Avatar image for sc
#24701 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyway, glad to see you around. I'm actually trying to find more time to read comics as well... I'm so behind that I now have a huge stack of trades to catch up on. Makes it hard to argue on the battles forum when you're hopelessly behind... hahah.

Thats great to hear and sure! Shoot me a PM later if you'd like!

Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#24702 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

The only way evolution works as a possibile explanation is if we ignore the only other possibility of what was there in the beggining, (God), but if we dont then evolution is completely debunked. To start proving evolution through the evidence one can come up with for it, you would first have to prove that something came from absolutley nothing at all. Of course, no evolutionist can nor will answer this question.

Not quite, scientific theories stand on their own merits, not by ignoring possibilities. Also you didn't establish what the 'explanation' is, in order to set a limit on possibilities. Also as earlier mentioned, evolution is not the claim that something came from absolutely nothing, nor distinguished what absolutely nothing is compared to regular nothing, and no 'evolutionist' would answer that question, because its not directly relevant to evolution. Then if some wanted to have that discussion, you'd have to have a conversation about what nothing actually is, its far from simple, as demonstrated earlier.

Then the last statement you make appears as rhetoric designed to "win" an argument by creating a criteria thats irrelevant to the opposing sides argument then creating a win condition tied to it. As an example, I could say that if anyone posts in this thread after me, it proves everything I said is absolutely correct. Its just human nature. If people disagree with me, and wish to challenge my points, if they reply here, it means I win!!! Except... such tactics are pretty transparent.

Moderator
Avatar image for j-man717
#24703 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:
@j-man717 said:

The only way evolution works as a possibile explanation is if we ignore the only other possibility of what was there in the beggining, (God), but if we dont then evolution is completely debunked. To start proving evolution through the evidence one can come up with for it, you would first have to prove that something came from absolutley nothing at all. Of course, no evolutionist can nor will answer this question.

Not quite, scientific theories stand on their own merits, not by ignoring possibilities. Also you didn't establish what the 'explanation' is, in order to set a limit on possibilities. Also as earlier mentioned, evolution is not the claim that something came from absolutely nothing, nor distinguished what absolutely nothing is compared to regular nothing, and no 'evolutionist' would answer that question, because its not directly relevant to evolution. Then if some wanted to have that discussion, you'd have to have a conversation about what nothing actually is, its far from simple, as demonstrated earlier.

Then the last statement you make appears as rhetoric designed to "win" an argument by creating a criteria thats irrelevant to the opposing sides argument then creating a win condition tied to it. As an example, I could say that if anyone posts in this thread after me, it proves everything I said is absolutely correct. Its just human nature. If people disagree with me, and wish to challenge my points, if they reply here, it means I win!!! Except... such tactics are pretty transparent.

You are either misinterpreting what I said and as a result of that misrepresenting what I said to make everything I said illogical, or you actually havent misinterpreted it at all and are just pretending that you have.

I already established what said explanation is, and honestly I didnt need to, as it was very obvious what it is to begin with to the point that I shouldnt have to explain it for anyone for anyone to figure it out.

Avatar image for dshipp17
#24704 Edited by dshipp17 (5479 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@dshipp17 said:

No, evolution does not explain what we see very well at all and nor do the other branches of science explain how we got here, outside of God;

You can believe that if you want.

again, I posted the following YouTube clip about a week ago that debunks your suggestion quite well; that's why you've been advised repeatedly to check out our side rather than generalizing all that volume of material by picking out people that you know don't have a science background but who are presenting our data; this is why you've been advised to approach it objectively; had you wanted to approach it objectively, you'd at least examine what our scientists are saying; taking this/your approach means that (shows me that) you're apprehensive of learning the information that might conflict with the worldview that you want to hold onto; it quite literally means that you're now just kidding yourself and you are basically in denial, as someone else suggested. I'm not saying this in gist or to mock or be argumentative towards you, I'm doing this because I truly care for your salvation, by operating as the Hand of God by God's grace and permission, of course.

Sorry, a YouTube video is not a substitute for an actual argument. Also, I'm not spending 2 hours of my life watching that stuff.

Except it is obvious and quite apparent and as clear from viewing my various posts that they do not only consist of posting Bible verses.

True, you also post Creationist videos. I already destroyed one of them that was claiming all sorts of nonsense about physics and astronomy. But that's as far as I'm going, because I have better things to do with my time.

I can't really do what you suggest, simply because our scientists use established scientific laws and theories to show that evolution is not a plausible explanation; they also point to all the piles of other evidence in other fields to show that God is the origin of the universe, earth, and life; but, you have to go off an expedition of exploration for yourself, largely, to discovery such, if you don't want to just take my word for it, especially in this context of debating you; if this isn't quite so apparent, I might just take your suggestion and publish a paper to get another PhD in a field besides a PhD in physics, which I'm looking into doing next; it's a great suggestion.

I dont need to go out and research any Creationist stuff because I already know enough of it to know it's all nonsense. Again, I already dismantled a good part of that one video you posted which was laughably bad. Then you said you hadnt even watched most of it. So, you post stuff you dont watch and then put the burden on others to watch it and just believe it. Sorry, no.

If you want to make arguments to support this stuff, then do it. No one is going to watch hours of Creationist stuff that's easily debunked just because you dont want to do the work yourself.

And like I said, if you had an actual argument against Evolution, then you could publish and make a name for yourself. That hasnt happened that I'm aware of. It also hasnt happened with any of the so-called Creationist "scientists". If they're all as bad as the one guy in the video I debunked, they're pretty terrible.

“I dont need to go out and research any Creationist stuff because I already know enough of it to know it's all nonsense. Again, I already dismantled a good part of that one video you posted which was laughably bad. Then you said you hadnt even watched most of it. So, you post stuff you dont watch and then put the burden on others to watch it and just believe it. Sorry, no.

If you want to make arguments to support this stuff, then do it. No one is going to watch hours of Creationist stuff that's easily debunked just because you dont want to do the work yourself.”

I say, yes, you do and you should go and research the latest findings on the creationist websites that are intended to be scholarly in nature. I'm into them and I haven't come close to anything that I could use to say that I've read and know all of the material there is to know and read there; so, I know that you haven't studied enough to reach a point where you can conclude that there is nothing more that you can learn; again, I noted that, during the few times that you did respond to something that I posted, in this context, you deliberately singled out material from the people who were presenting their own wording of scientific findings for the sake of discussion and illustration, where those people don't necessarily have a scientific background; from this process of selection, I can tell that you are reluctant to learn, explore, and research the material that is available in support of creationism, where the reasons have little to nothing to do with the scientific quality of that material; your aim seems to only be to propagate misinformation in support of a worldview that you want to hold dear; by that action, you're showing that it's not only based on science, but it's based on politics or in the cause of a specific agenda; this is not actually presenting objective fact, as you would know, of course, except you have to keep that impression going on in peoples' minds; thus, and hence, why that material scientific fact from scientists who accept creationism wouldn't be published in one of the more famous scientific journals or articles (e.g. contrary to the image being portrayed, this doesn't, at all, mean that the material should be dismissed out of hand as scientific nonsense); as said before and I repeat, this has nothing at all to do with the competency of the material being proposed to be presented in the journal, as you're clearly trying to imply with your claim that it's nonsense.

