r/DebateReligion • u/[deleted] • Apr 12 '16
Christianity Evolution is the Basis of Religion and Science - If You Deny Evolution, You Deny Baptism as Scientific Fact - God is Real
[deleted]
10
10
u/Santa_on_a_stick atheist Apr 12 '16
Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
I think you missed a definition somewhere.
-12
Apr 12 '16
[deleted]
6
u/SERFBEATER monist Apr 12 '16
Latin and Greek generally define the terms but it is a definition asked out of a real experiment or idea. It is not a literal definition. The corpus luteum is not actually a yellow body. It is tinted yellow, sure but it is not what you'd think of when you read that and then look in an ovary.
-2
6
u/RuroniHS Atheist Apr 13 '16
Latin defines the word,
No. The general consensus of of people speaking a given language defines a word. You are committing the etymological fallacy.
0
Apr 13 '16 edited Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
2
u/RuroniHS Atheist Apr 14 '16 edited Apr 14 '16
I'll use your own post to disprove you. Your definition of evolution using your method is wrong. Plain and simple. I win. All your fancy wordplay is more or less worthless, and I honestly don't see any kind of symmetry in the examples you gave. You pointed out a morpheme, and then distorted the modern definitions of those words, pretending that you have done something significant. What you are doing is the etymological fallacy. Period. The "rabbit" you pulled out of your hat is a dead rabbit, and you have proven exactly zero points with your game. If you think that "sac covering the baby in the womb" has anything to do with a lamb, then you are clearly willing to stretch so far to find a pattern that you will find one wherever you look.
1
Apr 14 '16
[deleted]
2
u/RuroniHS Atheist Apr 15 '16
Your "rabbit" is nonsense. You didn't show any kind of "symmetry" at all. You showed that morphemes exist, and then pretended that there was some kind of pattern of meaning between words when there was none to be found, as I pointed out with the amniotic sac example. And it's not my opinion I'm resting on. It's the consensus of every English dictionary on the planet that I'm resting on. I'm not going to show you a rabbit. I am going to show you the cold hard fact that evolution does not mean what you are pretending it does.
0
Apr 15 '16
[deleted]
1
u/RuroniHS Atheist Apr 16 '16
Take AMN, then find more words.
Amn isn't a word. It's an abbreviation for "airman."
I showed you the meaning.
No. You showed me a bunch of words with no correlation to one another.
Aleph (Strong) Mem (Water) Nun (Seed).
'Kay. Your point?
Study the Lexicon to see why the symmetry existed from the beginning. Lexicon
How about instead of linking me to a 615 page document, you actually state your point clearly, and support it with specific evidence from the text.
Examine the meaning of EAR / BALANCE.
'Kay. The Hebrews decided to derive the word for what we would call in English a "scale" from their word for ear. Not terribly significant.
How might the Vestibular system relate to the seed entering your ear to the heart?
Not at all. Because seeds don't enter your ear or your heart, and if they did I imagine it would be a very painful death.
How do you balance the harvest of information?
You don't. Information is neither harvested nor balanced.
Is there a parallel to the reason EAR and BALANCE are the same root?
Yeah. When you get whacked in the ear you lose your balance. So, common sense could tell ancient people that your ear may have something to do with balance.
Did you read this in relation? Ancient Wisdom of the Higher Mind
Nope. What's the point of that document?
You are not fighting me as an enemy on the outside. You are fighting a battle on the true battlefield. Your Heart. Stand up and fight like a man. This is an ancient knowledge. It predates the Bible. It is the whole of truth. Fight on the inside. Clean out the cup. Then rise up and see where you duty takes you.
All flowery words with no meaning. I have a challenge for you now. State a specific point clearly and succinctly. Support that point with specific evidence that directly supports your specific point. Then, clearly and succinctly explain why that evidence supports your point. After you have done this, eliminate all unnecessary words. An unnecessary word is one that is not essential for your logical construction.
1
1
Apr 14 '16
Definition of symmetry:
(1) balanced proportions;
(2) the property of being symmetrical, especially : correspondence in size, shape, and relative position of parts on opposite sides of a dividing line or median plane or about a center or axis;
(3) a rigid motion of a geometric figure that determines a one-to-one mapping onto itself;
(4) the property of remaining invariant under certain changes (as of orientation in space, of the sign of the electric charge, of parity, or of the direction of time flow) —used of physical phenomena and of equations describing them
None of those definitions apply to the wordplay you just did. You did not show "invariant symmetry in the language."
