That I don't know what those terrible theories are that have every bit as much evidence going for them as an ancient alien theorist? please...And one of us is married to a PhD atmospheric scientist. and one of us just trots out the latest lwnj talking points on climate. I've read more papers, been to more conferences, heard more talks than you will in your entire life. So keep on hanging with the cool kids and be sure to sell your beach property for pennies on the dollar and buy a boat house!

Edit to add to the hilarity, the scientists behind panspermia actually agree with me! While accepting the fact that life on Earth evolved over the course of about four billion years, they say that the genetic programs for higher evolution cannot be explained by random mutation and recombination among genes for single-celled organisms.

I have no idea if you've heard them or not, but you clearly don't understand them or at least you don't understand that they are separate from evolutionary theory.

Pretty sure atmospheric science has zero to do with evolutionary theory. You do realize that just being "a scientist" doesn't mean said scientist knows about every field of science right? Oh, wait, we've apparently moved to global warming now? Got it. Makes sense, it's pretty hard not to be a climate change denier when you are already an evolution denier...if you are anti-vax I think you win the trifecta.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I have no idea if you've heard them or not, but you clearly don't understand them or at least you don't understand that they are separate from evolutionary theory.

Pretty sure atmospheric science has zero to do with evolutionary theory. You do realize that just being "a scientist" doesn't mean said scientist knows about every field of science right? Oh, wait, we've apparently moved to global warming now? Got it. Makes sense, it's pretty hard not to be a climate change denier when you are already an evolution denier...if you are anti-vax I think you win the trifecta.

they are so not separate. Look up the key scientists behind these theories. Why did they even come up with them? They were trying to explain what evolution could not. Thanks for playing.

 

[qazplm]

they are so not separate. Look up the key scientists behind these theories. Why did they even come up with them? They were trying to explain what evolution could not. Thanks for playing.

why did they come up with evolution? lol

I'm sure you have a fascinating reason that we will all love to...hear about.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

why did they come up with evolution? lol

I'm sure you have a fascinating reason that we will all love to...hear about.

reading comprehension. F.

 

[qazplm]

reading comprehension. F.

you write such gobbledygook it's hard to pick out the 'sensical bits.

But here let me help with something, evolution tries to explain one thing and one thing only, how life evolved on this planet.

It does not try to explain how life started, it doesn't try to explain why life started, it doesn't care if God does or does not exist.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

you write such gobbledygook it's hard to pick out the 'sensical bits.

But here let me help with something, evolution tries to explain one thing and one thing only, how life evolved on this planet.

It does not try to explain how life started, it doesn't try to explain why life started, it doesn't care if God does or does not exist.

you don't understand. These scientists that came up with these theories you posted on the origin of life (panspermia, abiogenisis) were trying to figure out answers to why we have complex life on earth because evolution doesn't explain it. They understood this. I don't know why you are so married to this idea that evolution explains all and that I'm some kind of denier. It doesn't explain HOW complex life ended up in existence. No one has ever changed single celled organisms to anything other than single celled organisms.

 

[qazplm]

you don't understand. These scientists that came up with these theories you posted on the origin of life (panspermia, abiogenisis) were trying to figure out answers to why we have complex life on earth because evolution doesn't explain it. They understood this. I don't know why you are so married to this idea that evolution explains all and that I'm some kind of denier. It doesn't explain HOW complex life ended up in existence. No one has ever changed single celled organisms to anything other than single celled organisms.

FFS, evolution isn't SUPPOSED to explain that...it isn't TRYING to explain that...it's a COMPLETELY different area of study. Whether life started here, OR life was deposited here from space OR life started because God sprinkled single celled life onto the planet like powdered sugar on a donut does not matter. Evolution doesn't care about that, it's a theory about how life got from one-celled life to humans and dogs and lettuce and oak trees and platypuses and Hoosiers.

I LITERALLY said evolution explains one thing and one thing only in the post you are responding to. I mean it's literally the second sentence of what you quoted. So when you type that I believe evolution explains all, I'm left to wonder if you only read every other sentence, or every tenth word, or if you have a short term memory issue that causes information to leave your head every thirty seconds.

There are multiple theories on how to get from one cell to two cells but guess what microscopic animals don't tend to last long as fossils so kinda hard to build the same case for that process as more complex animals that do. But those theories are being worked on, and sooner or later one of them will emerge that explains how we get from one to multicell animals exactly. People like you probably won't be satisfied then because you think a theory has to be "100%" before it can be accepted (i.e. doesn't know how science works).

