“I don’t believe in evolution�

[Zzyzx]

.
You (generic term) don’t ‘believe in’ evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (‘resurrection’), Earth flooded to ‘tops of mountains’, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, ‘faith can move mountains’ (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

[FWI]

Kindly provide supporting evidence for each of these claims.

Sorry, but I won't accept such a request. The evidence is supplied as general knowledge. Thus, if you disagree, it is your responsibility to rebut the statements with valid contradictions, not unrealistic theories.

Such as this one:

Contrary to what many laymen think, there is no Law of Entropy which states that order must always decrease. That is a layman's fiction, although born from a small kernel of reality. The actual Law of Entropy is better known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

So, what is entropy? Here's a laymen's way to address it:

Imagine that you take a box of puzzle pieces and dump them out on a table. In theory, it is possible for the pieces to fall perfectly into place and create a completed puzzle when you dump them out of the box. But in reality, that never happens!

Why?

Quite simply, because the odds are unrealistic for this happening! Every piece would have to fall in just the right spot to create a completed puzzle. There is only one possible state where every piece is in order, but there are nearly an infinite number of states where the pieces are in disorder. Mathematically speaking, an orderly outcome is "realistically impossible" to happen at random.

So, it seems that all the pertinent information or facts weren't given in the article supplied and for good reason. They show that life coming to be randomly is a non-starter.

Is there just a bit of inconsistency in accepting ‘on faith’ tales told by ancient writers while rejecting to accept modern concepts provided by systematic study of the real world? Is it not more rational to accept modern knowledge and reject opinions expressed by ancient writers?

No and No! Where, secular knowledge is not compatible with faith and cannot be trusted related to it…Furthermore, the idea that modern concepts provide a systematic study of the real world is surely questionable.

Has this been demonstrated in human reproduction?

Yes, but in an unnatural way! However, it seems that a clearer understanding of what a virgin birth entails is in need here. Simply put: a virgin birth is a birth that did not come to be by male/female copulation or coitus. So, it is not uncommon for a women to be a surrogate and be impregnated by artificial insemination or introduction of semen into the uterus or oviduct by means other than natural. This is similar to what occurred to the mother of the Christ (Mary). Hence, if man can do it, this type of action would be pretty simple for God…

Kindly cite evidence to support a claim that mountains a few thousand years ago were ‘much smaller than they are today’

The bible makes it clear that the flood waters only reached 15 cubits or about 22.5 ft. (Genesis 7:20). The Hebrew word (H2022), which was translated into mountains can also mean "range of hills." So, Genesis 7:20 surely supports this…Hence, implying that the bible suggests that the flood waters were hundreds or thousands of feet high is pure conjecture…So, it might be prudent to further explore the actual facts, related to this subject.

Correction: The Bible clearly states that ‘God’s’ intention was to wipe out all living things excepting those aboard an ‘Ark’. Genesis 6:7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them

Sorry, but I need to correct, your assumed correction…You suggest that God's intention was to wipe out "all living things." God did not destroy marine life! Where, the term "face of the earth" means land or dry surface. So, if you review Genesis 6:7 again, you'll read that only man, animals, birds and creatures that move along the ground were to be destroyed. Yet, it is also interesting to note that the human race was considered separate from animals in this verse and during the time period, which followed, until the 19th century A.D. This says a lot about the modern concepts provided by an unsystematic study of the real world.

For biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

Of course, let's just accept that everything that the secular scientists can imagine is true and that everything that they and their followers post (on the internet) is also true and should not be properly researched, just believe. We should also ignore the contradictions and unproven theories that are presented regularly. Yes, this surely would make them happy…But, it's not reality!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 60 by rikuoamero]

Saying that, "doubting is nowhere close to claiming that the event could not have possibly occurred" is not saying that, "I would be under the impression that the event may be possible."

Rather, it is simply an admission on my part, that I would have no way to demonstrate that it did not happen, other than pointing to the same things which you have, which would not demonstrate in any way, that it did not happen.

Since you're not claiming the event could not possibly have occurred, this has to mean (at least as far I understand) that it might have occurred, that it may be true. The probability is not 0.

You see, the difference seems to be that I understand that, probabilities, and possibilities has no effect whatsoever, on whether something has actually occurred.

In other words, I think that we can both agree that the probability, and possibility of a resurrection occuring would be, zero. We could also go on to agree that a resurrection would be, scientifically impossible. However, this would not in any way determine, as to whether a resurrection has ever occurred, or not.

You think I'm being as simple as those who simply point to a Bible...?

Well, I don't know? Lets see?

How on earth is science, (and the scientific method) as simple as believing a book simply because one believes it to the work of an all knowing god, no matter how far fetched the claims in the book would ordinarily be?

Well, allow me to ask you, how much of these scientific studies have you done, in which you have verified what is being said? In other words do you simply trust what scientists tell you, without question? Are you under the impression that scientists could not possibly have a bias, and would never attempt to report their findings toward this particular bias, and therefore defer to these scientists on things you may not understand?

