Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: whereislogic

Be selective:A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15)

It points people with J-word-phobia in the right direction though. This was the case for me. Jesus is surely the gate, but there's nothing wrong with pointing people in the righteous direction. I do appreciate your deep analysis, keep it coming.

What I quoted from cooperton is an example what happens if you're not selective, or using discernment and several other useful logical techniques described in the article that is on the next page as the page that I linked to. Besides the fact that if you want to keep your mind healthy it's not a good thing to read too much of Plato's work (or take it seriously) cooperton makes no mention of the other meaning for the Greek word "logos":

Yes, this is the teaching I was pointing to by mentioning Plato's reference. this is why consciousness is the foundation; the logos is the reasonable word that created the reasonable universe(Gen 1, John 1). Plato's realm of Form also seems similar to Jesus's kingdom of Heaven. They both talk about the pursuit of righteousness and the Good. around 3-4th century BC, Plato even predicted the impending Christ life in his Cave Allegory - Great demonstration of prophecy.

originally posted by: cooperton
...the logos is the reasonable word...

Now you're mixing 2 different definitions or usages for the word "logos" into 1 term, not noticing that the word "reason" does not apply at John 1:1 (where it means God’s “Word,” or Spokesman.). And you're following this line of thinking:

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.

You do this when you swap out "God" first with "consciousness" and then with "the logos" and "the reasonable word". Greek philosophers did this too (except maybe for the "consciousness" step and different terminology for the last step, and following a different order, I just used the order in which the words and terms appeared in your sentence). "Consciousness is the foundation" is a somewhat vague statement anyway, whose consciousness? If it's God, then why not just say 'God is the foundation of everything that exists except himself', but then why use the word "foundation"? You might as well state that 'God created everything that was created'. Just to keep it simple and accurate and no need to use confusing sentences about foundations and the complicated subject of consciousness, which may be involved, but doesn't tell us much and is not a word for "logos" (or the logos) or an accurate description of what God is all about anyway (even though he has a consciousness).

a reply to: Raggedyman

I ran into another video with Neil deGrasse Tyson and Dawkins where it's Neil using the 'appeal to pride and playing on the fear of seeming stupid' propaganda trick that I emphasized before, but it and the rest of the video is a bit more in the form of an effect or result of how their predecessors (teachers and philosophers they looked up to, they admired, whose argumentation they are often repeating) have used these techniques on them and cultivated their haughtiness with that behaviour and way of arguing, philosophizing.

HAUGHTINESS

Disdainful pride; superciliousness; arrogance. Haughtiness is the opposite of humility. The Greek and Hebrew words translated “haughty” and “haughtiness” have the basic meaning of causing oneself to appear “high,” “exalted,” “lofty,” “eminent.” One who is haughty is, in his own esteem, superior, lifted up above his fellowmen. As a result, such a person usually claims honor and attention beyond what is due and treats others with disrespect and insolence.

A Condition of the Heart. Haughtiness is a bad quality or characteristic that is deeper than a mental conclusion. Jesus Christ named it along with murder, thievery, blasphemy, and other wrongdoing and said that “from inside, out of the heart of men,” such things issue forth. (Mr 7:21, 22)
...
Additionally, the person desiring God’s favor should avoid flattery, which tends to cultivate haughtiness in others. The proverb says: “An able-bodied man that is flattering his companion is spreading out a mere net for his steps.” (Pr 29:5)..."a flattering mouth causes ruin." (Pr 26:28)

Sometimes they're laying it on real thick, this video is somewhat mild in that regards, but perhaps you can spot the appeal to pride and playing on the fear of seeming stupid by Neil. Mind you in this video it's a little harder to spot or expose cause the application is slightly different. If you can spot it, you can tell others where to find it and perhaps give some more details so I don't have to talk too much and take care of every detail. (and this is supposedly a....see video title? 1 million views, pffff, talk about Matthew 7:13,14)



Oh, and since the topic of education comes up in that video:

EDUCATION

The imparting or acquisition of knowledge and skill. Education is accomplished through (1) explanation and repetition; (2) discipline, training administered in love (Pr 1:7; Heb 12:5, 6); (3) personal observation (Ps 19:1-3; Ec 1:12-14); (4) reproof and rebuke (Ps 141:5; Pr 9:8; 17:10).

