FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: rwdeese on July 14, 2010, 06:00:22 pm
-
Atheistic Evolutionist: Creation is not a science because creationists do not have all the evidence.
Believer: Do you never everything?
AE: We will never know everything.
Believer: I agree. Will we continue to find new evidence?
AE: Yes, that is correct.
Believer: That means we can't be sure about anything, right?
AE: Yes, this is true.
Believer: Logically then, we cannot be sure about evolution right?
AE: Ahem... Oh no! Evolution is a fact. (funny how they will embrace logic until their faith is confronted)
This demonstrates how faith based AEs really are - they are determined to ascribe to evolution no matter where the evidence may bring them. Evolution is a fact, you know - lol You see, models of science will continue to change, but the beliefs that these modesls are built on will keep this debate going. The belief (or faith) of evolution is the foundatioinal basis for the scientific models (interpretations or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. In other words, evolution came first, then they built evidence around it (Darwin had no evidence). AEs are not prepared - even if it turns out to be the only option - to change their actual belief/faith. They are very committed to this faith! What is comical though is they actually think that to believe that God created the world makes less sense than a "nothing" created the world. In essence then, AEs place their faith in "nothing!"
-
Epic troll post! It sounds like a bad knock-knock joke. This is NOT how the conversation would go at all...
Atheistic Evolutionist (not all people who accept evolution are atheists, and vice versa): Creation is not a science because creationists do not have all the evidence have "evidence" that is irrespective and against the ACTUAL evidence. It is junk science.
Believer: Do you never everything?
AE: We will never know everything. WTF does that mean, do I "never" everything? ... Tee-hee, it is a joke. No, our little human minds will probably never know "everything". But if the progress we've made just in the last 100 years speaks for anything, we're going to damn well find out A LOT. Science isn't "all or nothing" -- stop treating it as such.
Believer: I agree. Will we continue to find new evidence?
AE: Yes, that is correct.
Believer: That means we can't be sure about anything, right?
AE: Yes, this is true. No we can never be 100% sure of anything, BUT we can have a very accurate, working picture of reality. What makes you 100% sure god is real, btw? What makes you 100% sure it is the CHRISTIAN god? What makes you 100% sure that the authority figures you put your faith in (Ken Hovind, Ray Comfort, Lee Strobel, Ken Ham) are not using junk science and feeding you lies?
...See, I can give it right back to ya, buddy!
Believer: Logically then, we cannot be sure about evolution right?
AE: Ahem... Oh no! Evolution is a fact. (funny how they will embrace logic until their faith is confronted) Nobody would say this. Stop spreading your propaganda and lies. I already addressed that it is not science's job to give us 100% absolutes...nor is it LOGICAL to expect that. Science gives us the best working picture of reality and for you to call it inferior to the god of your 2,000-year-old book written by primitive, superstitious men is laughable at best and an atrocity against humanity at worst.
-
Believer: That means we can't be sure about anything, right?
AE: Yes, this is true. No we can never be 100% sure of anything, BUT we can have a very accurate, working picture of reality. What makes you 100% sure god is real, btw?
:cat: It is true that we can never be 100% sure of anything. As for God, all I can say is faith and trust in God is the basis of my belief. I know one day we will ultimately meet our maker, that's for certain. But I maintain my belief just as you maintain yours. I like reading your posts. At least we can agree to disagree!!!
-
Believer: That means we can't be sure about anything, right?
Nothing is ever 100% true. But to get really down and dirty in trying to explain it will eventually make us look like hippies high on acid. Let's just try to be rational and realistic.
I already addressed that it is not science's job to give us 100% absolutes...nor is it LOGICAL to expect that. Science gives us the best working picture of reality and for you to call it inferior to the god of your 2,000-year-old book written by primitive, superstitious men is laughable at best and an atrocity against humanity at worst.
This is as close to the truth as anyone can get on the subject.
In other words, evolution came first, then they built evidence around it (Darwin had no evidence).
Unless you're suggesting certain animals that live in the world today were 'built' by us, this is a false assumption. Darwin had evidence of something (finches for example) and built theories around that. A lot of them were bunk. Natural selection wasn't. So scientists studied into that model. And now NS is THE major attribute within evolution as we've discovered tangible proof that we can see with our own 2 eyes. Welcome to progressive science. You see it in everything from biological evolution to the invention of the lightbulb-- Edison tried finding a filament to make the bulb work. He went through tons of different things before he found what actually worked. And then he and future scientists built upon that.
-
:cat: I had added you as my friend in my profile and when I clicked the envelope, it let me send you an email. I hope that was okay. Actually I thought it would just do a private post/mail to you but I guess not. :)
-
i see that a lot of debates about evolution vs creationism come down to first cause. i am seeing that atheistic evolutionists think that although science hasn't found a first cause, they will inevitably find one.
creationists think the first cause was a creator i.e. God of the bible.
creationists have faith that God was the first cause
atheistic evolutionists have faith that science will figure it out
mind you, this is just my observation ;)
-
:cat: That's a good observation.
-
i see that a lot of debates about evolution vs creationism come down to first cause. i am seeing that atheistic evolutionists think that although science hasn't found a first cause, they will inevitably find one.
creationists think the first cause was a creator i.e. God of the bible.
creationists have faith that God was the first cause
atheistic evolutionists have faith that science will figure it out
mind you, this is just my observation ;)
On a quite important first note: Evolution has nothing to do with a "first cause." The Theory of Evolution makes no claims on the "first cause" and makes no attempt to explain how life arose on Earth -- that is a different field of biology. It merely provides an explanation (backed by observation and undeniable evidence) for the diversity and unity of all known life on this planet.
Continuing...
People throw the word faith around unnecessarily "/
There's a clear difference between faith and belief:
I believe the chair I'm sitting in isn't going to break. That is obviously a belief I hold; it is not faith-based though. I have quite substantial evidence and reasoning to hold this belief.
I hold this belief on the basis that I have sat in many chairs over the years, none of which have broken under my weight. I've seen countless numbers of people sit in similar chairs, none of which have I witnessed breaking under the weight of others. I understand the structure of a chair, its intended purpose, and the reputation chairs have when it comes to them randomly breaking.
A faith-based belief would be never having seen a chair in my life, never sitting in a chair, never witnessing other people sit in a chair, having no knowledge of how chairs are built, etc. and still believing chairs very, very rarely randomly break just from people sitting down on them. That is a faith-based belief, because it lacks evidence or reason. How could I reasonably believe chairs rarely do or don't break randomly if I have absolutely zero experience with or observations of them?
To connect:
Science, especially modern, has continuously closed the knowledge gap that religion, spiritualism, and other metaphysical claims used to own (weather, geological events such as earthquakes and volcanoes, famine, plague, etc.). I believe this trend will continue. That requires no faith to believe -- science has proven time and again that it can bridge this knowledge gap given time and technological advancements. The evidence that scientific thought is capable of this is there...the trend has been building for decade upon decade.
-
you make a valid point liljp and i concede that faith and belief are two different things.
it doesn't change the FACT however that evolution is still considered a theory. since darwin presented the theory all those long long years ago, it is still defined as a theory because it cannot be proven to be 100% correct. there are evidences that support the theory and there also evidences that disprove the theory.
so until it can be completely proven it is only theory.
i would think that if science was going to prove it, after all this time....they would have done it. but it is my BELIEF that they never will prove it because i have seen science fail to prove it time and again. there is substantial evidence and reasoning to hold this belief, because i hold it on the basis that i have seen science fail to prove evolution as an infallible truth.
-
you make a valid point liljp and i concede that faith and belief are two different things.
it doesn't change the FACT however that evolution is still considered a theory. since darwin presented the theory all those long long years ago, it is still defined as a theory because it cannot be proven to be 100% correct. there are evidences that support the theory and there also evidences that disprove the theory.
so until it can be completely proven it is only theory.
i would think that if science was going to prove it, after all this time....they would have done it. but it is my BELIEF that they never will prove it because i have seen science fail to prove it time and again. there is substantial evidence and reasoning to hold this belief, because i hold it on the basis that i have seen science fail to prove evolution as an infallible truth.
To state what should be obvious by now: The word theory, as used in science, carries a completely different meaning compared to the every day usage of the word theory. There is no such thing as "just a theory" in science. It's not just a guess that a handful of scientists thought sounded nice. It takes a great deal of evidence, observation, and experiment, combined with the scrutiny of peer-review, for a proposal to achieve the level of scientific theory.
There are many scientific theories I would imagine you have no issue with -- Germ Theory, the idea that microorganisms (germs) are the cause of many diseases and illnesses. Cell Theory, the idea that cells are the basic unit of structure of all living organisms; also describes the structure and function of cells. Circuit Theory, which describes the process of how electrical/pneumatic/hydraulic circuits function. Plate Tectonic Theory, the idea that the Earth is made up of a series of individual plates and that these plates move.
Germ and Cell Theory are at the core of every medical procedure and medication out there. I would assume you have little problem going to the doctor when you have strep throat and getting an antibiotic for it. How that antibiotic functions is based "only on theory." Every time you flip your lights or computer on, you're making use of Circuit Theory. The cause of earthquakes and many volcanic eruptions is tied in with Plate Tectonic Theory. Is there a reason you don't cut these theories down solely on the basis of being "just theories?"
On a side note, the word theory in "Theory of Evolution" is not meant to imply a toss-up between whether evolution occurs or not -- it is plain fact that evolution occurs, we have witnessed it first-hand in both labs and nature on numerous occasions. The word theory in this context is in reference to how the entire process works and all the factors involved in that process. That knowledge is not yet completely fulfilled. In a similar fashion, gravity remains a theory (Gravitational Theory) in that scientists are still attempting to fully understand the mathematics and reasons behind why the force of gravity behaves as it does. To be clear, it is a law that objects with mass attract each other, but the exact reasons this force occurs and the mathematics behind it is theory.
The word theory in these cases describes what's going on behind the picture. It is not a testament to whether the event occurs or not; we're well aware that the events occur. The theory aspect is a testament to the forces and processes that contribute to and cause the event, which are often not 100% known or explained in the case of a scientific theory. Thus, it remains under the label of scientific theory until those forces and processes are explained.
(feel free to show the evidence disproving the Theory of Evolution -- please no nonsensical pseudo-science either from Mr. Hovind or those like him)
-
liljp,
Excellent job of taking down the 'theory' debating tool! :thumbsup:
-
yep you're a smart cookie lol!
i found an interesting video today. tell me what you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-6gFBpXdM
-
i found an interesting video today. tell me what you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-6gFBpXdM
I watched the video. Complexity is not a good argument for god, because then god himself would have to be infinitely more complex. Also evolution is not pure chance like the video says. There are also dozens of examples of body parts that have been unintelligently "designed".
Have you watched the videos relating to this topic that I posted in the other thread? http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=16675.msg206459#msg206459 (Note: only the third one can be seen as a little "insulting")
-
yes i watched them.
-
yep you're a smart cookie lol!
i found an interesting video today. tell me what you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-6gFBpXdM
The videos main premise is irreducible complexity, which is a core proposal of intelligent design. It basically says that life is too complex to have arisen through natural selection, and thus life was designed by some intelligent creator -- nonsense logic to say the least. Michael Behe's common arguments for irreducible complexity involve blood clots, the eye, and flagella. All of which have been shown can arise naturally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples
The video references the mouse trap in particular. The idea has been broken down by John H. McDonald and he has shown that a mouse trap can still function as a mouse trap with parts missing. He also shows how the addition of smaller parts can then induce previously added parts to function differently (and perhaps more efficiently): http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
Intelligent Design is a nonscientific argument. It is the purest form of pseudoscience "on the market." Its entire foundation rests on multiple fallacies -- argument from ignorance, god of the gaps, false dilemma, etc.
-
Epic troll post! It sounds like a bad knock-knock joke. This is NOT how the conversation would go at all...
Actually, this was a real conversation with a Geology Professor at a Universtiy. Sorry!
Atheistic Evolutionist (not all people who accept evolution are atheists, and vice versa): Creation is not a science because creationists do not have all the evidence have "evidence" that is irrespective and against the ACTUAL evidence. It is junk science.
This is funny in light of the following absolutes.
The Evidence Popular Science Does not Possess:
1. No Evolution Presently Taking Place.
2. No New Species.
3. No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
4. No Unequivocal Transitional Fossil Evidence.
5. No Evidence Evolutionary Progression in Fosseil Sequences.
6. No Evidence that Evolution is even Possible.
7. No Evidence from Similarities between Organisms.
8. No Recapitualiton or Vestigial Organs - .
9. No Evidence from Molecular Biology.
What is interesting about this list - they are all made by leading evolutionsts. So those who place their faith in evolution have been undermined by their own, so to speak - I hate to confuse this issue with the facts. Oh well! The interesting criticism that states that creation science isn't science seems kind of bizarre in light of what all these scientists have plainly stated. I happen to agree with all these evolutions concerning these 9 points. What a conundrum! Creation science is no science, yet, this creationist agrees with these non creation scientists. In fact, these are the things we have been saying all along! For those reading this - remember, too make an absolute statement that says that a group is always wrong concening all their points of disagreement is not logical, but faisth based. Talk about trolling - good grief! I agree with scientists who are evolutionists - but only if they have the facts backing up their statements.
