[_ Old Earth _] Why do people try to use human reasoning to explain creation

[Heidi]

Why do people try to use human reasoning to explain creation? Human reasoning is by definition fallible. It is based only on what man can see. "What is seen is temporary but what is unseen is eternal." Things that are seen have a beginning and an end so they are finite. Everything seen has perimeters. But no one can see the ends of the universe or the beginning or end of life itself. The unseen is far more vast than the seen.

And that's why people thousands of years ago didn't know what an atom or a quark or nuclear fission, electricity, etc. was because they didn't have a microscope. But nevertheless, it was still there. So relying on only what man can understand & can see as being the truth is ludicrous. It is a very narrow perception of the universe and by definition, leaves out all that is unseen. Yet men still persist in using human reasoning for the truth. That's called pride. That's what leads arrogant attorneys into a courtroom who underestimate their opponent, or arrogant generals into battle who also underestimate their opponent. They will always be defeated.

 

[Quath]

Human reasoning is fallible, so we have to use a better standard. What we reason out must predict things better than what was previously assumed. This is the process of science. We assumed that a particle can not also be a wave, but we were wrong and the models led to that conclusion.

Likewise, when we try to understand creation, we look at where we are today and play physics backwards and see what happens. Since everything is moving apart from each other, then they must all come together if you play it backwards. So this does not require any higher level of intelligence than the average person possesses.

But say human intelligence is falllible. Then we can not use it to believe in God because we could be wrong there as well. For example, what if God was an evil liar and there is a god that made Him? Should we throw out the Bible because we can not reason out what to believe? Or do we blindly pick something and believe in that?

Quath

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Why do people try to use human reasoning to explain creation?

Because dog reasoning is just not sophisticated enough.

Human reasoning is by definition fallible.

Cars are fallible, but I still use them to get to and from places.

It is based only on what man can see.

By "see" i assume you mean "observe". And that is called science.

"What is seen is temporary but what is unseen is eternal." Things that are seen have a beginning and an end so they are finite. Everything seen has perimeters. But no one can see the ends of the universe or the beginning or end of life itself. The unseen is far more vast than the seen.

Yes, there is much to be discovered. More and more exciting discoveries every day. Just look at all the stuff that has come out in the last couple of years: mars rovers, cassini, homo floresensis, T.rex soft tissue,. We are living in a golden age of discovery. I'm lovin' it.

And that's why people thousands of years ago didn't know what an atom or a quark or nuclear fission, electricity, etc. was because they didn't have a microscope. But nevertheless, it was still there.

Thats why they didn't have electricity. Thats why more then half of thier children did not survive to thier 5th birthdays. We are now on the cusp of revolutionary new technology and power sources bases on quantum mechanics. It is truely amazing, the human capacity for wonder and discovery. I feel greatful to be alive today to witness it all, I can't imagine a better time to have lived.

So relying on only what man can understand & can see as being the truth is ludicrous.

I think you are looking for deeper meaning in scientific discovery. Science will never discover the meaning of life, it will just make life better - not just for new technology, but for our shared understanding of the physical universe that we inhabit.

It is a very narrow perception of the universe and by definition, leaves out all that is unseen.

Unseen, or unobserved, in my opinion is merely undiscovered.

Yet men still persist in using human reasoning for the truth.

What other reasoning do we have available to us. Please don't say the bible, it was written by men not God. And I don't see any non-human reasoning in it. Would you believe in God if you didn't have a bible?

That's called pride. That's what leads arrogant attorneys into a courtroom who underestimate their opponent, or arrogant generals into battle who also underestimate their opponent. They will always be defeated.

Okay.


Not only is the universe more wonderous then we presume, but more wonderous then we can presume. Science gives us a window to glimpse that wonder. THAT is why I believe in God. Not that I expect science to discover God., or that I worship science. I just appreciate it a lot.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Heidi, you're showing the fallibility of human reasoning in your own irrationally skeptical opinion.