Not arrogantly telling maybe-so and just-so stories and including them in propagandistic books to make some money. Telling people what to think rather than showing them HOW to think logically (ohhh they're teaching people how to think as well, but not logically and reasonably, so they're actually doing the opposite, they tell people what to think and they tell people how to think erronuously):

THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows* you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think.

* = remember what I quoted before about "(3) personal observation" and "(4) reproof and rebuke"? The last one isn't bragging about political (and economical) biased peer review either. (more words apply than just political and economical motivations, but it has an 'elite' clique functionality, for lack of better terminology in my mind right now)

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!

a reply to: whereislogic

Still waiting for any evidence to be put forward that disputes evolution...

I disagree with your take on education as well. We havent rewritten trigonometry in millenia. We learned. We passed that knowledge on. We then investigate further changing viewpoints which leads to updated textbooks. Certain fields are relatively young fields like genetics while others we just replace the books when they fall apart because the knowledge base has never changed. Part of thinking logically is looking at the evidence and being objective with it. There is no logical thought behind creationism, but rather a series of fallocious arguments. The few that have tried to make a scientific argument have all failed.

originally posted by: Cypress


Still waiting for any evidence to be put forward that disputes evolution...

www.changinglives.org.au...

There you go

a reply to: Raggedyman

An op-ed with a bunch of fallacies and misrepresentation does not equal evidence. This will be the last response to your posts until you actually bring something to the table than trolling attempts.

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: Raggedyman

An op-ed with a bunch of fallacies and misrepresentation does not equal evidence. This will be the last response to your posts until you actually bring something to the table than trolling attempts.

Ditto

Actually you have shut it down without addressing anything

Though I never expected anything else, ooroo

originally posted by: whereislogic

Now you're mixing 2 different definitions or usages for the word "logos" into 1 term, not noticing that the word "reason" does not apply at John 1:1 (where it means God’s “Word,” or Spokesman.). And you're following this line of thinking:

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.

is God's Word not also Reasonable? I think you're nit-picking.

You do this when you swap out "God" first with "consciousness" and then with "the logos" and "the reasonable word". Greek philosophers did this too (except maybe for the "consciousness" step and different terminology for the last step, and following a different order, I just used the order in which the words and terms appeared in your sentence). "Consciousness is the foundation" is a somewhat vague statement anyway, whose consciousness? If it's God, then why not just say 'God is the foundation of everything that exists except himself', but then why use the word "foundation"? You might as well state that 'God created everything that was created'. Just to keep it simple and accurate and no need to use confusing sentences about foundations and the complicated subject of consciousness, which may be involved, but doesn't tell us much and is not a word for "logos" (or the logos) or an accurate description of what God is all about anyway (even though he has a consciousness).

In my opinion, I think that's the point of this:

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: cooperton

Adaptation is evolution. "Adaptation mechanism" didnt evolve, the mechanism behind genetic variance which is what gives rise to adaptation are chemical processes.

You are describing epigenetics, and yes, according to the theory of evolution, these would have had to evolve. It is beyond anyone how an evolutionary step could involve pocketing a beneficial mutation that might be useful later on - Yet, this is what we observe with epigenetics and other adaptation mechanisms. It defies the entire premise of evolution; it is more probably that these adaptation mechanisms were always present.

Regardless if a genetic mutation is used or not, if an organism reproduces, the genetics are passed on. The fact that genetics are passed on from one generation to the next completely invalidates your attempt here.

The whole concept of descent with modification is that the beneficial traits are naturally selected through higher likelihood of reproductive success - a temporarily arbitrary mutation (which may be beneficial later on) would not increase probability of reproduction for said mutant organism. When you think critically about the gears of evolutionary cog-work you realize they are impossible and imaginative. But, so many scientists have devoted their life works and beliefs to this framework, and thus will never let go of the blatant lie that is the theory of evolution.

As for the founding of ideas behind creationism nonsense, I am familiar with them. I also understand that to have a debate both sides need to be able to support their position and there is zero evidence of ID.

