Jump to content

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


blackbird

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Winston said:

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?

Well, you should be able to put it in a few sentences.  Why do we need to read a textbook?  I am just wondering what your view is in a few sentences.   But if you are willing, perhaps we can both agree that science does not have the answer as to how the basic particles started, what directed them, or how basic life forms began.  We can agree perhaps that there are theories, but no proof.  Science only has theories or speculation on how it all started.  Can we agree on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Well, you should be able to put it in a few sentences. 

We first must agree to the quality of evidence that would convince you that the position is correct. 

Hence why I keep asking you " when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for?"

We must first agree on foundational forms of evidence in order to have a productive discussion. 

Edited by Winston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Winston said:

We first must agree to the quality of evidence that would convince you that the position is correct. 

Hence why I keep asking you " when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for?"

We must first agree on foundational forms of evidence. 

I am not sure what you are asking for.  I can't agree to something I don't know anything about.   All I am asking is if you could take a more neutral position because of the fact there is no proof from what I can tell of how life began and how the basic particles, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons began or where they came from or even forms of energy.  We are not going to agree on everything, but perhaps you will agree that there is no proof from a scientific basis on how it all began.  Do you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not sure what you are asking for.  I can't agree to something I don't know anything about.   All I am asking is if you could take a more neutral position because of the fact there is no proof from what I can tell of how life began and how the basic particles, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons began or where they came from or even forms of energy.  We are not going to agree on everything, but perhaps you will agree that there is no proof from a scientific basis on how it all began.  Do you agree?

If we can not agree on the type of evidence required there is no point of discussion, we must first come to the understanding of what constitutes as convincing evidence. Like in court there are requirements for what constitutes as evidence. 

For example if I said the universe started because it was most probable, I would assume that is not evidence right? Hence why I keep asking, what type of evidence would convince you? 

This is not a difficult question, I can answer this question for most if not all things. 

 

Edited by Winston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Winston said:

If we can not agree on the type of evidence required there is no point of discussion, we must first come to the understanding of what constitutes as convincing evidence. Like in court there are requirements for what constitutes as evidence. 

For example if I said the universe started because it was most probable, I would assume that is not evidence right? Hence why I keep asking, what type of evidence would convince you? 

This is not a difficult question, I can answer this question for most if not all things. 

 

I am not asking for evidence.  All I am asking is can we agree that claims about how the universe started is theoretical.  I venture to guess most scientists would agree with that.  It is all theoretical because it is impossible for anyone to go back in time and prove how things started or came into existence.  Since nothing has been proven, would you be prepared to admit that it is possible there are other explanations for where or how everything came into existence?

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not asking for evidence.  All I am asking is can we agree that claims about how the universe started is theoretical.  I venture to guess most scientists would agree with that.  It is all theoretical because it is impossible for anyone to go back in time and prove how things started or came into existence.

No we can not. 

"I am not asking for evidence."  =Okay sounds good. The universe started by the subset of quantum entailment of probabilistic outcomes with the formation of matter from a known point. 

Edited by Winston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Winston said:

No we can not. 

"I am not asking for evidence."  =Okay sounds good. The universe started by the subset of quantum entailment of probabilistic outcomes with the formation of matter from a known point. 

So, you are not willing to agree there is no proof on how basic life forms, atoms, particles, energy all started.  I take it that means your interpretation is an absolute and there is no room for any other possibility?  I don't think most scientists would agree with you.

"The universe started by the subset of quantum entailment of probabilistic outcomes with the formation of matter from a known point. "   wow... that should baffle any doubters.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I take it that means your interpretation is an absolute and there is no room for any other possibility? 

Never said that. There is always room for error or another possibility. There also could be a multiverse. 

"I don't think most scientists would agree with you." - Who do you think discovered quantum physics?

I would also add, why do you think this origin is incorrect?

Edited by Winston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Winston said:

Never said that. There is always room for error or another possibility. 

"I don't think most scientists would agree with you." - Who do you think discovered quantum physics?

My point is all these subjects like quantum physics or other science theories still do not prove where particles and energy came from.  You can still believe in something like quantum physics because as far as I know, it does not make the claim that the creation had to have come into existence without an intelligent designer.  You can still be open to the possibility that the universe had to have an intelligent designer behind it.  That does not deny certain laws of physics.  You could still admit that these laws of physics could have had an intelligent designer behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

My point is all these subjects like quantum physics or other science theories still do not prove where particles and energy came from. 