No, you didn't dismantle a good part of anything; what actually happened was that you skipped over a large swap of the video and gave it a shot on about 2 topics that you had background and familiarity; I also pointed out a couple of things, but you wanted to discuss what you pointed out; the case was made that the video was a patchwork of several/multiple topics from several different scientific disciplines; you then made a blanket claim that you could debunk everything in the video, if you wanted to, but I said that you couldn't; in one piece that you pointed out, the intent was to show that the moon was drifting away from the earth and how this could contradict the claimed age of the earth being 4.5 billion years old; his point was that that number/age was based on a great deal of speculation and that people should stop taking that number as solidly established as saying that someone is 42 years old; and that's very true; in the other case, you pointed out a few things, but you then refused out of hand and outright to even consider another scientific paper; the only selection criteria for your decision was that one scientist wants to believe evolution while the other accepts creationism; the concluding punchline was, no my friend, that's not how science works; you're supposed to explore all different options and possibilities; basically, the best you came away with was that the presenter might have been getting carried away with a point that was based on a recurring math error/mistake that consistently passed the peer-review process of several different creationist organizations; however, math aside, the fact that the moon is drifting away from earth and might have done so at drastically different rates in the past and how that could cast a shadow of doubt on the notion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is not scientific nonsense at all and is very much a noteworthy point in the case for creationism; I also pointed out an airplane that had to be hastily abandoned and being found under 250 feet of show about 70 years later and how the presenter was making the case that that discovery would undercut uniformitarianism, as a scientific hypothesis; that also isn't something that can be brushed away as scientific nonsense and it also represents a separate branch of science; as I said, the presenter discussed a patchwork of material.

Obviously, in this case, I watched this video and I explained before why I hadn't watched that video and how I didn't feel obligated to necessarily watch every video that I post. Ok, if you insist on my explaining my videos to help explain my point and to present the arguments; the case made in this particular video was that the most current scientific findings show that biological mutation overwhelmingly equates to biological degeneration, not biological evolution; this is not a statement of scientific nonsense but of scientific fact; unlike the video that you pointed out, this video was intended to discuss largely that single point and not a patchwork of material that includes several different scientific disciplines; you often misuse nonsense, even when you have no idea what it is that you're referencing.

Avatar image for sc
#24705 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

You are either misinterpreting what I said and as a result of that misrepresenting what I said to make everything I said illogical, or you actually havent misinterpreted it at all and are just pretending that you have.

I already established what said explanation is, and honestly I didnt need to, as it was very obvious what it is to begin with to the point that I shouldnt have to explain it for anyone for anyone to figure it out.

Or are you just claiming that in order to avoid addressing legitimate points raised against your points? To save face? To preserve the idea that evolution is dumb, because thats easier than trying to understand it sincerely?

If you do not agree with evolution, thats fine, I am not here to try and convince you otherwise, but your understanding of evolution isn't the same as someone who actually understands evolution.

Do you know their are studies on language, one interesting pattern is that some people can be prone to using absolute terms to give their points more weight than they actually have as a way to overcompensate. With that in mind, could you sincerely ask yourself, whether you might be guilty of that? Or that you might have preconceptions that are incorrect? That you might not actually understand evolution as well as you think?

I am not misrepresenting you, most of my comments have explained why your comments misrepresent evolution. Then I have even offered explanations as to why such a disparity may exist, as to validate your own personal experience whilst offering alternatives. If you feel misrepresented, do you think it might be because you feel evolution challenges your faith and that would make you feel uncomfortable, so you attempt to reject it at any cost.

Do you think its impossible for someone to believe in God and evolution?

Moderator
Avatar image for jexsu
#24706 Edited by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:

@jexsu said:

Religions of the World:

  1. Taoism: Shit happens.
  2. Hinduism: This shit happened before.
  3. Islam: If shit happens, take a hostage.
  4. Buddhism: When shit happens, is it really shit?
  5. 7th Day Adventist: Shit happens on Saturday.
  6. Protestantism: Shit won't happen if I work harder.
  7. Catholicism: If shit happens, I deserve it.
  8. Jehovah's Witness: Knock knock, shit happens.
  9. Judaism: Why does shit always happen to me?
  10. Hare Krishna: Shit happens Rama Rama Ding Dong.
  11. Atheism: No shit.
  12. TV Evangelism: Send more shit.
  13. Rastafarianism: Let's smoke this shit.
  14. Apatheist: I don't give a shit.

^ From an image I have but don't know where it came from/who made it. Thought it was humorous. I also added Apatheist, since I'm Apatheistic. Anyone else have one?

To add...

15. Old Norse Paganism: I'll fight your shit; to Valhalla!

Adding a couple more...

16. Jainism: I'm coming back as shit.
17. Syncretism: We're all shit!

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24707 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6080 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu:

For Jainism I'd say "Stop touching shit"

Syncretism YAY !!!

Avatar image for jexsu
#24708 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for j-man717
#24709 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:
@j-man717 said:

You are either misinterpreting what I said and as a result of that misrepresenting what I said to make everything I said illogical, or you actually havent misinterpreted it at all and are just pretending that you have.

I already established what said explanation is, and honestly I didnt need to, as it was very obvious what it is to begin with to the point that I shouldnt have to explain it for anyone for anyone to figure it out.

Or are you just claiming that in order to avoid addressing legitimate points raised against your points? To save face? To preserve the idea that evolution is dumb, because thats easier than trying to understand it sincerely?

If you do not agree with evolution, thats fine, I am not here to try and convince you otherwise, but your understanding of evolution isn't the same as someone who actually understands evolution.

Do you know their are studies on language, one interesting pattern is that some people can be prone to using absolute terms to give their points more weight than they actually have as a way to overcompensate. With that in mind, could you sincerely ask yourself, whether you might be guilty of that? Or that you might have preconceptions that are incorrect? That you might not actually understand evolution as well as you think?

I am not misrepresenting you, most of my comments have explained why your comments misrepresent evolution. Then I have even offered explanations as to why such a disparity may exist, as to validate your own personal experience whilst offering alternatives. If you feel misrepresented, do you think it might be because you feel evolution challenges your faith and that would make you feel uncomfortable, so you attempt to reject it at any cost.

Do you think its impossible for someone to believe in God and evolution?

-No

-Ok

-I can see why you might think thats what I am doing, but I can assure you that its not.