Mathematics is some of the best evidence for ID - intelligible physical laws created by an intelligible God.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Hey you finally actually attempted to post evidence. That's a start! Unfortunately everything in that link has already been debunked. I am going to break it down for the folks who are interested and for the 3rd party viewer of the thread. This is something that no creationist ever does with evolution evidence, as you have already refused to acknowledge it numerous times. I will go ahead and debunk it all. What I am about to say is not up for debate.

If biologists propose the evolution of life (by natural processes and mutations) then the scientific community (scientists who study cosmology and abiogenesis) need to be able to explain how the raw materials (the earth, the sun and the first cell) essential for the evolution of life came into being. If you have no sun, earth or first cell we can have no evolution of life.

The very first paragraph, which is completely false. Biologists do NOT need to explain how raw materials first came into being. That is not what evolutionary theory describes and it's not biology. That's chemistry and cosmology, completely different fields of science. They are doing the same thing that folks here constantly do. They are straw manning evolution. Evolution is genetic mutations and natural selection, NOT abiogenesis, NOT chemical evolution, NOT the origin of life itself. Evolution describes genetic changes leading to various attributes changing over time.

In the evolutionist framework, the sun, the earth and the first cell came about by random, mindless, blind and unguided processes. Random, mindless, blind and unguided processes never achieve anything.

False. This is equivocating materialism with evolution and they are NOT the same.

In natural selection, the environment affects the gene frequency in a population. Even so, natural selection is a mindless and blind process acting on mutations which are random, mindless and blind.

Evolution (which is mindless and blind) will never achieve anything.

Of course natural selection is mindless and blind, it's not a conscious entity. That isn't a fault of evolution. Natural selection IS NOT random, it basically explains how changes in the environment affect the species that live there. The mutations are random, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. We can measure mutations happening and have studied numerous genomes of humans and their recent ancestors. Funny how they repeat the same "mindless and blind" catch phrase over and over as if it somehow makes the hard evidence wrong.

Evidence 1:

Does not address evolution, it talks about the origin of the universe, which is NOT BIOLOGY, therefor NOT evolution. Plus they STILL got it wrong. Nobody claims that the universe came from nothing. That is a blatant lie and has nothing to do with any science whatsoever.

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy

Completely wrong, yet again. Finite energy does not mean the universe could not have always existed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet this person claims it was created. Sorry that goes against the law of thermodynamics, yet they tout that law immediately as if they know more than scientists about the origin of the singularity in which the universe expanded.

the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.

Wrong. The second law addresses entropy or increasing disorder. Energy is not continually decreasing, since it cannot be created or destroyed, only change forms.

Evidence 2:

More nonsense about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Again, this has nothing to do with biology or evolution, this guy is just trying to promote creationism by lying about what the laws actually say. I already addressed entropy above, entropy does not conflict with evolution in the least because the earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun, therefor energy is added into the system and entropy does not apply since it's not an isolated system.

So that's 2 pieces of evidence that have zero to do with evolution.

NEXT:

Evidence 3:

Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

How do they know this? Last I checked scientists are still unsure about the origin of life.

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Another complete guess.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

Evolution does not require this. Again, the guy is not even talking about evolution, he is referring to the origin of life. They are not the same, no matter how many times the lie gets repeated. The author is referring to materialism.

So that's 3 pieces of "evidence against evolution" that have nothing to do with Biology. I wonder if they will ever address the actual topic they are referring to.

Evidence 4:

Looks like another complete guess here. This one claims that complex systems cannot evolve bit by bit. Do they offer proof of this? Nope. Funny how they use a Darwin quote mine to justify their BS claim.

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

This is a complete lie and no evidence is provided to back this up. Evolution of the eye has been studied and scientists have a very good idea how it developed. Why can't he explain why it is impossible? irreducible complexity has been debunked for years. There is no evidence anywhere on earth of an irreducibly complex organism.

Okay so they are 0 for 4 and produce ZERO evidence of their claims so far. Next!

Evidence 5:

Ah yes, the old "missing link" fallacy.

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Completely wrong. Numerous intermediary fossils have been found. Which links are missing again? Funny how once again they offer no evidence and no examples. Last I checked we had 20 separate species discovered between ancient ape and modern human. Missing link is a misnomer because every fossils is a link between it's parents and offspring. Plus fossilization itself is very rare, so expecting fossils to come up in abundance for every creature to ever live is downright silly.

