Religion… What do you think?

@dshipp17:

You're asking for evidence of something considered a cultural phenomenon all over the world; it's not like asking for evidence that a toad is in my garage; you're disputing something that most human beings are accepting as real and existing. So, you're trying to prove some new and revolutionary, when you're saying that you need evidence of something that the vast majority of the world accepts as true and real.

Thats an ad populum fallacy.

Basically, you're doing something akin to saying that you have a device that can allow people to travel back in time. Hence, you have the extraordinary challenge of convincing people that there is no God or that God is hard to at least speculate as being real, when most people know and have experienced the contrary.

I'm not trying to convince people that he isn't real, i'm saying no one can prove he's real.

Hence, evidence for God should be easily relocatable for most people actually trying to find the information. Basically, you're asking me to find a McDonald's branch where you live or in New York, because you can't find it, so you claim. Surely, you can take the steps to find something so common and readily available, as information there's on God's behalf of all sorts.

That's not what i'm doing at all. If there was evidence that god is real, you would have it. You're so fixed on the idea that he's real, and yet you've failed to provide any evidence supporting your side.

Thus, hence, you're not really being genuine in your desire for evidence, as the information that's got most people convinced is all over the place, where not even people with the highest level of intention to know all of the available information couldn't have perform an exhaustive search that you imply that you've done with your statement. As God is such a phenomenon, your question denotes that you've done an exhaustive search, where you apparently can't even start talking about the evidence that Christian scholars find most convincing.

You keep talking about how people have seen the evidence. What evidence is this?

So, again, you actually have to make an effort to find information that can be obtained in the same vein as something like locating a restaurant chain in your area like a Burger King. Nobody could seriously think that you knew so little about Burger King that you wouldn't know where to start looking for one. I'm not trying to be off putting, it's just more that I don't like having someone insulting my intelligence, as I'd be in a catch 22 in either direction that I go with this: you want me to start bringing you information so that you can seem informed on the topic, by discussing what I know on the topic, as opposed to us discussing what you know about the topic; it has to go that way, as you're telling me something akin to your not thinking that a Burger King can be found anywhere in the western world (e.g. I'm being generous, as you're actually saying it can't be in the whole world). So, I have to gauge how much you actually know, not how much I know; you're claiming that it's hard to locate when it's something that shouldn't be.

Except there is undeniable proof Burger King exists, in the form of videos, photos etc and there are Burger King restaurants in most placed. If you have undeniable evidence that he exists, why are you insisting that I go look for it? If I saw someone who said ''you cannot prove Burger King exists because you have no evidence'' I would prove them wrong by showing them a photo, video etc of it.

P.S please point out where I insulted your intelligence.

Like, here, what are you talking about? You asked a totally separate topic related to God from whether or not He exists. You only think this because your knowledge on the topic is so limited; if not, demonstrate for me how exhaustive your knowledge is on God; so far, it couldn't be very much, if you can't discern Him from any other person claiming that they have gods around them, which was the topic that I provided that response for. My point: you have to be willing to discuss the topic rather that argue about a topic that you know very little about.

It's not my job to prove to you my intelligence on the existence of god when i'm saying you cannot prove he exists.

So, here, seemingly, you're implying that there is more evidence somewhere elsewhere of something else comparable to claiming that God is real, where reality clearly shows us more informed individuals, otherwise; hence, another indication of how little you actually know about evidence for God, where you want to substitute what I know for what you know, when you're saying that you can't locate; so, actually look, as it's like trying to figure out how to locate a Burger King somewhere, if it can be found.

I know little about the evidence of god because you've failed to provide any.

Well, this is without credence, as you obviously didn't do anything remotely close to an exhaustive search for God's existence; and, it depends on what you mean by “undeniable proof”; that's arbitrary and open to interpretation, depending on who it is you're communicating with. The scholarly Christian community can only produce objective evidence that's acceptable in the largest set of inquiring minds; once that's achieved, that means that you just have to reconcile what you're looking for with the material that's most convincing to just about everyone else. Basically, you're left with trying to convince us that what we think that we know actually isn't the true state of affairs.

I didn't do any exhaustive research because it's not my job too. What I mean by undeniable proof is simply photos, videos etc. Please provide some of this objective evidence.

