Is faith a reliable way to know truth?

[trofimus]

Genes do not literally "want" anything. It is just a convenient shorthand for saying that genes that make an individual survive stick around, while other genes go extinct. Individuals only want to survive because they are pre-programmed by their genes. A gene that makes you want to kill other people would quickly die out, because the people you are killing are likely to have the same gene, and because trying to kill others is a good way to get yourself killed.

Genes are just a programming code. To say that genes try to survive is factually wrong.

Every programming code bears some information. This programming code must be put into some "machine" that can decode it to get the information.

Its impossible for such complex systems we see around us to originate just by long-life selection of the most successful random combination.

Billions of years would not be enough and almost every creature would have serious defects or underdeveloped features and plenty of various mutations per kind. We do not see that.

 

[Renate]

Genes are just a programming code. To say that genes try to survive is factually wrong.

Every programming code bears some information. This programming code must be put into some "machine" that can decode it to get the information.

Its impossible for such complex systems we see around us to originate just by long-life selection of the most successful random combination.

Billions of years would not be enough and almost every creature would have serious defects or underdeveloped features and plenty of various mutations per kind. We do not see that.

Right, genes don't "try" anything, that's what I just said.

Do you have any source that says it is impossible for complex systems to evolve by natural selection and that billions of years would not be enough? And why would every organism have serious defects or underdeveloped features? Serious genetic defects quickly die out because they hinder survival.

 

[garee]

Hi wanderer6059.

I believe that those who have "faith" that vishnu is their lord and saviour actually have the exact same "faith" as those who believe Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.

It's the same faith in both ... it is the object of their faith that is in error.

As you state:

"so they can say they have faith, but truth is they believe a lie."

The "lie" believed is believed with the same "faith" as the person who believes the Truth (that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior).

It's just that the faith of the one is misplaced. Therefore, their faith remains weak and vishnu has no power to turn them from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Thess 1:9).

As Christian we do not wrestles against flesh and blood.. what the eyes see, the temporal. But against spirits not seen, and principalities not seen in dark spiritual places.

Whose faith in view is the question? Coming from which spirit, seeing there are two possibilities. (1)The Spirit of eternal God or (2)the temporal spirit of the god of this world? The god of all the pagan religions of this world.. that seek after the things of men the things seen and not the unseen things of our faithful Creator

Natural man separated from God is reckoned as "no faith" in respect to the unseen things of God .God's faith, the faith of Christ as the power of God we have in us (not of us) is the revealer thereof.

It is the mutual faith of Christ (coming from) by which man must believe God. Called a imputed righteousness of faith. Not of their own self

Again, natural man is reckoned as "no faith" when it comes to spiritual things of God... not little, but none. Little would mean they do have a measure of Christ's faith.

Some natural man reckon the imaginations of their own heart as a source of the unseen spiritual.

Most people from my experiences do not acknowledge that God has a faith that works. they in effect say he does not need faith to accomplish the good purposes of His soul.

 

[trofimus]

Right, genes don't "try" anything, that's what I just said.

Do you have any source that says it is impossible for complex systems to evolve by natural selection and that billions of years would not be enough? And why would every organism have serious defects or underdeveloped features? Serious genetic defects quickly die out because they hinder survival.

Facts:

1. Estimates of existing species today are somewhere between 9 million and 1 trillion:

Trillion species:
https://www.livescience.com/54660-1-trillion-species-on-earth.html

9 million species:
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html

2. For a major evolutionary change to happen and persist it takes about 1 million years:
https://phys.org/news/2011-08-fast-evolutionary-million-years.html

=====

Math:

Let us do the math. And I will be very, very generous to you:

a) I will take the lowest estimate of species and only today´s species - 9 million. I will ignore higher estimates.

b) I will ignore all species existing before today.

c) I will grant to you that any persisted evolutionary change equals new species.

d) I will ignore the beginning of Earth´ history when the first billion of years was without any life to develop and the planet was dead.


9,000,000 species * 1,000,000 years for a major change = 9,000,000,000,000 years for todays species to evolve. Its a totally different order of number.

The problem:

The Earth is only 4,700,000,000 years old. There was no time for evolution to happen blindly and randomly. Its not even close.


Conclusion:

If evolution of species did happen, it had to be supervised by some intelligent entity that had a plan => thesistic evolution.

