[_ Old Earth _] Evolution cannot pass the barrier of death Creation can. Part 2

[lordkalvan]

I notice that you live in a country where thinking is free and that your god is Nebo, the lord of science.

There is no 'lord of science'. Plenty of giants, though.

Have done any thinking over there, in regard to the Unconscious thinking to which I have referred a number of times.

I'm afraid not.

And is there still a cost to one's reputation for speaking out his thoughts, free as they may be, in the land where you reside?

Not so you would notice.

I wonder if you see any contradiction in favoring the God of Science over a Christ who said, he, himself, was the personification of The Truth, which he proclaimed that ideal of Truth as the way men need live their life accordingly?

I do not favour any god of any persuasion or description, because I believe that all gods are created by the human mind. My understanding is that we have no certainty about anything Christ said, only second- or third-hand reports of what he is claimed to have said. The message of Christ, however, shorn of its divine and supernatural pretensions, is a valuable one that we would all benefit from following.

 

[Asyncritus]

Link to relevant thread provided below so that anyone interested can see for themselves how effectively you responded to points raised against your arguments, which is to say not at all:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=38473

Hey LK

Just to be sure, I re-read the thread, and lo and behold, I am chastised for 'personal incredulity', I am chastised for 'personal incredulity, I am chastised for 'personal incredulity, I am chastised for 'personal incredulity etc etc

Not much scientific substance there I fear.

I am also referred to 329,000 articles etc on instinct.

You haven't produced one yet which amounts to anything, and I have no intention whatsoever of reading 329,000 articles on the subject.

So please do a bit of selection and bring them here for severe scrutiny.

Truth be told, you won't find one that's of any use.

 

[lordkalvan]

Hey LK

Just to be sure, I re-read the thread, and lo and behold, I am chastised for 'personal incredulity', I am chastised for 'personal incredulity, I am chastised for 'personal incredulity, I am chastised for 'personal incredulity etc etc

Not chastised, but simply pointed out that your argument reduces essentially to nothing more substantial than this.

Not much scientific substance there I fear.

Plenty of questions and points you dodged or simply ignored, though.

I am also referred to 329,000 articles etc on instinct.

Nope, 329,000 Google Scholar hits referencing the evolution of animal migration were cited to counter your implication that there was no meaningful research in this area.

You haven't produced one yet which amounts to anything, and I have no intention whatsoever of reading 329,000 articles on the subject.

Well, perhaps you could try reading the posts in the thread that make points relevant to and ask questions appropriate to your arguments?

So please do a bit of selection and bring them here for severe scrutiny.

Why not return to the relevant thread and deal with all those outstanding points and questions you have ignored?

Truth be told, you won't find one that's of any use.

And so you prejudge the situation from the get-go. Are you seriously interested in discussion at all?

 

[cupid dave]

I do not favour any god of any persuasion or description, because I believe that all gods are created by the human mind. My understanding is that we have no certainty about anything Christ said, only second- or third-hand reports of what he is claimed to have said. The message of Christ, however, shorn of its divine and supernatural pretensions, is a valuable one that we would all benefit from following.

You may not favour the description of people who rely upon science as the basis for supporting what they say and what they believe, but the ancients called those kinds of people the congregation of Nebo, the God of Science and writing, too.

It doesn't matter that one does not know he is worshipping the ways of a god, in regard to the facts, that he is.

The drunks don't usually think they are in the congregation of Bachus, either.

 

[lordkalvan]

You may not favour the description of people who rely upon science as the basis for supporting what they say and what they believe, but the ancients called those kinds of people the congregation of Nebo, the God of Science and writing, too.

Why should the superstitions of 'the ancients' (or anyone else) applied to myself or others be granted any favour at all?

It doesn't matter that one does not know he is worshipping the ways of a god, in regard to the facts, that he is.

If there is no god and no worship involved on the part of the person(s) in question, your point lacks relevance.

The drunks don't usually think they are in the congregation of Bachus, either.

That's because they're not, they're just drunk.

 

[cupid dave]

Why should the superstitions of 'the ancients' (or anyone else) applied to myself or others be granted any favour at all?

If there is no god and no worship involved on the part of the person(s) in question, your point lacks relevance.

That's because they're not, they're just drunk.

hahaaaa...

Probably.
Especially since most people probable care not at al about those myths of the ancient world.


But it seems reasonable to assume that the ancient myths were really stories about types of human behavior that is, essentially, immortal, in that it reappears in every generation. This idea has long been suggested of course, by those who advocate for such a view.

Support for seeing tese myths as representing anthropomorphic patterns seen in humans, patterns which are observed in the previous and the next generation of a society also would account for the idea of immortality and gods, but really refer to behaviorial patterns inherent in our species.

Today, we see the Myers/Briggs Type Test, MMTT, used by eHarmony as pretty muchthe same inference, i.e., that human behavior is immortal and fixed, sure to be tested for in the future generations to follow us.

In that regard, you would be in the category of The Scientist, (INTP), aka the Myers/Briggs, but identical to the same classification by the ancient psychologists that created the myths, imho.