The bottom line is: All definitions/branches of evolution share the exact same basis, that being that something came from absolute nothingness. As far as the human mind can comprehend, that concept is nothing more than a paradox. Until you can prove otherwise, you are in denial of facts, as well as all of the evidence of intelligient design since evolution's basis is the exact opposite basis of intelligient design's.

Avatar image for sc
#24710 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

-No

-Ok

-I can see why you might think thats what I am doing, but I can assure you that its not.

The bottom line is: All definitions/branches of evolution share the exact same basis, that being that something came from absolute nothingness. As far as the human mind can comprehend, that concept is nothing more than a paradox. Until you can prove otherwise, you are in denial of facts, as well as all of the evidence of intelligient design since evolution's basis is the exact opposite basis of intelligient design's.

Cool cool and thank you for acknowledging that possibility, I'll take you on your word.

Also, your bottom line is categorically false. By definition, and scientific consensus, many aspects and definitions of evolution, have nothing to do with abiogenesis. The only way, we could try to accept your bottom line, is if we dilute the concept of evolution so much, and we conflate it with so many other ideas, that words effectively lose meaning.

Human minds have differing levels of comprehension. We have attempted to discuss 'nothing' for example, you still haven't answered my questions regarding your views of it. Instead of using the term nothing, you opted to use the term 'absolutely' nothing. I asked you for an example of absolute nothing in reality, you haven't given me an example. So you might be guilty of intuitively assuming that nothing is "empty space" or "a dark emptiness" not realizing that just because you imagine an idea, doesn't mean that idea has a basis in reality. Until an individual actually understands that reality has no obligation to adhere to the intuition and assumptions of individuals, or our senses, then statements about 'something' and 'nothing' are empty.

I don't have to prove otherwise, because I have undermined your assertion and statements by pointing out the flaws with them. Its like if I continued to assert that there is tree bigger than the universe and then claimed you haven't proved otherwise. You don't have to try and prove otherwise... you can just point out the flaws in my reasoning and statement.

Along the same lines, what facts am I in denial of? You haven't established facts, and I also don't even know how you define a fact and whether your definition is robust enough to be considered reliable. Likewise, you also do not know whether by understanding and definition of fact is. Hence why as mentioned earlier, common ground on certain topics, like language is important to facilitate meaningful dialogue. So how would you, in your own words, define a fact, so we can test whether this conversation might have merit... or whether you may just be the kind of person who thinks all their opinions are fact, by default and all peoples opposing arguments are wrong by virtue of not being yours? I'll give my definition in my own words next reply.

Also you didn't answer my question, if you think its impossible for someone to believe in God and evolution. Thats an even faster way to address all this, because if you think it is impossible, then now not only are you disagreeing with people who agree with evolution, but you also disagree with other religious people who do believe in God. It complicates the dynamic of two sides, one wrong, one right, and often individuals who are anti evolution, often are that way because they view it as a matter of sides, not realizing there is much more nuance. Often nuance is required to actually understand the complexity and depth of evolution, language, social interactions, so on.

Have to say am enjoying this conversation too. So thank you.

Moderator
Avatar image for willpayton
#24711 Posted by willpayton (22081 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:
@sc said:

The bottom line is: All definitions/branches of evolution share the exact same basis, that being that something came from absolute nothingness. As far as the human mind can comprehend, that concept is nothing more than a paradox. Until you can prove otherwise, you are in denial of facts, as well as all of the evidence of intelligient design since evolution's basis is the exact opposite basis of intelligient design's.

I'm going to jump in on this...

Really... you dont seem to even understand the basic premises of Evolution, so it's kind of ridiculous to be criticizing it. In fact, I created an entire thread about Evolution for just this type of situation. Go here:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/off-topic-5/the-evidence-for-evolution-1726540/

However, just to quickly shoot down your claim that evolution says that "something came from absolute nothingness". This is so untrue that one has to wonder if you're just trolling. The core basis of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is that species evolve over time as a result of environmental pressures and the workings of inheritance and mutation. Notice nowhere in there did I say anything about something coming from nothing. You seem to be confusing this with either 1) abiogenesis, or 2) the Big Bang theory. Unfortunately, if either of those is true, you're still wrong because neither of those say that something came from nothing.

Please educate yourself about a subject before you go somewhere to tell people that they are completely wrong about that subject. It wont go well for you.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24712 Posted by willpayton (22081 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

30 scientists in 2018 publish a paper that reveals that evolution is not a known source of information creation.

Peer Reviewed Paper

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798

...

Is that good enough?

Well... no.

Your claim was that nobody knows that information creation occurs through evolution, so having 30 people say otherwise... falls very much short. In this case, I dont even think all 30 are actual scientists... but whatever, we'll ignore that.

The other problem with that article is that it's very dubious. The authors are talking about life coming to Earth from space, which is already bad enough. But they further seem to be suggesting some crazy stuff like that octopuses came from space... which is just hilarious and insane. Sorry, this paper doesnt have much credibility to start with, and I'll leave it to actual biologists to tear it to pieces. For the sake of this discussion, it really proves nothing, and only really gave me a good laugh when I got to the part about octopuses being alien invaders... LOL.

And even if DNA and octupuses fell from the skies, that in no way supports any claims about an intelligent agent. I can post news reports of frogs and fish literally raining from the sky... but what would that prove?

@willpayton:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/

Ok, so again you have the same problem as above... you have not met the burden of proof of proving that no one on the planet knows how evolution creates information. And likely one that you will never meet... because it's impossible.

But, on to the problem with this particular article... actually this one is very interesting, but I dont think you read it. I didnt read the whole thing, but I did read enough to know what they're talking about, and it doesnt support what you're claiming. In fact, it completely shoots down the notion that any "intelligent agent" was needed for the creation of self-replicating DNA.

The paper is talking about certain specific proposed solutions for how evolution worked to generate the first DNA. It says that we really dont understand them fully and hence we cant accept any of them as a valid cause. That's fine, nothing wrong with that. The specific cause might be an existing idea or a new idea, but we're talking about the details here... and not the general idea that evolution caused the creation of DNA. THAT, after all, is what we're discussing. I've never said that anyone knows the specifics and details of how abiogenesis happened. I only said that it's known that evolution can create information in such a system. And... the authors back this up and outright say that evolution is the cause of DNA...

From your paper:

"So it does appear that selection for translation error minimization played a substantial role in the evolution of the code to the standard form. "

"it appears essentially certain that the evolution of the code involved some combination of frozen accident with selection for error minimization."

So the authors of your paper clearly state that DNA evolved, with no real uncertainty. They are only saying that we dont know the specific mechanisms that evolution employed, which is totally correct. They said as much in the introduction:

"A real understanding of the code origin and evolution is likely to be attainable only in conjunction with a credible scenario for the evolution of the coding principle itself and the translation system."

In an unfortunate turn of events, the article you posted seems to have disproved your claim.

Related image

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24713 Edited by SpareHeadOne (6080 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

i am correct.