You see, you seem to be under the impression that I simply accept what the Bible has to say without question, but this would not be the case in the least. I tend to question everything to a fault, and this would include the Bible. However, it would also include science as well, which would mean, I do not accept things as demonstrated facts, until, or unless they have been verified to be facts. This would also mean that I do not simply defer to scientists, simply because they are referred to as the experts.

How about you? Do you ever question science in any way? Or, do you simply accept what a scientists tells you, and defer to them on all things that you may not understand?

Next, I am not under the impression that science has, or ever will have all the answers. Rather, I am under the impression that science would be in the business of demonstrating those things that would be scientifically possible, and opposed to being scientifically impossible. Science is not in the business of demonstrating that what has been deemed scientifically impossible, has never occured.

Can you see the difference? Science can certainly demonstrate that a resurrection is scientifically impossible. What it cannot demonstrate, is that it has never happened.

I don't have an equivalent of a holy book of science. Instead, what I have are the cumulative centuries of work done by very intelligent people.

And you have "faith" in these people, correct?

But hypothetically speaking, if someone made that claim to you and as far as you could tell they were being serious...you wouldn't shut the door? You'd say to yourself "Hmm...maybe there is an invisible dragon in my garage"?

Again, context my friend, context! Since, I have never heard anyone make such a claim, outside the context of a hypothetical situation, then this is the only thing I have to base it upon.

[John Human]

I was at Wal-Mart recently, where I randomly chanced to run into Nature. She had a wide-screen TV and a 12-pack of Budweiser in her shopping cart. I asked her what she was selecting, and she said "a couch potato."

[Tcg]

I was at Wal-Mart recently, where I randomly chanced to run into Nature. She had a wide-screen TV and a 12-pack of Budweiser in her shopping cart. I asked her what she was selecting, and she said "a couch potato."

In another thread, you made the following statement.

The rest consists almost entirely of statements from other beings that I transcribed, word-for-word, as the words appeared.

Is Nature one of these beings whose words you transcribed as the words appeared?


If so, are the words, "a couch potato" the totality of the message you received from Nature?



Tcg

[John Human]

[Replying to post 64 by Tcg]

I certainly hope I didn't mislead you into thinking that Nature shops at Wal-Mart. However, I'm pleased to clarify. I suspect that people (perhaps including yourself) can recognize that my reference to Nature was deliberately absurd in order to make a point. Do YOU think that "natural selection" is more than a metaphor?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 64 by Tcg]

I certainly hope I didn't mislead you into thinking that Nature shops at Wal-Mart.

Rest assured, you didn't.

However, I'm pleased to clarify. I suspect that people (perhaps including yourself) can recognize that my reference to Nature was deliberately absurd in order to make a point.

Given the nature of some claims made in this forum, deliberate absurdity isn't always easy to differentiate from other forms of absurdity.

Do YOU think that "natural selection" is more than a metaphor?

I wasn't aware that it is a metaphor.



Tcg

[For_The_Kingdom]

.
You (generic term) don’t ‘believe in’ evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (‘resurrection’), Earth flooded to ‘tops of mountains’, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, ‘faith can move mountains’ (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

Christian theists believe that a guy rose from the dead. Naturalists believe that inanimate matter came to life and began to talk.

Unless one does an in depth analysis of the two, not really much of a distinction there.

[Clownboat]

.
You (generic term) don’t ‘believe in’ evolution because it has not been proved to your satisfaction. Correct?

Do you believe tales of human parthenogenesis (virgin birth), reanimation of long dead bodies (‘resurrection’), Earth flooded to ‘tops of mountains’, donkeys and snakes talking, demons being cast into swine which drown themselves, ‘faith can move mountains’ (literally), supernatural characters influencing human lives, etc?

Have all the latter been proved to your satisfaction? If so, what is that proof?

Christian theists believe that a guy rose from the dead. Naturalists believe that inanimate matter came to life and began to talk.

Unless one does an in depth analysis of the two, not really much of a distinction there.

Were we not inanimate matter before we were born?
You sir, were infact inanimate matter that came to life and can now speak.

So while you go on pretending that the dead can come back to life, I'll continue to acknowledge that inanimate matter can and does come to life and speak and acknowledge how you compare the likelyhood of each to be the same even though one is fact and the other a religious story.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Were we not inanimate matter before we were born?

Right, but we didn't come from inanimate matter...unless your parents were..inanimate..and I doubt that very seriously lol.

You sir, were infact inanimate matter that came to life and can now speak.

But I didn't come from inanimate matter.

So while you go on pretending that the dead can come back to life, I'll continue to acknowledge that inanimate matter can and does come to life and speak and acknowledge how you compare the likelyhood of each to be the same even though one is fact and the other a religious story.

Can you scientifically prove that inanimate matter came to life? Nope. Then what you have, sir..is speculation, and a borderline religious belief.

[Tcg]

But I didn't come from inanimate matter.

That's an interesting claim given that you presently consist of inanimate matter.


Until you provide evidence of this astounding transformation, I'll remain skeptical.



Tcg