 

[trofimus]

I know that in later periods many species evolved simultaneously, thats why I took the lowest numbers and only today´s species to simplify things.

 

[Dan_473]

KJV

Actually, the self-evident truth is that all men* are created** equal, as in the same process of procreation.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:​

* In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; Gen 5:1-2​

** Cell fusion between the male and female gametes creates a new and unique cell diploid cell.​

​

Say what? All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, 1 Cor 15:39

So there are not skin types, but pigmentation genes. So what skin color is more adapted to long periods of bright sunlight?

(first off, I see that above I wrote, "...the common in distance that even though humans evolved, all races are equal."

That should be "common insistence". I use Google Voice typing, and sometimes odd results are produced. I don't always catch them.)

I think it's a matter of interpretation as to whether the Bible teaches that God created a male first or a male and a female at the same time. But either way, an atheist would reject that there was a god creating in the first place.

in Corinthians, Paul is not speaking as an evolutionist.

I've heard that darker skin has more melanin in it and is therefore more resistant to damage from ultraviolet radiation.

 

[Dan_473]

I always took equality to mean equal in value and rights. Not that all humans are literally the same.

sure, I can see that. If one lives in a culture which says that all humans have equal value and rights, and one's morals are identical to the majority of the people in the culture, then one would also adopt that view.

But suppose one lives and a culture that does not consider all humans to have equal value and rights?

 

[Renate]

Facts:

1. Estimates of existing species today are somewhere between 9 million and 1 trillion:

Trillion species:
https://www.livescience.com/54660-1-trillion-species-on-earth.html

9 million species:
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html

2. For a major evolutionary change to happen and persist it takes about 1 million years:
https://phys.org/news/2011-08-fast-evolutionary-million-years.html

=====

Math:

Let us do the math. And I will be very, very generous to you:

a) I will take the lowest estimate of species and only today´s species - 9 million. I will ignore higher estimates.

b) I will ignore all species existing before today.

c) I will grant to you that any persisted evolutionary change equals new species.

d) I will ignore the beginning of Earth´ history when the first billion of years was without any life to develop and the planet was dead.


9,000,000 species * 1,000,000 years for a major change = 9,000,000,000,000 years for todays species to evolve. Its a totally different order of number.

The problem:

The Earth is only 4,700,000,000 years old. There was no time for evolution to happen blindly and randomly. Its not even close.


Conclusion:

If evolution of species did happen, it had to be supervised by some intelligent entity that had a plan => thesistic evolution.

Your calculation is riciculous. Firstly, species do not evolve sequentially, but parallel. And by only taking into accounct currently existing species, you are ignoring that the variety of species is much bigger now than it was in the past.

 

[Renate]

sure, I can see that. If one lives in a culture which says that all humans have equal value and rights, and one's morals are identical to the majority of the people in the culture, then one would also adopt that view.

But suppose one lives and a culture that does not consider all humans to have equal value and rights?

I'm sure there are people who do not consider all humans to have equal value and rights. What's your point?

 

[Dan_473]

Renate,

this is the post I am by far the most interested in hearing your reaction to

then I am confused about the basis of your opening question

is faith a reliable way to know the truth?

it sounded to me like you were implying that Faith was not a reliable way to know the truth, and that we should choose a more reliable way, such as the scientific method.

But in fact we have no choice?

 

[trofimus]

Your calculation is riciculous. Firstly, species do not evolve sequentially, but parallel. And by only taking into accounct currently existing species, you are ignoring that the variety of species is much bigger now than it was in the past.

You are complaining that I ignore the variety of species in the past? Its against you, not against me.

Give me your math.

 

[Dan_473]

I'm sure there are people who do not consider all humans to have equal value and rights. What's your point?

it was my impression that most atheists want to encourage cultures which do not consider all humans to have equal value and rights to change.

this implies that there is some sort of larger truth that all humans have equal value and rights.


**************

do you believe that each individual ought to adopt the morals of the majority of the people in their culture?

I had written a post about soldiers and atrocities. Did you have a chance to read it?

