Creation vs. Evolution

[patrick jane]

Written where, when, and by whom?

They didn't keep those type records back then dummy :chuckle:

I could tell you but you don't believe so what's the point

 

[MichaelCadry]

Lon, I appreciate your thoughts, but I don’t agree with much of what you say.

Wow, your starting position is a mild form of character assassination. You think I am disingenuous when I say that I sincerely looked into, and ultimately rejected, the idea of God, my investigations were superficial, and my conclusion was therefore trivially unreliable.

Ok, then your God is therefore a product of the universe. I agree with that, but do you? I am sure what I mean by “God” (a fictional powerful figure invented in people’s desires to have answers to some difficult questions) differs from what you mean by “God” (who I thought was supposed to have created, not been a product of, the universe).

As to relying on eschatological type arguments for the existence of God, I would hope a real God would not be so remote from active involvement in daily life. If your God isn’t an active meaningful force in the world here and now, then I will lump Him in with hundreds of previous Gods that men have concocted.

(My disbelief in Christianity is more fundamental than not finding God. I side with Dawkins, the Old Testament God is a pretty savage and unpleasant character, and the science of the Old Testament is a mockery of what we know about the world now.)

Sure deism is intuitive. People are strongly attracted to the idea of God. There are obvious reasons for that – the desire for ultimate justice in a world where justice is not universal, the desire for conscious life to continue after death, and so on. But reality doesn’t bend to our desires.

Let’s see, I have been far too simplistic in my studies about God, I am not using reason or using your (fictional) God, and I am deceiving myself. Did I get your argument right? Shall I do like some of the posters do and start screaming “AD HOMINEM”?

Dear DavisBJ,

You can be sure that Lon would not bother to do that. He speaks from vast experience and knowledge about the Actual God, rather than your semblance of Him. We who know God can stick up for each other because we know the true impetus of what God brings to a person's life. You just missed the boat when they were passing out test results about God. In other words, you came to your conclusion about God quite rashly and insatiably. Try again.

Quite Sincerely,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

MichaelCadry,
re: "Of course beliefs can be consciously chosen!!"

As I said, I've never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that 'x' exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that 'x' exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that 'x' exists or is true"?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your ability and technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is a "fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron" and who stores a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and if ever captured has to grant 3 wishes. So, assuming that you don't already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

Dear rstrats,

You're right. Beliefs can be consciously or unconsciously chosen. You can choose to believe in either/or. It doesn't seem to matter whether you "believe in" 'FACTS' or 'FALLACIES.' One is right and the other is wrong. You just 'believe in" the one you "believe in." Right or Wrong. A lot of it is based upon what you are told. Whether you listen to God/guardian angels or correct people, or whether you listen to the devil/demons or incorrect people. I am also a Libra and I am a person who weighs each choice or decision in a 'Balance' and I also do believe in God/guardian angels. So I decide, quite a bit, by that advice. Now, the figure 'x' has a definite answer according to your math. Leprechauns I don't believe in by choice. I guess a lot of it depends on "advice," good or bad. Thanks!

Michael

 

[Lon]

You're not making sense.

The sad thing about the scientist is that his brilliance only goes as far as his field of study?
Good news? A LOT of scientists are Christians so not stuck there.

Um.....ok. :idunno:

Par for myopic perspective, no?

What's funny is how you don't appreciate what you've just done.

Oh, groovy... Let's hear. :think:

It's no different than someone being shown data indicating that teenagers are more likely to get in car accidents than adults, and responding "That can't be true, because my teen has never been in an accident".

I know. See, I've looked at these statistics in the past and they ring hollow. Again, myopia. God necessarily has to exist or we could not have this conversation. Fact, but you'll never look into why it must be so :nono:

If you don't understand how that's a logical error, then you're just making my point for me.

Worse? I predicted it.

They've been going or teaching since they were preschoolers, and now they're teens, so no....you're wrong.

Couldn't be happier.

So "You can ask questions, therefore God exists"? Great logic there Lon.

GREAT shallow cheap-shot of inanity! :up: :thumb: When you are honestly ready to think, come talk to me. This isn't it. One day you will absolutely have to ask why I know God exists. I'm at least as intelligent as you.

Or "meaning and purpose" are concepts that we've made up and can make into whatever we like.

