Response to AronRa vid "WTF is a Kind!!!!"

[Led Zeppelin]

Hello AronRa. Since this is your favorite web forum, I thought I would post this here because you say you want an answer. And it's not possible for me to say that I am actually giving you an answer without also giving you an opportunity to say whether or not I am correctly representing your question.


You often make the claim that no creationist has ever been able to give you an answer as to what a kind is. Meaning no creationist has ever explained to you what kinds are nor have they ever provided you a definition for the word kind. I know this particular video is a year old, but you do still claim this? Correct?


And with this claim, you imply there is distinction between the biblical principal of kinds and biology. Otherwise there would be no point in any of this. Correct?


So it stands to reason I should first begin by briefly addressing this distinction.


Kinds bring forth their own Kind- This is the only context in which biology is ever realized, because it is true. It is a biblical principle. Correct?

Humans and Pine Trees are related- This is a context in which biology is NEVER realized because it is conjecture. It is an AronRa principle. Correct?


I would assume you would agree with both of the above points because you more than anyone should know that phylogenetic trees are based on conjecture. With your "Phylogeny Challenge" you are basically admitting that your conjecture is not particularly useful to anyone for anything so you want Creationists to make up their own conjecture so you can basically say "Ha! That doesn't work either!"

But the difference is, we never said we could tell you what every living creature descended from. YOU DID. We told you that would not be able to. And you didn't listen.

We can't know what all of the created kinds are. The bible only generalizes them according to the domain in which they are intended to dwell in. Sky, Land, Water and Creeping. Sure, there will be exceptions to this rule but no creature will ever violate this rule in more than 1 way. And not in 50 fucking different ways like the rules used to define species. And the constraint placed upon this rule will never be violated (The Kinds will bring forth their own kind.)

I guess you could kind of define them by what they do also, AronRa. You are right. What do Bears do? They sleep in caves and eat people. So if something sleeps in a cave and eats people then I guess it must be a bear! Right? It sure the fuck is not going to be a squirrel or a dolphin! I think we can both agree on that. Correct?

Kind means Form.

Forms can be determined by the inherited characteristics which allow them to dwell within their intended domain. Because Forms will bring forth their own Form. Indeed it is the form of a creature which allows it dwell either in the land, sky or sea. Correct?

Does this tell us specifically what every created kind was or how many there were? No.

Can morphological comparisons tell you what every common ancestor is? No.

Can DNA? No.

 

[*SD*]

So, having not provided any evidence for the existence of God in the thread dedicated entirely to that exact thing, you thought you'd challenge Aron on what the word "kind" means in this context. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Mythtaken]

Just a quick question that's bothered me for quite a while. In the biblical history of events, what were plants and animals made from?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Just a quick question that's bothered me for quite a while. In the biblical history of events, what were plants and animals made from?

This isn't a real question, is it? How can not knowing about something that you could read in 5 minutes, bother you for a long time?

It does not look like Aron is going to respond. You would not happen to be some sort of representative of his, would you? He seemed genuine to me at first in that video I posted.

I noticed he just put out a video where he debunks some old Christian guy who apparently has been dead for 30 years that no one has ever heard of before. The video is called "The Facts of Evolution" or something like that. He doesn't really talk about the theory of evolution in this video at all. I've watched a few other of his vids in the last days just at random and the ones I picked he mostly talks about phylogeny. I was watching them at high speed and like I said it was just a few of them.

So in the last few days it just dawned on me, this guy should know just as well as anyone what a kind is. Because he is dealing with them all the time. In phylogeny, monophyletic groups are like the most important thing and these are not species they are kinds. Or at least the presumption is made that they are a kind.

And he's showing these phylogenetic trees as if they are evidence for the theory of evolution. And people seem to buy into it. So I just picked out a short video on how these phylogenetic trees are created and thought I'd post it here. It's about as short as can be to explain how the software works and one thing to note is that is this video they use protein sequences instead of DNA but it works the same way.



And that's about it. You tell it what animals you think are related and it will draw you a diagram based on their protein sequences. It would still do the same thing regardless if any of the creatures you pick actually share a common ancestor. It is programmed to always assume universal common ancestry.

 

[Mythtaken]

No, it's a serious question.

I don't mean to sidetrack your stuff about kinds, it just reminded me of this problem. The bible doesn't really say how plants and animals were made, or what their were made from. It just says god made them. Now we know that Adam was made from dust, according to the scriptures, so we can extrapolate that all people were made the same way, until they got around to procreating.