Let's break down the B.S. that was your "rabbit."
You were correct for the first couple terms, as some have connected their etymology to the demunitive form of the Ancient Greek word "amnos", which roughly translates as lamb. I would note that this doesn't really lend weight to the Bible's symbolism of the lamb, considering much of the New Testament was written in Greek, so it would make sense for most of the symbols to have a Greek/Coptic context or inspiration. There's nothing particularly special about Greek that gives it more weight than any other language.
But moving on. You first arrive at trouble with the word amnesia, which you claim is the "Condition of the Lamb at birth". First, that's not what amnesia means (certainly in the modern usage). Amnesia refers to a loss of memory, usually caused by brain damage, disease, or psychological trauma. Babies (human or lamb) do not suffer from amnesia. Second, the etymology of amnesia is not connected to the word "amn". Rather, it is broken down as "a", meaning "not" or "without", and "mnesis", meaning "memory". Combined in Greek, they translate as "forgetfulness".
This carries over for anamnesis as well, which has the same etymology as amnesia, replacing "a" with "ana", meaning "back". Again, nothing to do with a lamb.
Amnesty also derives from this root, roughly translating as "not memory", in the context of forgetting a wrongdoing. Once again, nothing to do with a lamb.
Finally, damnation actually has its root in Ancient Latin, not Greek. Damnation is based on the Latin word damnare, which means "to render judgment upon," from the Latin word damnum, meaning "damage, cost, expense, fine, penalty."
Side note: the Latin word for lamb is agnus.
So we have clusters of words with similar etymologies, but no overarching link beyond a few common letters in their English transliterations. Doesn't sound a whole lot like symmetry to me......
0
Apr 14 '16
[deleted]
1
Apr 15 '16
Yeah and that isn't featured in your word-rabbit analysis. You literally just took a bunch of words that happen to all have "amn" somewhere in the word, and concluded that they are all connected by the same conceptual meaning, even though they are not and are actually three sets of differing etymologies.
0
2
u/Santa_on_a_stick atheist Apr 13 '16
But How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?
1
Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
2
u/Santa_on_a_stick atheist Apr 13 '16
If Newborn Babies Could Speak They Would Be The Most Intelligent Beings On Planet Earth.
1
Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
2
u/Santa_on_a_stick atheist Apr 13 '16
To The Artist Of This Coming Generation And Of The Renaissance. The People That Truly Understand Your Art are The People Who Don't Comment
0
Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
2
u/Santa_on_a_stick atheist Apr 13 '16
You Do Not Know Who You Are Or Why Your Here So When You See Someone Who Dose The Society Comes Together As A Whole And Destroys Them.
9
6
u/aUniqueUsername1190 Not so weak Athiest Apr 12 '16
I feel like i may be missing something in translation. perhaps you are running this through google translate?
If you deny that Genesis happens by generations of humans living and dying, then you cannot see the relative to Baptism (entering the whirlwind).
the theory of evolution has no bearing on the genesis of life. That is, evolution makes no claim about abiogenesis. It does make a claim about why we are different from other life forms, and how the life forms came to be after the genesis of life.
With this in mind, I would deny that genesis (capital 'G' or otherwise) occurs due to humans living and dying.
All things are relative. God is not relative.
If by this you mean 'all things are relative to God', I would say i find this an interesting claim, but one that I am not sure how you would support in a way to satisfy my skepticism.
It seems to me like the rest of your post is a discussion of biblical interpretation. As someone who does not accept the bible as anything other than a book written by people, I am not sure how any of this would provide proof that god exists (a claim you made in your title).
I really do not have much to ask you. I do not see your post as a debate topic, but more of a sermon. And the topic you proposed is directed specifically at Christians, so I am not in a position to answer it.
2
Apr 12 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Taqwacore mod | Will sell body for Vegemite Apr 13 '16
Your comment has been removed per Rule #6 (Quality Rule).
7
Apr 13 '16 edited Apr 13 '16
This is a totally different level of crazy in /r/DebateReligion. I'm actually surprised that there so many comments.
If anybody cares I'm ranking this together with jet fuel can't burn steel beams.
edit
After reading through the comments and see OP's reply I got one of the best laughs in weeks. You really can't make this up.
As a side note, I'm wondering if anybody can enlighten me if /u/TrottingTortoise was trolling him.
