subjective science

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You have to change with new info, because we keep getting things wrong.

Religion like everything man is involved in gets ugly, because this is man.

Truth doesn't depend on us. We will like we do with most things change them to suit us. Even in religion, but God does not change when we run into Him our sinful nature hates Him, so He gets rejected in favor of one we can make up.

Truth lacks of inherent substance because it is mind-depended. Absolute truth is non-existent. Subjective truth is existent. Some subjective truths are correct. Some subjective truths are false. There are as many realities as sentient beings😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You have to change with new info, because we keep getting things wrong.

Religion like everything man is involved in gets ugly, because this is man.

Truth doesn't depend on us. We will like we do with most things change them to suit us. Even in religion, but God does not change when we run into Him our sinful nature hates Him, so He gets rejected in favor of one we can make up.

Edit: Religion like everything man is involved in gets ugly, because this is man.

A question over here: Since I am not a Christian, in your opinion how exactly should I understand 1 John 21? Am I in fact antichrist or not? Also, is this fact firmly grounded on the Scripture or is it a product of hermeneutics?
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: Religion like everything man is involved in gets ugly, because this is man.

A question over here: Since I am not a Christian, in your opinion how exactly should I understand 1 John 21? Am I in fact antichrist or not? Also, is this fact firmly grounded on the Scripture or is it a product of hermeneutics?
😵

1 John 21?

If you are asking me because you deny Christ came in the flesh does that make you a Anti Christ, I would say yes.

Is it up to interpretation? I don't think so, but I am sure someone may have some to your liking if you disagree with my answer.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So what evidence do you have to suggest that life can just randomly pop out of a chemical soup without intelligent intervention?

What evidence do you have to suggest that intelligence can pre-exist life?

Trying to understand is good. Depending on indoctrination to do so is bad.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If building an entire ape man around the tooth of an extinct pig was passed off as science and remained under the radar for so long, how much other 'evidence' could have been fabricated by those so desperate to have their theory accepted?

How can we tell the difference between honest skepticism and blatant bias?

Originally posted by @apathist
How can we tell the difference between honest skepticism and blatant bias?

I have blatant bias! I admit it up front. 😉

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I have a few issues and I have repeatedly voiced them. Since they have gone unanswered why should I repeat them? You are asking for evidence about an event you can not describe with specifics, that supposedly occurred millions of years ago, so I can show it didn't happen!?

Just asking that makes me think you don't grasp the issues!

I am asking if you have anything to back up your concerns - and refute the overwhelming mountains of evidence in favour of common descent - beyond a queasy feeling in your belly.

Originally posted by @apathist
What evidence do you have to suggest that intelligence can pre-exist life?

Trying to understand is good. Depending on indoctrination to do so is bad.

Life seems to be intelligent, doesn't it? As if the work of something intelligent.To deny that is to insult your own intelligence.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I am asking if you have anything to back up your concerns - and refute the overwhelming mountains of evidence in favour of common descent - beyond a queasy feeling in your belly.

Refute what?

You can not tell me what really happened, just what might have, if a long series of events took place under unknown conditions, for unknown durations and so on. You can not tell me what was required across the board on micro and macro levels. You can not tell me any way to verify any of these unknowns, because the universe was supposedly different millions of years ago, and so on.

So using words like "mountains of evidence" I find laughable for an unknown event in an unknown time period, that might not even be possible if you were handed all of your conditions under perfect conditions!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
1 John 21?

If you are asking me because you deny Christ came in the flesh does that make you a Anti Christ, I would say yes.

Is it up to interpretation? I don't think so, but I am sure someone may have some to your liking if you disagree with my answer.

I asked you because you said earlier that, according to your opinion, "Religion like everything man is involved in gets ugly, because this is man".

Well, your current answer to which I now reply proves that this is not the case; on the contrary, the rigid religious dogma and the blind belief that this dogma is "absolute truth" are the factors that make the concept of religion ugly😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
I asked you because you said earlier that, according to your opinion, "Religion like everything man is involved in gets ugly, because this is man".

Well, your current answer to which I now reply proves that this is not the case; on the contrary, the rigid religious dogma and the blind belief that this dogma is "absolute truth" are the factors that make the concept of religion ugly😵

Based on what?

I think the reason man spoils everything he is in, is because of his sin nature. Man can murder supporting prolife stance, law enforcement commit crimes, we condemn others for things we do, put one above another for money, skin color, how much we can get out of them to advance ourselves, we will lie on forms to get larger refunds, hold back money we could pay.

Actually having a standard that doesn't bend due to our lust, our greedy nature doesn't strike me as something bad. You think speed limits should be done away with? How about standards in science for sorting out good findings or bad?

Laws were made for the lawless and standards to identify what is good from bad. If you can not abide them do you hold anyone to anything? If so do you think it is ugly when you do?

Originally posted by @apathist
What evidence do you have to suggest that intelligence can pre-exist life?

Trying to understand is good. Depending on indoctrination to do so is bad.

What evidence do you have that intelligence cannot pre-exist life?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Refute what?

You can not tell me what really happened, just what might have, if a long series of events took place under unknown conditions, for unknown durations and so on. You can not tell me what was required across the board on micro and macro levels. You can not tell me any way to verify any of these unknowns, because the universe was supposedly di ...[text shortened]... t might not even be possible if you were handed all of your conditions under perfect conditions!

For the time being, nobody can tell what really happened: the religious beliefs are not tenable, while the scientists simply come up with viable scientific theories of reality. However, the religious views are inferior to the scientific theories. The theory of evolution is more viable than the religious core beliefs because, for one, it does not require some kind of supernatural intervention and, for two, it remains viable and proved accurate in practice although it is constantly open to falsification.

On the other hand, it is repeatedly demonstrated how small non-living molecules could have given rise to larger molecules that were capable of reproducing themselves, without the requirement of some kind of supernatural intervention. How hard is this to be accepted, and how easy to be falsified?

A recent paper as regards this matter is the following:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5627087/
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
For the time being, nobody can tell what really happened: the religious beliefs are not tenable, while the scientists simply come up with viable scientific theories of reality. However, the religious views are inferior to the scientific theories. The theory of evolution is more viable than the religious core beliefs because, for one, it does not requir ...[text shortened]... regards this matter is the following:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5627087/
😵

How could you prove that evolution does not occur as a result of an intelligent mechanism put in place by supernatural intervention?

Are you saying the scientists in the lab are not using 'intelligent intervention' in their lab experiments?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Based on what?

I think the reason man spoils everything he is in, is because of his sin nature. Man can murder supporting prolife stance, law enforcement commit crimes, we condemn others for things we do, put one above another for money, skin color, how much we can get out of them to advance ourselves, we will lie on forms to get larger refunds, hold ba ...[text shortened]... ou can not abide them do you hold anyone to anything? If so do you think it is ugly when you do?

Edit: Based on what?

Based on the fact that the dichotomy between the persons which are to Christians either “brothers” or “children of Satan”, is clearly a product grounded on a religious blind belief😵