 

[Heidi]

Only the Holy Spirit gives us infallible reasoning. It tells us to rely on the word of God for the truth instead of our own imaginations which are imperfect & fallible. The word of God in the bible has still not been proven fallible but scientists have been. They themselves change their minds every generation which is why science books are constantly being updated. Reality has shown that humans produce humans and animals reproduce their own kind. That's also what the bible claims.

The prophecies in the bible come true everyday. The sons of Ishmael were prophesied to live in hostility with their neighbors & this has always been true. Jesus prophesied that in end times, the faith of most will grow cold. This is being proven true by the hundreds of Christian churches around the world literally being abandoned for "new age" movements. Homosexual marriages, co-habitation, liscentious sexual activity, rebellious children to the point of murdering people, abortion, pronography on TV & over the internet, gluttony tgo the point that almost half of the people in the U.S. are seriously overweight or obese, and on and on. Evolution? hardly. Fulfilled prophecy? Right on the nose. ;-)

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

:roll:
Wow, way to not get the theory of evolution. It's a chemical and statistical process, it doesn't care what we do to our bodies, it just cares that we have kids.

Homosexual marriages, co-habitation, liscentious sexual activity,

Not following your religion's morality != bad behavior

rebellious children to the point of murdering people,

Since violence is a completely modern occurance. :roll:

abortion, pronography on TV & over the internet, gluttony tgo the point that almost half of the people in the U.S. are seriously overweight or obese, and on and on.

And so on and so forth.

 

[Heidi]

:roll:
Wow, way to not get the theory of evolution. It's a chemical and statistical process, it doesn't care what we do to our bodies, it just cares that we have kids.

Homosexual marriages, co-habitation, liscentious sexual activity,

Not following your religion's morality != bad behavior
[quote:7496f]
rebellious children to the point of murdering people,

Since violence is a completely modern occurance. :roll:

abortion, pronography on TV & over the internet, gluttony tgo the point that almost half of the people in the U.S. are seriously overweight or obese, and on and on.

And so on and so forth.[/quote:7496f]

A chemical & statistical process? What chemical process? The chemical process that says that the sperm of one species can produce a fertilized egg with the egg of another which is an impossibility, or the process that says a cell can spontaneously produce superior characteristics on its own which is another impossibility? So which impossible chemical process are you talking about? :o

Which statistical process are you talking about? The one that says that the only time a species turned into another one was long before recorded history? What are the odds of that?

It is simply true that people are abandoning the morals of the bible for more sexually liscentious behavior, is it not? The bible is right when it predicted that, is it not?

If you don't think sexual liscentiousness is bad, do you teach your children to pursue prmiscuity? Is that what you want for them in their lives? Why/why not?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

the process that says a cell can spontaneously produce superior characteristics on its own which is another impossibility?

See! There that's said NO WHERE in the ToE. Populations change genetically, not individuals. It's a chemical process in the sense that because of random occurances at the molecular level, new information is put into the genetic pool of a population.

Which statistical process are you talking about? The one that says that the only time a species turned into another one was long before recorded history? What are the odds of that?

The statistical likelihood of the success of a certain organism, thus its likelihood to pass on its genetic make up to subsequent generations, thus the likelihood of that genetic make up becoming dominant in its population.

t is simply true that people are abandoning the morals of the bible for more sexually liscentious behavior, is it not? The bible is right when it predicted that, is it not?

The bible isn't too bereft of sexual liscence either, but that's beside the point.
It's actually a departure from the morals of the Victorian era which made sex a taboo subject in the US, not christianity or the bible. 400 years ago sex wasn't considered something to keep out of the eyes of the young, it was obviously prohibited that the very young participate, but it wasn't considered to be inappropriate that children know that sex occurs. When your entire 7 person family lives in 2 rooms.... Were I to have children I wouldn't keep the facts from them, but I would certainly be more discrete.

If you don't think sexual liscentiousness is bad, do you teach your children to pursue prmiscuity?