My claim is that there is only one known cause for specific information that codes for a specific purpose; Intelligence.

My claim is that abiogenesis (or "evolution") is a proposed scenario but not a scenario known to produce the effects required. I understand that I can't prove what people know.

Do you know that "evolution" is a definite cause for codes? Or do you know that it is only a proposed cause?

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24714 Edited by SpareHeadOne (6080 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

Your Quotes from the paper...

..."""A real understanding of the code origin and evolution is likely to be attainable only in conjunction with a credible scenario for the evolution of the coding principle itself and the translation system."""

This quote reveals that we have not yet attained a real understanding of the code origin and evolution. Therefore "evolution" Is not a cause known to produce code.

..."""So it does appear that selection for translation error minimization played a substantial role in the evolution of the code to the standard form. """"

At this point there is already a code in existence. Therefore it has no bearing on our discussion.

""""it appears essentially certain that the evolution of the code involved some combination of frozen accident with selection for error minimization."""

Same as the above. This is after the code exists.

You've made some mistakes.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24715 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:
@j-man717 said:

-No

-Ok

-I can see why you might think thats what I am doing, but I can assure you that its not.

The bottom line is: All definitions/branches of evolution share the exact same basis, that being that something came from absolute nothingness. As far as the human mind can comprehend, that concept is nothing more than a paradox. Until you can prove otherwise, you are in denial of facts, as well as all of the evidence of intelligient design since evolution's basis is the exact opposite basis of intelligient design's.

Cool cool and thank you for acknowledging that possibility, I'll take you on your word.

Also, your bottom line is categorically false. By definition, and scientific consensus, many aspects and definitions of evolution, have nothing to do with abiogenesis. The only way, we could try to accept your bottom line, is if we dilute the concept of evolution so much, and we conflate it with so many other ideas, that words effectively lose meaning.

Human minds have differing levels of comprehension. We have attempted to discuss 'nothing' for example, you still haven't answered my questions regarding your views of it. Instead of using the term nothing, you opted to use the term 'absolutely' nothing. I asked you for an example of absolute nothing in reality, you haven't given me an example. So you might be guilty of intuitively assuming that nothing is "empty space" or "a dark emptiness" not realizing that just because you imagine an idea, doesn't mean that idea has a basis in reality. Until an individual actually understands that reality has no obligation to adhere to the intuition and assumptions of individuals, or our senses, then statements about 'something' and 'nothing' are empty.

I don't have to prove otherwise, because I have undermined your assertion and statements by pointing out the flaws with them. Its like if I continued to assert that there is tree bigger than the universe and then claimed you haven't proved otherwise. You don't have to try and prove otherwise... you can just point out the flaws in my reasoning and statement.

Along the same lines, what facts am I in denial of? You haven't established facts, and I also don't even know how you define a fact and whether your definition is robust enough to be considered reliable. Likewise, you also do not know whether by understanding and definition of fact is. Hence why as mentioned earlier, common ground on certain topics, like language is important to facilitate meaningful dialogue. So how would you, in your own words, define a fact, so we can test whether this conversation might have merit... or whether you may just be the kind of person who thinks all their opinions are fact, by default and all peoples opposing arguments are wrong by virtue of not being yours? I'll give my definition in my own words next reply.

Also you didn't answer my question, if you think its impossible for someone to believe in God and evolution. Thats an even faster way to address all this, because if you think it is impossible, then now not only are you disagreeing with people who agree with evolution, but you also disagree with other religious people who do believe in God. It complicates the dynamic of two sides, one wrong, one right, and often individuals who are anti evolution, often are that way because they view it as a matter of sides, not realizing there is much more nuance. Often nuance is required to actually understand the complexity and depth of evolution, language, social interactions, so on.

Have to say am enjoying this conversation too. So thank you.

Well my only definition of "nothing" is the only definition it can logically have: The lack of anything, anything at all.

Well you have continously made the claim that there are multiple branches/definitions of the word "evolution" and have done so in order to point out that there is more than one definition for the word evolution, as each meaning comes from each different branch of evolution.

However, that isnt the problem here, but rather that you insist that each different branch of evolution doesnt share the same basis, (that basis being what I said it is in my previous comments)

So it would very much help if you could give a reference to where your getting the info that these different branches/kinds of evolution share different basis'. Until you can provide a reference for that, many, if not all of your claims will remain irrelevant and unproven.

Well to answer the question yes I do believe its possible for one to believe in both, however I would imagine that most people dont believe in both. Why exactly does this matter?

Avatar image for bullpr
#24716 Posted by BullPR (5905 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717: if you really want to have a scientific discussion about Evolution, you should post your "proofs (Ahahahaha)" in the adequate thread: here:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/off-topic-5/the-evidence-for-evolution-1726540/

Avatar image for sc
#24717 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

Well my only definition of "nothing" is the only definition it can logically have: The lack of anything, anything at all.

Well you have continously made the claim that there are multiple branches/definitions of the word "evolution" and have done so in order to point out that there is more than one definition for the word evolution, as each meaning comes from each different branch of evolution.

However, that isnt the problem here, but rather that you insist that each different branch of evolution doesnt share the same basis, (that basis being what I said it is in my previous comments)

So it would very much help if you could give a reference to where your getting the info that these different branches/kinds of evolution share different basis'. Until you can provide a reference for that, many, if not all of your claims will remain irrelevant and unproven.

Well to answer the question yes I do believe its possible for one to believe in both, however I would imagine that most people dont believe in both. Why exactly does this matter?

You haven't explained why you distinguished nothing from absolutely nothing, nor more importantly given an example of nothing actually existing. This is important, because it speaks to your understanding and claim that people who believe in evolution believe that something came from nothing... but thats not even something that people who understand the Big Bang theory think. At the moment you don't seem to acknowledge the difference between nothing as a concept that naturally accompanies something, and an actual physical property that exists in reality. We also do not know if you are necessarily credible or competent in gauging whether something is logical. Neither have I necessarily, but I am addressing points that have gone unanswered as well as offered explanations that have also gone unaddressed.

Thats not the basis though... if you think that, then thats where you will find heavy conflict.

Well how about this, since I am lazy, you are the one who is making the claim, I am rejecting it, where is your source that the basis of evolution is that "something comes from nothing" should be easier for you since you believe thats the basis for evolution, where as I think the term has different definitions. Also if you can't, you will have to pay everyone 200 dollars and bake all of CV a cake, since apparently if we assert as such, it will mean as much right?

I was just curious. Many anti evolution people who are religious create a false dichotomy between evolution and their beliefs, as if to be open to the idea of evolution is to go against their religion or religious beliefs. Regardless of where our conversation goes, I think its great you are open to the idea that other religious individuals can believe in both.

Also, do you think its important for a person to have a good understanding of subject matter when discussing it? Like even if you don't believe in evolution, do you think, if I asked you some questions about what someone who does 'believe' in evolution, you would be able to answer with how you think they would answer?