Creationists get very adamant about the big bang because, as they argue, you cannot create something from nothing. Yet here we have a whole planet of plants and animals popping into existence from apparently nothing, which seems to fly in the face of their argument. So, yeah, it's a serious question.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Creationists get very adamant about the big bang because, as they argue, you cannot create something from nothing.

Well sure, that's a good point. For me its enough to just say that Creationist appeal to a miracle that happened in the last 10,000 years or so and Secular cosmologists appeal to a miracle that happened 14 billion years ago. Both sides seem to generally agree on astrophysics. Secular cosmologists take what little we know of the universe and determine what the most likely route to a starting point in the universe would be, if their was no creator God. What the most probable steps would be. Similar to what evolutionists do when trying to build a "tree of life". The main reason they believe in a universal common ancestor is because of probablities, no?

As far a cosmology goes, there is plenty of room for either side to put ones foot in ones mouth. Especially in these last few years. Still both sides want to be right and both sides are going to overstate their case at times. How much can any of us really know about the initial state of the universe anyway?

Yet here we have a whole planet of plants and animals popping into existence from apparently nothing, which seems to fly in the face of their argument. So, yeah, it's a serious question.

If I remember correctly God created the seeds of plants and caused them to grow. He indirectly refers to the water, land, and sky when animals were created. And He directly refers to Himself when Man was created. So that might not tell us much what things are made from . But the creation account is more about things being "spoken" into existence, rather than bringing in a bunch of "building material" in from another universe or where ever. What that implies is that perhaps there is a medium that transcends the spiritual and physical realm. Otherwise it would be hard to imagine how empty spaces would be defined in the spiritual realm. Who knows? But indeed, the most fundamental components here exist more as waves of light or energy rather than as actual physical substance. We are made up of more empty space than we are of anything else.

Secular scientists would argue that building material of course came in through an initial singularity, which is undefinable in nature. And because it happened so long ago that the material moved through so many states that novelties would occur. Something new would happen. Like a star would form and then more stars would form and then something new would happen again, minerals would form and so on. Then they transfer this idea to biology. That's why every secularist idea of on the origin of anything, always depends on things that happen so slowly that no one can ever see them actually happening. It's not a coincidence.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Creationists

BTW most people who get labeled as Creationist, aren't really Creationists. People like Aron Ra and Dave Farina direct vitriol mostly at people who don't believe in the theory of evolution who just happen to also be Christian. Which to me is kinda strange. Imagine being seething with hatred at someone because they were a Hindu who rejects relativity. Then you label them as "Hindu-ists" and you end up with millions of followers on the internet who all hate Hindu-ists too.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

.

 

[Mythtaken]

Both sides seem to generally agree on astrophysics. Secular cosmologists take what little we know of the universe and determine what the most likely route to a starting point in the universe would be, if their was no creator God. What the most probable steps would be. Similar to what evolutionists do when trying to build a "tree of life". The main reason they believe in a universal common ancestor is because of probablities, no?

Unfortunately, not all on the religious side do agree with astrophysics or cosmology. There are a great many who accept the scientific evidence and retain their religious faith. However, the "Creationists" I refer to are those who eschew all scientific evidence concerning the age or origins of the earth and the universe in favour of the literal biblical account.

Still both sides want to be right and both sides are going to overstate their case at times. How much can any of us really know about the initial state of the universe anyway?

On the secular side, we do have a great deal of data that generates a demonstrably accurate model of the early universe at or near the time of the expansion. What existed or came before is unknown and may never be known. I don't think that is overstating the case, merely following the evidence as presented.

On the religious side, there are several competing written accounts claiming to explain the origins of the world (with some reference to the universe). None of these accounts are testable and rely on a willing acceptance of their veracity.

If I remember correctly God created the seeds of plants and caused them to grow. He indirectly refers to the water, land, and sky when animals were created. And He directly refers to Himself when Man was created. So that might not tell us much what things are made from . But the creation account is more about things being "spoken" into existence, rather than bringing in a bunch of "building material" in from another universe or where ever. What that implies is that perhaps there is a medium that transcends the spiritual and physical realm. Otherwise it would be hard to imagine how empty spaces would be defined in the spiritual realm. Who knows? But indeed, the most fundamental components here exist more as waves of light or energy rather than as actual physical substance. We are made up of more empty space than we are of anything else.