Along with the sculptures, they quite clearly described it such that you could be convinced that God was real, provided you were actually trying to know.

In the clip, the part that I found most fascinating was at about the 8 minute mark; there, they showed how the early embryo develops into a fetus, referencing back to a Bible passage describing how that embryo formed into a fetus about 2700 years ago, long before that computer graphic output.

You realize autopsy was a thing back then? They could've easily preformed an autopsy on a woman in the early stages of pregnancy, and seen the small embryo, and determined that the embryo somehow grows into a fetus.

For most who were actually listening, that should have been very intriguing food for thought; clearly, something that was mythological from so long ago wouldn't even be on the same planet of actually describing something so accurately so many years later, once technology was able to catch up.

It's called an autopsy. They preformed an autopsy on a deceased pregnant woman, saw the embryo, and determined that somehow the embryo formed into a baby.

And, before your comment, I hadn't viewed the clip, but, I viewed the title and the source, which made me confident that they'd be discussing something that I intended, where this was even better than I was contemplating; that's very close to direct evidence level, as what human from 2700 years ago could have guessed in pursuit of developing a mythological story that clearly become popular so many years after it's production? And, no, this isn't a once or twice fluke, this type of demonstration is consistent in many different cases, within the scholarly Christian community; flukes don't take place on a regular; I'm pointing out from an objective perspective; someone can craft an argument against it, but, this is still going to remain objective material that most reasonable, honest people would see as intriguing.

I just debunked your ''evidence''.

@dshipp17: Flashfyr showed me how you dodge questions and straw man so i'm probably just gonna end this debate.

@flashfyr: why does he always insist that I go look for the evidence for his stance?

@hulkbusterx9: Like I said, the evidence he badly compares to other things—and claims is so plentiful—ends up crumbling when he gets specific. So he prefers relying on "there are soooooo many experiences people have!" as if that's compelling, but he does not recognize that each instance is individually fallacious and a billion kajillion half-baked fallacies don't add up to one fully baked truth.

@hulkbusterx9:

“You realize autopsy was a thing back then? They could've easily preformed an autopsy on a woman in the early stages of pregnancy, and seen the small embryo, and determined that the embryo somehow grows into a fetus. It's called an autopsy. They preformed an autopsy on a deceased pregnant woman, saw the embryo, and determined that somehow the embryo formed into a baby.”

This is just nonsense, in response to something that I brought to your attention; you should have presented this suggestion in response to being told that the video provided evidence and there was information to explore, as a way of demonstrating that you gave it a real try. The video showed a virtual real time computer model of the embryo actively forming at various stages of pregnancy, based on new and recent scientific knowledge of human development/anatomy, which guided them to then measure the human development at the correct stages of development, while citing something consistent with a Bible passage. Without realizing it, what you're saying is that they understood new science that didn't possibly or event remotely exist 2700 years ago, and based on that knowledge, knew how to then perform an autopsy on several different dead women, based on where they were specifically at in their particular stage pregnancy, kind of week by week, at various stages of development (e.g. that sounds pretty barbaric, provided they even had such a guide in place, which they didn't); that's totally implausible, based on the totality of the circumstances and context.

Just, as I said, you want to argue about the evidence, not actually consider it. What you're suggesting is that these hypothetical barbarians were able to do something that would have been barely plausible as recently as the 1930s-1950s, where it would have been a barbaric and mortifying experiment (e.g. not to mention, and also give further context, of how midwives were still struggling as recently as the 1800s, to preserve both mother and baby life, an indicator of a certain level of lack of scientific knowledge, as compared to when this computer animation was developed and guided by that certain level of scientific knowledge). Here, while you gave an explanation that's totally unrealistic, in the given context, you didn't understand how you had escaped from the proper context, which was 2700 years ago with science that started developing after a certain time millennia later, which then guided the examination for this piece of the video clip; either you didn't even look at the clip, even after being told where to look, or you just didn't put much thought into any of the points that they were making, which is something critical to properly examining proof and evidence; 2700 years ago, even embryo and fetus weren't even apart human vocabulary.

