Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

We haven't discovered any evidence that provides a reasonable explanation as to how life was established on Earth.

Not in recent posts in this thread, perhaps, but there are examples on Earth today that illustrate exactly how it can happen.

 

[Scaff]

Okay, so your specific objection (and Scaff's) is that reproduction across species is not the same as intelligent design?

Well, okay. We can say that the genetics of humans could have been altered by breeding with non-humans.
And okay, we can say that the genetics of humans could have been altered by intelligent design by non-humans.
Not exactly the very same thing, but the same general effect, the same general concept, the same general idea.

It's a leap, a massive leap and not even close to what Dawkins said.

That's without your utter and complete failure to see that the assumption your using from Dawkins was from a quote mined and deliberately missleading and edited film designed to create that strawman in the first place.

 

[TexRex]

Not in recent posts in this thread, perhaps, but there are examples on Earth today that illustrate exactly how it can happen.

I missed that one. In fairness, we (myself and the mouse in my pocket) don't go poking around hydrothermal vents--hot.

 

[Dotini]

It's a leap, a massive leap and not even close to what Dawkins said.

That's without your utter and complete failure to see that the assumption your using from Dawkins was from a quote mined and deliberately missleading and edited film designed to create that strawman in the first place.

Well, that's your opinion, and your heartfelt feelings for poor Mr. Dawkins who was so cruelly taken advantage of by Mr. Stein (whom I dislike for other reasons - but that's another story). I respect your opinion and your feelings. But I do have my own.

 

[Scaff]

Well, that's your opinion, and your heartfelt feelings for poor Mr. Dawkins who was so cruelly taken advantage of by Mr. Stein (whom I dislike for other reasons - but that's another story). I respect your opinion and your feelings. But I do have my own.

No it's not my opinion, but the view of those who were mislead in regard to the film, misrepresented in it and then attempts were made to bar them from showings of it.

Not my view but the words of those involved, which I've linked to and provided a video saying such.

 

[Dotini]

No it's not my opinion, but the view of those who were mislead in regard to the film, misrepresented in it and then attempts were made to bar them from showings of it.

Not my view but the words of those involved, which I've linked to and provided a video saying such.

Is it your view that advanced beings could have altered the genetics of humanity at some point? Or do you rule that out as impossible?

 

[Scaff]

Is it your view that advanced beings could have altered the genetics of humanity at some point? Or do you rule that out as impossible?

I don't rule out anything as impossible, it's down to what evidence exists to support it.

However in the absence of evidence nor do I presume things to be true.

 

[GTPVenomZombie]

In my opinion, I do not believe there is a God. Not yet anyway.

But I do respect other people's views and opinions on it.

 

[Dotini]

I don't rule out anything as impossible, it's down to what evidence exists to support it.

However in the absence of evidence nor do I presume things to be true.

What constitutes evidence? Archeology, genetics, history, literature? Less than this, or more?

I think that creation myths from various cultures around the world are interesting and good things to know. But I agree that presuming too many things to be true is like dancing on rotten ice.

 

[Scaff]

What constitutes evidence? Archeology, genetics, history, literature? Less than this, or more?

I think that creation myths from various cultures around the world are interesting and good things to know. But I agree that presuming too many things to be true is like dancing on rotten ice.

That which is testable and falsifiable.

What you have listed are areas of study, not standards of evidence.

 

[Dotini]

That which is testable and falsifiable.

What you have listed are areas of study, not standards of evidence.

IMO, you take an unreasonably extreme narrowly construed position on what constitutes evidence.


ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"
   
   Evidence - Wikipedia
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
   Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

 

[Joey D]

There's virtually no evidence, at least archaeological, that supports aliens coming to Earth to advance humans. As much as I love the wild theories and speculation surrounding it, I doubt there will ever be sound evidence that supports it.

 

[Scaff]

IMO, you take an unreasonably extreme narrowly construed position on what constitutes evidence.


ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"
   
   Evidence - Wikipedia
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
   Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

Which I would much rather do that construct my own, to poor standards, to fit a preconceived ideas.

Ones science, the other is blind faith, belief and pseudoscience.

 

[Dotini]

Which I would much rather do that construct my own, to poor standards, to fit a preconceived ideas.

Ones science, the other is blind faith, belief and pseudoscience.

Sounds rather binary. Can't think of anything in between?

We all should like good stories, and mystery is the heart of any good story.