-
Evolution is a fact. However, the means by which it happens is unknown to this day. Ask any geneticist or evolutionist. We KNOW that things evolve, we do NOT know how they evolve. VERY different!
-
Keep in mind the comparisons of faith:
Believer = presupposition - design requires designer.
Atheist= presupposition - design requires nothing spontaneously creating something
One is logical based upon our know reality. One is 100% illogical with not even a shred of evidence that this is possible. The presupposition has not basis of anything we know up to this point in time. This means that it is a fantasy based upon less evidence than what a natural understanding of life concludes. Namely, design requires a designer. Anything less has no basis of evidence known to man. This, my friend, is what is termed Blind Faith! This is the purest of all faiths. Why? Because we do not know of anything like this ever taking place. At least, believers have evidence that design always presupposes a designer.
To prove my point further, here is what harvard zoologist P.J. darlington wrote in "Evolution for Naturalists, p. 15":
The outstanding evolutionary mystery now is how matter has originated and evolved, why it has taken its present form in the universe and on the earth, and why it is capable of forming itself into complex living sets of molecules. This capability is inherent in matter as we know it, in its organization and energy.
He elaborates later in his book (p. 234)
Matter takes the forms it does because it has the inherent capacity to do so... This is one of the most remarkable and mysterious facts about our universe: tht matter exists that has the capacity to form itself into the most complex patterns of life
What? This is something I would expect in a Science Fiction book! This takes extrme faith!! 1. Matter came out of nothing. 2. Matter formed itself! Wow!
-
Excerpts taken from http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html
Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.
1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.
As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last micro-evolution and try to define it as all five! They constantly point out micro-evolution as being the proof of all the other four.
1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.
From the points given above it shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates. Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable. When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about micro-evolution and they are bluffing because they lack real proof.
Dr. Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, (a self proclaimed Marxist) , is a renowned champion of neo-“Darwinism and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote the following comment. (Italics were in the original)
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
Dr. Lewontin makes it very clear “science” (evolution) may not be the best option, but it is the only option for no other option will be allowed. That is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical statement. In fact, this statement says that the philosophy of materialism or atheism is at the basis of science or evolution. I thought ‘scientists’ were to ob objective about the data and just follow the figures to the truth, whatever that was? But Dr. Lewontin says that is not the truth, that there is a bigger truth than science and that is materialism or atheism.
-
The Evidence Popular Science Does not Possess:
1. No Evolution Presently Taking Place.
2. No New Species.
3. No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
4. No Unequivocal Transitional Fossil Evidence.
5. No Evidence Evolutionary Progression in Fosseil Sequences.
6. No Evidence that Evolution is even Possible.
7. No Evidence from Similarities between Organisms.
8. No Recapitualiton or Vestigial Organs - .
9. No Evidence from Molecular Biology.
Where are you getting this from?? Let me guess...from scientists that believe in god?
#1 To say there is no evolution presently taking place is absurd. Evolution is CONSTANTLY happening, but it happens over a very long period of time and the changes that can be witnessed at any given time are very slight. Evolution may have appeared to slow down for humans due to our evolved intelligence, but it is still present nonetheless.
#2 Scientists discover new species all the time, what are you talking about?! ??? And some species split off into entirely new species upon being geographically separated...evolving to adapt to their new environment!!
#3 Uh, Natural Selection...ever heard of drug-resistant bacteria?
#4, 5 Every fossil IS an intermediate form. Archaeopteryx (dinosaur --> bird), Ambulocetus (land mammal --> whale), Tiktaalik (fish --> tetrapod), human skulls!! No Crocoducks, though, sorry!
#6 Stop saying blatant lies.
#7 Compare the bone structure of many animals and you'll find it similar. Some of these animals (like birds) LOSE bones during development (because they don't need that particular bone). This would make no sense unless a common ancestor was present.
#8 Another blatant lie. Look up pictures of various animal embryos and compare! And a human appendix is a vestigial organ!
#9 Genetics prove we share a common ancestor with great apes. Some genetic traits get passed on intact, while others result in mutations. Either way, DNA fits perfectly within evolution.
Evolution - Evidence and "Gaps": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nTnjx-JRzE&playnext_from=TL&videos=ZzzBjfainlo
-
Excerpts taken from http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html
Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.
1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.
As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last micro-evolution and try to define it as all five! They constantly point out micro-evolution as being the proof of all the other four.
1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.
From the points given above it shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates. Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable. When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about micro-evolution and they are bluffing because they lack real proof.
Dr. Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, (a self proclaimed Marxist) , is a renowned champion of neo-“Darwinism and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote the following comment. (Italics were in the original)
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
Dr. Lewontin makes it very clear “science” (evolution) may not be the best option, but it is the only option for no other option will be allowed. That is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical statement. In fact, this statement says that the philosophy of materialism or atheism is at the basis of science or evolution. I thought ‘scientists’ were to ob objective about the data and just follow the figures to the truth, whatever that was? But Dr. Lewontin says that is not the truth, that there is a bigger truth than science and that is materialism or atheism.
Great Post! I actually have hundreds of quotes from evolutionists - you would be amzaed how uch of what they say is based on pure fantasy! It is quite humorous. What is sad is how people place thier faith in these guys! Not to say that they do not have some good points when they stay away from the esotoretic side. It reminds me of how some believers in Christianity will give theire money to some TV Evangelists without ever investigating their claims! oh well!
-
The Evidence Popular Science Does not Possess:
1. No Evolution Presently Taking Place.
2. No New Species.
3. No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
4. No Unequivocal Transitional Fossil Evidence.
5. No Evidence Evolutionary Progression in Fosseil Sequences.
6. No Evidence that Evolution is even Possible.
7. No Evidence from Similarities between Organisms.
8. No Recapitualiton or Vestigial Organs - .
9. No Evidence from Molecular Biology.
Where are you getting this from?? Let me guess...from scientists that believe in god?
You should read more books on Evloution. These come from quotes of those who do not believe in God, but in Evolution. Sorry! If you would like the sources, let me know. The fun is only beginning!
-
1. Matter came out of nothing. 2. Matter formed itself! Wow!
Yep, you are definitely proving you do NOT hold a Ph.D. It's called the law of conservation of mass: matter cannot be created nor destroyed!!
-
I'm sorry for sounding mean, but it is EXTREMELY freaking frustrating dealing with people who mire scientific facts and denounce all of the progress we as a species have made thus far.
-
Any belief worth having must survive doubt.
Science does. Religion doesn't.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away
And when one stops believing in god they realize he was in their head all along.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours
Yep, mostly.
Truth in matters of religion is simply the opinion that has survived
Which is why mainstream Christianity has "evolved" to a nicer, gentler falsehood.
-
I'm sorry for sounding mean, but it is EXTREMELY freaking frustrating dealing with people who mire scientific facts and denounce all of the progress we as a species have made thus far.
Don't bother with him/her (rwdeese). Purposely trolling/flamebaiting. Evidenced by the lack of response when I showed their math and proposal was baseless gibberish in the recent global warming thread. Also evidenced by the ridiculous claims made in every post that are fundamentally factually false.
Waste of time and energy. Use your brain for better things.
-
Waste of time and energy. Use your brain for better things.
Indeed it is. I guess I just worry if these lies go unchallenged, other people reading them will be influenced for the worse. :(
-
Excerpts taken from http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html
I'll ignore the source for the sake of discussion.
Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.
1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.
Quite agree.
As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last micro-evolution and try to define it as all five! They constantly point out micro-evolution as being the proof of all the other four.
1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.
We run into some problems here.
Mr. Wiggs is lumping multiple fields of science into a single theory. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is what is most often referred to in biology, is the not the same as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, or Earth's geological evolution. They're different topics of research found in quite different fields of science, and evidence for each topic varies. It does us no good to discuss evolution by natural selection alongside cosmic evolution.
Continuing: You simply can't openly accept that microevolution occurs and then decline that macroevolution occurs. They're the exact same thing -- merely on a different time scale. The mechanisms for microevolution are precisely the same for macroevolution. Scientists break evolution into these categories so it's easier to study and research, not because they're different occurrences. Evolution by natural selection is evolution by natural selection; if you accept that evolution occurs by natural selection on a small scale, then given a large scale, it will continue to happen.
From the points given above it shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates. Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable. When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about micro-evolution and they are bluffing because they lack real proof.
er well it's a scientific theory. Observable? We have observed evolution in nature and labs. Repeated experiments? Sure have. Falsifiability? Sure is. The challenge that evolution is unfalsifiable has been made countless times over the years and the theory has continuously passed the test. You can read of these examples at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable
Lack real proof? The Peppered Moth in England during the Industrial Revolution. Microbial evolution -- antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance, immune system resistance, superbugs, etc. Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies. Darwin's finches. European gulls. The list goes on and on.
Dr. Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, (a self proclaimed Marxist) , is a renowned champion of neo-“Darwinism and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote the following comment. (Italics were in the original)
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
Dr. Lewontin makes it very clear “science” (evolution) may not be the best option, but it is the only option for no other option will be allowed. That is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical statement. In fact, this statement says that the philosophy of materialism or atheism is at the basis of science or evolution. I thought ‘scientists’ were to ob objective about the data and just follow the figures to the truth, whatever that was? But Dr. Lewontin says that is not the truth, that there is a bigger truth than science and that is materialism or atheism.
This one hurt the brain. He takes one individual scientist's speech to speak for every single scientist in the world? Let's be serious here...
Everyone knows religious evangelists and church leaders around the world from various religions say some absolutely ridiculous, wacky, heinous nonsense. I wouldn't take what Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson says as the mindset or world view held by every Christian in the world. Likewise, it would be silly to take what Lewontin says here as the mindset of all scientists and proponents of science.
How Mr. Wiggs recapped Lewontin's quote is precisely what should be said -- it is Lewontin's personal philosophy on science and nothing more.
-
Mr. Wiggs is lumping multiple fields of science into a single theory. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is what is most often referred to in biology, is the not the same as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, or Earth's geological evolution. They're different topics of research found in quite different fields of science, and evidence for each topic varies. It does us no good to discuss evolution by natural selection alongside cosmic evolution.
his premise for lumping them together in this list is to point out the different types of evolution. they are all labeled as being a branch of evolution and he wanted to distinguish to the reader that simply using the term 'evolution' can cause friction when you don't understand which branch you are referring to.
Continuing: You simply can't openly accept that microevolution occurs and then decline that macroevolution occurs. They're the exact same thing -- merely on a different time scale. The mechanisms for microevolution are precisely the same for macroevolution. Scientists break evolution into these categories so it's easier to study and research, not because they're different occurrences. Evolution by natural selection is evolution by natural selection; if you accept that evolution occurs by natural selection on a small scale, then given a large scale, it will continue to happen.
the definitions listed for micro and macro clearly have distinctions and are NOT the same(from the article)microevolution to the creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a “species’ or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the alleles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of alleles that occurs. These alleles are mostly not the product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of alleles in a genome.
The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.
Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no “mutations” in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.
er well it's a scientific theory. Observable? We have observed evolution in nature and labs. Repeated experiments? Sure have. Falsifiability? Sure is. The challenge that evolution is unfalsifiable has been made countless times over the years and the theory has continuously passed the test. You can read of these examples at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable
Lack real proof? The Peppered Moth in England during the Industrial Revolution. Microbial evolution -- antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance, immune system resistance, superbugs, etc. Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies. Darwin's finches. European gulls. The list goes on and on.
the lack of proof referred to here is based on the lack of ability to observe and is referring to the evolutionists theories of the beginning of life and the history of the universe (not the observable and undenied facts of microevolution). the author (in my interpretation) was saying evolutionists use microevolution as a bluff for the validity and proof of evidence for the other branches. the history of the universe was not observable.
the peppered moth and the other things you mentioned are all examples of a species whose DNA was not added to but merely scrambled. they are examples of changes within a species but cannot be shoved into explaining the origins of life. and on top of the fact that the study on the peppered moth was already proven to have staged photos.
Everyone knows religious evangelists and church leaders around the world from various religions say some absolutely ridiculous, wacky, heinous nonsense. I wouldn't take what Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson says as the mindset or world view held by every Christian in the world. Likewise, it would be silly to take what Lewontin says here as the mindset of all scientists and proponents of science.
i wouldn't assume that one statement encompasses all of science opinion. however this is one statement out of many that have come from evolutionists that shows how they are only willing to think within the box of evolution.
Quote from http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/psych.shtml
The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation. When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and evolution are in conflict, they frequently precede the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think. You are allowed to think freely as long as you think inside the evolutionary box. This box is defined on the premise that evolutionary origins must be true and our current state has been achieved through that evolutionary origin. Thinking is encouraged as long as it does not take you outside of this box. The box is defined by two supposed facts: our evolutionary origin and our current evolutionary state.
but i have to say thank you to all my non believing friends here because you challenged me to think and find truth for myself and take into consideration that my beliefs were wrong. so i did, i read your posts, i watched videos, i even went to the library and i went to PRO evolution and atheism websites and sources..... and i find evolution wanting, i find creationism to be more true to me now than it was before....in the words of George H. Smith in his speech ‘Atheism: The Case Against God’, "one has nothing to fear and everything to gain from the honest pursuit of truth. It can never be against your interest to know what the truth is."