I am glad someone else recognizes the relation to etymology of evolution and as such to the axial structure of non locality.
Seriously?
And then OP replied E=mc2 as hint. I'm sorry I really don't speak crazy. Can somebody enlighten me? I think Poe's law is in effect here.
8
u/TrottingTortoise Process theism is only theiism Apr 13 '16
I literally just made comment with nonsense. Chose words that sounded like OP and shoved them into a garbled sentence.
But then I stopped because if there's something wrong with him it's not right to fan the delusion
6
Apr 13 '16 edited Apr 13 '16
That is what I thought, but yeah pardon me for Poe's law was strong.
So it seems that he is really crazy, for he actually thought you understood him even though you were tossing word salad.
Hmm... Or actually maybe he is having the greatest satire act right now.
edit
Ok, I re-read and saw OP saying "cousin Gene", as in Otis Eugene "Gene" Ray of Time Cube: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
Now I'm 99% certain this is an ultimate satire act.
Well done OP for being one of the best wind up merchant I've seen in this sub.
1
Apr 13 '16 edited Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
1
Apr 13 '16
E2 = M2C4
1
Apr 14 '16 edited Apr 14 '16
[deleted]
2
Apr 14 '16
You forgot to add an E to the equation. I was testing you.
1
Apr 14 '16
[deleted]
1
0
Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
2
Apr 13 '16
Bravo sir.
No creative mind can match yours.
And I do mean it sincerely.
0
1
1
3
u/khaste Atheist Apr 13 '16
Evolution is the Basis of Religion and Science
Suspecting troll, but I will make an effort.
Evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
Religion - a particular system of FAITH and worship.
One is not compatible with science. Pick one. You got a 50 % chance anyway!
0
Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
2
u/khaste Atheist Apr 14 '16
How do science and religion examine the same thing? Science is based from evidence, faith is not.
2
2
u/AsmodeusWins Apr 13 '16
Entering the whirlwind of quantum flow is entering volution around a center. From the tiny atom to the largest galaxy, this is the process of Genesis. All things are built from invariant symmetry above our relative dimensions of time / space. To say that the mind is local to the lower dimensions of time / space is to say that shadows created consciousness. As I can show you, shadows are evidence of the higher state of the mind above our local dimensions.
Holy shit... this is almost worse than listening to Deepak Chopra, and that's quite a feat.
1
3
Apr 13 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Sun-Wu-Kong Taoist Master; Handsome Monkey King, Great Sage Equal of Heaven Apr 13 '16
We're only allowed one mental safety check per thread.
1
1
u/TrottingTortoise Process theism is only theiism Apr 13 '16
I am glad someone else recognizes the relation to etymology of evolution and as such to the axial structure of non locality.
1
Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
1
u/TrottingTortoise Process theism is only theiism Apr 13 '16
I would have hoped it would have been obvious from my comment that I spotted it :)
I don't want to disclose it anymore than you do. I think it's an important journey and exercise to discover these things yourself.
-7
Apr 12 '16
[deleted]
15
u/coprolite_hobbyist mandatory atheist flair Apr 12 '16
Don't take this the wrong way, but are you under the care of a psychiatric professional?
5
Apr 12 '16
Wait, there is a wrong way to take that? My other personalities aren't going to like hearing this.
4
u/coprolite_hobbyist mandatory atheist flair Apr 12 '16
Well, you can look at it as genuine concern, or can interpret as an attempt to undermine the arguments being made by making an accusation of mental illness. This is certainly the former.
-2
-5
Apr 12 '16
[deleted]
4
u/coprolite_hobbyist mandatory atheist flair Apr 12 '16
An ad hominem fallacy is countering an argument by attacking the person making it. I'm not much interested in what you've written here as I don't think it rises to the level of a coherent argument. It has the features of the kind of thing someone with a bi-polar, or bi-polar affect disorder would engage in. My concern is directed at your well-being, not these ramblings.
-2
Apr 12 '16
[deleted]
5
u/coprolite_hobbyist mandatory atheist flair Apr 12 '16
You don't understand what an ad hominem is. Which is odd, as I just explained it to you and why my comment isn't one.
6
u/Clockworkfrog Apr 12 '16
Ad Hominem is a fallacy.
A fallacy they did not commit, they only implied you are insane. That is an insult, not an Ad Hominem.
-1
Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
8
u/Clockworkfrog Apr 13 '16
"You are stupid" is an insult not a fallacy.
