Incredulity complex and Evolution

originally posted by: Raggedyman

But thats just silly
Beyond silly
Many christians believe in evolution

I suppose they might say that God created the first creatures and then evolved from those. Since Evolution is just the changing of things and not their start I suppose that might be their thinking.

I'm not a Christian so I can't answer for them. Ask them.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut

But surely in an infinitity of possible universes there may arise an intellect so overwhelmingly capable that can span, and control, all possible universes and thereby ensure its continued existence. With no boundaries physically and no boundaries in time, such a being is the ONLY reasonable outcome of truly infinite multiverses as it would eliminate every threat to its existence and supremacy in ALL universes.

No way that such a being is the "Only Reasonable outcome." IMO of course. But I'd love to see you try and justify such a claim somehow.

Because if such a possibility could exist, it must ensure that it is not destroyed by some other possibility, even from another universe. It must assert its supremacy to maintain its existence.

Therefore, only the strongest of such beings could exist, making its possibility an actuality and collapsing all other possibilities, where it could be challenged from.

a reply to: mOjOm

Well there is also the chance that they are not Biblical Literalists, and see the entire bible as a metaphor, and nothing more? I've known a great many of those Christians. They are reasonable individuals. The literalists, well they are not the type of people Jesus (if he existed) would have approved of

a reply to: Noinden

What I always found strange is how Monotheistic Religions Insist upon only one God and that all others are false. Yet can't seem to grasp that some people have simply done the same thing they do with all those Gods and include just one more too. That last one.

a reply to: chr0naut

Why though???

You're making way too many assumptions. First that such a being even is possible. That it could be destroyed. That it would worry about such a thing. That it could grow and control such things. That it would. That it would want to. That some other entity hasn't already done it. Or that infinite entities aren't doing it all at the same time in some kind of paradox like loop.

and probably a million other things not listed.

a reply to: mOjOm

Honestly I think it comes down to control. Polytheism or atheism allows you to seek an alternative (other Gods, or your own opinion), and well that is bad when you want to control the masses

a reply to: Noinden

I think I agree with you on that COMPLETELY!!

It may not have started out like that at first, but probably did. But it may have simply been a new idea at first and innocent of the "One God = One Supreme Authority" concept even. But even if it did start like that, I'd say it was hijacked from it's innocent theosophical roots real quick and made into what it is now.

a reply to: mOjOm

What I think happened (in many areas at least) is you had henotheism (belief in many gods, following one) and one deity edged the othes out for whatever reason. To maintain power the "oh yeah those other gods, they are "ok" but look at XYZ, he's the man" became "Nope they are ebil/facets of XYZ/What other gods?"

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

No you state that it is about belief. At no time have you demonstrated that. You repeatedly have refused to engage in the science, and default to quoting fallacious arguments. Like this one.

Evoloution, is not a matter of belief. Unlike your religion, or mine for that matter. My Paganism is a faith based thing, as is your Christianity. Science is facts.

What science

Show me the science, show me the facts
Repeatable
Observable
Testable
outside that it is faith in science

I dont have to demonstrate that your faith is science, i cant
Its as stupid as asking you to prove my belief in Jesus is science.

Its the job of those with the theory to show
Repeatable
Observable
Testable outcomes to prove evolution is a science

Show me and you win the internet

and please dont tell me whale hip bones are proof, thats been done to death

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour, we've done this before. You ignore the posts with science in them. Go back over our old posts.

However I will give you the RaddedyMan's first reader" answer. Look at the DNA studies

Now I've told you before 11 wants his moniker back, you are abusing it

Here we have a poster (Raggedyman) who will never actually look at citations. He will call them wrong, with out reading them.

Oh and Raddedyman? My faith is in my Gods. The science speaks for itself. You just can't understand it. Because your scripture is all you read.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chr0naut

Why though???

You're making way too many assumptions. First that such a being even is possible. That it could be destroyed. That it would worry about such a thing. That it could grow and control such things. That it would. That it would want to. That some other entity hasn't already done it. Or that infinite entities aren't doing it all at the same time in some kind of paradox like loop.

and probably a million other things not listed.

Yes, you are thinking!

I know I'm making a lot of assumptions. At some point, you have to reason and decide, or remain ignorant.

Firstly, if such a being is possible, then it is inevitable that it will assert its rightful place, which would be to collapse all other possibilities that may be a threat (This is similar to what we deal with in quantum physics where a quantum superposition is collapsed into a single outcome by observation).

If there was such a being, then it would be capable of preventing 'threatening possibilities' from eventuating.

It is likely that in the process of ensuring its existence, that such a being would vie against other beings and possibilities which have similar capability to assert themself.