Sexual liscence doesn't mean the same thing as promiscuity. It means allowing oneself the choice between promiscuity, monogamy, or what have you. Were I to have children, they would know, when the became of age, that their life was their own, to do with as they pleased. I can only hope that they would be wise enough to make choices which don't hurt them.

 

[Heidi]

the process that says a cell can spontaneously produce superior characteristics on its own which is another impossibility?

See! There that's said NO WHERE in the ToE. Populations change genetically, not individuals. It's a chemical process in the sense that because of random occurances at the molecular level, new information is put into the genetic pool of a population.

[quote:8ee62]Which statistical process are you talking about? The one that says that the only time a species turned into another one was long before recorded history? What are the odds of that?

The statistical likelihood of the success of a certain organism, thus its likelihood to pass on its genetic make up to subsequent generations, thus the likelihood of that genetic make up becoming dominant in its population.

t is simply true that people are abandoning the morals of the bible for more sexually liscentious behavior, is it not? The bible is right when it predicted that, is it not?

The bible isn't too bereft of sexual liscence either, but that's beside the point.
It's actually a departure from the morals of the Victorian era which made sex a taboo subject in the US, not christianity or the bible. 400 years ago sex wasn't considered something to keep out of the eyes of the young, it was obviously prohibited that the very young participate, but it wasn't considered to be inappropriate that children know that sex occurs. When your entire 7 person family lives in 2 rooms.... Were I to have children I wouldn't keep the facts from them, but I would certainly be more discrete.

If you don't think sexual liscentiousness is bad, do you teach your children to pursue prmiscuity?

Sexual liscence doesn't mean the same thing as promiscuity. It means allowing oneself the choice between promiscuity, monogamy, or what have you. Were I to have children, they would know, when the became of age, that their life was their own, to do with as they pleased. I can only hope that they would be wise enough to make choices which don't hurt them.[/quote:8ee62]

Again, you are very slow to understand. Human beings have never changed into another species. Within the human gene pool, there are many, many different variables. But humans can no more change into apes or primates than apes or primates can change into human beings! This is a no-brainer that even children can understand.

Again, would you teach your children that promiscuity is beneficial? Yes or no. We all pass on our values to our children. If we have the same values as they do, then they wouldn't need us at all. Would you teach them that drinking too much, smoking, murdering, taking drugs is good for them? Or wouldn't you care what they did? :o

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Again, you are very slow to understand. Human beings have never changed into another species. Within the human gene pool, there are many, many different variables. But humans can no more change into apes or primates than apes or primates can change into human beings! This is a no-brainer that even children can understand.

...
So despite having shown evidence to the affect that there have been several different species of Human, homo sapiens, habilis, erectus, etc., that the ToE gives a useful and complete explanation of how this variety occured, you persist in denying the facts about the natural history of the human genus. Amazing. Children, given a full explanation of the Theory of Evolution would probably be able to understand it and if taught about human prehistory would see its meaning, at least at a basic level. Your attempt to insult my intelligence is noted.

Again, would you teach your children that promiscuity is beneficial? Yes or no. We all pass on our values to our children. If we have the same values as they do, then they wouldn't need us at all. Would you teach them that drinking too much, smoking, murdering, taking drugs is good for them? Or wouldn't you care what they did? :o

I don't feed trolls. Make arguments related to the debate at hand and leave your question begging aside. By the way, have you stopped needlessly beating your children?

 

[Heidi]

Again, you are very slow to understand. Human beings have never changed into another species. Within the human gene pool, there are many, many different variables. But humans can no more change into apes or primates than apes or primates can change into human beings! This is a no-brainer that even children can understand.

...
So despite having shown evidence to the affect that there have been several different species of Human, homo sapiens, habilis, erectus, etc., that the ToE gives a useful and complete explanation of how this variety occured, you persist in denying the facts about the natural history of the human genus. Amazing. Children, given a full explanation of the Theory of Evolution would probably be able to understand it and if taught about human prehistory would see its meaning, at least at a basic level. Your attempt to insult my intelligence is noted.

