Is the world polluting the minds of young people with a false narrative of the origin and meaning of life?

[Winston]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

There is no science behind it.  Pure speculation by people who don't believe in God's revelation.  So they come up with theories which cannot be proven and based on the false claim that something of infinite complexity can come from nothing.  It is far more reasonable to believe everything had to have a beginning and could not create itself.

What young person in the public school system believes anything but what they've been told by proponents of a big bang or evolution?  What critical thinking is involved in believing that?  None.  It is just accepted as dogma.

Nope not speculation, there is science behind it, maybe learn the science behind it. 

"false claim that something of infinite complexity can come from nothing. " - How is it a false claim? 

We have been through this before, complexity does not mean god, you would need to show with physical scientific evidence how god created the universe.

"What young person in the public school system believes anything but what they've been told by proponents of a big bang or evolution? " - No one believes in it, they have evidence of it, belief is not required. Proponents, you mean studies? by multiple sources? With multiple methods? 

"What critical thinking is involved in believing that?" - Pretty much everything about science is about critically thinking, maybe learn how science works.

"It is just accepted as dogma." - sure some people do, but it is evidence based, unlike the religious garbage that is indoctrinated on children. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Winston

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Winston said:

Nope not speculation, there is science behind it, maybe learn the science behind it. 

"false claim that something of infinite complexity can come from nothing. " - How is it a false claim? 

We have been through this before, complexity does not mean god, you would need to show with physical scientific evidence how god created the universe.

"What young person in the public school system believes anything but what they've been told by proponents of a big bang or evolution? " - No one believes in it, they have evidence of it, belief is not required. Proponents, you mean studies? by multiple sources? With multiple methods? 

"What critical thinking is involved in believing that?" - Pretty much everything about science is about critically thinking, maybe learn how science works.

"It is just accepted as dogma." - sure some people do, but it is evidence based, unlike the religious garbage that is indoctrinated on children. 

All I can tell you sir is that the Bible says there is no salvation but by faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for you personally.  "16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. "  John 3:16 KJV  I would suggest you read the gospel of John.  Where one spends eternity depends on what one believes about Jesus Christ.  Life is very short and is like a vapour and it's gone.  So it is not wise to see who can win a debate between a particular interpretation of science which denies the supernatural and God on the one hand and God and the Bible on the other hand.  What I am talking about is not "garbage".  If you continue to think like that, you may regret it for eternity.  But that is your choice.  I have done my best.  

[Winston]

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

But that is your choice.  I have done my best.  

Your actually not an honest debater, instead of debating your only goal is conversion. Your not open to the idea you could be wrong whatsoever. 

I was born and raised catholic, born again, went to church 2 times a week until 18. At which point, scientific critical thinking took place, where religion seemed quite silly to the rules of the universe. 

Your welcome to believe in religion, I find it helps those who need a sense of supernatural moral guide for their life and an imaginary best friend for life. 

[Colin Norris]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

There is no science behind it. 

Really??? So this almighty God just clicked his do gets and it suddenly appeared in the form it is today?? 

Exactly what year did you God  to this? 

Pure speculation by people who don't believe in God's revelation. 

God's  revelation and it's delivery never originated ftom and God. Religion did it. Thrre is No evidence on earth that anything was ever received directly from a God and that includes those silly ten commandments. It simply doesn't happen like you want. There are no spectacular miraculous events to coincide with the lying bible. It was all written by men who never ever met a God. 

So they come up with theories which cannot be proven and based on the false claim that something of infinite complexity can come from nothing. 

That's pure ignorance. The facts are , if you bother to torture your brain, it did not come from nothing. Infinite complexity is not a skill of a ghost. 

 

It is far more reasonable to believe everything had to have a beginning and could not create itself.

The irony of you talking reason but suggests God did it all. Are you kidding. Where's the reason  in that rubbish? 

What young person in the public school system believes anything but what they've been told by proponents of a big bang or evolution? 