An objective mind would find this compelling evidence, but, not everyone would, based on just being argumentative, based on the stuff/way that they like to see things go. There is no way to examine embryo development, assuming it's after the mother has died and it's 2700 years ago (e.g. the computer model was over the course of several weeks).

“Thats an ad populum fallacy.”

Perhaps, but, it's also context specific and serves as a strong illustration.

“I'm not trying to convince people that he isn't real, i'm saying no one can prove he's real.”

Sure you are, except you're in denial about what you're doing or you're so set on a one track path that you don't know what it is that you're doing, both of which would be counterproductive for you in the context of exploring what there is to know. You're trying to convince people that He can't be proven real, so, the burden of proof is upon you; I'm already convinced that He's real, but you want to shake whatever it is that's got me convinced, that you couldn't understand, as your single track path is preventing you from looking to discover that you claim to need objectively; your telling me to prove that He's real is a way of doing that, where you just demonstrated that you can't be objective with the totality of the context regarding my embryo to fetus example.

“That's not what i'm doing at all. If there was evidence that god is real, you would have it. You're so fixed on the idea that he's real, and yet you've failed to provide any evidence supporting your side.”

But, the matter at hand was that the information is voluminous, provided you committed to looking for it; and, I pointed you back to the clip, where I veered slightly away from this matter at hand; in this context, you're asking me something akin to finding a McDonald's restaurant, while placing that in a different context which would be more applicable to asking me to prove that I have a toad in my garage; I shouldn't need to tell you how to find information on McDonald's but I certainly would need to in the case of my garage, as I'm not something akin to McDonald's like a celebrity would be, or, so it appears, as I'm anonymous behind the internet.

“You keep talking about how people have seen the evidence. What evidence is this?”

In the case of God, evidence is context specific; you don't seem to understand, or your one track approach against the idea, has narrowed your search so, that this evidence is context specific; you're trying to narrow it down to something that's really specific, when what's got people convinced is far broader (e.g. where this is even very narrow, but, you're asking for something so narrow as to whether someone committed a crime, where you're arguing that the crime didn't occur, because direct evidence wasn't provided, where the objective legal community understands it to be far broader in scope than that). I told you peoples' personal experiences, as an example, several times.

“Except there is undeniable proof Burger King exists, in the form of videos, photos etc and there are Burger King restaurants in most placed. If you have undeniable evidence that he exists, why are you insisting that I go look for it? If I saw someone who said ''you cannot prove Burger King exists because you have no evidence'' I would prove them wrong by showing them a photo, video etc of it.”

The point at hand was the readily available means that you could use to guide yourself on the path towards the search. While what you say is true, it's still unnecessary and overly narrow to need videos and photos to suspect that a Burger King branch exists somewhere, probably near you. Based on some of these other things, you would then set out on an exploration to track down a Burger King that you could then video record or photograph; but, until very recently, something like that wasn't available for something like say a black hole.

God is available in most churches, for example, for people who have set out to find God and come away having developed their personal experiences, which lead them to be convinced that Jesus Christ is the pathway towards God. I asked you to look for something that should be readily available to track down, so a reasonable request, as again, I'm not claiming that there is a toad in my garage and asking you to find it, I'm asking to to take the steps that you would need to take to find a Burger King somewhere (e.g. and in between that, it's even more reasonable than say asking you to find Taylor Swift and send me some pictures of her feet, particularly, soles, and make my next few months).

“It's not my job to prove to you my intelligence on the existence of god when i'm saying you cannot prove he exists.”

Well, in this context, in kind of is: you need a certain level of intelligence to locate a Burger King, where say Burger King were the topic at hand, instead of God. Again, you're trying to shake my confidence that I know that He's real and I have proof. In this context, you have to do away with what we believe is our proof. Something that I also consider is that God is an intelligent being, so I wouldn't even be taking the same approach that I would be taking to find something like an inanimate object or a chemical reaction, which you seem to be implying as something necessary.

“I didn't do any exhaustive research because it's not my job too. What I mean by undeniable proof is simply photos, videos etc. Please provide some of this objective evidence.”

It sure is, as you're telling me that I couldn't provide you the proof; the only way that you could be confident of that would because you've done a complete and exhaustive search and you can explain away everyone's personal experiences that they attribute to God's intervening in their specific circumstances in some way.