I don't recall anything about god creating seeds, but it's been several years since I've spent time reading the Bible, so I bow to your knowledge here. Still, this is why I've been troubled by this question. I have watched many creationists attempting the debunk the big bang theory by saying it argues for the universe "exploding into being" from nothing. At the same time, they accept without question that everything was "spoken" into being by some unknown and unknowable entity. I find the cognitive dissonance required to hold that position baffling.

I can more easily accept the notion you mention, that perhaps there is some spiritual realm that exists beyond our reality, from which all things were brought. It is still completely implausible, given what we know about the physics of the universe, but at least it's a theory with some connection to how we know things work. And, of course, it is an idea that stems from secular knowledge, not the bible.

Secular scientists would argue that building material of course came in through an initial singularity, which is undefinable in nature.

No. It is accepted that we don't know where the initial hot dense state of the universe came from, as we have no data or evidence going back that far. Of course there have been many hypotheses put forward, but none of them are accepted as true or even possible. They are simply starting points to initiate more investigation and data gathering.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Unfortunately, not all on the religious side do agree with astrophysics or cosmology. There are a great many who accept the scientific evidence and retain their religious faith. However, the "Creationists" I refer to are those who eschew all scientific evidence concerning the age or origins of the earth and the universe in favour of the literal biblical account.

Right. I am a creationist. I say the Earth is young. James Tour is not a creationist, neither is Casey Luskin. To me personally, I can understand why others think the Earth is old. Radiometric dating is an effective way of convincing people of that. But you have to ask yourself why is there so much radioactivity in the crust of the Earth to begin with. In the last year or so there has been research published which indicates massive amounts of voltages and free flowing electrons can be produced in crust during earthquakes. Enough to trigger nuclear reactions. It's based mostly on simulations of course. So you have to take it with a grain of salt.
Knowing how old the Earth is or agreeing with me about how old it is, certainly is not a requirement of Christianity. So there is no reason to take myself so seriously. To me, Creationism is more like a hobby. I can't speak for all other creationists though. There are really not too many of us anyway.

On the secular side, we do have a great deal of data that generates a demonstrably accurate model of the early universe at or near the time of the expansion. What existed or came before is unknown and may never be known. I don't think that is overstating the case, merely following the evidence as presented.

I don't know. I am not so convinced. But of course I would not say that Big Bang cosmologists and Evolutionist are all the most dumbest people in the world or anything. Of course many of them are just as brilliant as anyone else. But I think it's become evident that the more discoveries that will be made, the more "rescue devices" both theories will require.

The LCDM will perhaps appeal to things like dark matter and dark energy and increasingly rapid galaxy formation. And Evolutionists will appeal more to a younger LUCA and non-genetic inheritance of information and other complexities that the TOE does not predict or explain.

On the religious side, there are several competing written accounts claiming to explain the origins of the world (with some reference to the universe). None of these accounts are testable and rely on a willing acceptance of their veracity.

That makes sense to me. Us humans are generally not that good at science anyway. So why would God make scientific understand of anything a requirement? That would suck big time for most of us. Especially Aron Ra!

I don't recall anything about god creating seeds, but it's been several years since I've spent time reading the Bible, so I bow to your knowledge here. Still, this is why I've been troubled by this question. I have watched many creationists attempting the debunk the big bang theory by saying it argues for the universe "exploding into being" from nothing. At the same time, they accept without question that everything was "spoken" into being by some unknown and unknowable entity. I find the cognitive dissonance required to hold that position baffling.

Wasn't the Big Bang first theorized by some monastic Christian like 100 years ago? I don't know. Nobody is perfect I guess. To me it seems clear that both cases require something supernatural. Surly that is what most creationists would argue. But I understand your point.

I can more easily accept the notion you mention, that perhaps there is some spiritual realm that exists beyond our reality, from which all things were brought. It is still completely implausible, given what we know about the physics of the universe, but at least it's a theory with some connection to how we know things work. And, of course, it is an idea that stems from secular knowledge, not the bible.