Why should they be taught about immaculate conception and virgin births etc? That's blatant lies and should be outlawed under law. 

What critical thinking is involved in believing that?  None.  It is just accepted as dogma.

The education system is teaching them to think for themselves by offering facts and reality verses ghost stories by some supernatural power not on person has ever witnessed. 

How can you suggest teaching religious bullshit is critical thinking? It's not but fraudulent charlatantry. 

You belch your doctrine as if it is proven fact and it simply is not. You have no evidence of anything and never will. Your faith and delusion equates to nothing. 

 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Colin Norris said:

 

When are you going to learn how to reply instead of mixing comments into one mess with the comments of the person you are replying to?   If you click on Quote on the bottom of a posting and then click on the white area under the person's comment you are replying to, you should see your cursor.  That is where you should start  typing, not in the other person's blue area where his comments are.

Also, you need to look up and learn what a lie is.  It is deliberate misleading.  People who believe in God and the Bible are not lying.  They actually believe what they are saying just as any religious person believes what he believes.  If you don't believe in God and Bible that's your choice, but accusing people you don't agree with of blatant lying shows your intolerance and immaturity.  

Edited January 13, 2022 by blackbird

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Winston said:

Your actually not an honest debater, instead of debating your only goal is conversion. Your not open to the idea you could be wrong whatsoever. 

I was born and raised catholic, born again, went to church 2 times a week until 18. At which point, scientific critical thinking took place, where religion seemed quite silly to the rules of the universe. 

Your welcome to believe in religion, I find it helps those who need a sense of supernatural moral guide for their life and an imaginary best friend for life. 

Ah, if you were raised Catholic, I understand partly where you are coming form.  I was raised Catholic too, but left it in mid life 41 years ago when I learned the truth from a minister preaching from the Bible and realized the Catholic religion is false.  It is all about the church and sacraments and your own efforts to save yourself, rather than being saved by simple faith in what Christ has already accomplished on the cross. 

I believe I am being honest with you.  Of course conversion is part of what I believe because that is a central message of the Bible.  Anyone who believes in a false humanist worldview needs to be converted;  it's as simple as that.  Why is conversion something sinister or dishonest to you?  You were converted into Catholicism after you were born;  then you were converted away from it and into humanism by atheist or secular humanist teachers.   

Why would I be open to the idea I could be wrong?  That would mean I am unsure of what I believe.  Are you unsure of what you believe?  I am convinced God created this universe and created man in his image for a purpose.  He also revealed this to man through his written revelation, the Bible.  From talking to you, I am more convinced that believing in God and that he created everything is a simple matter of accepting it by faith.  I believe nobody will ever find or prove any other explanation through science or scientific methods.  There will always be theories and speculation.  But that is all.  The billions of dollars spent on putting a telescope into deep space partly to find the origins of the universe I believe will never find the true origins because it is God who created it.

Edited January 13, 2022 by blackbird

[Winston]

"You were converted into Catholicism after you were born;  then you were converted away from it and into humanism by atheist or secular humanist teachers." - Not converted, told and indoctrinated into Catholicism. Thus I held a belief to which I was wrong. Science has nothing to do with religion, it is the method by which we understand the world around us. Using that method I determined that at least the God of Christianity has no evidence of existence. 

"Anyone who believes in a false humanist worldview needs to be converted;" - This is why its a dishonest conversation. Your goal is conversion not finding answers. 

"Why is conversion something sinister or dishonest to you? " - Because of this "Why would I be open to the idea I could be wrong?", it is not a dialog it is pure confidence without evidence. If you are not open to the idea that your belief could be wrong, then your ignoring everything that shows it is wrong. 

When someone state this " Why would I be open to the idea I could be wrong", it means there is no room for improvement, critical thinking or discovery. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Winston

[Colin Norris]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

When are you going to learn how to reply instead of mixing comments into one mess with the comments of the person you are replying to?   If you click on Quote on the bottom of a posting and then click on the white area under the person's comment you are replying to, you should see your cursor.  That is where you should start  typing, not in the other person's blue area where his comments are.