Again, would you teach your children that promiscuity is beneficial? Yes or no. We all pass on our values to our children. If we have the same values as they do, then they wouldn't need us at all. Would you teach them that drinking too much, smoking, murdering, taking drugs is good for them? Or wouldn't you care what they did? :o

I don't feed trolls. Make arguments related to the debate at hand and leave your question begging aside. By the way, have you stopped needlessly beating your children?

Sorry, but there has been absolutely no evidence of homo sapiens, or any other kind of "human" other than the human being as we know it today. There have only been drawings made by men of what they think we looked like "millions" of years ago just like Stephen Spielberg sketched what an alien should look like in E.T. There is absolutely no way to know if people had hair all over their bodies in pre-recorded history without hair fibers. No way! This is all in the imagination. Since scientists "decided" we came from apes, they drew men with hair. You take the hair off and humans in pre-historic times looked more like the humans of today.

But scientists can very easily dupe people because they have letters after their names. All that means is they've completed certain coursework to earn a degree. It does not qualify them to tell us how the world began and people who think so are easily fooled.

But this is how archeology can take many wrong turns. Ever since Darwin suggested we might have come from apes, this colors "archeological finds" because men have a preconceived notion of what men looked like and then try to fit the evidence into that notion instead of looking at it objectively. This is one of the fallible aspects of human nature keeps men from being able to see objective reality clearly. But what makes this worse is when men don't see their own subjectivity and pass off their "findings" as the truth. But many of us grew up in schools that passed these theories off as the truth instead of only theories. Truth seekers look at all sides of an issues instead of only looking at one side and being afraid to examine the other. ;-)

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Hair is a trivial matter, plenty of humans have shown a certain recessive trait that leads to them having hair all over their bodies.
The more important things are bone structure being more and more similar to other apes, who walk and move in different positions, in skeletons we find of animals who appear almost human accept for those few features found only in modern apes.

but there has been absolutely no evidence of homo sapiens

Even a child could see the morphological similarities between say, a bonobo and a human. Facial structure, four limbs, specialized bone structure favoring tool use(thumbs). We're just taller, less hairy and slightly smarter. Morphology aside we have genetics that make you as different from a chimp as you are from the opposite sex.

This is one of the fallible aspects of human nature keeps men from being able to see objective reality clearly.

Special pleading fallacy.
You equally fallible and have decided that your fallible reasoning is better because it has your intense religious belief to back it up. As you are going out of your way to ignore facts, then I would say you are much more biased.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

DId you know that chimps have just as many hair follicles on thier bodies as humans do. Just that ours does not grow in as much.

Today's trivia

 

[Heidi]

So why haven't bonobos changed into humans today? Why are they still around? :o Scientists look at dogs & wolves & see the similarities, so they simply think; "Oh, dogs must have come from wolves or wolves must have come from dogs." But as you can see, dogs still breed dogs today and wolves still breed wolves.

Sorry, but my husband is not a chimp. He has human characteristcs that make him a male human being. It is quite obvious that you cannot distiniguish human beings from animals. That is a necessity before you can debate intelligently.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So why haven't bonobos changed into humans today? Why are they still around? :o

You're still having problems with the idea of evolution. The primates we see today are not our ancestors, they are our cousins. 10 million years ago there were no humans, no bonobos, no chimps, no gorillas, no orangotans, etc. there was some species of primate like any and all of those species. That animal is our ancestor.

Scientists look at dogs & wolves & see the similarities, so they simply think; "Oh, dogs must have come from wolves or wolves must have come from dogs." But as you can see, dogs still breed dogs today and wolves still breed wolves.

This is one of the best documented longterm projects involving evolution that you could possibly call foul on. Dogs are domesticated wolves, whose behavioral and morphological features have been artificially selected for the past 100 centuries or more. We speciated dogs purely by our breeding them for certain tasks and favoring certain traits.