Great, give me your address and we'll see if this pans out in real life. Oops, except for I cannot and would not specifically because there is a God in the universe and He made me with purpose and values. No God/no rules, meaning, intelligence, love, etc. etc. etc. I'd even challenge you against your notions: Your wife and kids mean WAY more to you than your godless universe would allow. Fact (find out why the assertion one day, or don't, your shallow or deep choice here).

No it doesn't. Under atheism, a person can give their life whatever "meaning and purpose" they want. And once they do that, meaning and purpose exist, all without God.

Great, then I can come over and take it away from you, because without God, that's how I'd roll :dizzy: In fact, I care about you. Why? Because I am 'made' this way. A bear? :nono: No remorse whatsoever. Jump a zoo fence and find out. Snarky? No. I mean I know all this looks that way, but you just aren't thinking past your Neanderthal eyebrow:

Or are you arguing that if humans create something, it doesn't exist? :chuckle:

It'd exist, just wouldn't matter/mean anything. I contest you live as if there is a God in the universe, despite your cognitive dissonance. When you are ready to have something beyond a veneer conversation, I'll be here. Let me know when/if that ever happens.

 

[Jose Fly]

See, I've looked at these statistics in the past and they ring hollow. Again, myopia.

So after seeing multiple analyses and studies that consistently and independently show the same result (atheists tend to be more intelligent than theists), your response is "I looked at it and it rings hollow"? Gee, great rebuttal there Lon. Must have taken you all of 5 seconds. :chuckle:

God necessarily has to exist or we could not have this conversation.

"We are having a conversation, therefore God exists"

Again, stellar logic there Lon.

When you are honestly ready to think, come talk to me.

Oh sure....when I'm ready to engage on the "Lon level" of "I looked at it and it rings hollow" and "We're having a conversation, therefore God exists" I'll be sure and find you.

Great, give me your address and we'll see if this pans out in real life. Oops, except for I cannot and would not specifically because there is a God in the universe and He made me with purpose and values.

When you get anywhere near a coherent thought let me know.

No God/no rules, meaning, intelligence, love, etc. etc. etc.

If you truly believe that, I guess it's a good thing you believe in God.

I'd even challenge you against your notions: Your wife and kids mean WAY more to you than your godless universe would allow. Fact (find out why the assertion one day, or don't, your shallow or deep choice here).

Again you're long on empty "because I say so" assertions, but pretty devoid of anything else.

Great, then I can come over and take it away from you, because without God, that's how I'd roll

Like I said, I guess it's a good thing a psychopath like you believes in God.

In fact, I care about you. Why? Because I am 'made' this way.

And without a belief in God you'd be a horrible monster. Says a lot about you.

It'd exist, just wouldn't matter/mean anything.

Sure it would.

I contest you live as if there is a God in the universe, despite your cognitive dissonance.

I'm sure that's what you need to tell yourself, but I really don't care.

When you are ready to have something beyond a veneer conversation, I'll be here. Let me know when/if that ever happens.

Thanks. Next time I want to rely on some random person's empty, baseless assertions on an internet forum, I'll let you know.

 

[Lon]

So after seeing multiple analyses and studies that consistently and independently show the same result (atheists tend to be more intelligent than theists), your response is "I looked at it and it rings hollow"? Gee, great rebuttal there Lon. Must have taken you all of 5 seconds. :chuckle:

Sorry, no. It is no wise settled and there are more than one counter study and counter evals.
Selective hearing much? Confirmation bias? No? Never heard of any of this? Makes sense. I'm stopping here. Again the standard I was raising was one that was beyond the trivial which is your only interest in TOL to date.... Again, when that changes....

"We are having a conversation, therefore God exists"

Again, stellar logic there Lon.

Ah, mockery...

Inane and insincere doesn't suit you. :wave:

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry, no. It is no wise settled and there are more than one counter study and counter evals.

More "because I say so" responses. Honestly Lon, do you think that sort of thing is at all persuasive to.....anyone?

Selective hearing much? Confirmation bias? No? Never heard of any of this?

You don't even realize how that's what you've been doing since being shown the comprehensive data indicating atheists tend to be more intelligent than theists, do you?

Again the standard I was raising was one that was beyond the trivial which is your only interest in TOL to date.... Again, when that changes....