Also, you need to look up and learn what a lie is.  It is deliberate misleading.  People who believe in God and the Bible are not lying.  They actually believe what they are saying just as any religious person believes what he believes.  If you don't believe in God and Bible that's your choice, but accusing people you don't agree with of blatant lying shows your intolerance and immaturity.  

I'll repeat it. Anyone who believes in immaculate conceptions etc and teaches that rubbish is a liar. If you do that, include yourself. 

Belief and faith do not equate to fact. 

Why should you be allowed to belch blatant lies and no one respond? You don't have exclusive rights to this forum to go unquestioned. Your problem is you've bern getting away with it for years. Your free ride has come to an end. 

Have another go and see how good you are. 

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, Winston said:

"You were converted into Catholicism after you were born;  then you were converted away from it and into humanism by atheist or secular humanist teachers." - Not converted, told and indoctrinated into Catholicism. Thus I held a belief to which I was wrong. Science has nothing to do with religion, it is the method by which we understand the world around us. Using that method I determined that at least the God of Christianity has no evidence of existence. 

"Anyone who believes in a false humanist worldview needs to be converted;" - This is why its a dishonest conversation. Your goal is conversion not finding answers. 

"Why is conversion something sinister or dishonest to you? " - Because of this "Why would I be open to the idea I could be wrong?", it is not a dialog it is pure confidence without evidence. If you are not open to the idea that your belief could be wrong, then your ignoring everything that shows it is wrong. 

When someone state this " Why would I be open to the idea I could be wrong", it means there is no room for improvement, critical thinking or discovery. 

You of course are not trying to convert me to your world view.  You can claim I am trying to use conversion because it is a religious viewpoint, but because you believe in a secular humanist world view, it is not conversion?  You also claim your views are "critical thinking" or " discovery" and are therefore somehow superior or more enlightened.   I don't buy it.  My religious views are Biblical and perfectly fit rational thinking about how the universe came into existence and why we are here.  Your "critical thinking" answers none of that.  The evidence that man is a corrupt being is clear.  That is why we have evil in the world, wars, crime, assaults, hate, abuse, etc.  The Bible makes that clear.  Science cannot answer or explain morality or those kinds of things.  Only the Bible and it's explanation makes sense.

Just claiming one is open to an idea has no meaning or value.  It sounds self righteous, but contributes nothing to the issues or discussion because it proves nothing.  It is just virtue signaling.

[Winston]

40 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Just claiming one is open to an idea has no meaning or value.  It sounds self righteous, but contributes nothing to the issues or discussion because it proves nothing.  It is just virtue signaling.

 

This entire time I have been open to the idea I could be wrong, trying to understand your perspective on religion. But throughout our conversation most of the things stated do not make logical sense and do not function within the laws of our universe. I have been interested in "supernatural" point of view, but most of my questions are answered with circular reasoning or in the case how does one verify a supernatural event, no answer. 

“Why would I be open to the idea I could be wrong? That would mean I am unsure of what I believe.” - This statement says everything about your mindset, not looking for answers, not critically thinking and not looking to challenge your beliefs for fear that you might be "unsure of what" you "believe" 

Please see the problem with this mindset. 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Winston said:

“Why would I be open to the idea I could be wrong? That would mean I am unsure of what I believe.” - This statement says everything about your mindset, not looking for answers, not critically thinking and not looking to challenge your beliefs for fear that you might be "unsure of what" you "believe" 

Please see the problem with this mindset. 

I grew up interested in science, astronomy and chemistry.  I even had my own chemistry lab in the basement when I was around 11 to 14 yrs old and used to do experiments with chemicals.  In those days I could get any chemical I wished from a pharmacist in town.  Could never do it now.  So in those days science was a big interest to me.  I am not opposed to science. 