-
The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation.
:( :( Sherna, does this sound logical to YOU? Do you not see how this is a bullying statement; it doesn't actually prove that evolution is false? The strength behind evolution is the EVIDENCE. Whoever said this quote is trying to mislead the reader into thinking that because they can merely assert something with confidence, that makes it true. Sorry, IT DOESN'T.
This quote is employing the very manipulation it speaks of: a person reading it (a god believer) is automatically going to agree with whatever is being said so long as it "sounds good" and was presented in an authoritarian way. It's why believers time and again take the word of people who agree with them...they see Ken Hovind or some other asshat present scientific-looking "proofs" that sound real good so long as one doesn't ask questions or check the facts...
Time and again, creationist "science" does not stand up to reality and truth; most believers are not concerned with this, however. OF COURSE YOU'RE GOING TO FAVOR THE SIDE THAT YOU WANT TO BE TRUE (god, heaven) over the cold, hard b*tch that is actual reality (no personal god, no heaven).
lol I am done with my rant. ;D
P.S. Evolution wasn't even a factor for me when I went from Christian to atheist.
-
well it wasn't my intention to quote something that is bullying. and you're right the statement in itself doesn't prove that evolution is false. but i have seen evidence in this forum that uses these tactics to make the other party feel inferior. so i quoted it because it's something i have witnessed happening. i'm not saying that the OTHER side has been very nice either in their presentation of their arguments. i have seen 'shameful christian behavior in this forum'
the materials i have read for creationism and evolutionism, i read with the intention of finding truth. not truth according to 'so and so'. i can't say i know everything there is to know about the entire subject but i have spent hours upon tedious hours into wee hours of the morning reading and researching everything that would come across my computer screen.
OF COURSE YOU'RE GOING TO FAVOR THE SIDE THAT YOU WANT TO BE TRUE
i agree, i actually made the same statement in different words on another thread. but i say the same to you.
there is plenty of science that debunks evolution but it is dismissed as creationist science because if evolution is lie....what do atheists have to drive their belief with?
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954
for a person to reasonably accept there is no God, evolution is a necessary belief.
and queen, if you have noticed. my posts have changed significantly just since i started posting here a couple of weeks ago. it was you, mainly that compelled me to search out truth and reason. i was called out for merely 'glancing'....so i took that to heart and i did more than glance. i am honestly and sincerely glad that i joined this forum and i truthfully enjoy our dialog. so i hope i haven't offended you, it wasn't my intention.
i merely found the confidence to engage more deeply in the discussion and contribute in a more meaningful way. :) :heart:
-
but i have seen evidence in this forum that uses these tactics to make the other party feel inferior.
I agree, it shouldn't be to go-to tactic to make the other side feel stupid...but sometimes pointing out how silly an argument is can be necessary for growth and change. I think this video (starting at 3:11 through 6:14) sums it up well why one might sometimes see non-believers engaging in that kind of behavior (including me ;D): http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#p/u/0/S-BQVmvulmQ
i have spent hours upon tedious hours into wee hours of the morning reading and researching everything that would come across my computer screen.
May I suggest one more source: http://www.godisimaginary.com/ This is the site I found when I was a Christian back in 2007. I diligently, open-mindedly, and objectively read all 50 links (in order) and walked away SHOCKED. edit: Please note it will take several hours/days to get through all 50 reasons because some of them are lengthy.
but i say the same to you.
No...it'd be nice if there were a personal god! It'd be cool to live longer! But I could no longer mislead myself into thinking either of these were possible after doing the research. I took it pretty well the day my eyes were opened and I saw this life is it...although I sympathize with those who may NOT be able to take it well. :sad1:
what do atheists have to drive their belief with?
Those 50 reasons from the website above are a starting point.
for a person to reasonably accept there is no God, evolution is a necessary belief.
Pretty much. But for me personally, I'm genetically inclined to be better at English and psychology rather than science and math, so I didn't need to know all of the ins and outs of evolution back in 2007 to be convinced I was wrong in my beliefs (I have since learned much more about it :P). There are many, many more arguments against a god belief than purely scientific ones...and those "other" arguments are the ones that really hit home for me.
i hope i haven't offended you, it wasn't my intention.
Nope, you haven't! Religion is just a subject I'm very passionate about...obviously. lol You've helped ME to see that I should be more careful in picking the videos that I post (or at least put a warning, lol)...because you're right, some of them ARE offensive!
-
Mr. Wiggs is lumping multiple fields of science into a single theory. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is what is most often referred to in biology, is the not the same as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, or Earth's geological evolution. They're different topics of research found in quite different fields of science, and evidence for each topic varies. It does us no good to discuss evolution by natural selection alongside cosmic evolution.
his premise for lumping them together in this list is to point out the different types of evolution. they are all labeled as being a branch of evolution and he wanted to distinguish to the reader that simply using the term 'evolution' can cause friction when you don't understand which branch you are referring to.
I must have completely overlooked that one, because it doesn't seem to be implied anywhere. It seems he's merely setting himself up to attack on the micro vs macro point.
Continuing: You simply can't openly accept that microevolution occurs and then decline that macroevolution occurs. They're the exact same thing -- merely on a different time scale. The mechanisms for microevolution are precisely the same for macroevolution. Scientists break evolution into these categories so it's easier to study and research, not because they're different occurrences. Evolution by natural selection is evolution by natural selection; if you accept that evolution occurs by natural selection on a small scale, then given a large scale, it will continue to happen.
the definitions listed for micro and macro clearly have distinctions and are NOT the same(from the article)microevolution to the creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a “species’ or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the alleles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of alleles that occurs. These alleles are mostly not the product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of alleles in a genome.
The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.
Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no “mutations” in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.
Not to be rude, but I'm not interested in what microevolution and macroevolution are to the creationist. The words are quite readily defined by the scientific community in the event that they're used (which is somewhat rare if you speak to evolutionary biologists -- they rarely distinguish what "type" of evolution they're talking about, because they're only separated for research purposes).
To biologists, there is no difference between the two. In modern evolutionary synthesis, the two mechanisms operate at various scales to cause changes within species (micro) as well as speciation (macro), the only difference being time. You cannot say evolution occurs in one sentence and then say evolution doesn't occur in the next sentence. Evolution is evolution -- if it occurs, it occurs. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It can't be both ways. You can't accept that allopatric or peripatric isolation causes species to gradually change century after century, then say those changes aren't going to lead to those species not interbreeding anymore (speciation). The reason you can't say that is because we have watched it happen. If you accept that evolution occurs in the smaller time scale, it follows that these changes are going to stack and lead to changes at and above the species level. Again, we have watched it happen.
er well it's a scientific theory. Observable? We have observed evolution in nature and labs. Repeated experiments? Sure have. Falsifiability? Sure is. The challenge that evolution is unfalsifiable has been made countless times over the years and the theory has continuously passed the test. You can read of these examples at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable
Lack real proof? The Peppered Moth in England during the Industrial Revolution. Microbial evolution -- antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance, immune system resistance, superbugs, etc. Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies. Darwin's finches. European gulls. The list goes on and on.
the lack of proof referred to here is based on the lack of ability to observe and is referring to the evolutionists theories of the beginning of life and the history of the universe (not the observable and undenied facts of microevolution). the author (in my interpretation) was saying evolutionists use microevolution as a bluff for the validity and proof of evidence for the other branches. the history of the universe was not observable.
the peppered moth and the other things you mentioned are all examples of a species whose DNA was not added to but merely scrambled. they are examples of changes within a species but cannot be shoved into explaining the origins of life. and on top of the fact that the study on the peppered moth was already proven to have staged photos.
Now surely you can see the obvious point -- you don't have to be present for something to have a pretty damn good idea of how it went down. What you need is evidence...and it's there. (The argument is bad, so I won't take on the point beyond this: Who observed god(s) creating the universe? I guess it didn't happen?)
The biological Theory of Evolution makes no claims on Cosmic Evolution or how life began. Again, those are quite separate fields of research. It does no good to discuss them alongside the Theory of Evolution, it would merely cause confusion. If you want to discuss the other topics, I'd be happy to, but this isn't the thread for it.
There is no addition of DNA needed for speciation to occur. Speciation is mostly defined by reproductive isolation. I referenced Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies above -- Dodd took fruit flies from a single population, divided them into two groups, and applied allopatric speciation. She fed the two groups different diets (we'll call them Diet A and Diet B) and after many generations attempted to allow the two groups to breed. The two groups, however, did not breed -- the flies on Diet A bred with other flies on Diet A, and flies on Diet B bred with other flies on Diet B. No more interbreeding...speciation. Speciation is macroevolution.
Another example is in the plant genus Tragopogon, where two diploid parents produced a tetraploid offspring that could not longer reproduce with its parent species. Speciation. Macroevolution.
I could continue, but I suppose it doesn't make any difference how many examples are given.
As for the photos, they were not staged to prove the truth of the event. The backgrounds were merely made in a way to illustrate the crypsis of the moth morphs. Most photos of insects are staged because insects are small and very difficult to photograph well. Moths, in particular, are nearly impossible because they're sparse and, in this case, well camouflaged. The differences between the staged and unstaged photos are quite small anyway.
Everyone knows religious evangelists and church leaders around the world from various religions say some absolutely ridiculous, wacky, heinous nonsense. I wouldn't take what Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson says as the mindset or world view held by every Christian in the world. Likewise, it would be silly to take what Lewontin says here as the mindset of all scientists and proponents of science.
i wouldn't assume that one statement encompasses all of science opinion. however this is one statement out of many that have come from evolutionists that shows how they are only willing to think within the box of evolution.
Quote from http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/psych.shtml
The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation. When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and evolution are in conflict, they frequently precede the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think. You are allowed to think freely as long as you think inside the evolutionary box. This box is defined on the premise that evolutionary origins must be true and our current state has been achieved through that evolutionary origin. Thinking is encouraged as long as it does not take you outside of this box. The box is defined by two supposed facts: our evolutionary origin and our current evolutionary state.
Well for one, as has been pointed out, Mr. Wiggs is guilty of the same thing he criticizes others of.
For two, this is just a silly take on the whole thing. If you ask an evolutionary biologist what he/she thinks of evolution, he/she is probably going to give you quite a definitive, perhaps authoritarian, answer. What exactly do you expect?
That would be like me walking up to a televangelist and asking him how he feels about the resurrection of Jesus. Then, when he replies in a way that makes his views unquestionable and authoritarian, I make the goofy claim that he's only capable of thinking inside the "Christianity box."
but i have to say thank you to all my non believing friends here because you challenged me to think and find truth for myself and take into consideration that my beliefs were wrong. so i did, i read your posts, i watched videos, i even went to the library and i went to PRO evolution and atheism websites and sources..... and i find evolution wanting, i find creationism to be more true to me now than it was before....in the words of George H. Smith in his speech ‘Atheism: The Case Against God’, "one has nothing to fear and everything to gain from the honest pursuit of truth. It can never be against your interest to know what the truth is."
I would expect nothing less. I don't care what you believe or don't believe. All I care is that people know and understand the facts and evidence if they intend to discuss a topic. They can do what they wish with that evidence. Hurts me none.
-
liljp~ i posted the link to the site because it contains more information than i could post in a thread. the introduction to the essay/article:
Before we take on the ten reasons evolution is wrong we must first define what we are talking about. Evolutionists will say the word evolution to you and you may think you know what they are saying, but you probably don’t
he went on to list the different studies of evolution. his purpose was to set up an understanding for people who simply use the word 'evolution' to encompass every different type
and your argument about the difference or (non difference) between micro macro evolution is clearly your refusal to look at facts. microevolution has been proven....macroevolution has not.
micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed.
quote from a scientist
Roger Lewin PhD Biochemistry News Editor of Science Magazine
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. Science November 21 1980 p. 883
The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information. taken from http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
and before you decide here to pull out all "Icons of Evolution" a quote from an evolutionist (i'm sure you have heard of him) regarding the acknowledgment of lack of fossil record
Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University
In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229
But there are still great gaps in the fossil record. Most of the major groups of animals (phyla) appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them. Evolution (1999) p.109
Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else. Evolution (1999) p.109
there is much much more info on the websites i have linked too. (which i think if you had looked at, you would have understood the first part of my post) and i have found that the most condemning evidence for proof that evolution is a flawed concept, comes from the words of scientists and evolutionists themselves.
Well for one, as has been pointed out, Mr. Wiggs is guilty of the same thing he criticizes others of.
For two, this is just a silly take on the whole thing. If you ask an evolutionary biologist what he/she thinks of evolution, he/she is probably going to give you quite a definitive, perhaps authoritarian, answer. What exactly do you expect?