Sorry, but my husband is not a chimp. He has human characteristcs that make him a male human being. It is quite obvious that you cannot distiniguish human beings from animals. That is a necessity before you can debate intelligently.

Your husband has a Y chromosome, that's the same amount of genetic difference, or more, than that between you(or anyone) and a chimp.

 

[Heidi]

So why haven't bonobos changed into humans today? Why are they still around? :o

You're still having problems with the idea of evolution. The primates we see today are not our ancestors, they are our cousins. 10 million years ago there were no humans, no bonobos, no chimps, no gorillas, no orangotans, etc. there was some species of primate like any and all of those species. That animal is our ancestor.

Scientists look at dogs & wolves & see the similarities, so they simply think; "Oh, dogs must have come from wolves or wolves must have come from dogs." But as you can see, dogs still breed dogs today and wolves still breed wolves.

This is one of the best documented longterm projects involving evolution that you could possibly call foul on. Dogs are domesticated wolves, whose behavioral and morphological features have been artificially selected for the past 100 centuries or more. We speciated dogs purely by our breeding them for certain tasks and favoring certain traits.
[quote:2989b]
Sorry, but my husband is not a chimp. He has human characteristcs that make him a male human being. It is quite obvious that you cannot distiniguish human beings from animals. That is a necessity before you can debate intelligently.

Your husband has a Y chromosome, that's the same amount of genetic difference, or more, than that between you(or anyone) and a chimp.[/quote:2989b]

So a great Dane comes from a Chihuahua? :o If so, then why are there still Chihuahuas around? You forget that this is all postulated, Syntax. Nothing has been proven at all. So why don't they cross-breed wolves & dogs today?

You also don't understand that when a person formulates a theory in his mind, then he projects every piece of "evidence" he finds into that theory and cannot be objective. That's the exact same process that goes on in a lynch mob. The mob is convinced that the victim is guilty and everything the victim says can be twisted into guilt, which is precisely why lawyers tell their clients not to say anything.

All the bones and rocks, etc. that scientists claim prove that our ancestors were apes can also be explained in other ways. The bible says there were giants on the earth much like Andre the Giant. They were a tribe of men who lived in what is now Iraq. But since scientists have tunnel vision, they only see one way of looking at evidence and exclude other variables. When a theory comes before the evidence, the evidence will always be colored.

And again, you cannot see the difference between human beings and apes. I could care less if scientists think there is only half of a chromsome difference between them, the differences between humans & apes is obvious enough for children to see! The differences are like night and day and humans and apes still cannot cross-breed. But my human cousins can produce human beings.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So a great Dane comes from a Chihuahua? If so, then why are there still Chihuahuas around? You forget that this is all postulated, Syntax. Nothing has been proven at all. So why don't they cross-breed wolves & dogs today?

What I am saying is logically equivalent to saying that you came from your grandparents, and that X is your cousin. You're asking me why I am saying that you're your cousin's granddaughter and why your cousin is still alive.

How can you not have understood the 8 other times I've explained this.

             Primates
           |              |
      Apes             Homonids
      |     |                   |     
Gorillas  Chimps        Humans(Sapiens, Habilis, Erectus, Neaderthalis, etc)

The differences are like night and day and humans and apes still cannot cross-breed. But my human cousins can produce human beings.

Neither can Gorillas and Chimps crossbreed, and they're as much your cousins as they are eachother.

 

[Heidi]

I know exactly what you're saying. As I said, I grew up on this stuff. But you think that if I see the absurdity of it, that I just don't understand it. On the contrary, I'm pointing out how ludicrous the theory is. No one has yet explained not only how primates "evolved" into homonids, which "evolved" into humans! Offspring comes from the egg & sperm of its parents. So again, for the umteenth time, how did a Homonid come from the egg & sperm of primates?

