Generally, I'd agree, but then I have heard accounts of 'conversion', of convictions changing in the face of some experience or insight ... ?
What evidence would you accept?
- Thread starter TheLightWithin
- Start date
The skeletal system is mechanical. How could chemicals and biology make a machine?
How could a joint like a knee evolve in incremental steps? How could two bones evolve separately? If they are flopping around, what advantage do they give? How can all the ligaments evolve incrementally? What benefit is 3%, 5%, or 40% of a ligament or tendon, if they are not attached at both ends? What is the benefit of 7%, 17% of a muscle, if it is not attached at both ends? What is the benefit of one muscle, if there is no counteracting muscle to return it.
If knee type joints first evolved in a fish, what is the benefit of one fin, the fish could only go round in circles. How would a fish benefit from two fins, if there were no eyes or sensors to direct them, no kind of brain to say what the fish has to do, plus all the vital organs. Design is all about endless boring detail. The more questions you ask about the evolution of joints like the knee, the more it points to God.
- Messages
- 3,641
- Reaction score
- 1,735
- Points
- 108
It is biological. You could go ahead and say it is a biological machine if you like. I am not sure I understand your question?
Is this an actual question? You can easily look it up, those exact words in a keyword search, and it will give you a rundown. It mentions the bicondular structure in early tetrapods.
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think they do?
It doesn't work the way you seem to be assuming. Look up the evolution as I pointed out. If you actually want to know.
Blind nature has no goals according to the theory of evolution. How could the skeletal system evolve without intentional design?
How is evolution mathematically possible without God? Evolution started from single cell bacteria type life four billion years ago; which cannot be compared to a zygote. Single cell life existed for around the first two billion years. Meaning this has to be the most resilient form of life, it had no reason to change or evolve.
Then through millions / billions of copying errors, and natural selection, life evolved into species with trillions of cells. A blue whale has around a hundred thousand trillion cells. If you divided a hundred thousand trillion by four billion, mutation and selection would have to add about twenty five million cells every year for four billion years.
Many species have around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. Imagine going to a pile of a hundred thousand trillion-piece jigsaw puzzle; of a blue whale skeletal system in 3D. Randomly take 100 million pieces and assemble them, if you are successful, then take another 100 million pieces. Repeat this a billion times. Juggle the numbers around any way you like.
How could evolution work in small incremental steps, the numbers are too large? Each new copying error would have to produce and organise a hundred million new cells into, a jaw, teeth, vertebra, etc. How can you randomly do this a billion times? Every new trait would then have to be accepted into a population for selection to work. With such large numbers, every copying error would surely be a recipe for disabilities, disease and death.
How is speed of growth mathematically possible without God? A blue whale has a life span of about a hundred years. It would have to grow from birth to death, at about a thousand trillion cells every year for a hundred years, or a minimum of around two trillion cells every day for a hundred years.
When you look at the astronomical numbers involved, how is blind evolution possible without God?
- Messages
- 3,641
- Reaction score
- 1,735
- Points
- 108
What numbers are too large?
Too large for what?
If you want to know the answers, you might be better off delving into the scientific material itself, or asking actual experts, rather than challenging non-experts in a spirituality forum.
- Messages
- 3,641
- Reaction score
- 1,735
- Points
- 108
Those do occur, and the line dies out.
The ones that survive and reproduce, continue.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
The LightWithin said:
1. What evidence would you accept for the existence of the supernatural? (a supernatural world): We do not know what is the natural world, so how can we guess about a supernatural world? Perhaps existence changing into non-existence too is natural.
2. What evidence would you accept for the existence of any supernatural beings?: They should show some evidence of their existence.: Same as above
3. What evidence would you accept for the existence of a Supreme Being and/or Creator?: The reason and mechanism of creation.
4. What evidence would you accept for the existence of specifically the Abrahamic G-d?: Evidence of his existence, and the reason mechanism of creation. Also evidence of his being the judge at the end of days and existence of ever-lasting life.
5. What evidence would you accept for the validity of any particular theology?: Which goes by science. I know of two, Buddhism and Advaita (non-dual) Hinduism), in line with modern science.
1. What evidence would you accept for the existence of the supernatural? (a supernatural world): We do not know what is the natural world, so how can we guess about a supernatural world? Perhaps existence changing into non-existence too is natural.
2. What evidence would you accept for the existence of any supernatural beings?: They should show some evidence of their existence.: Same as above
3. What evidence would you accept for the existence of a Supreme Being and/or Creator?: The reason and mechanism of creation.
4. What evidence would you accept for the existence of specifically the Abrahamic G-d?: Evidence of his existence, and the reason mechanism of creation. Also evidence of his being the judge at the end of days and existence of ever-lasting life.
5. What evidence would you accept for the validity of any particular theology?: Which goes by science. I know of two, Buddhism and Advaita (non-dual) Hinduism), in line with modern science.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
That finishes it. If you can't prove, then why believe?