That would be like me walking up to a televangelist and asking him how he feels about the resurrection of Jesus. Then, when he replies in a way that makes his views unquestionable and authoritarian, I make the goofy claim that he's only capable of thinking inside the "Christianity box."
your interpretation is biased. i have seen examples of the behavior described in this statement....regarding an attempt to "shame" the opposing side. generally speaking evolutionists consider themselves superior intellects and automatically presume that a creationist is stupid or ignorant. if a creationist points out evidences that conflict with evolutionist theories they attack their personal character to deflect and circle around the fact presented. i have only been here a couple of weeks and seen it already. sorry, but your example of approaching a televangelist isn't the same thing. what a more accurate example would be is approaching a televangelist and telling him that since he obviously believes in Jesus he is ignorant. he needs to think logically and rationally and as a result he will believe in evolution. to an evolutionist (generally speaking) a result of rational and "intellectual honesty" is believing in evolution.
Consider this quote from George H. Smith:
“And just in case there are a few religionists in the audience, I invite you to stay around and experience for an afternoon what it feels like to be part of an intellectual elite.”
(i see arrogance and superiority in that statement made by an evolutionist) arrogance - overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors
-
and before you decide here to pull out all "Icons of Evolution" a quote from an evolutionist (i'm sure you have heard of him) regarding the acknowledgment of lack of fossil record
Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University
In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229
[/b]
This is called "quote-mining", and it's a shameful tactic authoritarian believers use to deceive their audience. The god camp has tried to do this with Darwin, too, ripping his one statement from The Origin of Species of "this seems absurd" (paraphrased) out of context. It's out of context because believers never include the paragraph that follows this quote where Darwin says something along the lines of, "Needless to say, I cannot deny the overwhelming evidence".
Surely you don't think the author of The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, and The Greatest Show on Earth (about evolution) let the Cambrian situation phase him?? Surely you don't think this was "convincing" to him, especially since it's quoted from 1996??
Evolution - The 'Best' Counter Arguments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FauGMaKTCRs&playnext_from=TL&videos=XrJhaQnKqsY
Also http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html has a wealth of information on things like Evidence for Evolution, Human Evolution, An Index to Creationist Claims, and Irreducible Complexity.
-
and your argument about the difference or (non difference) between micro macro evolution is clearly your refusal to look at facts. microevolution has been proven....macroevolution has not.
I just referenced two direct examples where we have literally watched speciation occur -- speciation IS macroevolution.
If the only proof you're going to accept is something ridiculous like walking into nature and seeing a chimp give birth to a human, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.
-
Also http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html has a wealth of information on things like Evidence for Evolution, Human Evolution, An Index to Creationist Claims, and Irreducible Complexity
(that's a site i already visited ;))
If the only proof you're going to accept is something ridiculous like walking into nature and seeing a chimp give birth to a human, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.
If the theory you're willing to accept, that is clearly flawed and unreasonable, just to justify there is no God, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.
queen, i visited godisimaginary but have not finished reading all of it yet.
for anybody reading this discussion who is interested in both sides of the issue. i urge you not to stop at these posts but do your own research. come to your own conclusion based on your personal experiences with God, based on your own comprehension of the facts. i urge you not to simply walk away confused. if you think evolution has a solid case....read it from creations point of view, if you think creation has a solid case...read it from evolutionists point of view.
since there has been a lot of posts posted by queenofnines for the atheist/evolution platform, i will repost links to the sites i found most helpful on creations platform.
Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Introduction
Answering Evolution
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Introduction
(this site also reviews the key points from the book Icons of Evolution)
i encourage people...,christians especially, to not be afraid of reading materials and exploring the ideas presented in this forum from non believers. how can you explain to someone why you believe in God and hold any weight with them if you don't know their view of the other side of the coin?
A quote from Evan Wiggs
You can’t truly say you know why you believe until you have put it to the test by comparing it to opposing testimony
the same goes for the non believers here, if you haven't already attempted to look at evolution through the creationists point of view and researched materials from the opposing side can you call yourself a free thinker?
You are a juror. You are presented with evidence from many sources. A juror’s job isn’t to plan for the outcome, nor is it to throw out the verdict based on the fact that you can’t remove 100% of doubt. Your mission is to look at all of the evidence and weigh the facts. Based on all of the evidence you should give your verdict based on reason. The evidence points to a reasonable conclusion. You are not promised zero doubts; you are offered enough evidence to make a true conclusion. If you only view one side of the case, you will not be able to say that you have made a truthful decision. You are not an eyewitness, but there are many eyewitnesses testifying what they saw. A single witness – even a credible witness – does not clearly reveal the truth. A single piece of evidence also does not clearly reveal the truth. But all the evidence combined should give you a clear picture of truth. Atheism alone cannot give you the answer, nor can the Bible alone. But multiple eyewitness accounts are credible in a case. There are several verifiable claims that support the Bible. You already know what atheism says about God, now look at the evidence that doesn’t agree with atheism. Look at history, genealogical records, archeology, claims the Bible has made that was previously unknown to the world. Look at those who once held to atheistic viewpoints who can explain why they have changed their minds. If someone once held your views and now testifies why he has changed, are you justified in refusing to look at his claims? I challenge each atheist to read ‘The Case for Christ’ by Lee Strobel. If you are a truth seeker, you will be willing to review these contrary testimonies. Otherwise you are a non-thinker who is hiding from the truth....That doesn’t mean going to atheistic sources to find out what the atheists say the opposition says; this means that you study the facts for yourself and read first-hand what thinkers say validates the Bible.
-
There are several verifiable claims that support the Bible.
Pertaining to where we came from? Where?
-
There are several verifiable claims that support the Bible.
Pertaining to where we came from? Where?
This is a quote urging people to search both sides of an issue. I didn't post it as bait to start the creation debate up again. My view has obviously been clearly stated and the topic I think is going in circles. I posted this as a suggestion to not follow one's belief without looking at the opposition. Don't find answers just from this forum but do honest and unbiased research into claims from the other point of view. That's all I'm trying to say :)
-
If the only proof you're going to accept is something ridiculous like walking into nature and seeing a chimp give birth to a human, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.
If the theory you're willing to accept, that is clearly flawed and unreasonable, just to justify there is no God, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.
You stated there was no proof of macroevolution; I referenced two clear examples, among the numerous, and gave enough details where you could easily find more information on the experiments if you desired to. I can't help if you're unsatisfied -- macroevolution has been observed.
The premise that evolution occurred and continues to occur has little to do with my lack of belief in your god. Belief or non-belief in deities is currently not a scientific issue or question, but a philosophical one. It is a question I've mulled over for years, and my conclusion has been shaped by much more than a single scientific theory (of which I knew extremely little about prior to my claims of being atheist).
I was a practicing Christian for over half my life, and I have taken ample time to research Christianity and numerous other religions (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism, Buddhism, African traditional religions, Native American philosophies, Confucianism, etc.). I've read all or portions of the Bible, Quran/Hadith, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, and Buddhavacana, among others.
I find the subject interesting; I find the history interesting; I find the great differences in metaphysical ideas interesting, even within certain religions; I find how certain historical events and social constructs shaped these religions interesting; I find how these religions shaped history and social constructs interesting. I've put in the time to look at these religions with an open mind.
And naturally I came to a personal conclusion: That mankind has continuously desired to explain that which it could not explain rationally. Mankind turned to the metaphysical, and for centuries and centuries these answers sufficed, because there was no way to approach the questions any more rationally than through the metaphysical path. Times have changed. Answers are being given. The knowledge gap has continuously closed. So long as technology continues to improve and the desire to explain remains, that gap will continue to close.
As I said before, I couldn't care less what you do or don't believe. It doesn't effect me in the least bit, there's a very slim chance I'll ever be near you. However, if a person vocally takes a position on something, they should be prepared to discuss the facts, and they should prepare for and expect others to challenge their notions. For that is the root of debate -- that you expect people to challenge your assertions.
-
I've put in the time to look at these religions with an open mind.
well, that was my point. you asked me to do it and i did, i came to a different conclusion. of course a person is never done learning so i will continue to learn more about all beliefs.
However, if a person vocally takes a position on something, they should be prepared to discuss the facts, and they should prepare for and expect others to challenge their notions. For that is the root of debate -- that you expect people to challenge your assertions.
well i don't think i implied anywhere that i expected anything other than a challenge....you were the first to dismiss me by the last statement you made. (no point in continuing the discussion). i countered with a similar statement and now you assume i don't understand the premise of what a debate is????????
i can't state all the facts here on this forum. so i posted links to my references and tried to pull out information from my references that i thought most clearly represented my position. there was plenty more on the difference between micro and macro evolution. i apologize for assuming that you used my referenced links to get a better grasp of my position. or perhaps you just "glanced" through?? ;)
-
the same goes for the non believers here, if you haven't already attempted to look at evolution through the creationists point of view and researched materials from the opposing side can you call yourself a free thinker?
Sherna, hon, most of us have, though. When I was a Christian I read books by people like Lee Strobel and frequented websites like Answers in Genesis because I, too, wanted to have ammo to convince non-believers. The problem with doing this, however, is that I was continually called out by atheists on my "facts" for god's existence. For example, I had a freaking MySpace dedicated to Jesus where I tried to prove god in my blog, and I can remember some stranger pointing out how flawed by arguments were. Even at the time I could realize he was right. :sad1:
I've BEEN to the Creation Museum. Hubby and I frequently turn to the god radio stations when on long car trips. I'm willing to go to any site a Christian puts up. I watch sermons on TV on occasion. None of it is convincing, and I consistently find problems with the arguments these sources make.
Also, just because a video or site I put up might have an "atheist" label, it's better to not focus so much on that and instead objectively listen or read the information only like it's coming from one human to another. Critical thinking and logic need no atheist label -- they stand on their own.
-
Also, just because a video or site I put up might have an "atheist" label, it's better to not focus so much on that and instead objectively listen or read the information only like it's coming from one human to another. Critical thinking and logic need no atheist label
i wholeheartedly agree with that :heart: :heart: :heart: :)
-
However, if a person vocally takes a position on something, they should be prepared to discuss the facts, and they should prepare for and expect others to challenge their notions. For that is the root of debate -- that you expect people to challenge your assertions.
well i don't think i implied anywhere that i expected anything other than a challenge....you were the first to dismiss me by the last statement you made. (no point in continuing the discussion). i countered with a similar statement and now you assume i don't understand the premise of what a debate is????????
I "dismissed" you because you seemed unsatisfied with the evidence staring you in the face that you adamantly claimed didn't exist. There's nothing more I can do except outline and direct people to the evidence that has been directly observed -- I gave two clear proofs that you said didn't exist. If you're not going to accept those two examples, I have a feeling nothing is going to convince you except something unrealistic and beyond extraordinary (ie walking into nature and watching a chimp give live birth to a human). Thus, my comment about the discussion not having a future.
And frankly I've just grown tired of having a "discussion" with a random website from a self-claimed international evangelist. It's close to "discussing" the topic by myself. It would be just as easy for me to go find random doctoral dissertations from evolutionary biologists and take random quotes from them any time I wanted to counter something, but that's boring, and it's not a debate or discussion.
i can't state all the facts here on this forum. so i posted links to my references and tried to pull out information from my references that i thought most clearly represented my position. there was plenty more on the difference between micro and macro evolution. i apologize for assuming that you used my referenced links to get a better grasp of my position. or perhaps you just "glanced" through?? ;)
I'll repeat for fun: There is no difference in the scientific community. Biologists don't distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, except to break up areas of research, because microevolution and macroevolution are the same process on different time scales. They are not separate events. The context in which the words are being used is here is incorrect -- it would have the reader believe that microevolution and macroevolution are two fundamentally different processes. They are not. It would have the reader believe there is some imaginary line drawn between micro- and macroevolution. There is not.
This is not my position, this is the position of the scientific community. If the scientific community that studies this material doesn't distinguish between the two except in very specific instances, why would I be concerned with the misuse of the words that comes from the creationist party?
It doesn't matter anyway. Even if I allow the misuse of the words, both "kinds of evolution" have been observed. That's all that really matters in this section of the debate.
-
And frankly I've just grown tired of having a "discussion" with a random website from a self-claimed international evangelist. It's close to "discussing" the topic by myself. It would be just as easy for me to go find random doctoral dissertations from evolutionary biologists and take random quotes from them any time I wanted to counter something, but that's boring, and it's not a debate or discussion.
sorry for boring you mate.
us idiotic creationists will just never match up with the supreme intellect you apparently exude with every typed word :notworthy:
-
1. Matter came out of nothing. 2. Matter formed itself! Wow!
Yep, you are definitely proving you do NOT hold a Ph.D. It's called the law of conservation of mass: matter cannot be created nor destroyed!!
I wouldn't need to pass 1st grade to realize that nothing in our known understanding is derived from nothing. This is faith at its highest level - making fantasy believable! This is unreasonable, illogical, and is based upon science fiction. Something coming from nothing has no basis in knowledge, science, provable experiments, or observable information. So, foundationally, to believe in a designer is one step more logical than to believe that everything around us came from nothing! Why? We do have knowledge, science, provable experiments, and observable information that things designed come from a designer.
-
I'm sorry for sounding mean, but it is EXTREMELY freaking frustrating dealing with people who mire scientific facts and denounce all of the progress we as a species have made thus far.