Well sure. The point of the message God gave to us in the Bible is mostly; "No matter what I do, you will hate me. I even gave you my only Son and you murdered Him." There's not much there that would lead one to believe He is overly concerned with what we think we know about plants and gravity. Not at the moment anyways. He wants us first. Then we can be certain there is nothing He would love more than to listen to us babble all day to Him about flowers and stars.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

So this is the "Facts of Evolution" video I mentioned earlier. As I he said he does not not much about the theory of evolution in this video. Around the 14:30 time mark he does mention molecular clocks. And he insinuates here that phylogeny verifies the molecular clock or clocks. Basically every point he makes maybe shortly before or shortly after this time stop is misleading. And he knows it is, he has been doing this for a long time. I'll just stick with focusing on what he says about phylogeny for now, because it also seems to be his main focus. It fits better to this thread and it seems to be his main thing he himself focuses on. It's what he wants people to give him money to do.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chung-Chau-Hon/publication/43022487/figure/fig1/AS:601805419458576@1520493001453/The-different-parts-of-a-rooted-phylogenetic-tree-showing-the-root-branches-nodes-and.png

So here in this image, you can see the solid black dots are what are called nodes. This particular tree I believe was generated by plylogeny software called BEAST, but they all work basically the same way. You tell it what kinds of animals you want in the tree and the software will automatically generate nodes for you, based on whatever algorithm you tell it to use. The software will always assume common ancestry. The root is determined by whatever outgroup you select. The outgroup is whatever kind of animal you think might be more distantly related to the any of the other other creatures represented in the main group. Ideally as equally distant from each of them as you can guess. But you don't want to select a group that could be too closely related! Othewise you might end up with a root where a node be.

It's just a pre-programmed algorythm that allows you to add whatever conjecture you want to it. And then it draws some circles and lines for you. And people who are not Creationists, think this is a good way to calibrate molecular clocks. And it doesn't work, for obvious reasons and also for other reasons that might not be so obvious. But I think this is enough for everyone to get the idea.

 

[Mythtaken]

Radiometric dating is an effective way of convincing people of that. But you have to ask yourself why is there so much radioactivity in the crust of the Earth to begin with.

It's a good question. The answer is that many natural elements that make up the earth contain radionuclides. That's simply a product of how matter is made. Luckily, we've learned how to use those natural radioactive elements in a lot of science, including providing accurate geological dating.

But I think it's become evident that the more discoveries that will be made, the more "rescue devices" both theories will require.

Certainly more discoveries will be made. In fact, there are new discoveries now, such as old galaxies that are larger than the model would suggest, which challenge our understanding. However, I think it's being a bit disingenuous to assume science will come up with "rescue devices" to explain away these discoveries. That is the antithesis of how science works. Challenges to established models offer opportunities to re-examine, modify, or even replace current models with better, more accurate ones.

For generations, Newton's laws were the final word in physics. Then Einstein came along and, as one writer put it "broke the magic wand of Newton" with his theories of general and special relativity.

That makes sense to me. Us humans are generally not that good at science anyway. So why would God make scientific understand of anything a requirement? That would suck big time for most of us. Especially Aron Ra!

I can't speak for Mr. Ra's scientific understanding, but to answer your question, I would suggest that, if there was a god who created us, it clearly did not want us to be merely passive animals, or we would not have been given an inquisitive nature.

A better question might be, why would any intelligent species not be curious about themselves and the universe around them? Knowledge and understanding are the things have driven us forward throughout history. I find it strange that religion often tries to curtail those traits, instead offering simplistic, unsubstantiated answers in their place. I wonder how far we would have progressed as a species, had we simply been content to accept the explanations offered by religion. I rather doubt I'd be typing this message on a computer to send across the globe for you to read.

To me it seems clear that both cases require something supernatural.

Do they though?

On the religious side, we must accept the existence of a supernatural entity for it to work.

On the secular side, science simply admits we don't know what existed before the universe began. That would be the opposite of supernatural.

Well sure. The point of the message God gave to us in the Bible is mostly; "No matter what I do, you will hate me. I even gave you my only Son and you murdered Him." There's not much there that would lead one to believe He is overly concerned with what we think we know about plants and gravity. Not at the moment anyways. He wants us first. Then we can be certain there is nothing He would love more than to listen to us babble all day to Him about flowers and stars.

This leads me another question I have. Why? Why does this god want us? If the lore is correct, he created us, so he already has us. Why would any god-entity want us to spend our time worshipping it? What is the point for either side? And why didn't he simply bake that in to the recipe?

I know, theists like to talk about free will. But under the biblical lore, god is omnipotent and omniscient. So he knows everything about us and what we'll do. There is no room for free will in that scenario.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

It's a good question. The answer is that many natural elements that make up the earth contain radionuclides. That's simply a product of how matter is made. Luckily, we've learned how to use those natural radioactive elements in a lot of science, including providing accurate geological dating.