About 20 years ago, I attended a series of four evening slide presentation lectures at a high school gymnasium by a scientist/mathematician (professor Philip Stott) and made videos of his slide presentations on the subjects related to evolution/ creation.  You can find one of his articles titled "Scripture and Science in Conflict" at: Scripture & Science HOME | Reformation International College

  At one time he was a non-believer in Christianity, but in 1976 I think he said, he was converted to Christianity.  He learned there are a lot of holes in the long age of the earth theory and the theory of evolution.  He made presentations on evolution, the time scales/ geological time chart, the Flood, etc.   He made a lot of strong points that cast serious doubt on the theory of evolution.  I recall he showed slides on the subject of one of the claimed ancestors of man.  He said they would find something like a tooth and from that recreate a theory of what the skull looked like, then the whole being, then his family and a story about how they lived.  Later it was found that the tooth came from a pig.  This kind of thing is not uncommon in archaeology or paleoanthropology.   

He has attended conventions of scientists in different countries and spoken in various countries on the subject. He periodically asked the gathering if anyone could give one fact that is true about the theory of evolution, but nobody would answer, except one scientist said it should never be taught in schools.

One of his points as a mathematician he explained in some detail was the length of time required for the correct molecules to come together to form the basic building blocks of life is so great that it is a mathematical impossibility according to the laws of probability.  He likened it to a monkey given a typewriter on which he would just type random characters.  How long would it take the monkey to type the complete works of Shakespeare?  The probability of that happening would require more time than existed in the universe.  That is one of the problems with the theory of evolution he said.

Edited January 14, 2022 by blackbird

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Colin Norris said:

I'll repeat it. Anyone who believes in immaculate conceptions etc and teaches that rubbish is a liar. If you do that, include yourself. 

Belief and faith do not equate to fact. 

Why should you be allowed to belch blatant lies and no one respond? You don't have exclusive rights to this forum to go unquestioned. Your problem is you've bern getting away with it for years. Your free ride has come to an end. 

Have another go and see how good you are. 

  Your behavior is no different than a kid yelling and screaming to get his way. This is a discussion forum.  If you have nothing to offer, why are you even here?  Waste of time.

Edited January 14, 2022 by blackbird

[Colin Norris]

35 minutes ago, blackbird said:

  Your behavior is no different than a kid yelling and screaming to get his way. This is a discussion forum.  If you have nothing to offer, why are you even here?  Waste of time.

That's a typical reply from a godbotherer who has nothing to support the hideous claim of a God. Next you will condemn me to eternal fire immediately after you said you would pray for me. You're so merciful and a hypocrit. 

It's about now you realise you should never engaged me. I'm very good at this. 

Have another swing at me.  

[blackbird]

15 hours ago, Winston said:

 

This entire time I have been open to the idea I could be wrong, trying to understand your perspective on religion. But throughout our conversation most of the things stated do not make logical sense and do not function within the laws of our universe. I have been interested in "supernatural" point of view, but most of my questions are answered with circular reasoning or in the case how does one verify a supernatural event, no answer. 

“Why would I be open to the idea I could be wrong? That would mean I am unsure of what I believe.” - This statement says everything about your mindset, not looking for answers, not critically thinking and not looking to challenge your beliefs for fear that you might be "unsure of what" you "believe" 

Please see the problem with this mindset. 

As I said talking about who is right or who is wrong is a serious mistake. What it does is attack the individual rather than discuss the actual topic. 

But one thing I recall Prof. Philip Stott showed in his slide presentation on the subject of evolution was a slide showing a group of fossilized trees STANDING UP.  The obvious thing was how could standing trees be the result of slow sedimentation over a long time period?  Such trees would simply have decayed, fallen, and rotted away.  They had to have been encased suddenly by some major event such as Noah's Flood recorded in the Bible.  That would explain how they were preserved standing up.

There is also a video on creation.com with scientists showing features of the Grand Canyon and explaining how the flood caused it. 