If you are so right, why the insecurity that is being expressed through anger. I am not angry at you or the evolutionists. There is no reason to be. I do get a kick out of all the contradictions and how most who embrace various forms of evolutionary thought have proven over and over again that evolutionary thought is in no way monolithic. It is almost like one needs to pick what "denomination" they want to belong to. None the less, I forgive you. Blessings!
-
but i have seen evidence in this forum that uses these tactics to make the other party feel inferior.
I agree, it shouldn't be to go-to tactic to make the other side feel stupid...but sometimes pointing out how silly an argument is can be necessary for growth and change.
Do I agree with this one :thumbsup:
To really think that people believe it is more reasonable to believe that something came from nothing with zero evidence even in life today, but to reject the normative observable understanding that design come from a designer is very silly indeed!
-
Something coming from nothing has no basis in knowledge, science, provable experiments, or observable information. So, foundationally, to believe in a designer is one step more logical than to believe that everything around us came from nothing! Why? We do have knowledge, science, provable experiments, and observable information that things designed come from a designer.
Something didn't come from nothing, though. Not sure why you are reverting to the Big Bang or abiogenesis, as these are SEPARATE fields from evolution. In the case of the Big Bang: a tiny, dense singularity is still something (not "nothing"!). And it was quite a deal of "something" when it contained all of the matter in the universe!
Just because we're not sure what cause that YET, who cares? I'm sure once scientists find out what caused the Big Bang, it still won't be good enough for believers. Then people will be like, "Okay what caused what caused the Big Bang?" and so on to infinity. And anyway, merely slapping a magical label of god on everything doesn't explain anything, it simply encourages people to stop asking questions and exploring!!
For your designer argument, who takes credit for all of the BAD design in the world? (Example: the human spine cannot adequately support a person's body weight by standing upright; it's why people are susceptible to bad backs, bad knees, and the feet (arched) are extremely vulnerable) The devil??
-
Something didn't come from nothing, though. Not sure why you are reverting to the Big Bang or abiogenesis, as these are SEPARATE fields from evolution. In the case of the Big Bang: a tiny, dense singularity is still something (not "nothing"!). And it was quite a deal of "something" when it contained all of the matter in the universe!
They are intimately tied together. In fact, I do not know any no theistic evolutionists that ascribes to anything else. I better question is why are you trying so hard to separate these issues.
1. Where exactly did this "dense singularity" come from: Oh, I know... from nothing! I admire your faith!
Just because we're not sure what cause that YET, who cares?
Now this has got to be the quote of the century. Who cares that someone came up with an imaginary concept - yet to be proven in ANY capacity whatseover - and yet no one should care? Interesting! That statement would eliminate scientific research, let alone God! This is getting better - and I knew it would. Anytime one bases all reason on unreasonable notions, one will find themselves saying strange things! It may be compared to a liar. When a liar says something, they must make up more lies. The more lies they make up, the more strange and bizarre the lies get. Anytime one basis their faith on unproable fantasy, then the defesne of that fantasy actaully becomes more bizzarre than the fantasy itself.
I'm sure once scientists find out what caused the Big Bang, it still won't be good enough for believers. Then people will be like, "Okay what caused what caused the Big Bang?" and so on to infinity. And anyway, merely slapping a magical label of god on everything doesn't explain anything, it simply encourages people to stop asking questions and exploring!!
At least the very concept of a designer has observable confirmation. Therefore, it already has a greater foundation for reason than placing ones faith in "nothing."
For your designer argument, who takes credit for all of the BAD design in the world? (Example: the human spine cannot adequately support a person's body weight by standing upright; it's why people are susceptible to bad backs, bad knees, and the feet (arched) are extremely vulnerable) The devil??
Absolutely! It is all about contracts and honor!
-
rwdeese~i will leave the debating to you. although considering the debate on this subject has been raging since darwin himself....i'm not sure what progress you will make here ;)
and actually, the debate has raged since even biblical times. because evolution is idolatry. the debate realistically centers around the existence of God. for atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. evolution is an enabler for atheism. evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.
Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism.
http://www.gotquestions.org/creation-evolution.html
but you appear to be enjoying yourself. ;) i guess debating just isn't my cup of tea! :P
-
rwdeese~i will leave the debating to you. although considering the debate on this subject has been raging since darwin himself....i'm not sure what progress you will make here ;)
and actually, the debate has raged since even biblical times. because evolution is idolatry. the debate realistically centers around the existence of God. for atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. evolution is an enabler for atheism. evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.
Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism.
http://www.gotquestions.org/creation-evolution.html
but you appear to be enjoying yourself. ;) i guess debating just isn't my cup of tea! :P
I have just been playing. I haven't really began debating yet. lol I really don't have time right now to have any real debates. The ones here are militant, so it isn't about winning an argument. You cant win arguments with such closed minds. I actually began responding because of how I see them continually belittle others. No need to try to debate them. It is about them trying to justify their faith! You may have noticed I have hardly tried to justify Christianity at all during these discussions. I have just been playing with all the weak arguments, imaginary evidences, weak logic, and fantasy/science fiction reasoning. Its a kick... althought I don't know how long I want to play in their sandbox...lol You have a beautifu heart. Don't let these guys scrape it!
-
You have a beautifu heart. Don't let these guys scrape it!
thank you! Jesus protects my heart :)
i'm probably not a good debater anyhow though because rather than go back and forth i would rather just hug people LOL i don't think good debates include hugging and telling people you love them even if they think you're a complete idiot! :P
but i enjoy your posts very much. even if you are trolling ;)
-
1. Where exactly did this "dense singularity" come from: Oh, I know... from nothing! I admire your faith!
See, I told you that you would say this.
It did not come from nothing, it came from a natural process that scientists don't have all the details on yet. Your camp looks at the Big Bang as a "beginning" when it is not. It is merely the point in "time" that caused us.
Who cares that someone came up with an imaginary concept - yet to be proven in ANY capacity whatseover - and yet no one should care? Interesting!
No proof?! Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. "The CMBR is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the creation of the universe, and its discovery is considered a LANDMARK CONFIRMATION of the Big Bang model of the universe." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Microwave_Background_Radiation
And I wasn't trying to say scientists should stop searching for answers!! All I was saying is that it is an extremely odd position on the believer's part to not be satisfied by what we've discovered thus far.
At least the very concept of a designer has observable confirmation. Therefore, it already has a greater foundation for reason than placing ones faith in "nothing."
"Design" is in the eye of the beholder. And evolution has observable confirmation. It's as solid as Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity. You just can't accept it because you know it essentially disproves the Christian god.
-
for atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. evolution is an enabler for atheism. evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.
:crybaby2: Your pastor/creationist site has brainwashed you well with this slick talk. Evolution is not "an enabler" for atheism. It is simply scientifically observing the truth, a truth that happens to conflict with a creator god. Believers must think there is a real conspiracy on their hands considering scientists have discovered natural explanations for the universe and 93% of them don't believe in god. You trust science when it comes to technology, medicine, and everything else in your life; you have no problem accepting gravity or the theory of atoms; but when it comes to evolution or the Big Bang (science that disproves the Christian god), OF COURSE the scientists got it wrong!!!
Seriously now, think about what I just said.
-
RW: Where exactly did this "dense singularity" come from: Oh, I know... from nothing! I admire your faith![/quote]
See, I told you that you would say this.
Great! This still doesn't change the fact of your strong faith.
It did not come from nothing, it came from a natural process that scientists don't have all the details on yet. Your camp looks at the Big Bang as a "beginning" when it is not. It is merely the point in "time" that caused us.
Placing scientist before a fantasy does not change it to reality. The FACT remains that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that anything has, will, or will ever self create itself. This will always be illogical, irrational, and faith based. Merely saying "they don't have all the details" yet does not change the facts.
Who cares that someone came up with an imaginary concept - yet to be proven in ANY capacity whatseover - and yet no one should care? Interesting!
No proof?! Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. "The CMBR is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the creation of the universe, and its discovery is considered a LANDMARK CONFIRMATION of the Big Bang model of the universe." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Microwave_Background_Radiation
And I wasn't trying to say scientists should stop searching for answers!! All I was saying is that it is an extremely odd position on the believer's part to not be satisfied by what we've discovered thus far.
It isn't a dissatifiaction in scientific discovery. It is being dissatisfied by the attempt by those who are atheists to reinterpret the real data based upon evolutionary presuppostions.
Oh FYI: Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies: http://creation.com/recent-cosmic-microwave-background-data-supports-creationist-cosmologies
RW: At least the very concept of a designer has observable confirmation. Therefore, it already has a greater foundation for reason than placing ones faith in "nothing."
"Design" is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, but it is where reasonable people begin.
And evolution has observable confirmation.
Don't get confused between adaptation and evolution. They are totally different.
It's as solid as Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity.
Wow!
You just can't accept it because you know it essentially disproves the Christian god.
There isn't anything out there yet that has disproved the Biblical God!
-
:crybaby2: Your pastor/creationist site has brainwashed you well with this slick talk. Evolution is not "an enabler" for atheism.
Oh really!?
It is simply scientifically observing the truth, a truth that happens to conflict with a creator god.
It is not a truth. It doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory.
Believers must think there is a real conspiracy on their hands considering scientists have discovered natural explanations for the universe and 93% of them don't believe in god.
Too funny! I know of scientists that are not allowed to work at many universities because they do not ascribe to all this monkey business. Evolution has created a cult mind-set. Instead of scientists trying to discover the truth, they will boycott those who disagree. This eliminates the whole picture from being discovered, and forces those who want a job to merely blab the status quo language to get paid.
You trust science when it comes to technology, medicine, and everything else in your life; you have no problem accepting gravity or the theory of atoms; but when it comes to evolution or the Big Bang (science that disproves the Christian god), OF COURSE the scientists got it wrong!!!
There is a vast difference between real science and evolutionary fantasy!
-
Sherna, in relation to that website you posted (I've been to it before myself as a Christian):
"Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”"
The truth hurts. See how the author is trying to take a defensive position here. And no, a 6,000-year-old earth is NOT plausible!!
"Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism."
Atheists find it hilarious when believers call our position "a religion"...because you don't realize that by accusing us of being a religion, you're using the term religion as an insult. Pretty odd considering Christianity is a religion. Haha! ;D
"According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools."
Please, go live in a cave then, because if a believer partakes in modern society in any way, they are blaspheming god by taking advantage of inescapable scientific advancements. Your fridge, your vaccines, your car, your computer, the Internet...all made by "fools"!!
P.S. The Bible says anyone who calls another a fool is in danger of hell fire. I hope the author of these quotes is right with god!!
-
Illusion of design and good explanation of evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt6xBUGRELI&playnext_from=TL&videos=at0tw4ldi1A + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V2alttOX44&playnext_from=TL&videos=9jy3QY4RMHk
-
And frankly I've just grown tired of having a "discussion" with a random website from a self-claimed international evangelist. It's close to "discussing" the topic by myself. It would be just as easy for me to go find random doctoral dissertations from evolutionary biologists and take random quotes from them any time I wanted to counter something, but that's boring, and it's not a debate or discussion.
sorry for boring you mate.
us idiotic creationists will just never match up with the supreme intellect you apparently exude with every typed word :notworthy:
You have a way of reading quite far into things and creating things that weren't said or implied.
The point is I would like to talk to you (or other people on the forum) and not random websites I could Google and find. I want to know your position; I want your description of your position. I don't want someone else to describe your position.
-
You have a way of reading quite far into things and creating things that weren't said or implied.
The point is I would like to talk to you (or other people on the forum) and not random websites I could Google and find. I want to know your position; I want your description of your position. I don't want someone else to describe your position.
well i was being sarcastic, i apologize.
as far as my method of posting, i read a lot of different information and felt it was easiest to
1. make a statement on my position
2. copy the information on which i based my position
3. reference my information so that anyone interested in seeing the entire article could access it
if i merely reworded everything from the websites it would have just taken longer and i'm not as verbally fluid as the authors of the information. also i'm slightly lazy about posting (you see i don't even use capitols lol)
anyhow, i'll remember your aversion to copy/pasting, and in the future if i want to comment on your posts i will make sure and use my own words. agreed? alrighty then :)
-
Oh really!?
No not really. When you dig far down enough atleast. The only thing the individual may lose is their belief in one of the many gods that say otherwise.
Evolution has created a cult mind-set. Instead of scientists trying to discover the truth, they will boycott those who disagree.
Well considering what creationist 'facts' are (the deluge, 6,000 yr. old earth, dirt man and rib woman, etc.), I personally think it's best that they keep the fantasy away from the reality. Science must not fall to old myths as it has countless times in the past. Instead it must dig for the truth constantly. I'm uncertain if you've ever seen this chart before, but this explains it pretty well--
http://media.photobucket.com/image/science%20and%20religion/Raveryn/religionkv0.png
There is a vast difference between real science and evolutionary fantasy!
Evolution is real science. "Evolutionary fantasy" falls within the world of Pokemon.
-
RW: Evolution has created a cult mind-set. Instead of scientists trying to discover the truth, they will boycott those who disagree.