@hulkbusterx9: Told you, he's a dishonest debater.

> It sure is, as you're telling me that I couldn't provide you the proof; the only way that you could be confident of that would because you're done a complete and exhaustive search and you can explain away everyone's personal experiences that they attribute to God's intervening in their circumstances in some way.

"You're not allowed to be unconvinced unless you do a complete search to discount each and every single alleged experience."

I'll bet 100 bucks he's unconvinced of alien abductions even though he hasn't done a complete search to discount each and every single alleged experience. Along with the billion other beliefs and religions (like millions of people who have Islamic visions) which are so numerous that it would be idiotic to even try doing "complete and exhaustive searches" to be unconvinced of them. Dship's tactics make him more akin to Satan than Jesus.

Shifting the burden of proof is such an entrenched part of the apologist script that he hasn't even learned the conventions of philosophy, positive/negative claims, or the null hypothesis before learning all the medieval glib glabber. And when he's inescapably wrong about something, he just stops talking about it and never has the humility to concede that point, no matter how many times you bring it up afterward.

You're right to drop his ass.

@dshipp17: big foot exists, and unless you do a complete and exhaustive search on the matter, you're not allowed to say other wise.

@dshipp17: Zeus and the Olympians gods exist, and unless you do a complete and exhaustive search to discount every person's encounter, you're not allowed to be unconvinced. See, all you're doing is shifting the burden of research and proof onto me.

I want to challenge those who say that Bigfoot does not exist because we have quite a bit of evidence that he does. As a matter of fact we have countless Video Recordings and even Live Events including Bigfoot. Bigfoot even spoke with people. I have a Picture of Bigfoot below.

@king_saturn:

He is very shiny

@hulkbusterx9:

When you are Praying and Meditating, do you have spiritual experiences?

I wouldn't know because I don't do either.

ARE GODS REAL? HOW TO APPLY LOGIC AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF!

(in 3 easy steps!)

• STEP 1: ask yourself, have you ever witnessed a god?
• STEP 2: ask yourself, have you ever witnessed anything supernatural?
• STEP 3: ask yourself, does anyone have undeniable proof of the existence of any god, or supernatural being?

if you answered "no" in all 3 steps, read below:

if you answered "yes" in any of the 3 steps, read below:

Is Macro-Evolution REAL? HOW TO APPLY LOGIC AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF!

(in 3 easy steps!)

• · STEP 1: ask yourself, have you ever witnessed a creature evolve a new organ?

• · STEP 2: ask yourself, have you ever witnessed Macro-Evolution?

• · STEP 3: ask yourself, does anyone have undeniable proof of the existence of any creature population evolving new organs or changing from single celled organisms to Humans?

if you answered "no" in all 3 steps, read below:

if you answered "yes" in any of the 3 steps, read below:

@spareheadone: irrefutable proof of a creature evolving several new organs

now what? do you admit you're a trolling fool?

or this guy and his family with a mutation that gives them blue skin

also, fossils, obviously, but somehow i already know you wouldn't count them as irrefutable proof, so i went with this instead.

and genetic variation leading to evolution should be a given in our day and age, with all the evidence we already have to support this you don't even need irrefutable proof, just common sense or average critical thinking skills.

@jonjizz:

A head is not a new organ

It is a copy of an existing pre-programmed organ.

Fossils point away from macro-evolution

Genetic variation is pre-programed and doesn't lead to the production of a new organ

@jonjizz:

There are no examples of new organs.

Skin is not a new organ

Pigment variation is pre-programmed

@spareheadone: lol everything is "pre-programmed".

obviously, a mutation happens by changing something that already exists, but this doesn't make it any less "new", it's how evolution works.

what you are asking is for something to be created from nothing, which is not how evolution works.

every mutation will be of something that already exists, unless you're talking about increasing the gene length of a creature while also simultaneously arranging all these extra genes into something that would make a brand-new functioning organ, which again it's just not how evolution or adaptation are supposed to work.

best you can get are obvious cases of duplication that make extra organs or cases of slightly different organs, anything more would logically require many gradual changes and a lot of time to happen, much more than your short lifespan to be able to witness it all at once. (but we already have irrefutable evidence of part this process, the rest is just a logical conclusion anyone can come to)

@jonjizz: I don't think he knows what macroevolution means.