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

FFS, evolution isn't SUPPOSED to explain that...it isn't TRYING to explain that...it's a COMPLETELY different area of study. Whether life started here, OR life was deposited here from space OR life started because God sprinkled single celled life onto the planet like powdered sugar on a donut does not matter. Evolution doesn't care about that, it's a theory about how life got from one-celled life to humans and dogs and lettuce and oak trees and platypuses and Hoosiers.

I LITERALLY said evolution explains one thing and one thing only in the post you are responding to. I mean it's literally the second sentence of what you quoted. So when you type that I believe evolution explains all, I'm left to wonder if you only read every other sentence, or every tenth word, or if you have a short term memory issue that causes information to leave your head every thirty seconds.

There are multiple theories on how to get from one cell to two cells but guess what microscopic animals don't tend to last long as fossils so kinda hard to build the same case for that process as more complex animals that do. But those theories are being worked on, and sooner or later one of them will emerge that explains how we get from one to multicell animals exactly. People like you probably won't be satisfied then because you think a theory has to be "100%" before it can be accepted (i.e. doesn't know how science works).

you do understand some of these guys are saying complex life came from space right? I mean...wth are you bringing them up for? They ****ing don't agree with evolution as an explanation for complex life on this planet!!! omg they must be deniers!

 

[qazplm]

you do understand some of these guys are saying complex life came from space right? I mean...wth are you bringing them up for? They ****ing don't agree with evolution as an explanation for complex life on this planet!!! omg they must be deniers!

This is crazy. No, I don't understand that. I mean I literally said "OR life was deposited here from space" in the post you replied to and quoted, but I mean how could anyone view that as me understanding that one argument is that complex life came from space? You're right, I was way unclear there.

Of course, clearly they must be evolution deniers if they believe something about something completely unrelated to the theory of evolution, just like folks who believe in gravitons are also evolution deniers for believing in something completely unrelated to evolution. You got me again.

I think I'm going to wrap this up by explaining quantum mechanics to my cat...I think I'll have better odds of a meaningful conversation with her than with you.

 

[Beeazlebub]

you do understand some of these guys are saying complex life came from space right? I mean...wth are you bringing them up for? They ****ing don't agree with evolution as an explanation for complex life on this planet!!! omg they must be deniers!

You're trolling Qaz, right? Tell me you're trolling.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

This is crazy. No, I don't understand that. I mean I literally said "OR life was deposited here from space" in the post you replied to and quoted, but I mean how could anyone view that as me understanding that one argument is that complex life came from space? You're right, I was way unclear there.

Of course, clearly they must be evolution deniers if they believe something about something completely unrelated to the theory of evolution, just like folks who believe in gravitons are also evolution deniers for believing in something completely unrelated to evolution. You got me again.

I think I'm going to wrap this up by explaining quantum mechanics to my cat...I think I'll have better odds of a meaningful conversation with her than with you.

There's a difference between single cell life and multi cell, aka complex. Specifically the scientists behind panspermia completely disagree with evolution as an explanation for COMPLEX life on earth. AKA, life on this planet is not explained by THE EVOLUTION OF single cell organisms. but whatevs man. you really don't care. You just want to make sure everyone who doesn't believe this shit hook line and sinker is ****ing ridiculed.

 

[qazplm]

There's a difference between single cell life and multi cell, aka complex. Specifically the scientists behind panspermia completely disagree with evolution as an explanation for COMPLEX life on earth. AKA, life on this planet is not explained by THE EVOLUTION OF single cell organisms. but whatevs man. you really don't care. You just want to make sure everyone who doesn't believe this shit hook line and sinker is ****ing ridiculed.

No, right now, just you...just you.

 

[qazplm]

You're trolling Qaz, right? Tell me you're trolling.

It's just qaz.

Qaz is my father.

 

[ecouch]

Wouldn't this depend somewhat on how you define reality? I mean, if we're talking about reality in terms limited to observable scientific fact and theory, then you are probably correct about the Genesis accounts. However, there is more to reality than observable scientific fact and theory. The Genesis accounts absolutely do have foundation in reality - the reality of a group of people who had been exiled from their homeland and were seeking to both find a way to explain how they ended up in exile and adapt their system of religious beliefs to the new reality of life in exile.

How many alternate definitions of reality exist? Please define.