As in the case of quantum superposition (and perhaps by Pauli exclusion?) there could only be a single outcome in such a conflict of powers. The reality collapsing the weaker possibility. As this would be outside of time, there would be no loop of causality. It is a 'once and for all time' thing.

Or, how about that eventually sentient life will evolve and combine to create a supreme intellect. That intellect having capability to transit across time, seeds critical stages in the universe to assure its own eventual arising from conscious intellects. In this way, there is a greater plan and a direction to many forces thought to be 'random' by science. This idea is also compliant with the idea of a God preventing alternate possibilities which could threaten its existence in actuality.

I actually see such a direction, called the Omega Point by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as being something compliant with the grearter scope of what is revealed in the Bible as God's plan. Perhaps we can only get 'there' by doing and thinking in particular ways that are abstracted away from 'brute survival' and self centeredness?

... and perhaps our role, as we begin to 'get there', is to elevate the next species down from us to consciousness and beyond, to ensure that the Omega Point has 'critical mass' of intellectual variety and interoperability (i.e: we are made in God's image, but that does not neccesarily mean God is only 'human').

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour, we've done this before. You ignore the posts with science in them. Go back over our old posts.

However I will give you the RaddedyMan's first reader" answer. Look at the DNA studies

Now I've told you before 11 wants his moniker back, you are abusing it

Here we have a poster (Raggedyman) who will never actually look at citations. He will call them wrong, with out reading them.

Oh and Raddedyman? My faith is in my Gods. The science speaks for itself. You just can't understand it. Because your scripture is all you read.

we have, you havnt

Show me the science, show me the facts
Repeatable
Observable
Testable
outside that it is faith in science


where are the
Repeatable
Observable
Testable
facts

Stop saying I ignore science
Show me the science first

Or try this

Can you show me scientific tests that are
Repeatable
Observable
Testable
Can you show me them being done, in action....

Dont say the fossil record, fossils are bones in the ground, they can only prove they are bones and the animal is dead.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You use this "show me" argument every time.

Nobody here can show you anything because we are all just on the internet and don't even know one another. So nobody can actually come to your house, take you by the hand and show you anything.

Unless you actually invite them to where you live and they actually make that trip. Which I don't think is going to happen.

But the information, tests, studies, examples, etc. you are asking for are available for you read and study or even repeat for yourself if you want to. But you'll have to go do that.

Don't just tell people, "show me" and when they provide you a link to what you're asking say "That's not what I asked for. That's just a website." or some other dumb thing like you always do.

I've seen you do this a thousand times. You ask for something and when it's provided in the only way possible which is a link to that information you deny it and refuse to look at it or read it or anything.

a reply to: mOjOm

you can show me on the internet, really, you can

but anyway
Can you show me a
" tests, studies, examples, etc. you are asking for are available for you read and study or even repeat for yourself if you want to. But you'll have to go do that. "
and I will go do that

All i ever see is theory masquerading as evidence, thats all I am ever offered around here

Repeatable observable scientific testing of evolution, they dont exist and if you dont know that, it is a clear indication of your ignorance.
But wait, just wait for the scientific behemoths of ats to come around and tell me I am right, they will, they have no option, there is no repeatable observable testable evidence

So please mojo, dont say there is when there is none. Science cant prove evolution, it just cant.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Like I said, I'm not going to do this with you again.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Raggedyman

Like I said, I'm not going to do this with you again.

Hiding to nothing, wise choice

It is clear Padawan Raggedyman does not know the difference between 'theory' and 'scientific theory'.

Not surprising given his home school education.

Coomba98

a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm not sure I know what you even mean by that but whatever it is it's not enough to pull me into another pointless conversation with you.

You're in one of your moods where you act like you want to discuss something but all you really want to do is Preach about something.

No thanks.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here, start with this. It's a bit of a heavy read and will most likely take you a while to go through all the references to try and prove these PHD and science degree holders wrong.

Instances of observed speciation

Rapid evolution driven by adaptation in guppies

Here is an example of how the fossil record is extremely important, and shows just how deep and diverse it can be, and shows the slow and gradual evolution of a certain species over time, even to the point where they branch off into make similar looking species but cannot breed with one another, it's a rather important aspect of evolution, and leads to a whole other field of study known as taxonomy.

Cephalopods

Start with this. Then get back to us with more of your laziness to try and understand how science actually works and just not try and use strawman fallacies and attempt to make us call your bluff.

a reply to: strongfp



Fish turning into fish, wow, unbelievable

You can teach this to primary school kids, not adults
It's not proof of anything