Literally, dude is a rural lives-in-nowhere random who spends 80% of his day checking Comicvine. Not only has he demonstrated zero mastery over science, but he thinks he's debunked evolution despite never talking to a biologist.

Point it out and he'll just troll to cover his escape.

@flashfyr: i just don't get how he can think that evolution/macroevolution is so hard to believe, but chakra and magical man in the sky aren't lol

John 16:1-17; 17:19-23:

These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.

2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.

5 But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?

6 But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

17 Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

@jonjizz:

You have zero evidence of macro-evolution and yet you irrationally and illogically believe in it. You follow the media and you believe like a religious person.

You say we already have irrefutable evidence of part this process [macro-evolution] but it is equally evidence for design. Especially when you consider that adaptive mutations are not random but are rather inbuilt contingency plans.

Why dont you explain how mutations and natural selection can build new organs? Actually explain it.

@spareheadone: "zero evidence" you say... but is it really zero? can you honestly say there's zero evidence to support macroevolution? isn't it that all the irrefutable evidence we already have support evolution, and macroevolution is just the most logical conclusion we could make based on it?

and there's no irrefutable evidence in favour of design, all evidence points against it; just look at our wisdom teeth, our appendix, our coccyx... this is irrefutable evidence of something, and it doesn't look like intelligent design, doesn't it? and i don't know what you mean with contingency plans, i know how adaptation is supposed to work, i have no idea what you're referring to so please give me an example so i can understand your point.

prefacing that i'm not an expert in biology, and that you probably already heard something like this a million times already, i'll try to explain it since you asked: when a gene mutations occurs, it modifies something we already have... for example, you know how there are some people that are "allergic" to light? (it's called photodermatitis) anyway, if a mutation happens to be beneficial in a certain environment, it is more likely to ensure the survival of the mutated organism and therefore be passed on to its offsprings... over time, as this particular mutation continues to be useful and better ensure the survival of its organism, it will happen again, and again, and again, until it becomes a new trait of your species; however that trait, can also mutate or accomodate useful mutations in other parts of your body, and slightly change over time! over the course of many generation, where the first trait was maybe a mild form of photodermatitis, the next trait could develop into something like an excrescence on your forehead skin that's also allergic to light; once again over the course of many other generations, an organism could mutate and lose photodermatitis in general except for that photosensitive excrescence on your forehead... in time, that excrescence on your forehead would continue to improve it's functionality becoming more and more sensitive while maybe losing some of the negative reactions, and eventually, it might become something that starts to work like an organ! but you need a foundation for it, a new organ doesn't just pop up out of nowhere, understand? now, i repeat myself but this is important, i'm not an expert in biology and the specifics of what i talked about here most likely don't make any sense... i know, still, what really matters is the process.

I am really curious of the impact the Coronavirus will have on Churches going forward I mean even when we have a vaccine for this Virus will Christians still be skeptical to go to Church if the Infected and Death Toll rises to some rather Grim Numbers ? Also, I notice a lot of Churches doing the Online Services thing. Will Online Services be the Future of Religion ?

In the end its just about faith. No proof it exist or it doesnt, though other people would say otherwise.

@jonjizz:

There is irrefutable evidence of design every time we use chemicals to create nano machines or retro viruses etc. whereas there is only your Apsychism bias telling you what must be logical.

Problems with the design mean nothing. My car has issues therefore it is not designed?

Things are devolving as you have pointed out. This is the opposite of macro-evolution.

You will need the mutations to occur in the sperm and egg production because they provide the transcription factors (enzymes) which determine cell types. Can this happen randomly? The chances are on various YouTube clips. Once you get this highly unlikely set of mutations. You will find that the TF has nothing to transcribe, so you will need and even larger number of mutations to produce the information to build a new cell type. The numbers are astronomical.

I am not aware of any built in system that overcomes this problem.

It is now accepted in the mainstream that adaptive mutations are part of a larger built in system. This system provides contingency plans. Environmental stress produces plasticity in relevant proteins and enables them to produce a variety of changes to be selected for. The changes make plietopic switching which will also be selected for. Cave fish get eye mutation and plietopic contingency that switches on big mouth and teeth genes.