Moderator
Avatar image for j-man717
#24718 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:
@j-man717 said:

Well my only definition of "nothing" is the only definition it can logically have: The lack of anything, anything at all.

Well you have continously made the claim that there are multiple branches/definitions of the word "evolution" and have done so in order to point out that there is more than one definition for the word evolution, as each meaning comes from each different branch of evolution.

However, that isnt the problem here, but rather that you insist that each different branch of evolution doesnt share the same basis, (that basis being what I said it is in my previous comments)

So it would very much help if you could give a reference to where your getting the info that these different branches/kinds of evolution share different basis'. Until you can provide a reference for that, many, if not all of your claims will remain irrelevant and unproven.

Well to answer the question yes I do believe its possible for one to believe in both, however I would imagine that most people dont believe in both. Why exactly does this matter?

You haven't explained why you distinguished nothing from absolutely nothing, nor more importantly given an example of nothing actually existing. This is important, because it speaks to your understanding and claim that people who believe in evolution believe that something came from nothing... but thats not even something that people who understand the Big Bang theory think. At the moment you don't seem to acknowledge the difference between nothing as a concept that naturally accompanies something, and an actual physical property that exists in reality. We also do not know if you are necessarily credible or competent in gauging whether something is logical. Neither have I necessarily, but I am addressing points that have gone unanswered as well as offered explanations that have also gone unaddressed.

Thats not the basis though... if you think that, then thats where you will find heavy conflict.

Well how about this, since I am lazy, you are the one who is making the claim, I am rejecting it, where is your source that the basis of evolution is that "something comes from nothing" should be easier for you since you believe thats the basis for evolution, where as I think the term has different definitions. Also if you can't, you will have to pay everyone 200 dollars and bake all of CV a cake, since apparently if we assert as such, it will mean as much right?

I was just curious. Many anti evolution people who are religious create a false dichotomy between evolution and their beliefs, as if to be open to the idea of evolution is to go against their religion or religious beliefs. Regardless of where our conversation goes, I think its great you are open to the idea that other religious individuals can believe in both.

Also, do you think its important for a person to have a good understanding of subject matter when discussing it? Like even if you don't believe in evolution, do you think, if I asked you some questions about what someone who does 'believe' in evolution, you would be able to answer with how you think they would answer?

Well I was adding in the word "absolutely" to further make what I meant more obvious. For example, when people say "no" to someone about something, it doesnt quite emphasize that they mean to say no to something as strongly as saying "absolutley no" instead.

Meaning "absolutley nothing"/"nothing"/"absolute nothingness"/"nothingness" all mean the exact same thing.

Well then I will search for a reliable source or reference stating that the basis for evolution and the big bang theory is indeed that something spawned from absolute nothingness/nothing at all.

However you are yet to fill in on your end, as you are yet to provide any evidence of the different definitions of evolution having differing basis.

What exactly are you asking this for? To answer the question though, yes of course its important for someone to understand subject matter, otherwise they wouldnt know what anyone is talking about in the discussion.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24719 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6080 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717: @sc:

6 meanings of "Evolution"

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24720 Posted by willpayton (22081 posts) - - Show Bio

Do you know that "evolution" is a definite cause for codes? Or do you know that it is only a proposed cause?

Yes I do know that. Hence your claim that it's not a known cause is false. This is true whether we're talking about the evolution of the first DNA or the later evolution of species. While the specific details and processes are different, the general idea is the same.

@willpayton:

Your Quotes from the paper...

..."""A real understanding of the code origin and evolution is likely to be attainable only in conjunction with a credible scenario for the evolution of the coding principle itself and the translation system."""

This quote reveals that we have not yet attained a real understanding of the code origin and evolution. Therefore "evolution" Is not a cause known to produce code.

That's not true. Like I said previously, I agree that the paper said that the authors dont have a full understanding of the processes. However, that's much different from them knowing that evolution was the factor. For example, I dont have a full understanding of how a car engine works. I certainly could not create one from scratch. But I do know for a fact that it works through internal combustion of fuel.

..."""So it does appear that selection for translation error minimization played a substantial role in the evolution of the code to the standard form. """"

At this point there is already a code in existence. Therefore it has no bearing on our discussion.

The bearing is it clearly shows that the authors believe that the code was created through evolution. That is exactly what we were discussing. I said evolution is a known cause, you said it's not, and your paper shows that the writers pretty much assume with no real question that it is in fact a cause.

""""it appears essentially certain that the evolution of the code involved some combination of frozen accident with selection for error minimization."""

Same as the above. This is after the code exists.

My reply is also the same as above. They're not even questioning whether evolution at play, they assume it to be true and they assume that the reader knows that. They're only questions are about the specific mechanisms... and in this case they even say that this one mechanism is "essentially certain" to be involved in the evolution of the early DNA code.

You've made some mistakes.

Inconceivable

Avatar image for willpayton
#24721 Posted by willpayton (22081 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717: @sc:

6 meanings of "Evolution"

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

I would add that evolution in biology usually falls into 2 categories:

1. evolution as the FACT that certain species have evolved from earlier forms. For example, humans evolved from earlier non-human forms, that's a fact in science.

2. Evolution as the THEORY that says that organisms evolve over time due to selection, reproduction, mutation, etc. A theory is an overall explanation that encompasses many facts, laws, hypotheses, etc.

As far as the bolded part, I would take exception because the "appearance of design" is a subjective notion that some people have, but is not a scientific idea and almost all scientists would say there's no actual appearance of design.

@bullpr said:

@j-man717: if you really want to have a scientific discussion about Evolution, you should post your "proofs (Ahahahaha)" in the adequate thread: here:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/off-topic-5/the-evidence-for-evolution-1726540/

Indeed, that thread was created specifically for this type of discussion.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24723 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6080 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

A known cause is something known to have definitely produced the effect in question.

Yes?

Avatar image for sc
#24724 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:

Meaning "absolutley nothing"/"nothing"/"absolute nothingness"/"nothingness" all mean the exact same thing.

Well then I will search for a reliable source or reference stating that the basis for evolution and the big bang theory is indeed that something spawned from absolute nothingness/nothing at all.

However you are yet to fill in on your end, as you are yet to provide any evidence of the different definitions of evolution having differing basis.

What exactly are you asking this for? To answer the question though, yes of course its important for someone to understand subject matter, otherwise they wouldnt know what anyone is talking about in the discussion.