Well considering what creationist 'facts' are (the deluge, 6,000 yr. old earth, dirt man and rib woman, etc.), I personally think it's best that they keep the fantasy away from the reality.
1. There is more evidence for the deluge than there is prove for something coming out of nothing or for transitional forms, for that matter.
2. We know the compounds that make up man - you should research this some.
3. This leaves the rib story the only problem. Rules of evidence provides adequate proof for any objective researcher.
Science must not fall to old myths as it has countless times in the past. Instead it must dig for the truth constantly
I agree with this... as long as it is objective truth. I find most so brainwashed with evolution that they attempt to look at everything through those lens.
I'm uncertain if you've ever seen this chart before, but this explains it pretty well--
http://media.photobucket.com/image/science%20and%20religion/Raveryn/religionkv0.png
I love charts. These ones are pretty good - but the inaccuracies ruin them.
RW: There is a vast difference between real science and evolutionary fantasy!
Evolution is real science. "Evolutionary fantasy" falls within the world of Pokemon.
Evolutionary studies are too biased to regard as reliable research!
-
Let's take a break from the evolution argument for a sec and look at an example of the alternative:
According to creationists, there was a Great Flood that caused things like the Grand Canyon and buried the bones of the dinosaurs that didn't make it onto the ark. But I can prove to you quite easily that Noah's Ark never happened. You don't even have to be a scientist to understand it; it's quite simple.
Proofs:
#1 Noah, his family, and all of the animals would have died due to toxic levels of oxygen and nitrogen. This is because the mass of liquid described in the Bible would have raised the atmospheric pressure enough to cause a dramatic increase of these elements. We know Noah's ark was high in the atmosphere from these verses:
"And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth." (Genesis 7:17) and "And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:18-20)
#2 ALL marine life would have died due to the rapid mixture of salt and fresh water from the conglomeration of various pure water sources. The ark wasn't built with tanks for Shamu. Interesting that the Bible writers seemed to have forgotten this little fact.
#3 Bible contradiction: it says in Genesis 6:19 to take TWO of every sort of animal but in Genesis 7:2-3 it says to take SEVEN of some of the animals.
#4 Many animals taken out of their natural habitats would have perished. They would also each have required SPECIALIZED diets. And how did the food kept on the boat not spoil??
#5 Records of flourishing civilizations in China, Egypt, Babylon, and Mesopotamia exist straight through the flood era of 2500-2000 BCE. This contingency creates a bunch of obvious problems because the flood supposedly vanquished the inhabitants of these regions. If this was the case, why do we now possess their journals made before, during, and after this global deluge? The flood would have certainly destroyed these societal accounts.
#6 The task of covering every mountain with only 40 days worth of precipitation would require a rainfall of 6 inches per minute, which is far too tremendous for the primitive ark to remain intact. In great contrast, we can count on a rainfall of only 6 inches per hour from a category 5 hurricane. Also, the heat generated by the impact of the raindrops on the flood surface would have been more than enough to boil the water and prevent it from rising (but the Bible says it DID rise).
Doubts:
#1 How could EVERYONE except Noah and his family have been evil? These means babies, children, the elderly, the deaf and blind -- ALL EVIL! It also means that god is pro-abortion, as many women would have been pregnant at the time of the flood.
#2 The average lifespan for those living in the Neolithic/Bronze Age (a.k.a. Biblical times) according to archaeology was 15-30 years. Noah was 600 when he built the ark.
#3 How did Noah travel by foot across thousands of miles and single-handedly gather all of the MILLIONS of types of animals?
#4 The very foundation for the Noah's Ark story falls flat when you consider god did it to destroy the wicked, yet wicked people continued to exist after it happened. Why would an omniscient god have to wipe out all of his creation for a specific quality that he KNEW would continue to exist? The flood was for nothing, yet god carried out his horrific genocide anyway.
#5 No one has ever found the ark even though we know its final resting place is supposed to be in the mountains of Ararat located in Turkey (Genesis 8:4). All evidence presented as "proof" of the ark's discovery has been admitted to be a hoax, proven a hoax, or withheld from testing.
#6 The Genesis flood is extremely similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian legend that predates Noah by at least 1,000 years. The similarities between the two tales are so remarkable that one cannot write them off in good conscience as mere coincidences.
#7 The animals' muscles would have atrophied after months in confined pens.
Continued...
-
Proofs Noah's Ark didn't happen:
#7 No geological evidence. The flood should have created a massive extinction along the floors of the oceans and millions of land organisms that would have certainly been victimized by the flood would also have deposited a large layer of terrestrial fossils, but neither of these are the case. Coral reefs would have been utterly destroyed, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived 100,000+ undisturbed years. The floodwaters (combined with lava) would have obviously melted the polar ice caps.
#8 How did Noah gather animals indigenous to lands like Australia, Antarctica, and America, especially considering these lands had not yet been discovered? Also, god gave Noah only a 7-day warning to load the ark!! (Genesis 7:4)
#9 Dinosaurs couldn't have fit on the ark even if they had the entire crude vessel to themselves.
#10 Everyone would have suffocated to death because there was only one 18-inch opening near the roof.
#11 Eight people would not have been able to keep up with throwing out the millions of pounds of poop produced every day by the animals. The buildup of toxic methane gas would have suffocated them all and would also have been extremely flammable. All of that poop would have also been a breeding ground for parasites, bacteria, and disease.
#12 The two flood-surviving members of each species wouldn't have provided enough genetic variation to guarantee their futuristic representation in the ecosphere. Diseases and genetic defects had a great chance of pushing them into extinction due to the lack of essential variety at the molecular level.
#13 We do not see the 5,000 years that our DNA would reveal if all humans descended from the sole survivors of god's flood. Instead it is 98+% the same as the great apes.
#14 The dove returning with the olive leaf couldn't have happened because such a plant would not have had time to germinate after the flood.
#15 Problems with the ark construction: Noah would have had no way to prevent the wood from rotting in the hot desert sun before it even set sail. Waves would have undoubtedly capsized the makeshift craft; rocks would have slammed into the boat. There weren't enough people to pump out all of the water the boat would have inevitably taken in. There were also no propellers or steering mechanisms to deliver the animals back to their respective continents after the flood was over.
"The story's utter ridiculousness is probably why many polls indicate that an increasing number of Christians no longer claim a literal belief in the Old Testament. Sure, one can easily explain the whole fiasco by use of miracles: God made all the water appear and disappear; God prevented all the water from becoming too hot; God put the animals into hibernation; God kept the ark afloat; God repopulated the earth with life; and God erased all evidence of the flood. By invoking the 'miracle clause', however, Christians are using unverifiable events that any person can insert into any scenario in order to maintain the legitimacy of any religion.
To rectify all these problems in such a deceitful manner is to go against the whole purpose of constructing the ark in the first place. Applying such implausible explanations would also mean that God, once again, intentionally misleads people who rely on their logical and observational talents that he himself gave them for deducing answers to readily apparent problems. Searching for the truth behind Noah's ark isn't a matter of coming up with any solution for a problem that makes the story fit, but rather discovering the most likely solution to the problem so that we have the most likely answer (that is, like every other global deluge story that came before and after Noah, the biblical flood is a lie). The source of the entertaining tale was most likely a tremendous flood that would later be embellished to fantastical proportions. When taken literally, the tale of Noah's ark is an insult to human intelligence and common sense. If the story didn't appear in the Bible, as is the case for dozens of other flood legends, no one would be giving it a second thought." ~ http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html
-
But Queen! You forget! GOD did everything so he bent the laws of reality so it could happen! That's proof enough!
1. There is more evidence for the deluge than there is prove for something coming out of nothing or for transitional forms, for that matter.
?
Considering the deluge is an obvious myth, this statement is completely backwards.
We know the compounds that make up man - you should research this some.
Rib woman. Rib. Woman.
I agree with this... as long as it is objective truth. I find most so brainwashed with evolution that they attempt to look at everything through those lens.
Why do you keep calling evolution a brainwashing science when you can actually see it happen with your own 2 eyes? Macroevolution is obviously different when it comes to visuals, but there is no difference besides time-scale. That and it's well documented with visual evidence that has been contested many times by countless different parties. And, of course, the religious groups are the ones always yelling foul about it.
I love charts. These ones are pretty good - but the inaccuracies ruin them.
What inaccuracies are in that chart?
Evolutionary studies are too biased to regard as reliable research!
Biased? Even though scientists all over the world have studied the evidence and came to the same or near-same conclusions given the evidence found? Unless you can prove to me that every individual scientist doing the research has the same mindset of Fox News scripters and reporters, or that they're all secretly in on something just to focus people away from what you personally believe, these studies are not biased.
-
But Queen! You forget! GOD did everything so he bent the laws of reality so it could happen! That's proof enough!
Indeed! How silly of me! ;D
-
Let's take a break from the evolution argument for a sec and look at an example of the alternative:
Sure! I enjoy entertainment.
According to creationists, there was a Great Flood that caused things like the Grand Canyon and buried the bones of the dinosaurs that didn't make it onto the ark. But I can prove to you quite easily that Noah's Ark never happened. You don't even have to be a scientist to understand it; it's quite simple.
"[you] can prove" that Naoh's Ark never happened. ok, I'll bite!
I will respond to each of these "proofs" on other posts
-
I will respond to each of these "proofs" on other posts
Some words of advice-- try keeping everything in one topic. It's a bit more concise and professional. You don't want to pull a Marieelissa and flood the forum with 30+ threads. When that happens, other debates and discussions get thrown onto the next pages and a lot of people don't root around there.
Edit: I only say this because I saw your "proof #1" post. I figured you were going to make a new thread for each.
-
Noah's Ark Rebuttal
#1 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. (Genesis 7:20)
In reality, the Hebrew word ma‛al, translated "higher" really means "upward." So, in essence, the text is saying that the flood was 15 cubits (20 feet) deep, in total, not 15 cubits above the mountains. In addition, the Hebrew word har really refers most often to hills rather than mountains. (so perception of mass liquid false)
#2 You're belief here obviously is that the flood came by rain alone: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened" (Genesis 7:11). Notice this important fact: The source of the water was both the atmosphere ("windows of heaven") and subterranean water ("fountains of the great deep").
#3 Considering that these are from the same book (and within a 13-passage section), the idea of a true contradiction is unlikely. The Genesis 6:19 passage is telling the number that Noah had to bring on the ark in order to keep them alive (for a species to reproduce, they only need a male and a female). In Genesis 7:2, the number of clean animals that are to be brought is upped to seven because now God is ordering Noah to bring animals for food and sacrifice. Genesis 7:8-9, it's simply saying that they entered the ark two by two, and says nothing about the idea that there were only two of each type of beast. Not a contradiction.
#4 Many animals are capable of adapting for the sake of survival. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets.
#5 Your understanding here is that the flood was global and it wasn't. Also your understanding here is that the flood created more liquid than it actually did. Since the flood did not destroy the 'earth' it is easy to assume that records of civilization would have been preserved outside the area of the flood.
#6 Again refer to #1. Also: Outside Genesis one (through Genesis 2:5), the entire Genesis account through the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) specifically refers to local geography. All the place names mentioned are in the Mesopotamian flood plain. Therefore, all the instances of the word erets can and should be translated "land," instead of "earth," since it all refers to local geography. There is no reason to think that the flood account is any different from the rest of the Genesis account through chapter 11.
#7 The flood was a combination of rain and underground reservoirs of water bursting open. So all these millions of fossils are not necessary when looking at the flood from a 'local' perspective
#8 Once again think "locally"
#9 Any dinosaurs could have been represented by their young.
#10 The density of animals on the Ark, compared to the volume of enclosed space, was much less than we find in some modern, mass animal housing used to keep stock raised for food (such as chicken farms), which requires no special mechanical ventilation. It is also interesting to note that the convective movement of air, driven by temperature differences between the warm-blooded animals and the cold interior surfaces, would have been significant enough to drive the flow of air. Plus, wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further.
#11 The danger of toxic or explosive manure gases, such as methane, would be alleviated by the constant movement of the Ark, which would have allowed manure gases to be constantly released. Secondly, methane, which is half the density of air, would quickly find its way out of a small opening such as a window. There is no reason to believe that the levels of these gases within the Ark would have approached hazardous levels. Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. Therefore they would have devised a system to work smarter not harder.
#12 Well I am not a scientist by any means but considering your choice of words, if there was a 'chance' they could have been pushed into extinction, there is a 'chance' they wouldn't.
#13 Noah and his family were not the sole survivors if we are to believe the "local" theory of the flood
#14 I think I made my point about the global vs local thing....
#15 This is pure conjecture
Oops before I forget:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
http://www.dadsdayoff.net/flood.html
-
(so perception of mass liquid false)
I guess your camp is divided over this issue then! But what does the Bible say? "ALL the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." = global
Also:
"How else would God's flood annihilate every living thing on earth, as this was his stated intention, unless the elevated water extended well beyond the Middle East? An additional difficulty, randomly selected from the pile of problems with the local flood suggestion, is the inability of the ark to travel hundreds of miles to Ararat without water high enough to reach the oceans. Liquids seek their own level and don't stand in one area without complete confinement. Since the barriers required for this magical constrainment are not present, we can only conclude that a local flood scenario is not only logically impossible but also entirely incompatible with the biblical text." ~ http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html
Notice this important fact: The source of the water was both the atmosphere ("windows of heaven") and subterranean water ("fountains of the great deep").
