A simple logical dissertion:
1. God is perfect in every way.
2. A being who is perfect in every way is incapable of anything that is less than perfect, by definition.
3. Heaven, for comparison, is perfect.
4. Earth is not perfect.
5. Therefore, God could not have created Earth.
I was also reading Dawkins' discussion with Francis Collins, and Dawkins said something remarkable in response to the "Fine Tuner" argument. He said that each of the different constants could very well be as related as the diameter of a circle is to its circumference. The relation is the goal of finding a unifying theory.
I was speaking with a Mormon recently who told me it was a mircle that the sun came up every morning. I was stricken with disappointment when I explained to her that over the course of the last several hundred years, we've managed to pin down gravity to a pretty tight corner, so it is hardly a "miracle" that the sun comes up: the earth orbits the sun and rotates on an axis, giving us years and days, respectively. Her response was that was only man's knowledge, God's knowledge is the one that matters. Oh well, this is from a very devout Mormon who has been bathed in ridiculous superstition for her whole life.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Atheist Experience - Foolish Atheists
To: peewee_91762
Date: July 27
Good evening.
I am a frequent listener of The Atheist Experience, and let me introduce myself.
My name is XXXXX, I am a 21 year old active-duty Air Force member. I am stationed at Sheppard Air Force Base and have been active duty for nearly 3 years, and have identified myself as an atheist for 3 years. I have taken an addiction to the subject of religion and have even lost a long-time girlfriend due to my atheism. I take what could be considered pride in my aggression regarding my position; which has several risks and weaknesses which I accept.
Your proposal to sue Ray Comfort over a bumper sticker initially struck me as some sort of manifestation of a troll. There is no reasonable, rational mind that could pretend to understand what the Constitution is and what it stands for, while simultaneously being in favor of suing somebody for a bumper sticker which holds the opinions that atheists are fools. You have unscrupulously demonstrated ignorance of the very Constitution that you once swore to uphold. I am profoundly disappointed to know that such a rabid, bigoted atheist exists and once served in the Air Force. You are the spectral opposite to the very same behavior which atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, and secular humanists all work so very hard to eliminate: coercion of ideas via lawsuits and legislation.
There is no law addressing bumper sticks that could ever be passed, which would be effective enough to remove the prejudice against atheists that exist in our country. What you are doing is a frivolous lawsuit, and as Matt already stated, you are also feeding ammunition to one of the most lunatic of all evangelists, as well as any other evangelist or preacher or pastor who wants to further disassociate his flock from the atheist community and destroy what we have worked so very hard for. All the nuts like them need is more stories like this, where an atheist is doing something that is ACTUALLY WRONG, link to the story on their blog or website, and you have become part of the problem, and we have to reiterate that there isn't an atheist who represents us, how a lack of belief in a god or gods is the only thing that atheists need to share, etc. Your ridiculous attempt to claim that a bumper sticker, or any method of freedom of speech for that matter, has caused you harm, will only end in problems for the rest of us.
What you plan to do is detrimental to the free speech of our nation. The same reason that I can have a bumper sticker that says "Smile, God is make-believe", a Christian can have a bumper sticker that says "National Atheism Day: April 1". Bullying somebody because they hold an opinion (whether or not they personally believe that opinion to be true or not is irrelevant) IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. It doesn't matter if they believe it to be true, it doesn't matter if everybody in America felt that way except for you, they STILL have the right to have such views, the same way that you have views that all Christians feel the same way about subject X (I can't pretend to know what you believe).
You should be ashamed of yourself, especially trying to use your former service in the Air Force as some sort of sympathy card that you are the one "breaking free" of religion's hold. You have crossed the line from holding a competing point of view to others and expressing it, to restricting others from having a point of view and expressing it. While you are more than free to hold whatever views you want, you simply MUST understand the importance of freedom of speech does not simply apply to the minority.