Really? So your last few posts to me were your idea of "beyond the trivial"? Those were your genuine attempts at higher-level discussion? Again, says a lot.

Ah, mockery...

Inane and insincere doesn't suit you. :wave:

Well, if this is the best you can do, I'll just let it speak for itself.

 

[patrick jane]

More "because I say so" responses. Honestly Lon, do you think that sort of thing is at all persuasive to.....anyone?



You don't even realize how that's what you've been doing since being shown the comprehensive data indicating atheists tend to be more intelligent than theists, do you?



Really? So your last few posts to me were your idea of "beyond the trivial"? Those were your genuine attempts at higher-level discussion? Again, says a lot.



Well, if this is the best you can do, I'll just let it speak for itself.

It's easy to take the position of no God or creator. It takes less intelligence to believe in no God at all.

All you have to do is deny the existence of God and say there is no proof, but it still doesn't explain the origin of life.

WE have eyewitness testimony of multiple hundreds that saw the resurrected Christ and He is the Son of God who died for your sins

 

[rstrats]

MichaelCadry,
re: "Leprechauns I don't believe in by choice."

But I didn't ask you to choose to not believe in them. I assumed that was already your default position. I asked you to choose to believe in them. And keep in mind that in order for a thing to be considered a choice, there must be at least two things to select from, and each one of the things has to be able to be selected. In the example of leprechauns, there are three options available - option (1) the belief that leprechauns exist, option (2) the belief that leprechauns don't exist, and option (3) no belief either way. I am simply asking you to select option number (1) in order to demonstrate your ability to conciously choose to believe things.

 

[DavisBJ]

They didn't keep those type records back then

I agree. That is part of the point I am getting at. I am sure you are relying heavily on the Bible for your declarations of who saw Christ and so on. Yet the Bible is the product of a largely oral tradition, often recorded only after decades of retelling, and includes only the books that some council decided were authoritative enough to be included as part of what we now call the Bible.

To help understand part of my view on this, many years ago I did a moderately in-depth study on some issues in the early history of Mormonism. Since Mormonism was founded in the early 1800s, the relevant Mormon Church records kept during that founding were contemporary and numerous, and were supplemented by many external eyewitness accounts, diaries, and such. Yet the desire within the Mormon Church to present its history in a favorable light has led to an amazingly biased presentation that minimizes or completely denies things they want forgotten.

The Bible is based on less than a smidgen of as many original source documents as Mormon history, and has had ten times as long for the effects of the pressure for it to be presented as “the truth”. As a result the Bible has good teachings, many good morals, and yet also acts of murder and horror commanded within it. Scientifically, no major university in the world buys into some of the Biblical claims dealing with scientific matters.

I could tell you but you don't believe so what's the point

The point is my disbelief is not born of either ignorance or of blind faith. My rejection of the Bible is mandated by my own dedication to personal honesty.

 

[DavisBJ]

It's easy to take the position of no God or creator. It takes less intelligence to believe in no God at all.

Is that why disbelief is so strongly correlated with those who have proven themselves as premier scientists? They are lacking in intelligence?

All you have to do is deny the existence of God and say there is no proof, but it still doesn't explain the origin of life.

Where science does not have a clear answer, you think that automatically becomes evidence for God?

Christ and He is the Son of God who died for your sins

I ask no one to stand in for me. If God is real and can’t accept me when I am willing to face up to my mistakes, then I should willingly let His Son be brutalized for my mistakes instead? Really?

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

You can be sure that Lon would not bother to do that. He speaks from vast experience and knowledge about the Actual God ...

Quite Sincerely,

Michael

Hi, good buddy Michael,

To forestall a meltdown on your part, I will simply say

Ignore # 74

Bye, Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Lon, I appreciate your thoughts, but I don’t agree with much of what you say.

Wow, your starting position is a mild form of character assassination. You think I am disingenuous when I say that I sincerely looked into, and ultimately rejected, the idea of God, my investigations were superficial, and my conclusion was therefore trivially unreliable.

Ok, then your God is therefore a product of the universe. I agree with that, but do you? I am sure what I mean by “God” (a fictional powerful figure invented in people’s desires to have answers to some difficult questions) differs from what you mean by “God” (who I thought was supposed to have created, not been a product of, the universe).

As to relying on eschatological type arguments for the existence of God, I would hope a real God would not be so remote from active involvement in daily life. If your God isn’t an active meaningful force in the world here and now, then I will lump Him in with hundreds of previous Gods that men have concocted.