Sure, radiometric dating is a convincing argument for an old earth!

If I wanted to explain to someone how I think these radionuclides came into existence, it would involve mostly ideas that we don't have a lot of experimental data on. So my only other option would be to use the same old arguments against radiometric dating that which anyone would be interested in has already heard 100 times before. But 2 observations I would point to are that almost all the radioactive elements in the Earth are near the granite crust. And the crust has the potiental to produce massive amounts of voltage because of its composition.

Granite itself, seems to be a bit of an enigma. With all of our technology and know how, It does not really seem to be something we can just recreate in a lab.

Certainly more discoveries will be made. In fact, there are new discoveries now, such as old galaxies that are larger than the model would suggest, which challenge our understanding. However, I think it's being a bit disingenuous to assume science will come up with "rescue devices" to explain away these discoveries. That is the antithesis of how science works. Challenges to established models offer opportunities to re-examine, modify, or even replace current models with better, more accurate ones.

Right. "Rescue device" maybe isn't the right word. The point is basically, when do we say this theory is no longer working so well, so we need a different theory?

For generations, Newton's laws were the final word in physics. Then Einstein came along and, as one writer put it "broke the magic wand of Newton" with his theories of general and special relativity.

Exactly!

I can't speak for Mr. Ra's scientific understanding, but to answer your question, I would suggest that, if there was a god who created us, it clearly did not want us to be merely passive animals, or we would not have been given an inquisitive nature.

A better question might be, why would any intelligent species not be curious about themselves and the universe around them? Knowledge and understanding are the things have driven us forward throughout history. I find it strange that religion often tries to curtail those traits, instead offering simplistic, unsubstantiated answers in their place. I wonder how far we would have progressed as a species, had we simply been content to accept the explanations offered by religion. I rather doubt I'd be typing this message on a computer to send across the globe for you to read.

That's a good point. But If we were to review history, we could see that Christianity certainly is not antithetical to scientific advancement and discovery. Many if not most of the sciences we have today were founded by people who affirmed the creation. And virtually everyone of early western places of higher learning, like Yale and Cambridge were founded by Christians.

Do they though?

On the religious side, we must accept the existence of a supernatural entity for it to work.

On the secular side, science simply admits we don't know what existed before the universe began. That would be the opposite of supernatural.

It seems to me like they do. I'm certainly no expert. But I think which ever side is right, the implications are both equally massive. If an entire universe can create itself "out of nothing" then there could be alternative universes coming into existence at each micro-instant, for example.

This leads me another question I have. Why? Why does this god want us? If the lore is correct, he created us, so he already has us. Why would any god-entity want us to spend our time worshipping it? What is the point for either side? And why didn't he simply bake that in to the recipe?

I know, theists like to talk about free will. But under the biblical lore, god is omnipotent and omniscient. So he knows everything about us and what we'll do. There is no room for free will in that scenario.

Worshipping is a term that we dont really have a modern context for. I do not know what it means to "Go out into the desert and worship" something. Aron Ra would say it means to crawl around on your hands and knees and say "Im sorry Im sorry, Master!"

Today it would just mean to hold something in the highest regard. It's what most people do today with themselves. We hold ourselves in the highest regard. Our social status. Or sometimes violence, or money. Or even the afluence of others. We can do these things or we can hold our relationship with God in the highest regard. I think if there was no God, then rich people would not be commiting suicide all the time. Because just having wealth and power would be the most enjoyable, mental and emotionally fulfilling experience we could ever have, no? But it doesnt work that way.

God is omnipotent in a sense but He is still constrained by logic. He cannot make me a married bachelor for example. Or he cannot make evil good. The future does not exist. The Bible does not portray God as having exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events. It portrays God and us as having free will, on virtually every page of the Bible. And some Christians go nuts when you tell them that! I don't understand why.

 

[Mythtaken]

But 2 observations I would point to are that almost all the radioactive elements in the Earth are near the granite crust. And the crust has the potiental to produce massive amounts of voltage because of its composition.

Fair point, though there is some considerable difference between the electrical energy and radioactive decay. I have to give it to the scientists for knowing how to differentiate the two in their observations.

Right. "Rescue device" maybe isn't the right word. The point is basically, when do we say this theory is no longer working so well, so we need a different theory?

I think you have to go back a way to see that sort of change. Our view of the earth from being flat to spherical, for example, or the shift to the sun being the centre of the solar system, rather than the earth. And of course Newton's laws of physics transformed how science saw the world.