0 for 5 and this is the FIRST part that actually refers to evolution.

Funny how it took 5 pieces of so called evidence to actually mention one that's relevant. That is the type of lies we are dealing with on websites that have a pro creationist agenda.


CONTINUED BELOW:

a reply to: Barcs
Continued from above:

Evidence 6:

This one claims that genetic mutations actually contradict evolution. This is laughable because without them, evolution would not happen.

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

Of course, natural selection doesn't produce new material or genetic codes. Why would it?


Note the INSERTION type of mutation. Claiming new codes cannot emerge is beyond silly. It's like computer code. If you change the code, you change the program and it's function.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Terrible argument. First off that first statement is a lie and the #4 source is a book about creation, not science. Hilarious that they'd cite a propaganda book as fact. This argument kind of goes along with the "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" claim. Fly is not a species. The fruit fly experiment proved that speciation can happen as they produced 2 different species of fly incapable of breeding with each other. Of course many will end off worse and die out. That's how evolution works. It weeds out the less adapted species. It's hilarious how what they cited as evidence against evolution is actually evidence for evolution.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Wrong again. They have nothing to do with thermodynamics (something the author clearly doesn't understand). LMAO at "when things are left to themselves". What does that even mean? I've already explained that entropy doesn't apply to earth because new energy is constantly coming in, so no they aren't left to themselves. Mutations are indeed a mechanism and it's slam dunk proven at this point. How can the author even deny this?

Evolution is not about things becoming more ordered. It is not a linear process. Mutations are not disorder, they are change.

Evidence 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

This one is barely worth addressing. Probability does not mean a thing when we simply don't know the answer as to how rare life is in our galaxy. It really saddens me when the best they can do is talk about the chances of abiogenesis happening when it's something we don't even fully understand yet while ignoring the evolutionary processes that happen right in front of our eyes in a lab. Again, this has ZERO to do with evolution, only the origin of life. Plus I'd wager their numbers are wrong or made up.

0 for 7, and only 2 out of the 7 even talking about evolution.

These are the same fallacies and lies that have been debunked for years. Now I already know that Raggedyman will not address a single one of my points with any sort of rebuttal that involves science or reality. This post is not for him. It's for the benefit of the lurkers and folks that don't care to waste their time explaining what has already been explained countless times. I had some free time today, so I went ahead and addresses every point they made point by point, something that no creationist will ever do with the evidence in favor of evolution that far outweighs this "evidence".

Sorry that site is a creationist propaganda site. Nothing they say is backed by science or evidence and most of their sources are creationist books. In fact, most of it is a complete joke. Hopefully some people will realize this now.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

I already addressed entropy above, entropy does not conflict with evolution in the least because the earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun, therefor energy is added into the system and entropy does not apply since it's not an isolated system.

Let's focus on this because I think we can make some common ground. There were mistakes by the author of that site that you properly pointed out, but in doing so, you revealed a grander truth.

system noun

1. a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.
2. a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.

By definition, the fact that these systems even exist are indications of an intelligent organization. A clock will not work with incomplete cogwork, similarly, organisms will not work with incomplete components. It is not the chicken or the egg that came first, rather, both were coded for simultaneously from an intelligent source that was organizing the system.

Answer this: If a hypothetical template strand of DNA gets mutated, and against all odds, generates a biochemically beneficial advantage and does not disrupt the perfect equilibrium already established by the organism, what happens to the old protein that the template strand used to code for? It is no longer expressed by the genetic coding due to the mutation.

It's like computer code. If you change the code, you change the program and it's function.

How long would it take a random letter generator to create any sort of functioning code?

a reply to: Barcs

I'd like to believe this is the end of this sad excuse for a thread...

but we both know its not... Well said

a reply to: Akragon

We both know you can't keep from commenting

Now Barcs

I just can't help a person who believes if you get fairys, Santa clause and Easter bunny, mix them into a glass of milk you get a fairy milkshake
Science is based on logic
You don't want, need or understand logic
Science has escaped you altogether, reading your words makes me realize how scientifically illiterate you are, nobody can fix that

You in your basic beliefs thinks this is a science verses God argument, it's not
It's about science establishing facts



Code generator, seriously, from stardust and water, no...

