Creationists' theory in detail

[DGS49]

For anyone interested in a quasi-scientific analysis of the Genesis-Bible-Creation story, the first couple chapters of Dennis Prager's book, "Genesis," is an excellent place to look.

The "scientific creation story/Evolution theory" that is being sold in schools these days is chock full of logical contradictions, omissions, and impossibilities. For an interesting five minutes of clarification..

Of course, the YouTube universe reacted to the publication of this video - how could it not? - but the points are worth pondering.

 

[ReinyDays]

Actually, biological evolution is among the most strongly supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Gravity is real, BTW.

Ouch ... strictly speaking, gravity is an effect of our frame-of-reference and the topography of our local timespace ... a pseudo-force ... so, no, it's not real ... sorry ...

Creationism is philosophy ... on what bases can we compare this to biological evolution ... except that (ha ha ha) folks who have believed in creationism, and strictly followed the Laws of God, were generally better citizens in our societies, and has better access to the more desirable mates within said society ... thus increasing and expanding the reproductive success of the creationist within that society ...

The heathen know their DNA is complete shit, mating with other heathen makes shit babies ... thus the heathen use the variety of birth control to insure their shit DNA dies with them, never to be passed on ... thank you ...

It takes faith to believe in creationism ... do you want a faithful mate to help raise the children? ... maybe you should look in churches instead of swinger bars ...

 

[Indeependent]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

Ask an obstetrician if the birth process came about through evolution.

I asked my plumber and he sided with evolution.

Ask an obstetrician.

And we're suppose to believe males and females also just coincidentally happened to mutate together at the exact same time, too, then as babies managed to crawl and find food and shelter and avoid getting eaten for a decade or so. lol the whole premise is preposterous as 'science', but it's what the commies and deviants want to sell. They also like to peddle 'social Darwinism' and other silliness, too, so we shouldn't be surprised they are confused by the differences between mutations and adaptations.

Excellent post!

 

[Indeependent]

There’s nothing wrong with being an atheist; just don’t spit in my face when I’m minding my own business.

 

[Hollie]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Actually, biological evolution is among the most strongly supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Gravity is real, BTW.

There is really no countering argument to be made that the best tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and the Scientific Method. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational and testable evidence of chemical and biological mechanisms that produce change over time. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as "gods." And this is how we begin to separate fact from partisan religious claims.

And as usual somebody comes along and tries to conflate genetic adaptation with mutation, not really knowing what they're talking about re empiricism or even what a chain of evidence is. Even your hero Dawkins ended up having to admit to that in his own 'debates'. He also thinks a little pedophilia is okay too, though, so you probably don't want to cite him outside your little tree house club.

Not having a science vocabulary might suggest you ask questions when you don't understand terms of science. Mutation and adaptation are terms of science. Evolution / adaptation in terms of fitness for survival has many, many examples. I'm not aware of any legitimate scientific organization that has actually conceded to supernaturalism as a viable component of science.

Your own babbling is nothing but 'supernaturalism', dumbass. the mathematical probabilities of an immense number of beneficial mutations, in the correct and exacting sequence, which is the only way 'evolution' can proceed according to what is known these days, are indeed in the realm of the purely magical. Being an illiterate who is just parroting some rubbish you personally like didn't make you right, no matter how much Mommy built up your self-esteem. The Peanut Gallery can amuse themselves with looking up the ratios of beneficial mutations to harmful mutations in real life. You aren't going to be happy with the facts of that reality, for sure.

The ID'iot creationist "the chances are just too great" as they flail away are really funny. Beneficial mutations are a meaningless term with regard to biological evolution and fitness for survival. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal. That is nonsense. Gene mutations are not necessarily defects but mutations. In case you missed it, that's why they're called "mutations".

How do you explain harmful mutations other than the "design" of incompetent "designer" gods?

CB102 Mutations adding information

Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis


Response:

1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
   • increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
   • increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
   • novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
   • novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

 

[luchitociencia]

It is all quite simple

Funny.

But you know cartoons are cartoons, and those are for infantile minds.

There is not a single observation of a species which have obtained MORE characteristics from one generation into another. (fish obtaining legs, fingers and nails, as an example)

Totally the contrary, the whole living species have been always losing physical and functional characteristics generation after generation.

With this factual reality observed in species, the theory of evolution is also found to be based on magic.

 

[Hollie]

It is all quite simple

Funny.

But you know cartoons are cartoons, and those are for infantile minds.

There is not a single observation of a species which have obtained MORE characteristics from one generation into another. (fish obtaining legs, fingers and nails, as an example)

Totally the contrary, the whole living species have been always losing physical and functional characteristics generation after generation.

With this factual reality observed in species, the theory of evolution is also found to be based on magic.

Your claimed "factual realities" are not factual at all. "Living species losing physical and functional characteristics" is totally unsupported and completely unsubstantiated. Define "more characteristics". What does that mean.

How does anyone respond to that type of bluster?

 

[Hollie]

Actually, biological evolution is among the most strongly supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Gravity is real, BTW.

Ouch ... strictly speaking, gravity is an effect of our frame-of-reference and the topography of our local timespace ... a pseudo-force ... so, no, it's not real ... sorry ...