Today, established scientific models and theories have reached the point where they may be modified or expanded, but are less likely to be completely replaced by something new. Even in the example of Einstein vs Newton. Newton's laws still hold true everywhere here on Earth even in local space. Relativity is simply an augmentation or expansion of Newton that is both more accurate and works at the very large and the very small scale. Newton himself understood that gravity worked out in space, but he was never able to explain why. Relativity does just that, hence the term "breaking the magic wand" because Einstein was able to provide that "why".

That's a good point. But If we were to review history, we could see that Christianity certainly is not antithetical to scientific advancement and discovery.

I totally agree. Secularism certainly doesn't hold the reins on scientific advancement. I should have been clearer in saying I was talking there about that particularly vocal group of young Earth creationists who only follow the literal word or the bible (or the particular version they accept).

If an entire universe can create itself "out of nothing" then there could be alternative universes coming into existence at each micro-instant, for example.

That's a whole topic on it's own. Many young earth creationists love to make this point, yet no scientist has ever suggested that as fact. Some talk about a singularity. Most refer to the hot dense state at the beginning of the universe. That's why science acknowledges that we simply don't know what, if anything existed before.

There are proponents of the multiverse theory, that our universe is indeed one of countless others. Interestingly, Stephen Hawkins asked the question, why could not the universe have come from nothing? Nothing in the scientific sense, meaning a lack of physical matter, not necessarily energy. But again, those are just hypotheses, nowhere close to being accepted considered as fact.

Today it would just mean to hold something in the highest regard. It's what most people do today with themselves. We hold ourselves in the highest regard. Our social status. Or sometimes violence, or money. Or even the afluence of others. We can do these things or we can hold our relationship with God in the highest regard.

I'll go along with that definition. It's also clear in the bible that god demands he be the one thing we hold in that highest regard. My question is still why? What is the benefit? There's a suggestion there that god is somehow powered by worship, that he exists because the the power from worship. That's a curious state for an omnipotent being.

God is omnipotent in a sense but He is still constrained by logic. He cannot make me a married bachelor for example. Or he cannot make evil good. The future does not exist. The Bible does not portray God as having exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events. It portrays God and us as having free will, on virtually every page of the Bible.

This is and interesting take on it. It doesn't seem to jive with the mainstream christian view, however. For example:

God knows everything (1 John 3:20). He knows not only the minutest details of our lives but those of everything around us, for He mentions even knowing when a sparrow falls or when we lose a single hair (Matthew 10:29-30). Not only does God know everything that will occur until the end of history itself (Isaiah 46:9-10), but He also knows our very thoughts, even before we speak forth (Psalm 139:4). He knows our hearts from afar; He even saw us in the womb (Psalm 139:1-3, 15-16). Solomon expresses this truth perfectly when he says, “For you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind” (1 Kings 8:39). -- From gotquestions.org

There are plenty of others which say the same. This is probably the biggest error in the religion, in my opinion. Earlier religions waned because the gods were all too human, and were eventually cast aside because of their human failings. The god of the bible avoided that by being unseen and unknown, which prevents followers from identifying too closely with him. But when you bring in the ideas of omnipotence and omniscience, it leads to these sorts of questions and a disconnect from what we see around us. Religious leaders have tried to wave away the questions of why god would allow cancer and war and disease, etc. with the old tired excuses, but it has taken it's toll, as we can see in the rising number of unbelievers.

Some places are trying to stop people from leaving by mandating religion, as in various muslem countries and America. I don't think it will succeed long term. Too many people are seeing that gods aren't required in a modern, science based world.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Fair point, though there is some considerable difference between the electrical energy and radioactive decay. I have to give it to the scientists for knowing how to differentiate the two in their observations.

Lol. For sure. Sorry for not being more clear. I forgot someone had done a video years ago exactly on what I am talking about. You can check it out if you want. It's a bit of a pipe dream though.

That's a whole topic on it's own. Many young earth creationists love to make this point, yet no scientist has ever suggested that as fact. Some talk about a singularity. Most refer to the hot dense state at the beginning of the universe. That's why science acknowledges that we simply don't know what, if anything existed before.

Well the point to me is, why does end there? Again, secular cosmology is based mostly on probabilities. It's just there most likely answer. It seems rather convenient to me that it ends in the unknowable. How good of an answer can that be, really?