@Joey D
I don't believe the patriarchs were aliens. But they may have been shamen, astronomer/priests with knowledge of agriculture who migrated from Asia and possibly passed through central Europe.

 

[Scaff]

Sounds rather binary. Can't think of anything in between?

It is binary, either evidence stands up to testing or it doesn't.

We all should like good stories, and mystery is the heart of any good story.

And?

Should myth just be taken at face value and considered to be true?

 

[Dotini]

It is binary, either evidence stands up to testing or it doesn't.

How do you test the origin of life or the origin the universe?

Should myth just be taken at face value and considered to be true?

Don't be silly. Myth should not be taken at face value. It should be considered for perspective, but most of all enjoyed for the pleasure it gives.

 

[Scaff]

How do you test the origin of life or the origin the universe?

Via the scientific method, as has been discussed countless times before.

Don't be silly. Myth should not be taken at face value. It should be considered for perspective, but most of all enjoyed for the pleasure it gives.

Then before calling others silly you should ask yourself why you attached it to your reply in regard to evidence.

 

[Dotini]

Via the scientific method, as has been discussed countless times before.

For example?

you should ask yourself why you attached it to your reply in regard to evidence.

Has anyone ever accused you of being "too uptight"?

 

[Scaff]

For example?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

See the section on observational evidence for a starting point.

Has anyone ever accused you of being "too uptight"?

Nope.

Thanks for the ad hominem, try and leave them out from now on.

 

[Dotini]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

See the section on observational evidence for a starting point.

Obviously the big bang was a one time event. It cannot be reproduced. And is not testable or falsifiable.

Nope.

"Sometimes a beautiful, useful or necessary lie is preferable to an ugly truth".

Thanks for the ad hominem, try and leave them out from now on.

If you expect others to accord you ground to stand on, then you must accord them the same respect.

 

[Scaff]

Obviously the big bang was a one time event. It cannot be reproduced. And is not testable or falsifiable.

You didn't actually bother reading a bit of that link, evidence for the big bang, that is testable and falsifiable most certainly does exist.

If you expect others to accord you ground to stand on, then you must accord them the same respect.

Given that I've answered your questions without insult or attack that's not really applicable.

Something you don't seem to be able to do yourself given the part of your post I'm not going to bother replying to.

 

[Dotini]

You didn't actually bother reading a bit of that link, evidence for the big bang, that is testable and falsifiable most certainly does exist.

Have you read I Enoch (Charlesworth translation) or the Enuma Elish? Some of that may be testable, too.

I've answered your questions without insult or attack

If that's true, then I'd hate to become victim to your heartfelt insult or attack. Let's give each other some ground to stand own, and all will be well.

 

[Foofer37]

Just discovered this thread. Interesting post. I do believe in God. But the majority on here, according to the poll, do not. That would explain why, as I already suspected, so many are ok with using exploits, cheats, cutting corners and ramming others out of their way.

 

[Scaff]

Have you read I Enoch (Charlesworth translation) or the Enuma Elish? Some of that may be testable, too.

May be, feel free to demonstrate, be sure to include falsifiable as well.

If that's true, then I'd hate to become victim to your heartfelt insult or attack. Let's give each other some ground to stand own, and all will be well.

I will leave you in your glasshouse.

Just discovered this thread. Interesting post. I do believe in God. But the majority on here, according to the poll, do not. That would explain why, as I already suspected, so many are ok with using exploits, cheats, cutting corners and ramming others out of their way.

Morals don't require religion.

 

[Foofer37]

May be, feel free to demonstrate, be sure to include falsifiable as well.



I will leave you in your glasshouse.


Morals don't require religion.

Without religion, morals are useless.

 

[Scaff]

Without religion, morals are useless.

Who told you that? And why do you assume that, given as social animals humans have a strong evolutionary need for moral structure that doesn't need a religious foundation.

 

[Foofer37]

Who told you that? And why do you assume that, given as social animals humans have a strong evolutionary need for moral structure that doesn't need a religious foundation.

Wrong. Evolution is a lie and man does not need anything other than what God has created him for. Morals only exist because of God.

 

[Famine]

Evolution is a lie

Morals only exist because of God.

Remind me what God's morals are again. I keep forgetting.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Scaff]

Wrong. Evolution is a lie

Wrong thread, head over to the correct one to debate that.

However in short. No, the body of evidence by far and away supports evolution as a theory (and that's scientific theory, as in collected body of evidence).

and man does not need anything other than what God has created him for. Morals only exist because of God.

Which God and which version of that God's claims?