Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

Evolution? How does the eye evolve? (The problem of irreducible complexity) The viability of so many biological systems completely depends on other systems. A fully formed eye does no good if there is no optic nerve. The optic nerve is no help if the brain cannot sort out the signals. If one of a hundred things go wrong the entire system is a detriment to life.

[farjean2]

Evolution? Where are the fossils of the transitional forms? (The historical problem) If the Evolutionist’s story of millions of years of gradual transition from one form to another is true, the evidence of these transitions ought to be everywhere. To my knowing, there are not.

That's an old Christian talking point. There are lots of transitional fossils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

And as Richard Dawkins will tell you, the real evidence is in the DNA.

[Mountaineer]

Evolution? Where are the fossils of the transitional forms? (The historical problem) If the Evolutionist’s story of millions of years of gradual transition from one form to another is true, the evidence of these transitions ought to be everywhere. To my knowing, there are not.

That's an old Christian talking point. There are lots of transitional fossils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

And as Richard Dawkins will tell you, the real evidence is in the DNA.

Evolution? Are there examples of increasing genetic complexity? (The genetic problem) I have never seen an example of mutation resulting in increased genetic complexity. Each example my Biology books gave of mutation was a manifestation of traits already contained in the genetic code. I’m particularly interested to see if there is something to read on this question.

[farjean2]

Evolution? How does the eye evolve? (The problem of irreducible complexity) The viability of so many biological systems completely depends on other systems. A fully formed eye does no good if there is no optic nerve. The optic nerve is no help if the brain cannot sort out the signals. If one of a hundred things go wrong the entire system is a detriment to life.

Another outdated argument if this article is to believed....

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/ ... human-eye/

There have been incremental advances throughout the entire structure of the eye, one at a time. Fortunately, we have many very good examples of earlier versions of the vertebrate eye, both from extant (living) organisms with more primitive eyes, and from the fossil record. In fact, the eye is now one of the anatomical structures about which we have the most complete understanding of its gradual evolution.

For this reason, creationists have largely abandoned the argument of irreducible complexity of the eye, retreating to more obscure examples such as the bacterial flagellum.

[Mountaineer]

Evolution? How does the eye evolve? (The problem of irreducible complexity) The viability of so many biological systems completely depends on other systems. A fully formed eye does no good if there is no optic nerve. The optic nerve is no help if the brain cannot sort out the signals. If one of a hundred things go wrong the entire system is a detriment to life.

Another outdated argument if this article is to believed....

https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/ ... human-eye/

There have been incremental advances throughout the entire structure of the eye, one at a time. Fortunately, we have many very good examples of earlier versions of the vertebrate eye, both from extant (living) organisms with more primitive eyes, and from the fossil record. In fact, the eye is now one of the anatomical structures about which we have the most complete understanding of its gradual evolution.

For this reason, creationists have largely abandoned the argument of irreducible complexity of the eye, retreating to more obscure examples such as the bacterial flagellum.

Ummm, perhaps. But the article seemed more like the writer started with a solution and aimed to prove it somehow no matter what. The science hypotheses and presuppositions seem quite a stretch, at least to me; they require even more faith than faith in the Creator. Obviously, many see it differently (pun intended).

Some might have interest in this: https://www.whitehorseinn.org/show/does ... h-science/

[farjean2]

Ummm, perhaps. But the article seemed more like the writer started with a solution and aimed to prove it somehow no matter what. The science hypotheses and presuppositions seem quite a stretch, at least to me; they require even more faith than faith in the Creator. Obviously, many see it differently (pun intended).

Some might have interest in this: https://www.whitehorseinn.org/show/does ... h-science/

If science hypotheses seem quite a stretch to you, why do you then post something about science and faith not being in conflict? Obviously they are in conflict with you.

[Mountaineer]

Ummm, perhaps. But the article seemed more like the writer started with a solution and aimed to prove it somehow no matter what. The science hypotheses and presuppositions seem quite a stretch, at least to me; they require even more faith than faith in the Creator. Obviously, many see it differently (pun intended).