[Winston]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

I am not opposed to science. 

Great, so why not apply the scientific method to your religion?

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

He likened it to a monkey given a typewriter on which he would just type random characters.  How long would it take the monkey to type the complete works of Shakespeare?  The probability of that happening would require more time than existed in the universe.  That is one of the problems with the theory of evolution he said.

Philip Stott is missing a key concept. You have a monkey ( randomness) that types random characters (trait modifier/mutations) into a typewriter (the system). Would the monkey type the complete works of shakespeare (a drastically modified cell/animal)? The missing key concept, the system is not random, the system is selective, this means when the monkey types, the typewriter only selects for letters ( mutations) that function to build shakespeare ( maintain a functional cell/animal based on environmental conditions) 

Moving away from the analogy, what does this look like on the biological level, random trait mutations (DNA, mRNA) change the conditions of the cell/animal's shape, size, appearance or behavior. Based upon the environmental system these conditions are selected or killed off, hence why we have animals today that appear to fit their environment perfectly. 

Can a monkey randomly type shakespeare, yes if that is what is allowed by the typewriter system. I would say that Philip Stott has either a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge about evolution to make an inaccurate statement. 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Winston

[Winston]

45 minutes ago, blackbird said:

As I said talking about who is right or who is wrong is a serious mistake. What it does is attack the individual rather than discuss the actual topic.

It's not about who is right or wrong personally, it is about who has evidence to support their position. Saying “ I could be wrong” means I am open to the idea that my position may be incorrect. How can we have a discussion if your not open to the idea that your position may be incorrect?

45 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is also a video on creation.com with scientists showing features of the Grand Canyon and explaining how the flood caused it. 

We can not keep progressing to more topics until we finish the first.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Winston said:

It's not about who is right or wrong personally, it is about who has evidence to support their position. Saying “ I could be wrong” means I am open to the idea that my position may be incorrect. How can we have a discussion if your not open to the idea that your position may be incorrect?

We can not keep progressing to more topics until we finish the first.

I thought we were talking in general about the Theory of Evolution/Big Bang, and such world views versus the Biblical account of Creation by an intelligent designer.  Did you read the long posting I made above about 16 hrs ago telling a little about Professor Philip Stott?

One of the arguments in favour of an intelligent designer is the sheer complexity of life forms.  Even the single cell they found more recently is so complex it boggles the mind.  The theory of evolution can't really explain how it would work to produce things as complex as a cell or as complex as the human eye.  Evolution is based more on mutations and the theory of natural selection.  But that just doesn't explain how the machinery in a cell could exist.

[Winston]

Just now, blackbird said:

I thought we were talking in general about the Theory of Evolution/Big Bang, and such world views versus the Biblical account of Creation by an intelligent designer.  Did you read the long posting I made above about 16 hrs ago telling a little about Professor Philip Stott?

One of the arguments in favour of an intelligent designer is the sheer complexity of life forms.  Even the single cell they found more recently is so complex it boggles the mind.  The theory of evolution can't really explain how it would work to produce things as complex as a cell or as complex as the human eye.  Evolution is based more on mutations and the theory of natural selection.  But that just doesn't explain how the machinery in a cell could exist.

Read above

10 minutes ago, Winston said:

Philip Stott is missing a key concept. You have a monkey ( randomness) that types random characters (trait modifier/mutations) into a typewriter (the system). Would the monkey type the complete works of shakespeare (a drastically modified cell/animal)? The missing key concept, the system is not random, the system is selective, this means when the monkey types, the typewriter only selects for letters ( mutations) that function to build shakespeare ( maintain a functional cell/animal based on environmental conditions) 

Moving away from the analogy, what does this look like on the biological level, random trait mutations (DNA, mRNA) change the conditions of the cell/animal's shape, size, appearance or behavior. Based upon the environmental system these conditions are selected or killed off, hence why we have animals today that appear to fit their environment perfectly. 