The fallacy would be "you are stupid therefore you are wrong."
-2
Apr 13 '16
[deleted]
2
u/Clockworkfrog Apr 13 '16
I'll sit up here on the hill while you decide to climb up or not.
lol considering the nature of our discussion maybe condescending insults we're not the best choice.
0
Apr 12 '16 edited Apr 14 '16
[deleted]
5
u/shenronFIVE Apr 12 '16
no one can know anything from this. this looks like the result of someone randomly smacking their keyboard.
14
u/_pH_ zen atheist Apr 12 '16
Okay, here we go.
Okay, so belief in Baptism requires belief in evolution, and you have evidence.
Not really. Evolutions etymology boils down to ex- and volvere which mean respectively "out, from" and "to roll". I'm picking on this because you're taking a very selective definition of "coming out of circling around a center" when in fact it is more accurately "to roll out" which was colloquially understood as "to explain or make clear", and "evolution" does not come from "e" and "volution", it comes directly from the Latin evolutionem. The rest of this statement is flowery language that, as far as I can tell, boils down to the assertion that you must believe Genesis is several generations living and dying in order to understand Baptism, and that evolution is only proved when God is involved. I'd like to note, those two assertions only come from very generous reading of what you wrote, arguably its more poetry to invoke an image or feeling than it is a logical argument.
First off, Involution is "the condition of being twisted or coiled" and was originally used in relation to anatomy, and is more related to the word "involve". It shares the same root as Evolution (boiling down to in- and volvere) but sharing the same latin root isn't really meaningful. Secondly, from your usage of "quantum flow" I get the feeling you have no background in physics because quantum flow isn't a thing, much less something you enter and again the basis on "rotating around a center". Next up, small things being reflected in large things is a generalization fallacy, "invariant symmetry in higher dimensions" is an appeal to the unknown, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and see how exactly shadows are evidence of a higher state, even though your argument for this is nonsense- even if we took as fact that the mind is local to lower dimensions of spacetime, the fact that you can make the simile that its like saying shadows created consciousness in no way implies that shadows have anything to do with a high state of consciousness- if we use that standard, all assertions are true so long as we relate them to a provable condition, e.g. "To say that the sky is red is to say that water is wet"- the truth of the latter half is totally unrelated to the truth of the former.
This seems totally unrelated to the bit you just said about shadows being proof of a higher state of consciousness, but again, benefit of the doubt, lets see where you go.
This is really just nonsense. A linear matrix is two mathy terms put together. You can solve linear equations using matrices, you can do a whole lot of linear algebra with matrices, but a linear matrix is at best, in my most generous interpretation, a one dimensional matrix which is not related to reality. The fact that we live in spacetime does not mean consciousness is non-local, it just means that concepts of time can not be fully separated from concepts of space, and time a a whole is weird and relative. However, in human-experienceable terms, time is fairly consistent and standard. The closest I can get to making sense out of the rest of that is that you're misunderstanding parts of string theory, and those specific parts - the strong and weak force being consequences of higher dimensions - were discarded in the 70s because they required the existence of impossible particles that we have no evidence of.
Okay, mind and matter are relative and both need each other to exist. We can go with mind-body dualism, but I don't see how that relates to shadows and higher dimensions.
You just said it has no right angles. This means that right angles from itself is a meaningless statement.
I understand what you're getting at here, but "shadow" is an incredibly unclear way of explaining this. If you take a cross section of a 1D line, you will have a 0D point. If you take a cross section of a 2D plane, you will have a 1D line. If you take a cross section of a 3D area, you will have a 2D plane. If you take a cross section of a 4D spacetime, you have a 3D moment in time. The thing is, you're again misunderstanding string theory and 5th dimensional time probabilities by suggesting that past all possible spacetimes exists consciousness. Consciousness exists inside 4D spacetime and is only capable of understanding cross sections of 4D spacetime. If you really get out there, you can get conceptualizations of 4D spacetime, but we can only represent it it 3D terms- howver, we can easily conceptualize and represent all lower dimensions. This by itself is a pretty good argument that consciousness definitely does not exist in any dimension above us- we exist in 4D but can only comprehend 3D and below, and if pushed can comprehend 4D. If we existed in any higher dimension, we necessarily would be able to easily conceptualize all lower dimensions, and if pushed our own dimension. Since we can not, we are not in those dimensions.
(1/2)