This is the basis of evolution, the notion of whether it's even possible for primates to produce offspring so different from themselves, & for their offspring to produce primates so different from themselves to produce human beings. :o So let's take it one step at a time. How did the gene structure alter in primates to produce homonids, & why doesn't that happen today to the same degree?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I know exactly what you're saying. As I said, I grew up on this stuff. But you think that if I see the absurdity of it, that I just don't understand it. On the contrary, I'm pointing out how ludicrous the theory is. No one has yet explained not only how primates "evolved" into homonids, which "evolved" into humans! Offspring comes from the egg & sperm of its parents.

What do you mean no one has explained how something evolved, evolution has a precise meaning, it's a process. All life undergoes that process. That's how they bloody well evolved.

So again, for the umteenth time, how did a Homonid come from the egg & sperm of primates?

Reproduction fuels the process, it's the meter by which survival is measured. Our ancestors were the ones who had more offspring because they were smarter, leaner, better able to stand up in a field, etc etc. Because they were better adapted to their environment than the other pre-sapiens tribes that weren't as smart or upright, they had more kids, and their genetic information was spread faster through their population. So after a while that population gained those traits. After enough of this had occured, they were different from their neighbors, to the point that they could no longer exchange genetic information.

This is the basis of evolution, the notion of whether it's even possible for primates to produce offspring so different from themselves, & for their offspring to produce primates so different from themselves to produce human beings. :o So let's take it one step at a time. How did the gene structure alter in primates to produce homonids, & why doesn't that happen today to the same degree?

That is NOT the basis of evolution. A GROUP, and that's very important here, of primates that were more likely to produce young that was like us than like apes. Another group of primates did the opposite.
Evolution proponents have NEVER said that anything to the effect of "chimps had human babies" or whatever nonesensical strawman you come up with next might be.

 

[Heidi]

I know exactly what you're saying. As I said, I grew up on this stuff. But you think that if I see the absurdity of it, that I just don't understand it. On the contrary, I'm pointing out how ludicrous the theory is. No one has yet explained not only how primates "evolved" into homonids, which "evolved" into humans! Offspring comes from the egg & sperm of its parents.

What do you mean no one has explained how something evolved, evolution has a precise meaning, it's a process. All life undergoes that process. That's how they bloody well evolved.

So again, for the umteenth time, how did a Homonid come from the egg & sperm of primates?

Reproduction fuels the process, it's the meter by which survival is measured. Our ancestors were the ones who had more offspring because they were smarter, leaner, better able to stand up in a field, etc etc. Because they were better adapted to their environment than the other pre-sapiens tribes that weren't as smart or upright, they had more kids, and their genetic information was spread faster through their population. So after a while that population gained those traits. After enough of this had occured, they were different from their neighbors, to the point that they could no longer exchange genetic information.
[quote:51ff0]
This is the basis of evolution, the notion of whether it's even possible for primates to produce offspring so different from themselves, & for their offspring to produce primates so different from themselves to produce human beings. :o So let's take it one step at a time. How did the gene structure alter in primates to produce homonids, & why doesn't that happen today to the same degree?

That is NOT the basis of evolution. A GROUP, and that's very important here, of primates that were more likely to produce young that was like us than like apes. Another group of primates did the opposite.
Evolution proponents have NEVER said that anything to the effect of "chimps had human babies" or whatever nonesensical strawman you come up with next might be.[/quote:51ff0]

Sorry but your explanations do make sense and reality today does not prove them at all! All we know today is that humans & animals exist. How we got here is all speculation, my friend. Evolution actually contradicts the way animals & humans procreate today & since we haven't produced offspring as superior to us as we are from apes, you still can't prove that anything is evolving!

And how is anyone any smarter today than the first man? All humans today do is use the information collected from previous generations to build on to get new information! Once the survival needs are met in the first generation, the next generation uses what was learned in the 1st generation to improve upon even better survival techniques for their generation & the next generations! And this is how the world we live in today came into being! It has nothing to do with being smarter, only using the techniques already learned throughout history. Yet even so, men still have not learned that hate leads to wars, & defying God's laws leads to disease & death. So again, how are we any smarter? :o