In this system there are RNA editors that cut up RNA and glue it together in a new way that will produce the new adapted proteins.

This is all systems built in. You couldn't even get the changes we actually do get without the systems already being in place

Nasty stuff.

no, that's irrefutable evidence of idiotic logic and confirmation bias; just cause we designed something, you assume that's some irrefutable evidence that everything else was designed as well? what kind of stupid logic is this?

fool! it's not about the problems, but what caused those problems in the first place.

vestigial organs and structures in the human body should tell you something... if you have a half a brain to understand it.

i understand the general idea, what i don't get is why you think this is proof of intelligent design.

we know there's been several mass extinctions in the past, wouldn't natural selection favour this "contingency" property in all surviving creatures over time?

and if you think it's too unlikely to happen on its own, i don't really care... unlikely is still more plausible than magic, which is impossible.

@jonjizz:

-No I don't assume what you say. I simply say that a human designer designing biological things is irrefutable evidence that intelligent designers can get the job done. It is irrefutable that a designer could be the process.

-Vestigal organs show devolution which is the opposite of macro-evolution. My point still stands firm and therefore you are doubly the fool.

-I never said it is proof. I rarely use the word "proof". It is "evidence " that there could be a designer. The systems in place have to be there for any contingency to exist/occur. There can be not variations to select for without the systems working. You can't climb out of a hole to get the ladder to enable you to climb out of the hole.

-A designer is not magic. It is just a designer.

@spareheadone: lol "devolution"? what joke is this? you need to "delearn" these stupid terms...

there's no such thing as "devolution", we evolve to better survive in our environment, if losing a limb helps you survive better in your environment, that's called evolution.

you make the silly assumption that evolution has a purpose in complexity... that's not it.

evolution has nothing to do with accumulating "parts"; if you lose "parts" to be more fit for survival, you are still evolving.

your magical designer should've made you smarter, if you want to discuss evolution/macroevolution you should at least grasp the basics of it... i now know that you don't.

@jonjizz:

Wow

All insult, no substance

I think you need to accept some new truths

@jonjizz:

lol "devolution"? what joke is this? you need to "delearn" these stupid terms...

there's no such thing as "devolution", we evolve to better survive in our environment, if losing a limb helps you survive better in your environment, that's called evolution.

It is not what was required for macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is supposed to have gone from single cells and then grown all the organs we have now.

you make the silly assumption that evolution has a purpose in complexity... that's not it.

I make no assumptions.

evolution has nothing to do with accumulating "parts"; if you lose "parts" to be more fit for survival, you are still evolving.

True but thats not macro-evolution is it. Macro-evolution is supposed to have gone from single cells and then grown all the organs we have now.

your magical designer should've made you smarter, if you want to discuss evolution/macroevolution you should at least grasp the basics of it... i now know that you don't.

I already knew that you didnt grasp it. Thats what makes you so religious.

THROUGH EVOLUTION.

you literally said vestigial organs show "devolution".

you literally made an assumption about the purpose of evolution.

then don't mention devolution.

macroevolution happens through evolution, it's just the same on a larger scale.

the human lifespan is much too short for you to be able to say: "hey that was macroevolution! it only took hundreds of thousands of years of regular evolution for me to finally observe it all with my own eyes!"

that's like saying you don't believe diamonds or petroleum can form spontaneously because you never witnessed the entire process of carbon becoming diamonds, or dead creatures turning into petroleum.

seriously, you should focus on the basics first before venturing into the more advanced subjects... you pretend to discuss genetics, but still talk about "devolution"? the foundation of your "knowledge" is all rotten, you can't build anything good on top of it, you should start over.

It's something I still think about to this day... if our Brain holds what our Consciousness is then how do we go into an Afterlife if the Brain dies ? Can our Consciousness exist without the Brain and the Body ? I think about this especially concerning Sleep because when our Body goes to Rest we are not alert or Conscious of what is around us so if we are totally Dead how can we be Conscious of anything ? What is it that GOD can take out of a Human that is still us Consciously after we Die so we could exist beyond the Physical Plane ?