If it is winter, I would ask him to change the temperature instantly to 45 C. If it is summer, I would ask him to bring rain.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Incorporate some 4 billion years of progress and billions of molecules in the DNA. (Various variations, AI does not give a specific number).
"Quantity of DNA Molecules
In terms of quantity, a single human cell contains approximately:
2 meters of DNA: When fully stretched out, the DNA from one cell can measure about 2 meters long.
3 billion base pairs: The human genome consists of about 3 billion base pairs of DNA, organized into 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Each chromosome is a single, long DNA molecule, and humans have 46 chromosomes in total (23 pairs). Thus, the total number of DNA molecules in a human cell is equal to the number of chromosomes, which is 46." DuckAssist
"If you’re asking about the total number of molecules in a strand of DNA, it depends on the length of the DNA:
For Human DNA: The human genome consists of approximately 3 billion base pairs, and since each base pair corresponds to two nucleotides, this results in about 6 billion nucleotides in total." GPT40-Mini
More at DNA - Wikipedia, About (American Society of Human Genetics)
..what .. just for you?
Billions of people don't need that kind of proof .. they cannot imagine
a 'rudderless world' that exists without reason.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
What is wrong with the request? The Abrahamic God is before me and asks me to accept him. I need to confirm. Am I asking for too much?..what .. just for you?
Billions of people don't need that kind of proof .. they cannot imagine
a 'rudderless world' that exists without reason.
What billions of people believe is of no consequence to me. 'Appeal to number fallacy'.
Kesamutti Sutta (getting out of a hair-hold):
Ten specific sources whose knowledge should not be immediately viewed as truthful without further investigation to avoid fallacies:
Oral history
Tradition
News sources
Scriptures or other official texts
Suppositional reasoning
Philosophical dogmatism
Common sense
One's own opinions
Experts
Authorities or one's own teacher
Buddha's charter of free inquiry:
Only when one personally knows that a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, should one then accept it as true and practice it.
Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia
- Messages
- 3,641
- Reaction score
- 1,735
- Points
- 108
But people are guessing, and pretending or claiming to know rather than be guessing.
I'm curious about what the hypothetical evidence would look like
I'm curious about what the hypothetical evidence would look like.
I've outlined some possible options for what I would look for in earlier entries on this thread
- Messages
- 3,641
- Reaction score
- 1,735
- Points
- 108
Correct
That's not quite right
The ability to prove things to others is not a pre-condition of belief.
I am really interested in what each of us considers to be convincing details - either details that already exist that have convinced believers, and what hypothetical details would, if they existed, enhance belief in those who are currently skeptical.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,550
- Reaction score
- 829
- Points
- 108
I can offer the proof and evidence for the God given Faiths, but no one can make another beleive.
Examples. The proof of Jesus is his person and the testimony left, the New Testament. The proof of Muhammad is his person and the Koran. Likewise for the Bab and the Bayan and His volumes of writings and Baha'u'llah and the over 100 volumes of testimony.
This is how we all come to know God, via the Messengers.
Our own interpretations of scripture bexomes the veils, the warning given, yet grossly misunderstood and underestimated, such as Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, Proverbs 30:5–6, and Revelation 22:18-19.
Regards Tony
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
In a single line, existence dissolving into 'nothing' and arising again.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Is there any pre-condition for belief?
Ask yourself, ask other theists. This is not me to answer. I believe it is combination of superstition, indoctrination, ignorance, religious ego, absence of self-confidence, fear of death and erasure of individuality that makes theists believe what they believe.
Is four billion years long enough to result in a blue whale with a hundred thousand trillion cells? The life span of a blue whale is about a hundred years. From birth to death it would have to grow at an average speed of a thousand trillion cells every year. Or over two trillion cells every day for a hundred years.
When asked what evidence would I accept for God, this would convince me.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Four billion years was enough for for whales to evolve. They evolved some 50 million years ago from being a sea animal to being a land animal and finally back to being a sea animal.
"The largest animal that ever evolved is the blue whale, which can reach lengths of up to 100 feet and weigh over 200 tons. However, a newly discovered ancient whale species, Perucetus colossus, may have surpassed it in weight, potentially reaching up to 340 tons." DuckAssist
Perucetus - Wikipedia
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
p.s.: Something like that happens to humans too. The new born is 2.5-4 kg. They grow up to have a weight of 150 kg or above.
- Messages
- 3,641
- Reaction score
- 1,735
- Points
- 108
Evidence is information that points to something, proof is something more conclusive or irrefutable.
Not make, but convince, possibly?
You could argue that these constitute a form of evidence... but are they proof?
(Evidence being information that points to something, proof being conclusive or irrefutable.)
Well.... um... doesn't anybody besides messengers get anything more direct?
Do you understand why the knowledge of G-d has to come via other humans?
In such a way that it is always possible to argue that revelation and religion are just human thought?