What proof are you looking for that quantum physics or other scientific theories show the formation to existence of particles and energy?

This is why I kept asking you "when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for?"

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You could still admit that these laws of physics could have had an intelligent designer behind them.

 That would be an extraordinary claim that would require strong evidence. But there is no evidence of such so why would we ever consider an intelligent designer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Winston said:

What proof are you looking for that quantum physics or other scientific theories show the formation to existence of particles and energy?

This is why I kept asking you "when, what, how and why? And what type of evidence are you looking for?"

 That would be an extraordinary claim that would require strong evidence. But there is no evidence of such so why would we ever consider an intelligent designer?

Because any complex, exact, precise system as atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, and energy requires intelligence to put them there to begin with.  I am not sure why even the possibility of that would be so difficult to agree to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Because any complex, exact, precise system as atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, and energy requires intelligence to put them there to begin with.  I am not sure why even the possibility of that would be so difficult to agree to.

How did you determine an intelligence is required to create the matter? For example the crystalline shape of snow is quite complex, yet no one designed the complexity, its based upon the physics/mathematics of H2O reaction to temperature differences. 


 "I am not sure why even the possibility of that would be so difficult to agree to" - I am not saying its not possible, I am saying there is no evidence, that I am aware of, that this is the case, thus it is not considered. 

Lets say for the sake of discussion, that we agree that an intelligence could have created everything down to quantum effects. We are still at the same position, where is the evidence? 
With no evidence of the the methodology of creation, say creation of an electron by the intelligence, it means nothing other than "a possibility". It would be similar as saying " I created all the matter of the universe", a possibility, but no evidence suggests this is the case.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Winston said:

How did you determine an intelligence is required to create the matter? For example the crystalline shape of snow is quite complex, yet no one designed the complexity, its based upon the physics/mathematics of H2O reaction to temperature differences. 


 "I am not sure why even the possibility of that would be so difficult to agree to" - I am not saying its not possible, I am saying there is no evidence, that I am aware of, that this is the case, thus it is not considered. 

Lets say for the sake of discussion, that we agree that an intelligence could have created everything down to quantum effects. We are still at the same position, where is the evidence? 
With no evidence of the the methodology of creation, say creation of an electron by the intelligence, it means nothing other than "a possibility". It would be similar as saying " I created all the matter of the universe", a possibility, but no evidence suggests this is the case.
 

Yes even the fact snowflakes or rock crystals exist demonstrates there is something that causes them to have that specific structure.  I used to collect rocks when I was a kid.  I collected calcite crystals in one place.  Ever notice how they have a geometric design like a rectangle or square that is tilted one way so the corners have the same angle as the opposite corners.  This of course was no accident.  Something had to have designed them that way.   So we have to ask ourselves why would something like a snowflake or certain rock crystals have such an intricate, designed structure.  The answer of course it was designed that way.

You say where is the evidence.  Well, the evidence is staring us in the face.  That fact that everything is the way it is proves there is intelligence that created it.  No scientist ever tried to claim rock crystals got their intricate design through evolution.  Every scientist would say it would be related to the organized association of chemicals and molecules that make up the crystals.  Many would have difficulty admitting there is intelligence or a designer behind the complex but beautiful structure, but they would admit it it could not have happened without some force we cannot understand behind it.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Yes even the fact snowflakes or rock crystals exist demonstrates there is something that causes them to have that specific structure." Yes thermal dynamics/physics. 

 

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The answer of course it was designed that way.

Hold on, how did you determine it was designed that way? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Winston said:

 

"Yes even the fact snowflakes or rock crystals exist demonstrates there is something that causes them to have that specific structure." Yes thermal dynamics/physics. 

 

Hold on, how did you determine it was designed that way? 

Process of logical deduction is the way I would answer.  Nothing complex and organized exists without intelligence behind it somewhere.  There is no other explanation that makes sense.  If you found a pile of money lying on the sidewalk, how would you say it got there?  Of course you say somebody dropped it there.  It didn't get there by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Process of logical deduction is the way I would answer.  Nothing complex and organized exists without intelligence behind it somewhere.  There is no other explanation that makes sense. 

But I can not agree with your first premise because it assumes "nothing complex and organized exists without intelligence behind it somewhere", I would argue that something as small as a snowflake has complexity and organized systems that arise from the basic laws of physics ( biological and chemical).