1) It will reduce the number of church plants this year. Most church plants occur in schools or community centers.

2) It will hurt small and struggling churches. Churches that meet in schools can not meet if the school is closed - this will have an impact even after the virus has diminished because schools will not reopen for the summer. Small churches will struggle to pay bills and retain people.

3) More churches will embrace technology. Those with online services already know that there are people who will watch a service online that would not go to the church and attend. So in that sense it will open new opportunities. Homebound and invalid people can use services like zoom to participate in a small group. So, technology will open new doors.

@king_saturn: You're presupposing that consciousness "is" something separate from the brain. All the evidence sprints in the other direction.

“It's something I still think about to this day... if our Brain holds what our Consciousness is then how do we go into an Afterlife if the Brain dies ?”

What you're doing is allowing yourself to be mislead; the consciousness is more, as defined by the Bible; this is just a statement from a biased perspective; what exactly is the consciousness is still not something that is very well understood, in the secular scientific community, where confirmation bias or the pursuant of it then undermines discovery (e.g. as covered in at least one of my videos, this community beliefs directs that everyone look to another direction, even though the evidence is pointing to a supernatural source; and, hence, that is how you're being mislead, by being uninformed on that matter, even though at least one of my videos from the scholarly Christian community has addressed this issue, where this issue is very thoroughly addressed there, as would be obvious for an issue to explore for them). And, plus, you're even further deciding to mislead yourself by the poster above, who is unaware of what the scholarly Christian community has said on this matter and who refuses to investigate what they're saying on this matter the more they research it, or is putting on a pretense of unawareness, or a combination of them all; you then enter into his pretense, when you allow yourself to then run away with it, as if you didn't know this about the poster.

“Can our Consciousness exist without the Brain and the Body ?”

It was previously explained that the consciousness is another name for the soul; consciousness is just a much more recent term then soul, similar to species being newer than kind; it's actually apart of a consciousness effort to distance scientific findings from Christianity, based on the principle mentioned above. Again, surely you know when you're trying to involve yourself in a pretense of unawareness.

“I think about this especially concerning Sleep because when our Body goes to Rest we are not alert or Conscious of what is around us so if we are totally Dead how can we be Conscious of anything ?”

Because the soul is still apart of the body, while you're alive. The real and exciting action happens after death, unfortunately; and, then, we have people who got a glimpse of of this afterlife, usually in Hell, during near death experiences, but sometimes Heaven; and, logic should then lead a person seeking out of genuine curiosity into the scholarly Christian community, as they're likely to be exploring this topic.

I usually have a peaceful sleep and I believe that it is a sign from God that the Gates of Heaven are right there for me. In what was likely a near death experience in either 2014 or 2015, I had a brief near death experience, basically after having fallen asleep; I entered a very familiar plan of existence, I was flying through the universe, I came to a place just outside the Gates of Heaven, a lot like one of those old drive in move locations that they still had by at least the mid-80s, when I was still a kid, I had a drive and to see God, Jesus intercepted me, I was momentarily glad, and I was jolted back to my body. This plane of existence was very familiar from when I was being born and when I was an infant, and the memories were very familiar from there, for some reason; it's like the memories just came flooding back and I had complete clarity of thought, during that brief moment; and, this is nearly the same thing that others describe about being in Heaven.

I was at the boarder of Heaven and it was like Jesus sent me back to either be better prepared, to accomplish other things, or both; I'm even much further in my Christianity then I was even in 2014, so, both disappointingly and gratefully, Jesus may have been giving me a second chance to get ready, to accomplish something else, or possibly even both, and something else. And, then, on the flip side, it's a warning if you're constantly having nightmares about where you might be headed; in my dreams, though, it's like I'm just on the boarder edge, between life and death, where I'm happily always in light and peace, but, where I can't fully enjoy it from a full and complete state of conscious mind.

I have this gift, possibly, because I've been dead, once during when I was a baby, according to my mother. But, seemingly, this is a very good point/question from you, except it is pretty well explained in the places likely to have the answers, such as the scholarly Christian community.

“What is it that GOD can take out of a Human that is still us Consciously after we Die so we could exist beyond the Physical Plane ?”