Let me summarize: Your lawsuit, to sue Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron because of their bumper sticker calling National Atheism Day April 1st, is a horrible idea, and the only reason I would show up to the court to watch would be to watch the Constitution in action while the judge rules in favor of Comfort and Cameron.
Thank you for your time.
-XXXXX
Date: July 27
Good evening.
I am a frequent listener of The Atheist Experience, and let me introduce myself.
My name is XXXXX, I am a 21 year old active-duty Air Force member. I am stationed at Sheppard Air Force Base and have been active duty for nearly 3 years, and have identified myself as an atheist for 3 years. I have taken an addiction to the subject of religion and have even lost a long-time girlfriend due to my atheism. I take what could be considered pride in my aggression regarding my position; which has several risks and weaknesses which I accept.
Your proposal to sue Ray Comfort over a bumper sticker initially struck me as some sort of manifestation of a troll. There is no reasonable, rational mind that could pretend to understand what the Constitution is and what it stands for, while simultaneously being in favor of suing somebody for a bumper sticker which holds the opinions that atheists are fools. You have unscrupulously demonstrated ignorance of the very Constitution that you once swore to uphold. I am profoundly disappointed to know that such a rabid, bigoted atheist exists and once served in the Air Force. You are the spectral opposite to the very same behavior which atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, and secular humanists all work so very hard to eliminate: coercion of ideas via lawsuits and legislation.
There is no law addressing bumper sticks that could ever be passed, which would be effective enough to remove the prejudice against atheists that exist in our country. What you are doing is a frivolous lawsuit, and as Matt already stated, you are also feeding ammunition to one of the most lunatic of all evangelists, as well as any other evangelist or preacher or pastor who wants to further disassociate his flock from the atheist community and destroy what we have worked so very hard for. All the nuts like them need is more stories like this, where an atheist is doing something that is ACTUALLY WRONG, link to the story on their blog or website, and you have become part of the problem, and we have to reiterate that there isn't an atheist who represents us, how a lack of belief in a god or gods is the only thing that atheists need to share, etc. Your ridiculous attempt to claim that a bumper sticker, or any method of freedom of speech for that matter, has caused you harm, will only end in problems for the rest of us.
What you plan to do is detrimental to the free speech of our nation. The same reason that I can have a bumper sticker that says "Smile, God is make-believe", a Christian can have a bumper sticker that says "National Atheism Day: April 1". Bullying somebody because they hold an opinion (whether or not they personally believe that opinion to be true or not is irrelevant) IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. It doesn't matter if they believe it to be true, it doesn't matter if everybody in America felt that way except for you, they STILL have the right to have such views, the same way that you have views that all Christians feel the same way about subject X (I can't pretend to know what you believe).
You should be ashamed of yourself, especially trying to use your former service in the Air Force as some sort of sympathy card that you are the one "breaking free" of religion's hold. You have crossed the line from holding a competing point of view to others and expressing it, to restricting others from having a point of view and expressing it. While you are more than free to hold whatever views you want, you simply MUST understand the importance of freedom of speech does not simply apply to the minority.
Let me summarize: Your lawsuit, to sue Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron because of their bumper sticker calling National Atheism Day April 1st, is a horrible idea, and the only reason I would show up to the court to watch would be to watch the Constitution in action while the judge rules in favor of Comfort and Cameron.
Thank you for your time.
-XXXXX
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Response to: Proof of Evolution (aka The Dying Religion of Evolution)
Source of post: http://trustobey.blogspot.com/2008/02/proof-of-evolution.html
My responses will be in bold.
Proponents of the religion of evolution have inadvertently proved evolution with their transition to Scaredy Cats (felicae scaredicae). Although there is no discernable external difference between a true scientist and these pseudoscientific scaredy cats, the inward differences are enormous.
A scientist looks at evidence and forms a hypothesis, then produces a study to test the hypothesis. If a hypothesis cannot be proven, it is determined to be false..