Some might have interest in this: https://www.whitehorseinn.org/show/does ... h-science/

If science hypotheses seem quite a stretch to you, why do you then post something about science and faith not being in conflict? Obviously they are in conflict with you.

Did I say ALL science hypotheses are a stretch? I don’t think so. That would be rather foolish as I am a scientist. Only the hypotheses in the referenced article are a stretch for me. And why the ad hominum attacks? Touchy subject that requires self-examination? Be nice, Jesus loves you whether or not you recognize it. Peace Dude.

[farjean2]

Did I say ALL science hypotheses are a stretch? I don’t think so. That would be rather foolish as I am a scientist. Only the hypotheses in the referenced article are a stretch for me. And why the ad hominum attacks? Touchy subject that requires self-examination? Be nice, Jesus loves you whether or not you recognize it. Peace Dude.

You'll have to point out the ad hominem attack because I don't see it.

You make a post falsely claiming there are no transitional fossils and I share a link showing otherwise. You make another post saying that the perfect design of the eye is evidence of creation and I share another link showing that there is clear evidence that the eye is a product of evolution and not perfectly designed.

So you follow with a post stating that faith and science are not in conflict.

How is pointing out your logical fallacy an ad hominem attack, i.e., an impugning of your character? The only one I see doing that is you.

[Mountaineer]

Did I say ALL science hypotheses are a stretch? I don’t think so. That would be rather foolish as I am a scientist. Only the hypotheses in the referenced article are a stretch for me. And why the ad hominum attacks? Touchy subject that requires self-examination? Be nice, Jesus loves you whether or not you recognize it. Peace Dude.

You'll have to point out the ad hominem attack because I don't see it.

You make a post falsely claiming there are no transitional fossils and I share a link showing otherwise. You make another post saying that the perfect design of the eye is evidence of creation and I share another link showing that there is clear evidence that the eye is a product of evolution and not perfectly designed.

So you follow with a post stating that faith and science are not in conflict.

How is pointing out your logical fallacy an ad hominem attack, i.e., an impugning of your character? The only one I see doing that is you.

You are entitled to your opinions and faith in your sources (links). I happen to think my source is more reliable than yours. Peace Dude, no need for twisted knickers. I have no need to prove anything - way above my pay grade. God is good.

[farjean2]

You are entitled to your opinions and faith in your sources (links). I happen to think my source is more reliable than yours. Peace Dude, no need for twisted knickers. I have no need to prove anything - way above my pay grade. God is good.

Fair enough. But now I'm wondering what is the origin of the term "twisted knickers". There seems to be some debate about it.

[Mountaineer]

We can go with panties in a bunch if you prefer.

[Mountaineer]

I have no need to prove anything...

Yes, you do. Otherwise you wouldn't keep posting stuff with the intention of bringing others here over to your point of view. Just saying...

Pugchief, I respect your view but I really am not trying to prove anything. It is not my personal point of view that is important, it’s God’s truth that is. I only try to tell others that Jesus chose to enter time, space, and the creation, died, and rose again for each and every single person. That is very good news. Whether others are chosen to believe that is not up to me, i.e. I only cast the seeds, it is not up to me whether they take root and grow. I am not a believer in the religions/traditions that think works-righteousness is required for saving me and others from our sins and ultimately rescuing us from a horrible eternity after our physical death. I know people that do not think they are sinners as long as they don’t do bad things. I think that if people objectively look at what goes on in the world they’ll see sin abounds and will until the last day. Of course I do hope that everyone will be chosen to spend eternity with God. The other option (and there are only two options) saddens me greatly. But as I said, I am not trying to prove anything. The evidence is clear with or without my actions.

[farjean2]

We can go with panties in a bunch if you prefer.

Yes we can. Knickers is an obscure reference but now I get it with panties. So I'm going to extend an invitation for you to come down to where I live and say it to my face. I'm a Vietnam vet and have almost certainly killed more people than you have in your genocidal Old Testament fantasies so why don't you bring your loving punk Christian ass down here and we'll meet in a bar and you can say that to my face.

Probably would only result in ordering another round but it will be on you.

[Mountaineer]

We can go with panties in a bunch if you prefer.