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

if you found a pile of money lying on the sidewalk, how would you say it got there?  Of course you say somebody dropped it there.  It didn't get there by itself.

 

If we stumble upon a pile of money in the middle of the sidewalk, the first thing we think is that the money was designed, manufactured and placed there. Why do we think this? because we have evidence of known methods to design and create money. 

If we stumble upon an amorphous corral reef we immediately do not assume design, instead we have evidence that universal physics and biology played a role in the formation. Why do we think this? because we have no evidence of a method to design and create an amorphous corral reef, instead we have evidence that biology creates this formation through "physics" from pure observation. 

The difference is that we can point to a known process, we know money exists, we know money can be made, we know the methods in making money. 

So in order to assume something is designed by an intelligence we must first know how it was designed, by what method it was created.  Thus in order to assume the corral reef was designed by an intelligence, we must have proof of design and method of design. 

Do you understand this is the fundamental issue with assuming an intelligent design, we must first have evidence/proof of design and method of design. We must first be able to point to a known process. We do not assume intelligent design unless we have knowledge and evidence to indicate as such. 

 

Edited by Winston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Winston said:

But I can not agree with your first premise because it assumes "nothing complex and organized exists without intelligence behind it somewhere", I would argue that something as small as a snowflake has complexity and organized systems that arise from the basic laws of physics ( biological and chemical).

 

 

If we stumble upon a pile of money in the middle of the sidewalk, the first thing we think is that the money was designed, manufactured and placed there. Why do we think this? because we have evidence of known methods to design and create money. 

If we stumble upon an amorphous corral reef we immediately do not assume design, instead we have evidence that universal physics and biology played a role in the formation. Why do we think this? because we have no evidence of a method to design and create an amorphous corral reef, instead we have evidence that biology creates this formation through "physics" from pure observation. 

The difference is that we can point to a known process, we know money exists, we know money can be made, we know the methods in making money. 

So in order to assume something is designed by an intelligence we must first know how it was designed, by what method it was created.  Thus in order to assume the corral reef was designed by an intelligence, we must have proof of design and method of design. 

Do you understand this is the fundamental issue with assuming an intelligent design, we must first have evidence/proof of design and method of design. We must first be able to point to a known process. We do not assume intelligent design unless we have knowledge and evidence to indicate as such. 

 

No. If something complex exists, we can assume physics and biology is involved.  But where did the principles of biology and laws of physics come from?  They required an intelligent designer.  They don't just appear out of a vacuum.  Everything had to have a beginning and that beginning could not take place by itself in a vacuum.  It had to have an intelligent designer.  When we see something, we don't have to automatically say where is the evidence or proof and method of design or proof of where it originally came from.  We can assume there was intelligence involved.  We may never know how because it may not be given to us to know how it began.  Man is not God and cannot claim to have to know everything.  There is nothing stated anywhere that says we have a right to know everything about the universe.  There are some things we may never know the answers to.

I would add that I think it is a mistake to say we have a right to know the evidence or proof of where things came from or originated.  We must remember we are mortal beings and subject to an infinitely powerful God who created us.  We have no right to know anything beyond what God ordained that we should know.  What he wants us to know is what he has revealed in his written revelation.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No. If something complex exists, we can assume physics and biology is involved.  But where did the principles of biology and laws of physics come from?

That is a good question, when you have an answer with quantitative evidence let me know. ( I do not mean your opinion or assumption) 

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

They required an intelligent designer. 

No, I do not agree, you can not assert that it requires an intelligent designer unless you have evidence, which includes method of creation and method of design.

Tell me why I can not just assert that I created the universe and everything, including you? Or do you agree that I can assert that I created everything?

 

Edited by Winston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2022 at 10:55 PM, blackbird said:

Creation.com sells a paper magazine called Creation, but also has articles online from past issues.  One has an editorial article called "Radicalizing Young People" by Don Batten.  This goes into the issue of how many if not most young people are radicalized today to protest and support climate alarmism and Greta Thunberg.  Sadly young people, particularly in the public school system, are being brainwashed with humanist, progressivism, liberal ideology.  This article delves into this subject.  This is only one subject of many that young people are being brainwashed on.

The first part of the article says:

" The mass protests of school students about ‘climate change’ have caused many of us to wonder how it has come to this. Even supposed adults are falling over themselves to genuflect to a 16-year-old kid. We are scratching our heads wondering what the world is coming to.