"The 'fountains of the deep' (Genesis 7:11) contain only 1% of the necessary water; 99% would have to fall from the supposed sky ocean." ~ http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html (I encourage people to read this full article in detail as it fills in many of the things I left out in my presentation)
Many animals are capable of adapting for the sake of survival.
This simply isn't true.
Since the flood did not destroy the 'earth' it is easy to assume that records of civilization would have been preserved outside the area of the flood.
It DID destroy the earth, though! This kind of talk comes from believers who have not read their Bibles and instead rely on creationist sites (no offense, Sherna! love ya!):
Genesis Chapter 6 KJV:
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
...
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
Hey god said all this, not me! ;)
Any dinosaurs could have been represented by their young.
The boat was still not big enough even if ALL the animals were babies. Also, wouldn't they need their mothers to nurse them and such? Also, how could sexually immature animals repopulate the earth?
wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further.
This is grasping at straws. Reminder: ONE 18-inch window at the TOP of the boat. The boat was several decks deep. Suffocation = inevitable.
The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around.
Then all of their muscles would have atrophied.
there was a 'chance' they could have been pushed into extinction, there is a 'chance' they wouldn't.
Grasping at straws again.
I think I made my point about the global vs local thing....
You didn't because that's not what the Bible says! Flood (according to the Bible) = global = all of my points/proofs stand.
This is pure conjecture
Occam's Razor. ;)
Sherna, since I have proved those creationist sites are lying to you by quoting the Bible...where do you stand now? By them feeding you this lie of a "local" flood...you can see what atheists/agnostics are trying to warn good people like you about. This type of lie is classic of creationists; they do it all the time, especially when it comes to evolution!
They are successful because most of their readers: a) really want to believe in god b) will trust what is written so long as it "sounds good" and appears scientific...and most importantly! c) most Christians don't actually read their Bibles or check the facts on these types of articles!
-
Hey Sherna...I do value your opinions and questions. After reading Queens post above, would you do me the favor of reading my post link and telling me what you think? On this thread?
http://fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=16675.30
-
well queen, there is division on whether the bible flood was global or local. i looked at sites that represented the global side of the issue...they also give counter arguments for your statements. i found that the local theory was better backed by scripture but i can't say that i know anything to be fact. i'm not a scientist, im not a theologian, im not a philosopher....i'm just a person searching for truth. but i don't think those creationists sites were lying but thanks for trying to warn me lol ;)
i will say that i only checked certain scriptures referenced on the site with my bible. so you got me there.
-
One thing I should state for all sides is that the religious sides will always fight to keep their beliefs and faith standing no matter what other sides may throw at it. Is this a good thing? For them, sure. And in a few cases it is for everyone. But this type of reasoning ability stems back all the way to childhood. The unwllingness to shed ones own beliefs and see the other side of the argument could easily be related to the idea of santa clause. Personally I was fortunate to know from the get-go that it was fake. But when I introduced the truth to a believer, of course they always fought back. Because this rocks their foundation and they want to believe because it makes them feel good. They don't want to give up what has been reinforced in their heads even though the idea is ludicrous and has absolutely no proof. If skepticism was thrown their way, they'd work around it to make it true ("reindeer don't fly" "but these are magic reindeer! And since you've never seen one, you can't deny it!"). I noticed as the grades progressed with my classmates, more and more people figured it was fake. Obviously due to maturity and reasoning ability (or a person telling them that has these traits). Granted there is no major harm in believing in santa clause, but there is in religion due to the dangerous, questionable, and enslaved philosophies they come with (not all, but many are).
Anyways, on the other side of the fence, methods of science are not foolproof. But they are indefinately perfectable. There is a tradition of criticism that enforces improvement whenever and wherever flaws are discovered. Unlike many religious beliefs, nothing is off limits to investigation or questioning. The major problem of this is the 'not foolproof' variable is used by those who are suspicious of science as their grounds for denying it as a privileged status in the truth-seeking department-- as if the religions and practices they align themselves with are better off in these regards (sound familar, rw? lol).
But where are the examples of religions abandoning old ways of thinking in regards to irresistable evidence? Time and time again in science you'll see yesterday's heresies becoming today's new orthodoxies. No religion exhibits that pattern in it's history.
I had to pull this quote from the other thread so I could address it properly. I want to be careful here because I'm in no way claiming expertise in any area.
I think if we just changed some words around in your post we could say exactly about atheists, what you have claimed people of religion do to protect their beliefs. I have found that whatever atheists or skeptics have to do to prove their platform, they will. Even if it means denying something a creationist says and blowing it off as pseudoscience instead of taking it into true consideration. To actually consider that they could be wrong?? They hold very fiercely to their belief there is no God. Evolution enables this belief because if evolution is a lie then how do you explain creation? You can't, there is no third option...without evolution no atheist or skeptic has a leg to stand on. Putting every question you have about the bible itself aside......without evolution it doesn't stand up. That being said, if you diligently search creation websites you will find several verifiable scientific claims that put evolution into serious question.
Religion is not off limits to truth seeking. There are Christian scientists out there. And what you are calling "irresistable evidence" I call "questionable evidence".
Let me quote here:
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
Let me just say here Falconer that when I came into the forum I was blown away by many atheists and non believers posts. At first it was offended shock....but every time something new posted, I thought, "Wow, they have a point...I should look into this... I was concerned that I perhaps I was looking at everything through Christian glasses but I feel like my reaction in response to posts became more curious than outraged. I genuinely felt that I wanted to know the truth. It's hard for me to explain but I was willing to accept that I could have been wrong my whole life, if I was proven wrong. But was I going to only look at atheist or evolution sites to come to this conclusion??? No, so perhaps you will say that because I don't want to be wrong I accepted the information on the sites that fed my beliefs and couldn't accept the opposing information because I want them to be wrong.
Now....take that last statement and apply it to yourself. I can't say for sure that I can unbiasedly psychoanalyze myself to say that that statement isn't true about me. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't....but is it true about you?
Don't answer me back on that question. It's not important to justify yourself to me or anyone else, you asked my opinion and I answered you as truthfully as I could. Please know I respect you, this reply isn't meant to attack and I'm not trying to debate any further about the specifics of evolution.
Much love and thank you for hearing me out :heart:
-
I don't see any evidence that God exists - will you help me!
(http://www.godandscience.org/images/atheistblinders.jpg)
-
Even if it means denying something a creationist says and blowing it off as pseudoscience instead of taking it into true consideration.
I take what you guys post into consideration. I will freely admit that when rwdeese mentioned the statistics on some gays having 100s of partners in another thread, for example, I could see how people look at it as a harmful lifestyle. One of my cousins has turned out to be gay and posts dozens of pictures of himself partying crazy-hard on his Facebook, like is stereotypical of some homosexuals. And yet he still wears a cross necklace in these pictures. ???
If you diligently search creation websites you will find several verifiable scientific claims that put evolution into serious question.
Of course you will. They have a very strong motivation for grasping at every gap in the theory that they can find because if they don't try to fight evolution, science can show there is no Christian god. What you may not realize is these sites keep plenty of information on them that is flat-out wrong or has been disproven years ago.
Religion is not off limits to truth seeking. There are Christian scientists out there. And what you are calling "irresistable evidence" I call "questionable evidence".
Then why do some theists - like Kenneth Miller - actively defend evolution?
strong atheism states that there is no god
The vast majority of atheists are not strong atheists. Most are agnostic-atheists. Why? Because we're not that damn cocky to say we've traveled the entire universe and *know* there is NO god!
observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally...contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.
Uh, well no one was around 14.5 billion years ago, this is true. But this does not mean scientists cannot observe evidence for/understand/reproduce our origins! What do you think the Large Hadron Collider is for (to name just one example)?
I genuinely felt that I wanted to know the truth.
This is good. This is the first step.
I can't say for sure that I can unbiasedly psychoanalyze myself to say that that statement isn't true about me. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't....but is it true about you?
The thing is, the reasons for my (and many others') disbelief are literally in the hundreds...I can't easily send you a package of my brain containing all of the reasons that I'm confident that I'm finally on the correct side of the god debate. It is an individual thing for a person to come to the realizations that countless non-believers have...we can't force you. We can only provide some tools, some good resources, some constructive feedback...but at the end of the day, it is up to YOU what conclusion you will draw.
Posting the link to the 11-video series that got deleted in another thread: http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3#p/u/15/12rP8ybp13s Again, this guy's presentation is very peaceful, very respectful. :)
-
I don't see any evidence that God exists - will you help me!
"Sure! Which one are you looking for? We've got a vast selection here to fit any or all of your needs!"
Well Queen has already answered many of the things I was going to say so I'll concentrate on the others.
what you have claimed people of religion do to protect their beliefs. I have found that whatever atheists or skeptics have to do to prove their platform, they will.
Here's the tipper though- the ends justify the means. Skeptics analyze things and find visual and contestable evidence that can be against any and all sides because they don't want it to fit it within what they personally want (EDIT: The idea being studied may disprove something in religion but in many cases this is not the original purpose). Skeptics want to keep the subject at hand open and not have it perfectly defined by personal or biased ideas-- contesting the world being flat. The whole history of that ordeal is a perfectly good example. Christianity, and other major religions, do nothing more than work around that skeptical idea to make it fit in with what their holy text says once that idea has been proven. Skeptics try to keep the box open whereas religion tries keeping the box shut with their old predetermined ideas. This is a major reason why I'm agnostic. There is nothing wrong with skepticism in matters like this. Religion (in most cases) will tell you otherwise.
Even if it means denying something a creationist says and blowing it off as pseudoscience instead of taking it into true consideration. To actually consider that they could be wrong??
I've been on both sides though. The creationism side for most of my life. I've done my research on many of the matters brought up in the forum. At one point in my life, I wanted to be 100% right about creationism so I contested it. I sided with it rather than actually looking hard at the ideas of both sides. And once I unfolded my arms and looked at the real world, I looked back and wondered why I wasted my time with blatant and obvious pseudoscience.
Now evolution has had some MAJOR faults. Especially when it was first discovered. But, like my 2nd paragraph says, it is indefinately perfectable. The false ideas were thrown away. And now many of the ideas found in evolution are to the point now where if you deny them, it's like denying the world is an oblate spheroid. That's why liljp was saying those things earlier about seeing a chimp give birth to a human.
Evolution enables this belief because if evolution is a lie then how do you explain creation? You can't, there is no third option...without evolution no atheist or skeptic has a leg to stand on.
Well that's correct. If evolution were false, you would be back to square one. There's nothing wrong with that. Try testing other ideas and see if they hold weight. See what makes sense. Avoid nonsensical things that have already been proven bunk; avoid the opiates of the people. That's what science is all about. The pursuit of knowledge!
you asked my opinion and I answered you as truthfully as I could. Please know I respect you, this reply isn't meant to attack and I'm not trying to debate any further about the specifics of evolution.Much love and thank you for hearing me out
I don't see any form of attack anywhere in your post. And thank you for being down-to-earth. It's a rarity to see decent religious people open for discussion and debate on this forum without suddenly going postal. Simply put, you rawk.
-
Simply put, you rawk.
thanks, now you made me blush lol
-
RW your a mess!! LOL LOL LOL LOL
-
To the athiests, maybe you can live your life without belief in anything at all but your own accidental existence. Maybe you can look at the beauty in the world and enjoy it as a mere accident of nature. What do you say..."oh thank science that I'm alive. Oh thank you science for the beautiful flower and the river and the sky and for my sweet little dog...or maybe you say 'Wow, how wonderful of me to imagine this beautiful world into existence...I am so creative and amazing! I hope everybody enjoys it as much as I do." Maybe your life is just so amazingly smooth and carefree that you don't have any worries at all and you figure that anybody who has any worries has only themselves to blame and it's just too bad their prayers are all in vain as they have no hope for ever overcoming their troubles.
I already know that you blame religion for every evil thing that has ever happened in the world and that you think doing away with religion will fix all the wrong in the world, all the wars will stop if people only give up their belief in God. The thing about that is that the god that is at the root of all the wars is MONEY and GREED for POWER, POSSESSION, CONTROL. You can wipe out every religion there is and you will still have these things ruling this world. You will still have wars and murder and hate from the havenots for the haves. Do you think that atheism can get rid of these things?
There are many people, at this very moment, who cannot find any reason for going forward another day in their life and only their belief, hope, prayer is keeping them moving forward to another breath, another day, one more try, one more job interview, one more corner, just one more day ....
whether they believe in Jesus, Buddha, Allah, or Jack In The Box, that belief system gives them strength to go forward in the darkness. I see nothing wrong with that. Do you have something better to offer to someone who is hopelessly suffering? What can you say to them? Perhaps you say, 'Just hang on, maybe you'll get lucky!"
-
To the athiests, maybe you can live your life without belief in anything at all but your own accidental existence.
I don't have to "believe" in my existence...? I iz here, lol. And like the TRILLIONS of people who will NEVER be born, I'd have no choice but to be fine with my not being here.