Well I mean sure, I could already infer that, emphasis and exaggeration, but it also creates a scale, since the word is a modifier but it can also indicate that a person believes an actual presence or quantity exists, because it can be reduced or increased. This is to say, the language you use when it comes to nothing, seems to suggest you think its an actual physical reality, so I would like you to give an example. If you believe that people who agree with evolution think, that something comes from nothing, you could give an example of its existence? Okay hear me out, is it possible? That the way you imagine, think and consider 'nothing' is actually a bit confused and off? Earlier you said its simple... but that might be a mental trap you have fallen into. To put it another way, for the majority of my life, my own understanding and perception of the idea of nothing was wrong... I mean, I had a general broad understanding, of the idea, but I never really grasped how much more abstract it was, and I was giving it properties it didn't actually exist.

I already provided evidence of the different definitions of evolution, which you didn't seem to realize "Well if evolution has multiple definitions, then I guess I was just referring to one of many." how can you go from not knowing this, to being sufficiently versed in the idea to make such an assertion? To be blunt, I am not exactly even sure what sort of evidence you are asking me to produce? Are you looking for me to give you an etymological breakdown of the word evolution? The main crux of the matter is that you believe that people who agree with evolution, think that something came from nothing... as someone who agrees with evolution, knows it has multiple definitions, has studied it, and is familiar with arguments against it and peoples misperceptions about it... i can tell you, thats not what we think. To be clear, I am not saying you should just believe me and change your mind. I am trying to have a genuine conversation with you. Also, I could be wrong. I acknowledge that. I would like to know, if you acknowledge the possibility that your understanding of evolution, and claims like "they think that something came from nothing" is incorrect. Like even just hypothetically, can you imagine that?

I am asking because I think I have a reasonable understanding of the mindset of people who don't believe in evolution. I would like to see if you have a reasonable understanding of people who think evolution is true, because if you do, then maybe you could change my mind on all this? Like are you familiar with the missing link? Have we found the missing link yet? I mean we haven't right? Pretty obvious evolution is fake then. Now how do you think someone who 'believes' in evolution would argue against that claim?

Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#24725 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator
Avatar image for j-man717
#24726 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@spareheadone said:

@j-man717: @sc:

6 meanings of "Evolution"

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Well then, none of the definitions you provided above actually say that God/a higher plane being is or isnt involved in any of the above theorys.

So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#24727 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6080 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc:

No worries.

Do we know if materialistic causes has ever created code that codes for something other than itself?

Avatar image for sc
#24728 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc:

No worries.

Do we know if materialistic causes has ever created code that codes for something other than itself?

Could you give me an example (even if hypothetical) of code that codes for something other than itself.

Moderator
Avatar image for spareheadone
#24729 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6080 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc:

Code that codes for a robot arm to move.

Code that codes for a computer game to work.

Or the case in point, code that codes for the production of proteins.

Avatar image for sc
#24730 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

@spareheadone: Forgive me, but your answers only lead to more questions for me. How about... you give a possible positive answer/example to your question. Like "if this happened, then we would have an example of a materialistic cause creating code for something other than itself" that might help. Thanks.

Moderator
Avatar image for dshipp17
#24731 Posted by dshipp17 (5479 posts) - - Show Bio

Jeremiah 8:4-12; 18-22:

Moreover thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord; Shall they fall, and not arise? shall he turn away, and not return?

5 Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? they hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.

6 I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.

7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the Lord.

8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?

10 Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.

11 For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

12 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the Lord.

When I would comfort myself against sorrow, my heart is faint in me.

19 Behold the voice of the cry of the daughter of my people because of them that dwell in a far country: Is not the Lord in Zion? is not her king in her? Why have they provoked me to anger with their graven images, and with strange vanities?

20 The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.

21 For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.

22 Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for willpayton
#24732 Posted by willpayton (22081 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

A known cause is something known to have definitely produced the effect in question.

Yes?

Yes I'd agree with that statement. Of course I'm sure people will differ on what "known" means... just like many differ on what a "proof" is. To me, "known" means that you believe it to be true to a high degree of certainty. As you know, in science we never claim to "know" anything to 100% certainty because that's pretty much impossible and science is always open to the possibility that new data will invalidate a previous set of ideas.

But, as stated, this is widely known to be true... even if we're still some time from being able to determine the specific mechanisms for how evolution worked to generate the first DNA sequences. The thing is, when you have a mechanism like natural selection, as long as you can get a self-replicating thing (molecule, in this case) with mutations, generating new information is not hard. It's quite easy, actually.

One of the reasons I know this is possible is because I've done work with simulations of evolving systems (genetic algorithms) to solve several different types of problems. And while it can be hard to get a good set of "genomes" that will find the type of solution you want, almost any set of genomes in a genetic algorithm will generate information and progress towards whatever fitness criteria you want. Anyway... I dont want to get technical with that, but the point is that evolution w/ natural selection gets you information creation. In biology you see this all over the place from research on DNA to morphology and everything else. The only question is, how did it work right at the beginning... and that's a very hard question to answer because obviously we dont have fossil records or any DNA from that time. And we cant easily reproduce it in a lab... at least not unless we can run the experiment a few million years and know very well what the chemical and physical conditions were at that early point.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#24733 Edited by Lunacyde (28178 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: Interesting video about the food, but none of that is proof of any divine information being shared. The most rudimentary observation practices could relate the information that you are more likely to get sick eating pork than beef, or from eating lizards and oysters. This is how early humans developed a lot of knowledge, through pure observation. It is how aspirin for example was developed from Willow, which ancient humans were chewing, smashing, or making into tea for anti-inflammatory and pain relief millennia before modern scientists extracted the active ingredient and made it into a pill. Its how humans originally found many food and medicines, and determined what you should eat and what you shouldn't eat.

Moderator
Avatar image for willpayton
#24734 Posted by willpayton (22081 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

@dshipp17: Interesting video about the food, but none of that is proof of any divine information being shared. The most rudimentary observation practices could relate the information that you are more likely to get sick eating pork than beef, or from eating lizards and oysters. This is how early humans developed a lot of knowledge, through pure observation. It is how aspirin for example was developed from Willow, which ancient humans were chewing, smashing, or making into tea for anti-inflammatory and pain relief millennia before modern scientists extracted the active ingredient and made it into a pill. Its how humans originally found many food and medicines, and determined what you should eat and what you shouldn't eat.

The entire video is just cherry picking examples form the Bible while ignoring all the others that are clearly ones of the Bible being entirely wrong and giving bad advice. Even in the examples given, notice that he always says that these show knowledge and then goes on to talk about stuff that science has discovered, not stuff actually in the Bible. The Bible just says stuff like to not eat pigs because they're dirty. Uhmm, ok, I'm pretty sure pigs being dirty was something that ancient people knew about. They didnt need any supernatural intervention to tell them about pigs. But, did the Bible talk about germs? No. Wouldnt that have been the better information for a supreme supernatural omniscient entity to give to people... instead of "dont eat pigs because they roll around in dirt"?

Avatar image for jexsu
#24735 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24736 Edited by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Not sure whats funny about the fact that I am taking into consideration your stance on all this. But ok then.