 

[garee]

Facts:

1. Estimates of existing species today are somewhere between 9 million and 1 trillion:

Trillion species:
https://www.livescience.com/54660-1-trillion-species-on-earth.html

9 million species:
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html

2. For a major evolutionary change to happen and persist it takes about 1 million years:
https://phys.org/news/2011-08-fast-evolutionary-million-years.html

=====

Math:

Let us do the math. And I will be very, very generous to you:

a) I will take the lowest estimate of species and only today´s species - 9 million. I will ignore higher estimates.

b) I will ignore all species existing before today.

c) I will grant to you that any persisted evolutionary change equals new species.

d) I will ignore the beginning of Earth´ history when the first billion of years was without any life to develop and the planet was dead.


9,000,000 species * 1,000,000 years for a major change = 9,000,000,000,000 years for todays species to evolve. Its a totally different order of number.

The problem:

The Earth is only 4,700,000,000 years old. There was no time for evolution to happen blindly and randomly. Its not even close.


Conclusion:

If evolution of species did happen, it had to be supervised by some intelligent entity that had a plan => thesistic evolution.

The present corrupted creation is less than 15,000 years. We walk by faith, the unseen eternal .Not after the things or rudiments of this world seen. A person cannot find God who has no DNA under a microscope or after the oral traditions as philosophical theories of men .His word is law it rises above the philosophies of men.

Colossians 2:8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.


Colossians 2:20Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

The missing bone is still missing

 

[Joseppi]

Do you think atheists are lying about not being able to see God in creation?

Yes.

And what do you mean by "seeking what they say they don't think exists?

When you doubted you turned to science.
Yet there exists no science of creation nor origins.

And that’s why atheists change the definition of science from “what is repeatedly proven experimentally true” to what they say is “theoretically true.”

True science leads directly to technology.

False science is speculation. Stories.

Do you mean that they are seeking God?

No. All men already know of God.

Atheists are trying to escape the knowledge of God.

Because most atheists are not seeking God at all.

You believe them.
I know they are liars.

Your story is that....
you came to faith in God..,
then you began questioning...
then you discovered that you had no answers...
then you doubted...
and found answers in scientific theories.

That is an atheism story.

 

[Renate]

You are complaining that I ignore the variety of species in the past? Its against you, not against me.

Give me your math.

It doesn't matter whether or not it is against me, I'm saying your calculation is wrong.
I don't have a calculation, because no one knows at this point. I was just asking you to show me that it is impossible.

 

[Renate]

then I am confused about the basis of your opening question

is faith a reliable way to know the truth?

it sounded to me like you were implying that Faith was not a reliable way to know the truth, and that we should choose a more reliable way, such as the scientific method.

But in fact we have no choice?

Yes, that is what I'm implying. Just because you have no free will, that doesn't mean you can't change your mind about something. So you can still make decisions, it's just that you can't choose the outcome.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Genes do not literally "want" anything. It is just a convenient shorthand for saying that genes that make an individual survive stick around, while other genes go extinct. Individuals only want to survive because they are pre-programmed by their genes. A gene that makes you want to kill other people would quickly die out, because the people you are killing are likely to have the same gene, and because trying to kill others is a good way to get yourself killed.

It's extraordinary how people who think they are too intelligent to believe a creator exists place an inordinate amount of faith in processes that are unscientific (unobservable in the natural world), e.g., intelligent programming created by chance.

 

[garee]

You are complaining that I ignore the variety of species in the past? Its against you, not against me.

Give me your math.

0+0= O

Natural man, separated from God (the exclusive source of Christian faith ) is recockened as having "no faith"....zero ..no way to see or understand the spirit world . They can see the tip of their nose. Not little faith, but none, zero . It was lost in the garden. We do not know Christ after the atoms and molecules of this corrupted world as if we did wrestle against flesh and blood atheists .

 

[trofimus]

I was just asking you to show me that it is impossible.

Another problems:

1) No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

2) Chemical Evolution Is Dead in the Water

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/the_top_ten_sci/

 

[Dan_473]

Yes, that is what I'm implying. Just because you have no free will, that doesn't mean you can't change your mind about something. So you can still make decisions, it's just that you can't choose the outcome.

after a flood, a river may change its course. it can go down a different path, though it cannot choose which path it goes down.

if I understand what you're saying, our minds are like a river in that sense. our minds can go down a different path, but we can't pick which one.

so supposing that's the case. We do not consider the river to be morally responsible for the path that it goes down. in your view, are humans morally responsible for the paths they choose?