Do you claim a fish as your ancestor?

da0727.jpg

I caught some of my bilateral neurochord chordate ancestors this 2024 summer on August 11. So glad they are still around.
 

Radrook said:
Yes, I am fully aware and perfectly understand what the hypothetical phenomenon called abiogenesis is supposed to entail. However, contrary to what atheist evolutionists are claiming, there are insurmountable obstacles which powerfully mitigate against such an event happening, insurmountable obstacles which atheist scientists are choosing to conveniently ignore. Such as the detrimental effect that vast amounts of time have on the probability of life emerging due to the many disruptive forces at work in nature which tend increase disorganization rather than enhancing it. So appealing to vast stretches of time only adds to the unlikelihood of life emerging rather than increasing it its likelihood. Yet atheist scientists dishonestly ignore these clear mathematical indications.

Yes, I am aware of how Galileo was opposed by the Catholic Church. However, we must be careful not reach a hasty conclusion and make a false generalization based on scanty or unrepresentative evidence.

About religion always contradicting the scientific approach? Well, please consider this in reference to Islam :


Also:

When Aristotle was reintroduced to Europe in the 12th century, his scientific work had a great influence on medieval scholars, who were invariably thinkers within a church, synagogue or mosque. A key example is the 13th-century Oxford theologian and later Bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste, who was also a pioneering early scientist. He presented a vision for how we might obtain new knowledge of the universe, the dawning of the first notions of experiment, and even a “big bang” theory of the cosmos and a concept of multiple universes.

When 16th-century philosopher Francis Bacon argued for a new experimental approach to science, he drew explicitly on such theological motivations. As the historian of science Peter Harrison argues, the scientific pioneers who followed Bacon, such as Newton and chemist Robert Boyle, saw their task as working with God’s gifts of senses and minds to recover a lost knowledge of nature.
Religion isn’t the enemy of science: it’s been inspiring scientists for centuries
Click to expand...
I think with our limited knowledge we must admit that almost nothing is impossible. I can't believe in a personal god, but there is something primitive in me that believes in karma, in good and bad luck, in wholesomeness and decency and truth, that one is born good or evil and that the tendency toward evil must be fought from within, that the wedding vows are sacred, and that somebody up there likes me, and I want Him to continue to like me.
 
gruntlabor said:
I think with our limited knowledge we must admit that almost nothing is impossible. I can't believe in a personal god, but there is something primitive in me that believes in karma, in good and bad luck, in wholesomeness and decency and truth, that one is born good or evil and that the tendency toward evil must be fought from within, that the wedding vows are sacred, and that somebody up there likes me, and I want Him to continue to like me.
Click to expand...
Reminder: Once again, please note that I am not suggesting a belief in some personal god, God, goddesses. I a merely saying that information meticulously arranged into a code indicates mind at work. The ones bringing in God, gods, goddesses are others. That conclusion is not unusual. In fact, that coded information indicates a coding mind, is consensus reached by those who specialize in Information Science.

My argument is that since that is true, then why are atheists making an exception only in reference to the DNA code? Unfortunately, this question only receives either silence, or else an ad hominem in response. In short, dialog automatically stops, and irrelevant material is always posted. Evasion is a tacit admission of inability to refute the point being mentioned.

BTW
You seem to be saying that ultimately, all phenomenon is meaningless because we can never be 100% sure concerning ultimate reality based merely on what appear to be our senses? True, all we perceive, must be filtered through what appear to be senses including the existence of what we perceive as an exterior world. So this seems to be related to the Cartesian inquiry into ultimate reality and the "Cogito, ergo sum" conclusion.

But please note that even if that were so, the flawed reasoning I am pointing out still remains illogical. In short, the inability to perceive ultimate reality via what appears to be ours senses, leaves the issue of logical vs. illogical reasoning totally unaffected. In fact, we could all be merely brains in a vat, or the universe can be merely a holographic projection, and yet, such reasoning would still be flawed.

However if your point is that we have a right to be purposefully illogical, then I must agree, yes, we all do have the right to be illogical.

BTW The constant grandiloquent usage of the pronoun "we" to the exclusion of others, doesn't harmonize with university requirements for graduation as a scientist. Neither are persons being excluded from the "we" reference against the scientific method as is being implied. All these scientists in the videos bring relevant scientific facts to bear on the subject. So dismissing such scientific counter evidence as irrelevant merely because these scientists disagree with atheism, is not critical thinking. It is merely ad hominem as a reaction to evidence that should be carefully examined, and if found to be scientifically flawed, then it should be exposed as being flawed. Ignoring it in this way indicates an inability to provide a rebuttal.
 