Unless you just find something else funny about what I said here, which im not noticing. Lol

Avatar image for johncena69swag
#24737 Posted by JohnCena69swag (3865 posts) - - Show Bio

Imo the idea of heaven kinda contradicts itself. It's part of human nature to find purpose and meaning through struggle or conflict. The idea that you can exist in some kind of eternal bliss and be content simply existing without fundamentally changing who you are seems kind of naïve.

Avatar image for sc
#24738 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Not sure whats funny about the fact that I am taking into consideration your stance on all this. But ok then.

Unless you just find something else funny about what I said here, which im not noticing. Lol

It might be because you replied to the one person who wasn't really challenging or arguing against you, and was just trying to assist the conversation by providing some generally known definitions in a neutral, friendly manner, and you didn't reply or address anyone who actually challenged or argued against your points.

It seems like an odd way to accuse someone of conceding.

Moderator
Avatar image for willpayton
#24739 Posted by willpayton (22081 posts) - - Show Bio

Imo the idea of heaven kinda contradicts itself. It's part of human nature to find purpose and meaning through struggle or conflict. The idea that you can exist in some kind of eternal bliss and be content simply existing without fundamentally changing who you are seems kind of naïve.

A very good point.

As Christopher Hitchens put it:

“Religion is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life, before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true?"

Avatar image for sc
#24740 Posted by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

Imo the idea of heaven kinda contradicts itself. It's part of human nature to find purpose and meaning through struggle or conflict. The idea that you can exist in some kind of eternal bliss and be content simply existing without fundamentally changing who you are seems kind of naïve.

Great points!

Generally speaking, a lot of ideas for ideal afterlife were conceived and developed in eras when life still had a lot of struggle, conflict and hardship. The ratio of tough times and pleasurable times were heavily weighted towards the former. Generally speaking, a person needs a bit of time, energy and leisure to reflect and develop the ability to gain insight and to realize such wisdom.

Also the travel speed of news, communication, knowledge etc was very very slow, and chances are, ideas around what was good and bad were a lot more humble as well. Paradise, utopia, heaven could have been envisioned as similar to 'normal life' but with all your dead friends and family alive again, and whenever you go hunting, you always succeed, and the weather isn't dangerous, and mystery illnesses no longer plague my area, and all the attractive people want to have the sex with me, and to someone who is constantly stressed out, worried about food, missing loved ones, vulnerable to bad weather and disease, all of that would sound like eternal bliss.

Its also a reason a lot of ideas around heaven and such, tend to work best when vague and open to interpretation. Its less appealing to masses who have diverse lives and therefore diverse views on what is ideal, when you try and dictate what heaven will actually be like, better you try and get them to believe that its ideal to them specifically. In the past, peoples lives or ideas went as diverse as they are in modern times, so was an easier concept to sell/buy in to. One loophole is that arguably if God exists, they possess the ability to just make each persons idea of heaven true, to incentivize ideal behavior, but then it creates the problem, of two individuals who require the criteria to reach heaven, having conflicting views, and then what of the individuals who overlap between them... like as an example, in my version of heaven, my best friend is there (actually everyone is), in another persons version of heaven, all gay people should go to hell. I can't stand the idea of my best friend being in hell, and I couldn't exist in heaven if I believed they were... so are there two versions of my friend? Is the friend in my version of heaven just a duplicate? Is everything in my heaven just an illusion created to reward me?

Those are all rhetorical questions by the way. Anyway interesting points you brought up.

Moderator
Avatar image for j-man717
#24741 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Not sure whats funny about the fact that I am taking into consideration your stance on all this. But ok then.

Unless you just find something else funny about what I said here, which im not noticing. Lol

It might be because you replied to the one person who wasn't really challenging or arguing against you, and was just trying to assist the conversation by providing some generally known definitions in a neutral, friendly manner, and you didn't reply or address anyone who actually challenged or argued against your points.

It seems like an odd way to accuse someone of conceding.

Well thats false, if you even read any of the comments you would see that me and jexsu have been arguing post by post.

Avatar image for sc
#24742 Edited by SC (18141 posts) - - Show Bio

@j-man717: Jexsu quoted where you addressed SpareHeadOne...

Moderator
Avatar image for j-man717
#24743 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

@j-man717: Jexsu quoted where you addressed SpareHeadOne...

True, my mistake, what happened is I overlooked the fact that I made that post to SpareHeadOne. However just to clarify, me and jexsu have indeed argued in this thread.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24744 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Not sure whats funny about the fact that I am taking into consideration your stance on all this. But ok then.

Unless you just find something else funny about what I said here, which im not noticing. Lol

Just pointing out that you're using something I told you at the end of our debate.

Avatar image for willpayton
#24745 Edited by willpayton (22081 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

Generally speaking, a lot of ideas for ideal afterlife were conceived and developed in eras when life still had a lot of struggle, conflict and hardship. The ratio of tough times and pleasurable times were heavily weighted towards the former. Generally speaking, a person needs a bit of time, energy and leisure to reflect and develop the ability to gain insight and to realize such wisdom.

Also the travel speed of news, communication, knowledge etc was very very slow, and chances are, ideas around what was good and bad were a lot more humble as well. Paradise, utopia, heaven could have been envisioned as similar to 'normal life' but with all your dead friends and family alive again, and whenever you go hunting, you always succeed, and the weather isn't dangerous, and mystery illnesses no longer plague my area, and all the attractive people want to have the sex with me, and to someone who is constantly stressed out, worried about food, missing loved ones, vulnerable to bad weather and disease, all of that would sound like eternal bliss.

Its also a reason a lot of ideas around heaven and such, tend to work best when vague and open to interpretation. Its less appealing to masses who have diverse lives and therefore diverse views on what is ideal, when you try and dictate what heaven will actually be like, better you try and get them to believe that its ideal to them specifically. In the past, peoples lives or ideas went as diverse as they are in modern times, so was an easier concept to sell/buy in to. One loophole is that arguably if God exists, they possess the ability to just make each persons idea of heaven true, to incentivize ideal behavior, but then it creates the problem, of two individuals who require the criteria to reach heaven, having conflicting views, and then what of the individuals who overlap between them... like as an example, in my version of heaven, my best friend is there (actually everyone is), in another persons version of heaven, all gay people should go to hell. I can't stand the idea of my best friend being in hell, and I couldn't exist in heaven if I believed they were... so are there two versions of my friend? Is the friend in my version of heaven just a duplicate? Is everything in my heaven just an illusion created to reward me?

Those are all rhetorical questions by the way. Anyway interesting points you brought up.

Very good points. We have to remember these religions stem from earlier ones, in the case of the Judeo/Christian religion is was a mashup of earlier stories and other religions. And all this happened in a time where people were for the most part illiterate and any explanation for a natural phenomenon could seem as plausible, especially if it's being proposed by an authority figure. So, churches were large and impressive structures with lots of art so that the people would be awestruck and impressed. That all creates a strong psychological effect.