Big Bang from nothing...that's a religious belief

Energy from nothing, maybe from forever, aliens, where ... Mind numbingly stupid on the stupid scale , who teaches that to you

I can't be bothered

Really, fossils tell you everything fossils are bones, you can only guess, they don't talk 0/ 100

Not one of your statements has any scientific evidence to back it up. Pictures are not ev...

The chicken or the eggs,,what, what

No that's to foolish to waste a reply on

You offer assumptions and guesses
Non of that was evidence

Fruit fly turning into fruit fly...

There are times in life when you meet or discuss things with people who just live in a dark cave, are fed scraps and imagine those scraps to be wonderful meals

Enjoy your meal

Just don't pretend you understand or care for science, you destroy science, your little corruptions turn it into an abominable religion

a reply to: Raggedyman

We both know you can't keep from commenting

Why not keep the circus rolling... Lol

originally posted by: Akragon


Why not keep the circus rolling... Lol

lol? as if this is a game? This is the fight for your soul. The secularist propaganda may have disillusioned you into thinking this is all a meaningless charade, but I promise you, there is much more to this human condition than meets the 5 senses.

Keep pursuing truth, you'll figure it out.

a reply to: cooperton

this thread is a charade... from beginning to... well here

Though in any case evolution has no bearing on truth... and it is clearly closer to that "truth" then "poof here we are" as the op seems to attempt to show

The "evolutionists" as you people like to call them have more evidence then creationists do... by far...

Which is not saying their theories are absolute... but they make far more sense then the creationist theory

In any case as i've said before... this is not my arguement... I am nothing less then a spectator in these debates..

and the creationist side... in every single case... is nothing less then pathetic...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: cooperton

this thread is a charade... from beginning to... well here

Though in any case evolution has no bearing on truth... and it is clearly closer to that "truth" then "poof here we are" as the op seems to attempt to show

The "evolutionists" as you people like to call them have more evidence then creationists do... by far...

Which is not saying their theories are absolute... but they make far more sense then the creationist theory

In any case as i've said before... this is not my arguement... I am nothing less then a spectator in these debates..

and the creationist side... in every single case... is nothing less then pathetic...

cmon Ak
You can't really believe what has been offered by the science fraternity is evidence
A few theories based on best guess
A few bones from here and there

You have an opinion based on religion, your religion demands you accept evolution.
You have no better reason to accept evolution that an atheist, it correlates with your gnosticism

All those answers Barcs gave were answers akin to a religious zealously, no different to yours
Same motivation, same belief

Let me give you a tip, no matter how smart you think you are...

The fact you are here indicates you think it's more than a charade, much more

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well i told you i don't argue with children... or child like mentality

Yes.. science has theories... but at least they're based on something more then a book written by goat hearders millennia ago... all of which Christianity calls "fact" which is nonsense

And seriously... quit with calling everyone that disagrees with you a "gnostic"

There are people in the "Christian" persuasion that have read the gnostic texts... you look like a moron when you call people gnostic and you don't even know what the ideals of gnosticism are about

Don't take one member's word for what it means as you've already claimed... Read the texts your self or stfu about something you know nothing about

And for the final time... i am not a gnostic... anymore then you are a Satanist

IF you're going to converse with me... use your frickin brain

This thread is utterly pathetic... because you as the OP has absolutely nothing to refute "evolutionists" as you call them....

Nothing but insults... slander... and nonsense, which is why i've said twice now...its pointless speaking to YOU

Don't post a link and expect people to refute it as Barcs JUST did... IF you know nothing about evolution... just admit it and move on...

I truly hope a MOD will close this thread... it does nothing but lower the IQ of our species

a reply to: Akragon

Barcs did refute it
Unfortunately he used opinion and not a drop of science, did anyone see any science in his reply, opinion, beliefs?

As for your beliefs, I don't know them, I have seen the way you conform to gnosisfaiths opinion.
Unlike evolution, biological or otherwise where 0 + 0 = everything I note you plus gnosisfaith agreeing equals you a gnostic

All that said, you are welcome to your beliefs, we disagree, you will just have to accept that as a given

My issue stands, it's preposterous that any one any where could imagine life evolved from stardirt and starwater

I like your new nasty and bitter style Ak