Can a monkey randomly type shakespeare, yes if that is what is allowed by the typewriter system. I would say that Philip Stott has either a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge about evolution to make an inaccurate statement. 

 

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, Winston said:

Read above

 

Yes I read it.  But I don't understand how you dismiss Philip Stott's comparison with a monkey typing on a keyboard.  I don't really see your point on that.  All Stott is talking about is the theory of evolution is based on the principle of life being formed by random chance processes.  He is saying the likelihood of the basic building block of life, say proteins or a cell happening by random is so infinitely small that it is virtually non-existent.  Yet this is what the whole idea of life starting by random chance processes, ie. of the correct molecules coming together is based on.  Using the monkey example is just to show the chances of it happening that way are a virtual impossibility.  He said the chances are 1 in 10 to the 50th power or less.  He said there is not enough time for life to have started randomly.  He is a mathematician and understands the laws of probability.

Edited January 14, 2022 by blackbird

[Winston]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Yes I read it.  But I don't understand how you dismiss Philip Stott's comparison with a monkey typing on a keyboard.  I don't really see your point on that.  All Stott is talking about it the theory of evolution is based on the principle of life being formed by random chance processes.  

He is talking about evolution of animals, because of an environment, you have a system that selects for positive variations. Thus you can have random mutations but have a positive outcomes resulting in different cells/animals. 

"He is saying the likelihood of the basic building block of life, say proteins or a cell happening by random is so infinitely small that it is virtually non-existent.  " - If you are referring to the beginning of the universe/life, what type of evidence would you require? 

[blackbird]

The theory of evolution is based on random chance processes, mutation, and natural selection.  The problem with that is there is no intelligence involved.  The most basic life forms are so complex that an information is required for them to exist and operate.  

There is also the problem of where did atoms and molecules and the physical laws that govern them come from?  Can you explain how they came about without an intelligent designer?

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, Winston said:

He is talking about evolution of animals, because of an environment, you have a system that selects for positive variations. Thus you can have random mutations but have a positive outcomes resulting in different cells/animals. 

"He is saying the likelihood of the basic building block of life, say proteins or a cell happening by random is so infinitely small that it is virtually non-existent.  " - If you are referring to the beginning of the universe/life, what type of evidence would you require? 

Can you explain how such complex things as atoms, molecules, energy, and the basic building blocks of life came about by themselves?  I think it would require some information/intelligence for such things to exist.  The whole idea that these things just happened by themselves doesn't make sense.  How could it happen?

[Winston]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The theory of evolution is based on random chance processes, mutation, and natural selection.  The problem with that is there is no intelligence involved.  The most basic life forms are so complex that an information is required for them to exist and operate.  

There is also the problem of where did atoms and molecules and the physical laws that govern them come from?  Can you explain how they came about without an intelligent designer?

Reread what I wrote about evolution, "random chance processes" is not how it works. It is selective based on environmental conditions, hence why you get positive outcomes. 

"There is also the problem of where did atoms and molecules and the physical laws that govern them come from?  Can you explain how they came about without an intelligent designer?" - Again are you asking for the when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for? (this is extremely important to understand what you think is valuable for proof)

Edited January 14, 2022 by Winston

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, Winston said:

"There is also the problem of where did atoms and molecules and the physical laws that govern them come from?  Can you explain how they came about without an intelligent designer?" - Again are you asking for the when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for? (this is extremely important to understand what you think is valuable for proof)

I want to know what you believe about how life began, how atoms, molecules, laws of physics, etc. began.  I don't think there are any scientists who have the answers to that. 

[Winston]

Just now, blackbird said:

I want to know what you believe about how life began, how atoms, molecules, laws of physics, etc. began.  I don't think there are any scientists who have the answers to that. 

Again are you asking for the when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for? (this is extremely important to understand what you think is valuable as proof)

If I gave you my word would that be valuable?

if I showed you a textbook that show it would that be valuable?

Edited January 14, 2022 by Winston