(My disbelief in Christianity is more fundamental than not finding God. I side with Dawkins, the Old Testament God is a pretty savage and unpleasant character, and the science of the Old Testament is a mockery of what we know about the world now.)

Sure deism is intuitive. People are strongly attracted to the idea of God. There are obvious reasons for that – the desire for ultimate justice in a world where justice is not universal, the desire for conscious life to continue after death, and so on. But reality doesn’t bend to our desires.

Let’s see, I have been far too simplistic in my studies about God, I am not using reason or using your (fictional) God, and I am deceiving myself. Did I get your argument right? Shall I do like some of the posters do and start screaming “AD HOMINEM”?

Dear DavisBJ,

I could answer you even MORE Thoroughly here. Can I, can I?? Do I have to get Lon's permission and your position in order to respond again?? It's not a character assassination at all, Davis. It's the way you implement your methods and beliefs on whether to believe in God or not. God is an active force in the Earth and in our lives after all. Just not in yours, BJ. Oh, I could answer a lot more. Let's see what Lon thinks!! I would answer him Lon, but he will just ignore the dagger of the Truth in my words and just say he's ignoring me.

Thanks BJ,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear jose fly,

Believing in God isn't a coping mechanism at all, despite what you say. BJ just didn't look into it seriously enough. He has to dig a little deeper into his heart and persona. He is instead, quick to 'judge' God. You can disagree all you want to. When it hits you in the face, disagree with it then. You will get your day of reckoning, so don't worry.

Got to press on!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

No. you should continue be a contentious atheist and denying the deity of Christ. Never mind the eyewitness testimony we have

Dear patrick jane,

You see, Davis would rather talk about me and mention me in his posts. But when I post back to him, he goes 'Lalalalaalala" with his fingers in his ears and says he's ignoring me, like a little kid. Just making that clear to you, bro!! That's exactly what he's trying to do. He's possibly a formidable foe to some, but not to me; and he knows it!

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

… he will just ignore the dagger of the Truth …

Michael

Dear Michael, a dagger to the heart I can take. It’s your psychotic meltdowns I am trying to dodge. So …

Ignore # 75

Thanks, Mike

 

[MichaelCadry]

MichaelCadry,
re: "Leprechauns I don't believe in by choice."

But I didn't ask you to choose to not believe in them. I assumed that was already your default position. I asked you to choose to believe in them. And keep in mind that in order for a thing to be considered a choice, there must be at least two things to select from, and each one of the things has to be able to be selected. In the example of leprechauns, there are three options available - option (1) the belief that leprechauns exist, option (2) the belief that leprechauns don't exist, and option (3) no belief either way. I am simply asking you to select option number (1) in order to demonstrate your ability to conciously choose to believe things.

But rstrats, I don't believe in option 1. I've always meant all along that you can believe or disbelieve. In other words, have a belief or disbelief in something. Is that clear enough?? Somehow, we are misunderstanding each other. By the way, I have to get going for a bit.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael, a dagger to the heart I can take. It’s your psychotic meltdowns I am trying to dodge. So …

Ignore # 75

Thanks, Mike

Dear BJ,

There are no psychotic meltdowns to dodge. You just don't like the truth. You just say that so you don't have to answer hard, true discussions from me. I know that you don't know what you're talking about and you don't like that. So you play 'ignore Michael,' hoping I will go away. But it doesn't work that way. You aren't fooling anyone. At least, not me. You are a chicken. Cluck, cluck!! See, I can play childish games like you! Cluck!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear BJ,

You just say that so you don't have to answer hard, true discussions from me. ...

Michael

Ya know this exchange is reverting to the old childish idiocy, don't you? But if are so delighted by ignores, then keep prodding.

Ignore #76

 

[MichaelCadry]

Ya know this exchange is reverting to the old childish idiocy, don't you? But if are so delighted by ignores, then keep prodding.

Ignore #76

Dear DavisBJ,

Yes, it seems to be that again. But, everyone knows your M.O. by now or they ought to. I'm sure that Lon and patrick jane can see right through you. You refuse to believe there is a God and you say that He doesn't exist, while I say He does. You have no choice but to ignore me because otherwise you have no other leg to stand on.

Michael