Point being, a lot of the contradictory stuff was just either not understood by those people, or was assumed to just be because "god works in mysterious ways", or was not thought about because in these religions even questioning dogma can be a sin. Remember, in Christianity the one way for you to for sure go to Hell is to not believe in Jesus. Also, the church was often also the political, military, and economic authority in early societies. Psychologically you just dont question that authority especially when they tell you that there's an omnipotent and omniscient god that's always watching you and knows everything you think. You just believe what they tell you and move on with your life. If they tell you that you do X, Y, and Z and you go to heaven, then you accept it and you do X, Y, and Z. If they tell you that a person is a witch and needs to be murdered, then you do that as well. You dont even worry about things like morality because in Christianity whatever God mandates is good by default. If God murders millions of people, then by definition that was a good thing.

Just some thoughts.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24746 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Not sure whats funny about the fact that I am taking into consideration your stance on all this. But ok then.

Unless you just find something else funny about what I said here, which im not noticing. Lol

Just pointing out that you're using something I told you at the end of our debate.

Not sure what you mean here.

My comment to you was saying that I will assume that you have conceded/admit what im saying is true, but only if you DONT attempt to prove or disprove that any of the versions of evolution that you listed involve God in them.

You have yet to state what your stance is on the listed meanings of evolution provided/if you believe that God is or isnt involved in those theories of evolutions. So ill wait for you to respond.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24747 Edited by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Not sure whats funny about the fact that I am taking into consideration your stance on all this. But ok then.

Unless you just find something else funny about what I said here, which im not noticing. Lol

Just pointing out that you're using something I told you at the end of our debate.

Not sure what you mean here.

My comment to you was saying that I will assume that you have conceded/admit what im saying is true, but only if you DONT attempt to prove or disprove that any of the versions of evolution that you listed involve God in them.

You have yet to state what your stance is on the listed meanings of evolution provided/if you believe that God is or isnt involved in those theories of evolutions. So ill wait for you to respond.

The post where, at the end, I gave you one chance to prove to me that "God" exists, you couldn't/didn't. My post right after your response is where our debate ended. Your "evolution" question and any that followed after that, was not answered because they were not part of our debate; therefor, I was not obligated to answer them; furthermore, my not answering them does not equate to me conceding, since you conceded in the former post. But, what I "Lmfao'd" at was your "I will take it as you conceding" tactic, the very same I applied to our debate; you basically copied me.

Avatar image for j-man717
#24748 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Not sure whats funny about the fact that I am taking into consideration your stance on all this. But ok then.

Unless you just find something else funny about what I said here, which im not noticing. Lol

Just pointing out that you're using something I told you at the end of our debate.

Not sure what you mean here.

My comment to you was saying that I will assume that you have conceded/admit what im saying is true, but only if you DONT attempt to prove or disprove that any of the versions of evolution that you listed involve God in them.

You have yet to state what your stance is on the listed meanings of evolution provided/if you believe that God is or isnt involved in those theories of evolutions. So ill wait for you to respond.

The post where, at the end, I gave you one chance to prove to me that "God" exists, you couldn't/didn't. My post right after your response is where our debate ended. Your "evolution" question and any that followed after that, was not answered because they were not part of our debate; therefor, I was not obligated to answer them; furthermore, my not answering them does not equate to me conceding, since you conceded in the former post. But, what I "Lmfao'd" at was your "I will take it as you conceding" tactic, the very same I applied to our debate; you basically copied me.

I believe that my response was all the proof that one will ever need to see that God exists. Conceding by definition is admitting to/agreeing that what the opponent is saying is the truth. So my comment "I will take it as you conceding" was put there because it was indeed fit to be there and made sense to be.

Avatar image for jexsu
#24749 Posted by Jexsu (1284 posts) - - Show Bio
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Not sure whats funny about the fact that I am taking into consideration your stance on all this. But ok then.

Unless you just find something else funny about what I said here, which im not noticing. Lol

Just pointing out that you're using something I told you at the end of our debate.

Not sure what you mean here.

My comment to you was saying that I will assume that you have conceded/admit what im saying is true, but only if you DONT attempt to prove or disprove that any of the versions of evolution that you listed involve God in them.

You have yet to state what your stance is on the listed meanings of evolution provided/if you believe that God is or isnt involved in those theories of evolutions. So ill wait for you to respond.

The post where, at the end, I gave you one chance to prove to me that "God" exists, you couldn't/didn't. My post right after your response is where our debate ended. Your "evolution" question and any that followed after that, was not answered because they were not part of our debate; therefor, I was not obligated to answer them; furthermore, my not answering them does not equate to me conceding, since you conceded in the former post. But, what I "Lmfao'd" at was your "I will take it as you conceding" tactic, the very same I applied to our debate; you basically copied me.

I believe that my response was all the proof that one will ever need to see that God exists. Conceding by definition is admitting to/agreeing that what the opponent is saying is the truth. So my comment "I will take it as you conceding" was put there because it was indeed fit to be there and made sense to be.

Unfortunately, your response shared no proof that "God" exists, especially not the kind I asked for at the end of my post, in which you failed to answer. "Conceding" by definition is also "surrender or yield (something that one possesses)."

Avatar image for j-man717
#24750 Posted by J-man717 (119 posts) - - Show Bio

@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
@jexsu said:
@j-man717 said:
So please prove that any of the above theorys do or dont involve God in them, otherwise I will take it as you having conceded.

Lmfao.

Not sure whats funny about the fact that I am taking into consideration your stance on all this. But ok then.

Unless you just find something else funny about what I said here, which im not noticing. Lol

Just pointing out that you're using something I told you at the end of our debate.

Not sure what you mean here.

My comment to you was saying that I will assume that you have conceded/admit what im saying is true, but only if you DONT attempt to prove or disprove that any of the versions of evolution that you listed involve God in them.

You have yet to state what your stance is on the listed meanings of evolution provided/if you believe that God is or isnt involved in those theories of evolutions. So ill wait for you to respond.

The post where, at the end, I gave you one chance to prove to me that "God" exists, you couldn't/didn't. My post right after your response is where our debate ended. Your "evolution" question and any that followed after that, was not answered because they were not part of our debate; therefor, I was not obligated to answer them; furthermore, my not answering them does not equate to me conceding, since you conceded in the former post. But, what I "Lmfao'd" at was your "I will take it as you conceding" tactic, the very same I applied to our debate; you basically copied me.

I believe that my response was all the proof that one will ever need to see that God exists. Conceding by definition is admitting to/agreeing that what the opponent is saying is the truth. So my comment "I will take it as you conceding" was put there because it was indeed fit to be there and made sense to be.

Unfortunately, your response shared no proof that "God" exists, especially not the kind I asked for at the end of my post, in which you failed to answer. "Conceding" by definition is also "surrender or yield (something that one possesses)."

Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.