It's already been explained: this was originally known as a soul, not a consciousness. Remember, for Christians, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord; this means that life is the anchor for the soul.

Well not exactly, I am asking the question if Consciousness could exist outside of the Brain. Not directly saying it does.

@jonjizz:

You are making small issues.

I suspect this is because the big picture is rocking your worldview too much. You need to accept that macro-evolution may not have happened and your "bottom up" worldview may not reflect reality.

Oh and ... devolution

@king_saturn:

Could there be energy bodies?

“Mislead by whom ? These are my own thoughts about the issue.”

Why are your thoughts a blend of his comments, soon after they were posted? Thus, obviously, you wanted to be persuaded by his views, as is apparent now, following this confused line of questioning. This is a matter of being honest with yourself in a public commenting forum; thus, obviously, you were either lead or mislead, so, lead in your frame of thoughts, then.

“Okay, using your definition. Who is to say that the Soul does not die when the Body does ? I mean if you are unable to be Conscious beyond Death then how can you know you are able to be aware beyond the Grave ?”

No, actually read the post; I took the definition used by the church, for the term soul, and then applied it, in an attempt to answer your disingenuous line of questioning, apparently.

Well, apply logic, if the actual definition that I used is God's definition of the soul.

Well, you're actually presupposing things. As I said, similar to the way the secular community invented the term, species, in an attempt to distance itself from the church, it invented consciousness as a substitute for soul, and proceeded to start redefining it, as time went on; and, with that being the case, the answer is pretty apparent in the Bible; you've also been directed to the source likely to have more answers on this topic for you. It's obvious that it's a matter of having an honest desired to go look and learn. I already explained this to you, in the response post to this question.

“You are going too heavily off of assumptions though. Having a NDE does not prove that a person who is literally dead and can no longer produce brain activity can actually exist beyond their body and brain dying as the body and brain is still intact to produce thoughts and images for NDE.”

No, I'm going off on my honest exploration into the scholarly Christian community, the soul, as defined by the Bible, and people describing their experiences, plus my own experiences; I'm not assuming much of anything; I'm just describing what I experienced and relating what is apparent from the experience.

Well, you seem too limited in your knowledge of the various accounts on NDE; first, you have to demonstrate that you know anything about it beyond what someone told you who fits within your base of exploration. Who told you what an NDE was and what did they say about it? And, with that, it would have to then be comparable to my research efforts on NDE, which I seriously doubt.

“Then I repeat my other point. How does your Soul exist without your Brain and Body ? Because what good is a Soul if there is No Consciousness or Awareness ?”

And, I'll repeat, the soul is defined by the church and the Bible, which I so clearly stated; it's not just my singular definition of a soul, as any intelligent reader could tell. And, again, this is something presupposed in something that redefined the soul so as to distance it from the real definition, as to be different from the church, similar to inventing species in place of kinds, where species was then adjusted to mean more things over time from its first definition.

I don't know. What is an energy body ?

1 Change in gene frequency = evolution

2 Any change in the world = evolution

3 Loss of traits = evolution

4 Gains of function = evolution

5 Molecules to matter = evolution

6 Breeding = evolution

7 Matter to microbes = evolution

8 Microbes to mammals = evolution

9 Mammals to Man = evolution

WHEN TO DOUBT A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

(1) WHEN DIFFERENT CLAIMS GET BUNDLED TOGETHER.INTO ONE DEFINITION

Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label “consensus,” you have reason for doubt.

@spareheadone: Actually, evolution is only a change in allele frequency over generations and everything you listed, aside from that, were either

a) Ways it can happen.

b) Examples of what effects those changes might yield.

but neither of those are part of evolution's definition. Just like how "machine" isn't necessarily defined as "metal, loud, silent, efficient, battery-run, etc." Talk to a biologist. I dare you. Tape it if you can; I want a good laugh.

@flashfyr:

You are wrong as usual

Go back to uni

@spareheadone: "You are wrong" isn't an argument.

Go back to kindergarten.

@flashfyr:

Macro-evolution didn't happen

@spareheadone:

Clearly it didn't for some people.

@flashfyr:

Correct

You are slightly more clever than jizzy

So, I was going to step my toes into this pool but...

Does anyone want to have civilized discussion with me via PM?