I believe that we can largely trace this radicalizing to the loss of faith in God, particularly in young people. Since the 1960s, once-Christian countries have increasingly indoctrinated all young people in an evolutionary way of thinking—there was a ‘big bang’, where nothing exploded with no cause billions of years ago, and we are the product of purely natural processes (‘evolution’) since then. In other words, we are ‘star dust’, as one famous commentator put it. We are ultimately a chance product of atoms randomly banging around over billions of years.

Because of the evolutionary brainwashing, the indoctrinated now have no purpose to their lives and no eternal hope or perspective.

Such a view has no room for the Bible’s message of God creating us with a purpose; our fall into sin, sickness, and death in Adam; and salvation in Jesus Christ. This brings a life of purpose lived now and a wonderful hope for eternity, including that we will be free of sickness and death.

Because of the evolutionary brainwashing, the indoctrinated now have no purpose to their lives and no eternal hope or perspective. Consequently, young students are looking for some sort of self-authentication, and a crusade to save the planet fits the bill. Hence the fervour, and we are awash with ‘virtue signalling’!

But not many get to consider that if we were all nothing but stardust from a big bang, and it will all end forever when the universe runs out of useable energy, there would be little point to ‘saving the planet’ anyway. How does one get a moral imperative—what we ought to do—from atoms banging around?

Creation magazine provides a powerful counter to the cultural demise around us, for young and old.

Creation magazine provides a powerful counter to the cultural demise around us, for young and old. This issue presents powerful evidence that God did indeed create everything, just like the Bible says. Our ears (pp. 14–17) reveal incredible design! The wonderful world of bats (pp. 28–31), with their amazing echolocation and flight, speaks of divine invention. In the children’s section, the size of the universe (pp. 32–35) highlights God’s all-powerful nature."

For the whole article:

Radicalizing young people - creation.com

In the final analysis, aren't all male dominator colonizer god religions vomited up from the middle east prone to rabid frothy-mouthed fundamentalism? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 3:52 PM, blackbird said:

Process of logical deduction is the way I would answer.  Nothing complex and organized exists without intelligence behind it somewhere.  There is no other explanation that makes sense.  If you found a pile of money lying on the sidewalk, how would you say it got there?  Of course you say somebody dropped it there.  It didn't get there by itself.

How belief based and anthropomorphically viewed, versus an empirically based assertion.  But do wax on, by all proselytizing means.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2022 at 3:24 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Religious folk who claim that there's evidence of the God are unknowingly breaking the covenant of faith.

 

If you were really religious, you would believe without proof.

The proof is in the pudding. If there is no GOD, who is getting me out of the messes I created for myself. Time and again, I have prayed for help and things get corrected.  And my faith grows more as I witness such changes from day to day.  NOW, if nothing happened and everything always want down the tubes I'd have to wonder.  Faith doesn't come from seeing GOD, but it does grow with trusting that GOD will help ---- and HE does. And my faith matures...

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 8:39 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. An asteroid could hit the earth this year - what of it ? You didn't say how this possibility should change our thinking or actions or what it means.

2. Well - a quick American example says 2/3 of Americans think the government should do more on Climate
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/

Which brings us back to this.  DO YOU REALIZE that what happened a few days ago will likely cause climate change.  We might even experience a few cooler summers because of this volcanic event by Tonga. Did GOD have any influence on this event?  I don't know.  But I do believe HE can and does allow and cause things to occure --- ultimately our best interests and to meet HIS ends. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The proof is in the pudding. If there is no GOD, who is getting me out of the messes I created for myself. Time and again, I have prayed for help and things get corrected.  And my faith grows more as I witness such changes from day to day.  NOW, if nothing happened and everything always want down the tubes I'd have to wonder.  Faith doesn't come from seeing GOD, but it does grow with trusting that GOD will help ---- and HE does. And my faith matures...

That's not proof.  Not even close.

And you're not even trying to address my post you are most just starting a new argument with me as to whether there is a god.  

Short conversation ender: I do not care if there is one or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LittleNipper said:

Which brings us back to this.  DO YOU REALIZE that what happened a few days ago will likely cause climate change.  We might even experience a few cooler summers because of this volcanic event by Tonga. Did GOD have any influence on this event?  I don't know.  But I do believe HE can and does allow and cause things to occure --- ultimately our best interests and to meet HIS ends. 

What ?  Climate Change ?  Total side drift...

No a single event on that scale has a miniscule effect on climate.

And again I don't care about the god question sorry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...