I'll go along with that definition. It's also clear in the bible that god demands he be the one thing we hold in that highest regard. My question is still why? What is the benefit? There's a suggestion there that god is somehow powered by worship, that he exists because the the power from worship. That's a curious state for an omnipotent being.

I see what you mean. Yes you are correct. I wouldn't go as far as to say we power the spiritual realm. Maybe just influence it. Michael was able to help the angel Gabriel fight Satan after 21 days because Daniel fasted and humbled himself to 3 weeks. Gabriel immediately started babbling to Daniel about this as soon as he makes it there, even before giving Daniel the message God sent Gabriel to give him in the first place. Nobody asked him. And it doesn't seem to be something God commanded Gabriel to to tell him. It's almost as if it were a strange new thing that happened and that Gabriel wanted to tell someone about it. And I guess you could say that it was something both Daniel and Gabriel benefited from.

This is and interesting take on it. It doesn't seem to jive with the mainstream christian view, however. For example:

You would be surprised at the amount of infighting that goes on between us Christians and some of the things we argue about. Presumably there are 2.4 billion of us. Imagined if we all started doing something useful for a change! Christianity has become overly concerned with "institution building" in the west now. Which is not what it was meant to be. Too much self promotion. While the Christians on the other side of the world get nothing.

God knows everything (1 John 3:20). He knows not only the minutest details of our lives but those of everything around us, for He mentions even knowing when a sparrow falls or when we lose a single hair (Matthew 10:29-30). Not only does God know everything that will occur until the end of history itself (Isaiah 46:9-10), but He also knows our very thoughts, even before we speak forth (Psalm 139:4). He knows our hearts from afar; He even saw us in the womb (Psalm 139:1-3, 15-16). Solomon expresses this truth perfectly when he says, “For you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind” (1 Kings 8:39). -- From gotquestions.org

There are plenty of others which say the same.

They all will generally indicate present knowledge. Knowing ones thoughts is present knowledge. It's not the same thing as having complete knowledge of all future events.

Religious leaders have tried to wave away the questions of why god would allow cancer and war and disease, etc. with the old tired excuses, but it has taken it's toll, as we can see in the rising number of unbelievers.

Well that's the grim reality of life on Earth. No one gets out alive and none of us have any guarantees. It's not exactly an ideal situation for any of us to be in. But it has to be hard. We complain about it now, but we when our time comes our last dying regret will be that it was not harder and that we did not suffer more. Because only when life is hard do we really get an opportunity to show those we care about that we love them.

That's why wealth often leads to unhappiness. Isn't it?

Too many people are seeing that gods aren't required in a modern, science based world.

Really?? To me it seems most people are just busy trying to raise their kids or just to get to work on time. I think people don't really spend much time thinking about science in their everyday lives. Sure, people like Richard Dawkins would have you believe they look at a research paper before deciding which direction to fart in. But that's not how people are in real life.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Loading…

www.tandfonline.com

So this paper points on the importance of nongenetic information. In order for the theory of evolution to be true, complexities and variation must have arose from random mutations in our DNA. Because unless these are the result of a random process then, then the only other option evolutionists have is to appeal to a prexisting cellular mechanism. Which in itself, is an apeal to a preexisting complexity, which is circular reasoning.

"Firstly, multicellular organisms which undergo sexual reproduction, in addition to many which undergo asexual reproduction, begin from a single cell and over the course of development generate vast phenotypic diversity to form the numerous component cell types. This variation is produced whilst maintaining genetic homogeneity to a certain extent, inferring that this phenotypic change and resultant variation is underpinned by nongenetic information. Therefore, this process of differentiation, integral to developmental programs in order to generate phenotypically distinct cell types, could be considered as a model for evolutionary change driven by nongenetic mechanisms."

Keep in mind, even though nongenetic information exists apart from the genome, it is still inherited.

​

 

[Mythtaken]

Interesting video. It doesn't explain a lot about the natural radioactive elements, as it;s mostly concerned with how rare elements can be produced artificially.

Well the point to me is, why does end there? Again, secular cosmology is based mostly on probabilities. It's just there most likely answer. It seems rather convenient to me that it ends in the unknowable. How good of an answer can that be, really?

That's true, you could say the scientific explanation is the most likely answer. But it is based on decades of research, experimentation, and exhaustive testing to determine if it can stand up. It rejects facts not in evidence and does not entertain speculation. When it comes to the beginning of the everything, "we don't know" is the perfect scientific answer. It is truthful, and begs to be answered.