Last edited:
Radrook said:
You seem to be saying that ultimately, all phenomenon is meaningless because we can never be 100% sure concerning ultimate reality based merely on what appear to be our senses? True, all we perceive, must be filtered through our senses including the existence of what we perceive as an exterior world. So this seems to be related to the Cartesian inquiry into ultimate reality and the "Cogito, ergo sum" conclusion.
Click to expand...
No, I am not saying that at all!
I am saying that, at this point in our knowledge of the universe, we don't know. But we are always gaining in knowledge. We must keep looking and asking questions from many points of view, and from many vocations, and we must try to keep an open mind.
Both science and religion fail to keep an open mind, they both suffer fixed ideas, my opinion. I don't understand what is so difficult about it --maybe it's an ego problem. We all seek truth, but many of us think we've found it, and so will seek no longer.
 
Beating a dead horse?

Please note that if anyone considers this thread equivalent to beating dead horse, then please leave and don't participate instead of leaving insulting comments. Of course such harassment will be reported. But that entire sequence should not be necessary, should it?
 
gruntlabor said:
No, I am not saying that at all!
I am saying that, at this point in our knowledge of the universe, we don't know. But we are always gaining in knowledge. We must keep looking and asking questions from many points of view, and from many vocations, and we must try to keep an open mind.
Both science and religion fail to keep an open mind, they both suffer fixed ideas, my opinion. I don't understand what is so difficult about it --maybe it's an ego problem. We all seek truth, but many of us think we've found it, and so will seek no longer.
Click to expand...
First, thanks for participating in this thread in a calm and decent way. Pleas note that I consider this discussion an exchange of ideas instead of a confrontational me versus others scenario.

About ego being my motive for my conclusions? No, I base my conclusions on evidence and logic. However, and very unfortunately, the same can't be said about those who blatantly adhere to an inconsistency of policy or who declare as undeniable proven fact things that don't deserve to be under that category.

Your idea about the impossibility of certainty is baffling. Obviously, without the benefit of certainty, confusion would prevail and civilization could not exist. Neither is certainty affected by what we don't know. So the premise seems flawed. Also baffling is your claim that truth cannot be found, and that all claims of having found it are flawed. All these unelaborated declarations were what led me to believe that you held the inability to perceive ultimate reality view.
 
gruntlabor said:
I think with our limited knowledge we must admit that almost nothing is impossible. I can't believe in a personal god, but there is something primitive in me that believes in karma, in good and bad luck, in wholesomeness and decency and truth, that one is born good or evil and that the tendency toward evil must be fought from within, that the wedding vows are sacred, and that somebody up there likes me, and I want Him to continue to like me.
Click to expand...
The questions is why you prefer to categorize certain noble and logical inclinations, as being primitive.

This thread is not about someone up there liking us or disliking us.

My belief in a creator is based on the evidence in DNA and in nature in general and has absolutely nothing to do with superstitious nonsense as you seem to be insinuating despite my constant and clear explanations to the contrary.

About the concept of evil, well, we are social creatures dependent on one another for survival. So mutual cooperation is needed to enhance it. Sociology and Ethics.

Laws are instituted in order to prevent pandemonium from setting in.

About people being born evil. Yes, some persons are born with certain very negative tendencies they inherit from their parents. Such tendencies can either be nurtured or discouraged, depending on the environment the child grows up in. Child Psychology. Nothing to do with superstitious attributions. Perhaps you might be assuming an ignorance that doesn't exist?

 
Last edited:
Radrook said:

About ego being my motive for my conclusions? No, I base my conclusions on evidence and logic. However, and very unfortunately, the same can't be said about those who blatantly adhere to an inconsistency of policy or who declare as undeniable proven fact things that don't deserve to be under that category.

Your idea about the impossibility of certainty is baffling. Obviously, without the benefit of certainty, confusion would prevail and civilization could not exist. Neither is certainty affected by what we don't know. So the premise seems flawed. Also baffling is your claim that truth cannot be found, and that all claims of having found it are flawed. All these unelaborated declarations were what led me to believe that you held the inability to perceive ultimate reality view.
Click to expand...
re ego: No, I wasn't speaking of you, but of science and religion generally.
No, I didn't mean to say that certainty is impossible. (For example, I accept for now science's assertion that the universe is 13.7 billion years old because I believe they are capable of the measurements.) I meant that although the idea that DNA written by a mind is possible, it is not a certainty for me. I believe I described other scenarios. Also there may be possibilities we know nothing of.
On the contrary, my certainty is definitely affected by what I don't know.
No, I don't mean to claim that anyone's truth is flawed (I'm not qualified to say) but that personalities are flawed, including mine. I don't claim perfect knowledge of anything outside my small world, only personal impressions of what seems likely.
I wish I knew more, I should spend more time in study. I'm afraid that I do believe it is safest to be skeptical in all things.
 
My father came from Lithuania many year ago. No, he was not a fish but he did like to buy a small barrel of pickled herrings every Christmas. He was a soldier in the Czar's army and even met the last Czar of Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top