Creationism is philosophy ... on what bases can we compare this to biological evolution ... except that (ha ha ha) folks who have believed in creationism, and strictly followed the Laws of God, were generally better citizens in our societies, and has better access to the more desirable mates within said society ... thus increasing and expanding the reproductive success of the creationist within that society ...

The heathen know their DNA is complete shit, mating with other heathen makes shit babies ... thus the heathen use the variety of birth control to insure their shit DNA dies with them, never to be passed on ... thank you ...

It takes faith to believe in creationism ... do you want a faithful mate to help raise the children? ... maybe you should look in churches instead of swinger bars ...

If you're spending time cruising churches for Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggert, pedo-priests, David Koresh types, there are better choices.

 

[alang1216]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

Ask an obstetrician if the birth process came about through evolution.

I asked my plumber and he sided with evolution.

Ask an obstetrician.

The only obstetrician I know believes in both God and evolution. Would a veterinarian give me a different answer from an obstetrician?

 

[alang1216]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

Ask an obstetrician if the birth process came about through evolution.

I asked my plumber and he sided with evolution.

Ask an obstetrician.

And we're suppose to believe males and females also just coincidentally happened to mutate together at the exact same time, too, then as babies managed to crawl and find food and shelter and avoid getting eaten for a decade or so. lol the whole premise is preposterous as 'science', but it's what the commies and deviants want to sell. They also like to peddle 'social Darwinism' and other silliness, too, so we shouldn't be surprised they are confused by the differences between mutations and adaptations.

If you want to criticize evolution you should at least understand what it is. You may also want to Google 'Genetic Variability' and 'Natural Selection' so you won't sound so ignorant about he subject.

 

[Hollie]

For anyone interested in a quasi-scientific analysis of the Genesis-Bible-Creation story, the first couple chapters of Dennis Prager's book, "Genesis," is an excellent place to look.

The "scientific creation story/Evolution theory" that is being sold in schools these days is chock full of logical contradictions, omissions, and impossibilities. For an interesting five minutes of clarification..

Of course, the YouTube universe reacted to the publication of this video - how could it not? - but the points are worth pondering.

I usually avoid YouTube videos for science lessons.

Curious, though. Are we to believe that the gods have been waiting until just recently to unleash the coronavirus on humanity? Or, is it more likely that the virus evolved from the biological soup of a Chinese fish and live animal market?

 

[there4eyeM]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Here is your evidence that you seek.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Lastly, thanks for the opportunity to get this message out. What you intended for evil, God has used for good.

There is most certainly a "middle ground". It is entirely thinkable that "matter" and "non-matter" are dependent, one on the other, for existence and are, therefore, one whole.

 

[ReinyDays]

If you're spending time cruising churches for Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggert, pedo-priests, David Koresh types, there are better choices.

Do you understand the joke Mel Brookes made when he listed Methodists as the single most vile, reprehensible and destructive group of people in the American West ... above Nazis, the KKK or Mexicans? ... didn't think you did ... they're actually sweet people and wholeheartedly commit to their marriages, "Until death do we part" ... ah, you have no understanding of evolution either and don't see the advantage of a faithful mate to raise children with ...

Go ahead and get a heathen mate to breed with ... spend the next 25 years in court fighting for child support ... there's some great genetics for ya ...

 

[Indeependent]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

Ask an obstetrician if the birth process came about through evolution.

I asked my plumber and he sided with evolution.

Ask an obstetrician.

The only obstetrician I know believes in both God and evolution. Would a veterinarian give me a different answer from an obstetrician?

Did this obstetrician tell you why giving birth disproves evolution?
Or is this physician too scared to go into the 20+ details of why every baby should die within 2 minutes of being born.

 

[ding]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Here is your evidence that you seek.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Lastly, thanks for the opportunity to get this message out. What you intended for evil, God has used for good.

There is most certainly a "middle ground". It is entirely thinkable that "matter" and "non-matter" are dependent, one on the other, for existence and are, therefore, one whole.

Nope. If matter proceeded from spirit it is one thing. If spirit proceeded from matter it is the other thing. Only two things. Only two options.

 

[ding]

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be.

This is of course their only genuine objection; they could care less about 'fact's, or 'science', they want to get rid of any restrictions on mindless self-indulgence and being penalized in any way for that indulgence; if it means butchering millions of babies or raping little boys on a whim, then they're especially enthusiastic about the agenda.

And God is willing to let them suffer their predictable surprises.

 

[luchitociencia]

Your claimed "factual realities" are not factual at all. "Living species losing physical and functional characteristics" is totally unsupported and completely unsubstantiated. Define "more characteristics". What does that mean.

How does anyone respond to that type of bluster?

The famous T-Rex is a species already suffering strong mutations. The huge but deformed teeth weren't functional enough but for eating dead animals, insufficient capacity to open the mouth to attack other living creatures of the same size. The deformed and small arms are a sure birth defect as well, and the losing of digits in the hands reveal exposure to chemicals, caused probably for meteorites falling in several opportunities for several years.