Yes we can. Knickers is an obscure reference but now I get it with panties. So I'm going to extend an invitation for you to come down to where I live and say it to my face. I'm a Vietnam vet and have almost certainly killed more people than you have in your genocidal Old Testament fantasies so why don't you bring your loving punk Christian ass down here and we'll meet in a bar and you can say that to my face.

Probably would only result in ordering another round but it will be on you.

That sounded a lot like Dirty Harry with a wedgie after several 33s. You are not Clint Eastwood in disguise are you?

[Pointedstick]

This thread only serves to push religious people and atheists apart. Religion cannot be figured out logically, and any attempt to do so makes logically-minded people feel insulted and entrenches their disrespect for religious people.

You can logically pick anything apart and tease out all the contradictions and irrationalities if you really want to destroy the wonder and mystery inherent in it. Try it on your favorite book or movie sometime. It's easy. There's a whole cottage industry of millennial assholes on YouTube who do this for a living, and college lit classes provide the highbrow version.

At the end, you feel briefly intellectually gratified, but there's no sport in picking on a defenseless target, and it never really satisfies you.

[farjean2]

We can go with panties in a bunch if you prefer.

Yes we can. Knickers is an obscure reference but now I get it with panties. So I'm going to extend an invitation for you to come down to where I live and say it to my face. I'm a Vietnam vet and have almost certainly killed more people than you have in your genocidal Old Testament fantasies so why don't you bring your loving punk Christian ass down here and we'll meet in a bar and you can say that to my face.

Probably would only result in ordering another round but it will be on you.

That sounded a lot like Dirty Harry with a wedgie after several 33s. You are not Clint Eastwood in disguise are you?

Don't know what a 33 is but I'm drinking Michelob Ultra (yuk) nowadays for weight reasons. Last post was a little over the top (or out the bottom if your prefer) so my apologies.

[Mountaineer]

Yes we can. Knickers is an obscure reference but now I get it with panties. So I'm going to extend an invitation for you to come down to where I live and say it to my face. I'm a Vietnam vet and have almost certainly killed more people than you have in your genocidal Old Testament fantasies so why don't you bring your loving punk Christian ass down here and we'll meet in a bar and you can say that to my face.

Probably would only result in ordering another round but it will be on you.

That sounded a lot like Dirty Harry with a wedgie after several 33s. You are not Clint Eastwood in disguise are you?

Don't know what a 33 is but I'm drinking Michelob Ultra (yuk) nowadays for weight reasons. Last post was a little over the top (or out the bottom if your prefer) so my apologies.

Apologies not necessary, it’s all good. 33 is a Vietnamese beer brand. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Beer

[Jack Jones]

I've been meditating more regularly again. Could be placebo, but I notice benefits the same day. Best way I can describe it is that I seem to be taking in the world at a higher resolution.

You can try it right now. Stop reading, close your eyes slightly, and just observe what's going on inside for a minute.

Sam Harris' Waking Up was the catalyst for my renewed interest, and I'm currently working through a weekly email course you can sign up for here:

http://aromeditation.org/

[Pointedstick]

http://aromeditation.org/

If you like this, you may be interested in more from the same author: http://meaningness.com/

Highly recommended.

[Maddy]

. . . close your eyes slightly, and just observe what's going on inside for a minute.

"Damn, I forgot to buy milk when I was in town. . . You're a real dumbshit. . . Gophers are totally tearing up the pasture. One more thing to do tonight. . . Oh shit, the dog threw up on the floor."

[buddtholomew]

Has anyone figured it out yet?

[Mountaineer]

Has anyone figured it out yet?

It all depends on the definition of "it".

[buddtholomew]

Has anyone figured it out yet?

It all depends on the definition of "it".

I'm just waiting for someone to tell me what page to go to for the answer

[Mountaineer]

Has anyone figured it out yet?

It all depends on the definition of "it".

I'm just waiting for someone to tell me what page to go to for the answer

The answer is right before you. Receive the gift.

[Pointedstick]

I figured it out--for myself, at least. The answers aren't found here, though. They're already inside of you, and all religion does is help you find what's already there.