Please explain reality outside of observation and how your ability to observe phenomenon outside of reality is kept a secret from me.

Lets not confuse reality with supernatural beliefs. It is dishonest.

 

[ecouch]

5. You are right that there are other stories of "Jesus"-like figures that predate the Bible. However, there is something to be said for the fact that the stories of Jesus have endured for 2000 years and retained their power and influence. Others have not. The enduring impact of these stories speaks to a long tradition of credibility. I also find compelling the argument that the early Christians - Peter, Paul, etc. - who died because of their faith in Jesus would not have endured what they endured if they had known the stories of Jesus were definitely false.

#5 is an obvious fallacy. A huge fallacy.

Do you know why?

 

[ecouch]

The rest of this thread is nothing but theists trying to poke holes in science.

Boring. It is 2016, how are Purdue graduates still saying "just a theory" ?

Purdue is failing from the standpoint of being able understand basic science literature.

 

[kescwi]

How many alternate definitions of reality exist? Please define.

Please explain reality outside of observation and how your ability to observe phenomenon outside of reality is kept a secret from me.

Lets not confuse reality with supernatural beliefs. It is dishonest.

Define reality. Honestly, was a flat earth reality? Nope. Was Genisis creation a reality? Nope. Was earth as the center of the universe a reality? Nope...

We could go on and on and on here, but it seems you may not understand, your view on "reality" will be destroyed by history as surely as those and so many countless other realities were. 2000 years from today some young buck like yourself will look back at your "reality" and see you as a clueless dumbass.

But maybe some of us seek a "reality" beyond what your anger, limited views, whatever it is allow you. Maybe we see and seek an, as yet, unquantifiable/qualify able, understanding on some interconnectedness that goes beyond current understanding.

I will fight tooth and nail anyone, any group, any politician, priest... that says YOU need to see the universe the way I do, I enjoy new thoughts, am amazed by new discoveries, like reading/listening to the views you and others put up here but not seeing everything your way doesn't make me or anyone else a fool, outside of the eyes of you and those like you. I will fight equally fight tooth and nail against being forced to see the world through the angry lens you seem to see it.

 

[ecouch]

9

Define reality. Honestly, was a flat earth reality? Nope. Was Genisis creation a reality? Nope. Was earth as the center of the universe a reality? Nope...

We could go on and on and on here, but it seems you may not understand, your view on "reality" will be destroyed by history as surely as those and so many countless other realities were. 2000 years from today some young buck like yourself will look back at your "reality" and see you as a clueless dumbass.

But maybe some of us seek a "reality" beyond what your anger, limited views, whatever it is allow you. Maybe we see and seek an, as yet, unquantifiable/qualify able, understanding on some interconnectedness that goes beyond current understanding.

I will fight tooth and nail anyone, any group, any politician, priest... that says YOU need to see the universe the way I do, I enjoy new thoughts, am amazed by new discoveries, like reading/listening to the views you and others put up here but not seeing everything your way doesn't make me or anyone else a fool, outside of the eyes of you and those like you. I will fight equally fight tooth and nail against being forced to see the world through the angry lens you seem to see it.

I am not conjuring alternate definitions of reality. You also commit the same fallacy that I point out in the previous post. 9A built in definition. I hope that 2000 years from now a young buck will still be exploring reality. 2000 years from now we will have to examine the metaphysical role. Correct? I only care about truth.

Oh, and your 3 claims are answered with science.

The rest rest of your post is just name calling and anger.

 

[kescwi]

9


I am not conjuring alternate definitions of reality. You also commit the same fallacy that I point out in the previous post. 9A built in definition. I hope that 2000 years from now a young buck will still be exploring reality. 2000 years from now we will have to examine the metaphysical role. Correct?

The rest rest of your post is just name calling and anger.

9

Well, start with last first, sorry I'm not calling you any names, sorry, again, if you feel I am. You do seem, to me, to bring a good bit of anger at any discussion on religion, and to a point I can agree, there is plenty to be angry about when it comes to organized religion, but, and I confess I have really never given a shit about memorizing fallacies, which one are you guilty of when you seem to lump all religion together? Did I miss the post where you admit the contribution of religion, credit religion, praise religion... accept people can be religious and loath extremists? Do you accept a person can be seeking, in this short time we are here, truth, maybe a different one than you but just as honestly as you are, and at the same time condem crimes committed in the name of religion? Is discrediting anyone religious by lumping them in with terrorism, pedophilia, creationism... a fallacy?