The religious explanation is based on the need to provide a definitive answer that will satisfy casual curiosity and promote faith. It is the perfect answer for those who want everything to have an easy to understand answer. It provides comfort.

You would be surprised at the amount of infighting that goes on between us Christians and some of the things we argue about.

I would not. And to be fair, there's a lot of infighting among scientists too. The main difference here is that scientific differences can be resolved through more research and evidence. Religious differences can end in hatred and bloodshed.

They all will generally indicate present knowledge. Knowing ones thoughts is present knowledge. It's not the same thing as having complete knowledge of all future events.

Except there are plenty of places in the bible which speak of god's foreknowledge. And of course we can't forget Revelations and all the prophesies that are only possible because knows the future. So we can't pick and choose. He is either omniscient all the time or not at all.

We complain about it now, but we when our time comes our last dying regret will be that it was not harder and that we did not suffer more. Because only when life is hard do we really get an opportunity to show those we care about that we love them.

That's why wealth often leads to unhappiness. Isn't it?

See this doesn't sell me on the idea. I'm not looking to suffer in this life just so I can dance around and sing god's praises in some speculative next life. That doesn't sound like a lot of fun either.

Really?? To me it seems most people are just busy trying to raise their kids or just to get to work on time. I think people don't really spend much time thinking about science in their everyday lives. Sure, people like Richard Dawkins would have you believe they look at a research paper before deciding which direction to fart in. But that's not how people are in real life.

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. What I was trying to say is we have a much better understanding of how the world works, thanks to science. People no longer rely on portents or need to sacrifice to gods in hope of better harvests or to ask for a mild winter, etc. I think it's these simple things provided by science and technology that are moving people towards a more secular way of life. Even many believers are less inclined to put all their faith in their god, when they have access to the benefits of science, medicine, and technology. This is also why, I think, we see some of the more cult-like groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses work so hard to keep their people ignorant of science and technology. Some of the more fundamental Christian groups are also trying to push the narrative that we can't trust science.

 

[Mythtaken]

Loading…

www.tandfonline.com

So this paper points on the importance of nongenetic information. In order for the theory of evolution to be true, complexities and variation must have arose from random mutations in our DNA. Because unless these are the result of a random process then, then the only other option evolutionists have is to appeal to a prexisting cellular mechanism. Which in itself, is an apeal to a preexisting complexity, which is circular reasoning.
h nongenetic information exists apart from the genome, it is still inherited.

Interesting stuff. I wish I had enough knowledge of genetics and evolution to engage with this. Hopefully someone will come along who does.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

The religious explanation is based on the need to provide a definitive answer that will satisfy casual curiosity and promote faith. It is the perfect answer for those who want everything to have an easy to understand answer. It provides comfort.

Well if something is a lie, then actually it provides no comfort and leads to death and oppression and will hurt innocent people. Just like all lies do.

Except there are plenty of places in the bible which speak of god's foreknowledge. And of course we can't forget Revelations and all the prophesies that are only possible because knows the future. So we can't pick and choose. He is either omniscient all the time or not at all.

I can tell you 10 different things that will happen tomorrow. I can even tell you what millions of people will be doing on December 25 and New Years. Does that mean I have complete foreknowledge of all future events? No, of course not! Does it mean we don't have free will? Again no.

See this doesn't sell me on the idea. I'm not looking to suffer in this life just so I can dance around and sing god's praises in some speculative next life. That doesn't sound like a lot of fun either.

Then I guess you have nothing to worry about.

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. What I was trying to say is we have a much better understanding of how the world works, thanks to science. People no longer rely on portents or need to sacrifice to gods in hope of better harvests or to ask for a mild winter, etc. I think it's these simple things provided by science and technology that are moving people towards a more secular way of life. Even many believers are less inclined to put all their faith in their god, when they have access to the benefits of science, medicine, and technology. This is also why, I think, we see some of the more cult-like groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses work so hard to keep their people ignorant of science and technology. Some of the more fundamental Christian groups are also trying to push the narrative that we can't trust science.

That's a good point. Sure. That's one great thing about the information age we are living in, it has destroyed the Jehovahs Witness church.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Interesting stuff. I wish I had enough knowledge of genetics and evolution to engage with this. Hopefully someone will come along who does.

OH come on! Don't be like that!

The main point is that evolutionists wanted to random mutations in our DNA to explain all the variations of life we see today. And more and more it's looking like the answer is something that's does not even have genomic evolutionary pathway.