For the record, I "believe" in things that are demonstrably true.
Maybe you can look at the beauty in the world and enjoy it as a mere accident of nature.
Yep. And it is so much more amazing when we can show that it was made without a god!
What do you say..."oh thank science that I'm alive.
Why would I thank science? Why would I thank ANYONE? Don't get me wrong; I enjoy being alive, but I really had no choice in the matter. I am here because the conditions existed FOR me to be here. Had they been slightly altered, my brother or sister would be here in my place. :dontknow:
Oh thank you science for the beautiful flower and the river and the sky and for my sweet little dog...
Um, science is a way of studying things, not an actual entity like you are describing it.
or maybe you say 'Wow, how wonderful of me to imagine this beautiful world into existence...I am so creative and amazing!
Say what? Yes, there are a few loons in this world that think existence is all in their heads. I am not one of them. :P
Maybe your life is just so amazingly smooth and carefree that you don't have any worries at all and you figure that anybody who has any worries has only themselves to blame and it's just too bad their prayers are all in vain as they have no hope for ever overcoming their troubles.
No one's life is "just so amazingly smooth and carefree". In most cases, life IS what you make of it, though. You can waste it away sweating about all the small sh*t or grab it by the horns and LIVE IT.
As for people's problems? Sorry, but in most cases it IS their fault. Their prayers ARE in vain; however, hope DOES exist in them taking ACTION for themselves.
I already know that you blame religion for every evil thing that has ever happened in the world
No we don't.
you think doing away with religion will fix all the wrong in the world
No we don't. What is up with people and this "all or nothing" language?! It's nuts! But to address the statement, OF COURSE lessening religion's impact would better the world.
An Alternative to Religion? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUWI0Dmq3X8&videos=hupthFN5H8c
You can wipe out every religion there is and you will still have these things ruling this world. You will still have wars and murder and hate from the havenots for the haves. Do you think that atheism can get rid of these things?
I agree we would still have bad stuff. However, the justifications for a lot of evil that people do would no longer exist (like the Catholic church LYING to people in Africa about condom use spreading AIDS).
There are many people, at this very moment, who cannot find any reason for going forward another day in their life and only their belief, hope, prayer is keeping them moving forward to another breath, another day, one more try, one more job interview, one more corner, just one more day ....
whether they believe in Jesus, Buddha, Allah, or Jack In The Box, that belief system gives them strength to go forward in the darkness. I see nothing wrong with that. Do you have something better to offer to someone who is hopelessly suffering? What can you say to them? Perhaps you say, 'Just hang on, maybe you'll get lucky!"
And that's really unfortunate that they think their one and only life sucks THAT much. I'd advise them to analyze what's making them unhappy, re-assess their priorities, and brainstorm some *REAL SOLUTIONS* on how they could get out of their hole. Carrying around an invisible security blanket isn't going to do a damn thing to rid them of their problems, it's only going to "cover up" some of the pain.
-
Ignore atheists if you have a problem with their way of thinking.
Because that's a great way of going through life! Ignore those who challenge you!! ::)
it just means that they never had an encounter with him and/or God never revealed himself to them.
Wrong.
Atheists or any person to 100% for sure say there is or isn't a God would be an idiot.
And that's a very idiotic way to phrase it. "Atheists or"? Seriously, marie, try to THINK before you type. Atheists don't claim there's no god; it's a lack of belief in god(s). BIG difference.
Also if you can't kick God then who do you kick? His creations.
Another childish retort masked as an argument. We're not trying to kick anyone.
When people know there is no Hell, you can get away with all kinds of stuff so long as people don't see you.
::) ::) Yeah, because as a belief in god disappears, so will our cops, laws, and prisons! ::) ::) You people who need a god to be good should be ASHAMED.
Humans would become what they truely are without a God! ANIMALS
I really want to know why people are so-freaking-offended by being classified as an animal?? ('Cause YOU ARE) Can anyone help me out here and answer this???
-
:) I believe in evolution...with or with out God or Mother Nature intervention. Think about when you were born and your early stages of life and the way and form you are now. How much have you changed? Everything changes...evolves!
-
To the athiests, maybe you can live your life without belief in anything at all but your own accidental existence.
I don't have to "believe" in my existence...? I iz here, lol. And like the TRILLIONS of people who will NEVER be born, I'd have no choice but to be fine with my not being here.
For the record, I "believe" in things that are demonstrably true.
Maybe you can look at the beauty in the world and enjoy it as a mere accident of nature.
Yep. And it is so much more amazing when we can show that it was made without a god!
What do you say..."oh thank science that I'm alive.
Why would I thank science? Why would I thank ANYONE? Don't get me wrong; I enjoy being alive, but I really had no choice in the matter. I am here because the conditions existed FOR me to be here. Had they been slightly altered, my brother or sister would be here in my place. :dontknow:
Oh thank you science for the beautiful flower and the river and the sky and for my sweet little dog...
Um, science is a way of studying things, not an actual entity like you are describing it.
or maybe you say 'Wow, how wonderful of me to imagine this beautiful world into existence...I am so creative and amazing!
Say what? Yes, there are a few loons in this world that think existence is all in their heads. I am not one of them. :P
Maybe your life is just so amazingly smooth and carefree that you don't have any worries at all and you figure that anybody who has any worries has only themselves to blame and it's just too bad their prayers are all in vain as they have no hope for ever overcoming their troubles.
No one's life is "just so amazingly smooth and carefree". In most cases, life IS what you make of it, though. You can waste it away sweating about all the small sh*t or grab it by the horns and LIVE IT.
As for people's problems? Sorry, but in most cases it IS their fault. Their prayers ARE in vain; however, hope DOES exist in them taking ACTION for themselves.
I already know that you blame religion for every evil thing that has ever happened in the world
No we don't.
you think doing away with religion will fix all the wrong in the world
No we don't. What is up with people and this "all or nothing" language?! It's nuts! But to address the statement, OF COURSE lessening religion's impact would better the world.
An Alternative to Religion? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUWI0Dmq3X8&videos=hupthFN5H8c
You can wipe out every religion there is and you will still have these things ruling this world. You will still have wars and murder and hate from the havenots for the haves. Do you think that atheism can get rid of these things?
I agree we would still have bad stuff. However, the justifications for a lot of evil that people do would no longer exist (like the Catholic church LYING to people in Africa about condom use spreading AIDS).
There are many people, at this very moment, who cannot find any reason for going forward another day in their life and only their belief, hope, prayer is keeping them moving forward to another breath, another day, one more try, one more job interview, one more corner, just one more day ....
whether they believe in Jesus, Buddha, Allah, or Jack In The Box, that belief system gives them strength to go forward in the darkness. I see nothing wrong with that. Do you have something better to offer to someone who is hopelessly suffering? What can you say to them? Perhaps you say, 'Just hang on, maybe you'll get lucky!"
And that's really unfortunate that they think their one and only life sucks THAT much. I'd advise them to analyze what's making them unhappy, re-assess their priorities, and brainstorm some *REAL SOLUTIONS* on how they could get out of their hole. Carrying around an invisible security blanket isn't going to do a damn thing to rid them of their problems, it's only going to "cover up" some of the pain.
I really wouldn't expect you to thank anybody or anything because you have not the slightest grain of gratitude in you.
-
I really wouldn't expect you to thank anybody or anything because you have not the slightest grain of gratitude in you.
Why should anyone take this statement seriously? It is coming from a person who has screamed "get back in the closet, fags!" on this forum. I have a lot more reason to judge you than you do of me.
-
I really wouldn't expect you to thank anybody or anything because you have not the slightest grain of gratitude in you.
Why should anyone take this statement seriously? It is coming from a person who has screamed "get back in the closet, fags!" on this forum. I have a lot more reason to judge you than you do of me.
Of course, you would have to state something completely out of context since addressing my statement directly would mean that you had something to be grateful for and someone or somebody to be grateful to but of course, you don't.
-
Of course, you would have to state something completely out of context since addressing my statement directly would mean that you had something to be grateful for and someone or somebody to be grateful to but of course, you don't.
I'll address you directly then. It's pretty sad when people on forums act like they have someone else completely figured out and make judgment calls on someone they've never met. It's obvious that your inappropriate statement about me was in direct response to you feeling perturbed by what I wrote about people needing a god security blanket.
I'm plenty grateful; perhaps you should take a step back and assess why you feel the need to criticize strangers on the Internet out-of-the-blue.
-
Of course, you would have to state something completely out of context since addressing my statement directly would mean that you had something to be grateful for and someone or somebody to be grateful to but of course, you don't.
I'll address you directly then. It's pretty sad when people on forums act like they have someone else completely figured out and make judgment calls on someone they've never met. It's obvious that your inappropriate statement about me was in direct response to you feeling perturbed by what I wrote about people needing a god security blanket.
I'm plenty grateful; perhaps you should take a step back and assess why you feel the need to criticize strangers on the Internet out-of-the-blue.
Oh please! Who are you talking about? Yourself again? Exactly your very own behavior throughout all your posts...every one of them. What do you have to be grateful for and who are you grateful to?
-
Here is a quote for you from an atheist....not my words but I think applicable to this thread.
bernie from Planck's Constant on February 15, 2009 at 8:17 am
I am an Atheist but I ado gree that too many Atheists are no different than say, Muslims who believe that they are the only ones with the correct view of the universe.
I see no problem with other religions as long as there is no agenda to forcibly convert me to their point of view.
Too many anti-Christian Liberals have either forgotten or never learned where many of the concepts of tolerance and respect for human rights and dignity which they supposedly hold as virtues come from.
-
Too many anti-Christian Liberals have either forgotten or never learned where many of the concepts of tolerance and respect for human rights and dignity which they supposedly hold as virtues come from.
And to that I say this is *just* a forum; persons or statements within it are not necessarily 100% how they would be offline. A reader doesn't know the user's full background, tone, motives, etc. for writing whatever they did. Try not to take it too personally.
-
Too many anti-Christian Liberals have either forgotten or never learned where many of the concepts of tolerance and respect for human rights and dignity which they supposedly hold as virtues come from.
And to that I say this is *just* a forum; persons or statements within it are not necessarily 100% how they would be offline. A reader doesn't know the user's full background, tone, motives, etc. for writing whatever they did. Try not to take it too personally.
Gee. I couldn't have said it better myself!
-
Too many anti-Christian Liberals have either forgotten or never learned where many of the concepts of tolerance and respect for human rights and dignity which they supposedly hold as virtues come from.
And many Christians forget or never learned where those concepts and virtues came from. They certainly didn't begin with the New Testament. I'm sorry if that's what you've convinced yourself to believe. Please don't talk about "human rights and dignity" while implying Christianity has relentlessly promoted it in the past...history tells quite the opposite story.
Morality has the same origins for "anti-Christian Liberals" as it does for "Christian Conservatives." Morality has natural origins.
-
Too many anti-Christian Liberals have either forgotten or never learned where many of the concepts of tolerance and respect for human rights and dignity which they supposedly hold as virtues come from.
I don't think anyone can honestly state that tolerance, respect, or any other virtue/aspect of morality came strictly out of the Bible or from Christianity. I am not a Liberal per se, but speaking as an atheist, I do not "supposedly hold" them as virtues either. That is yet another lumping of atheists into the 'non-moral and evil' pile. Since a political point was brought up here, I am commenting on it - even though we all know not to mix religion and politics. ;) Something that really irritates me is the (mis)use of the Christian religion by many 'pro-Christian' Conservatives to justify their position in a political situation that often ends up affecting many or all of us. It seems almost as if it is a party line strategy to portray themselves as 'uber-religious' and 'godlike/godly' as opposed to even those Christian Liberals who are portrayed as 'ungodly' or 'non-religious'. I am not even talking about Atheist Liberals here. There is enough devisiveness within Christianity and politics to even start pointing fingers.
Maybe it is because liberals, like atheists, tend to question and pull things apart to find answers instead of being followers of the map drawn out for them by most of society? Has anyone seen or remember the movie "Inherit the Wind" about the science teacher accused of a crime for teaching evolution? It has one of my favorite lines/scenes in it. William Jennings Bryan (prosecutor against the teacher) asks Clarence Darrow (the teacher's lawyer):
"Does right have no meaning to you?" to which Darrow responds, "No! Right has no meaning to me, but truth does."
I am not saying atheists are right and Christians are wrong, that is not my call, but I cannot look at the Bible as truth and Christianity as the only way to be a decent, compassionate, and moral human being.
(I realize I am very late jumping in here, but I have had NO time to be on the Forums for days. Lots of catching up to do, but some interesting reading so far.) ;)
-
I just saw another very good video that brings up more problems with Noah's Ark: http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkMatter2525#p/u/2/I225Vcs3X0g (warning: some "naughty" language)
What I wrote about Noah's Ark earlier in this thread: http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=16759.msg209572#msg209572
-
I know that vid would offend so many, but I LOL'd! So many realistic points in it. Magic, magic, magic and the the "Why not give them all 'magic heart attacks?" Funny stuff there, queen! How about the dinosaur pic hanging on the wall..... ;) ;D