Eventually, as it is found in the vast fossil record in China, the huge teeth practically disappeared to become very small. Losing skin in the mouth area the T-Rex ended with a beak. Lost completely the arms. Lost the tail.

There you have, the T-Rex as a walking bird unable to fly, but a bird like you see today.

Study the horse. You have the same scenario. From five digits ending monodactyl, deformed teeth which forces its body to assimilate solely 25% of the ingested food, etc.

The theory of evolution was always nothing but a fraud. Just review the origin of the theory of evolution, it is laughable.

If you put the biblical genesis side to side with the evolution theory genesis, easily you find out the biblical genesis is millions times more credible.

The theory of evolution has changed its doctrines several times.

READ AND UNDERSTAND: The theory of evolution has changed its doctrines several times.

CHANGED, not updated but CHANGED.

In science when you CHANGE a doctrine of a theory, then the original theory becomes OBSOLETE and you are talking then about a NEW theory.

So far, I have counted about 5 theories of evolution, one changing the doctrines after the another, so, which one of them are you defending? Lol.

 

[there4eyeM]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Here is your evidence that you seek.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Lastly, thanks for the opportunity to get this message out. What you intended for evil, God has used for good.

There is most certainly a "middle ground". It is entirely thinkable that "matter" and "non-matter" are dependent, one on the other, for existence and are, therefore, one whole.

Nope. If matter proceeded from spirit it is one thing. If spirit proceeded from matter it is the other thing. Only two things. Only two options.

Says you.
Admittedly, not a very sophisticated response, but all that is deserved.

 

[Hollie]

Your claimed "factual realities" are not factual at all. "Living species losing physical and functional characteristics" is totally unsupported and completely unsubstantiated. Define "more characteristics". What does that mean.

How does anyone respond to that type of bluster?

The famous T-Rex is a species already suffering strong mutations. The huge but deformed teeth weren't functional enough but for eating dead animals, insufficient capacity to open the mouth to attack other living creatures of the same size. The deformed and small arms are a sure birth defect as well, and the losing of digits in the hands reveal exposure to chemicals, caused probably for meteorites falling in several opportunities for several years.

Eventually, as it is found in the vast fossil record in China, the huge teeth practically disappeared to become very small. Losing skin in the mouth area the T-Rex ended with a beak. Lost completely the arms. Lost the tail.

There you have, the T-Rex as a walking bird unable to fly, but a bird like you see today.

Study the horse. You have the same scenario. From five digits ending monodactyl, deformed teeth which forces its body to assimilate solely 25% of the ingested food, etc.

The theory of evolution was always nothing but a fraud. Just review the origin of the theory of evolution, it is laughable.

If you put the biblical genesis side to side with the evolution theory genesis, easily you find out the biblical genesis is millions times more credible.

The theory of evolution has changed its doctrines several times.

READ AND UNDERSTAND: The theory of evolution has changed its doctrines several times.

CHANGED, not updated but CHANGED.

In science when you CHANGE a doctrine of a theory, then the original theory becomes OBSOLETE and you are talking then about a NEW theory.

So far, I have counted about 5 theories of evolution, one changing the doctrines after the another, so, which one of them are you defending? Lol.

I'm actually never surprised at tbe conspiracy theories the more excitable of the religious types will launch into when they don't understand science.

 

[Picaro]

Actually, biological evolution is among the most strongly supported theories in science, much like the theory of gravity. Gravity is real, BTW.

Because you said so? You read that somewhere, and it's not anything you personally can prove or disprove. You know nothing about empiricism.

There is really no countering argument to be made that the best tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and the Scientific Method. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational and testable evidence of chemical and biological mechanisms that produce change over time. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as "gods." And this is how we begin to separate fact from partisan religious claims.

I've never said a word about 'Gods', and your cognitively dissonant babbling sounds much more like a chant than 'logic', as usual.

Not having a science vocabulary might suggest you ask questions when you don't understand terms of science. Mutation and adaptation are terms of science. Evolution / adaptation in terms of fitness for survival has many, many examples. I'm not aware of any legitimate scientific organization that has actually conceded to supernaturalism as a viable component of science.

Ah, now you're getting desperate, as usual for pseudo-intellectuals who aren't here to promote' science', just babble rubbish hoping to discredit Da Evul Xians, cuz they don't want you deviants and sociopaths to have any fun n stuff.

The ID'iot creationist "the chances are just too great" as they flail away are really funny. Beneficial mutations are a meaningless term with regard to biological evolution and fitness for survival. You hope to claim that beneficial mutations are directed in a "straight line diagram" toward achieving a predefined goal. That is nonsense. Gene mutations are not necessarily defects but mutations. In case you missed it, that's why they're called "mutations".

lol and here you leave no doubts you can't grasp even the most basic fundementals; and, you have zero idea of 'what I'm attempting to claim', since all I'm doing is pointing out how stupid your talking points are , and watching you flail away, completely oblivious to the real issues.

How do you explain harmful mutations other than the "design" of incompetent "designer" gods?

I don't, that's not my job here; my job is to point out you're a fake and a liar, and not the least interested in 'science'. The rest of your gibberish does nothing to rebut anything I said, except in your addled lil head.