Evolution is not a hypothesis, evolution regarding the diversity of life on earth is a scientific theory.
A scaredy cat forms a conclusion, then desperately searches for corroborating evidence and becomes violent when scientists explain that what they are doing makes them religious fanatics instead of scientists.
So, what evidence do you have to support the claim that you make throughout your blog that the Christian God created the universe?
It is unclear at this point if this is the ancestor of the common house cat, that the scaredy cat is the long-lost missing link between homo evolutionus and our feline friends. Further study is necessary to determine if evolutionists have genetic traits which may someday, in a million years or so, produce improved night vision, and whether or not evolutionists have a higher propensity for rodents or birds. Another area to be studied is whether or not evolutionists enjoy being scratched behind the ears.
Your pseudoscience has reached the peak of "ridiculous".
It is clear, at this point, that the scaredy cat is ill-equipped to survive in its scientific environment. Studies show that this new species would be more suited to worship their gods, Father Time and Random Chance, in the intellectual vacuums of liberal colleges.
The natural enemies of felicae scaredicae are the domesticated canine, the scientifically minded human being, and the Righteous Judge of the Universe.
Again, more absurdities that show brutal ignorance of the subject at hand.
Whether you choose to believe evolution or not, you have to agree that it is separated from science by a vast margin. You could not start from a blank slate and build a worldview with the "evidence" for evolution. You have to start with the presupposition, 'Evolution occurs' and then you can pretend evidence fits the model.
Evolution makes a series of predictions, which are then confirmed. I'd accuse Creationists of the same thing and I'd actually have evidence to support my claim.
When you go to the doctor, would you rather he said, "Welcome to my office, you have appendicitis, now let me examine you and find supporting facts for my guess." Or would you rather he examine you then make his diagnosis?
Just as a building proves a builder and a painting proves a painter, creation proves a Creator. Natural laws prove order, the conscience proves absolutes in morality. Conversion proves that a huge number of people have underwent a major lifechange in connection with the name of Jesus Christ.
Ah, the Watchmaker argument. I'll destroy that later on. Hopefully you have something more reasonable than just the Watchmaker argument.
In the lab, nothing has never produced something. Therefore, from evidence, there had to be a first cause, the big bang is simply a bad guess at a point in time when everything was small, the existence of everything goes unanswered.
The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution. Your ignorance (apparently based on the intellectual sewage that you soak up from Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort) is staggering.
In the lab, nonliving things have never created life. Therefore, from evidence, life could not begin without external input.
In the lab, we have created amino acids in the lab, which are the building blocks of life. And again, biogenesis/abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution.
In the lab, gas is consumed when it burns. In the sun, gas is consumed when it burns. 20 Million years ago, the sun would have reached earths present position.
Are you actually saying that the sun burns the same way a gas does? You DO realize that the sun is undergoing nuclear fusion, right? And let's pretend that your claim is in any way correct: if gas was consumed, wouldn't the sun shrink, rather than than expand? And what is your source for this information? A single claim made in 1980 regarding the rate of the shrinkage of the sun?
In the lab, salinity content increases as salt is introduced. Increasing salinity of the oceans, as measured from 1850 to today point to a relatively pure ocean in ~2500 BC.
Such projection does not include two important consideration: fluctuations in the production of salt, and the systems which remove salt from the ocean.
In the lab, fossils require near perfect conditions to form. These conditions include instant submersion of bones into water.
What is your source for this?
In the lab, order requires external input. Failure to add external input results in disorder.
So when crystals form ordered lattices, what have you say about that? And what about this wild, vague, ambiguous claim about "disorder"? If I roll a dice enough, I'll get a string of "1,2,3,4,5,6,5,4,3,2,1", with no external input.
In the lab, no animal has ever transitioned between archetypes (except for felicae scaredicae).
Evolution takes place over millions of years, whereas the theory is only 150 years old. When we can add external features to fruit flies, we can actively see evolution happening. "1+1+1+1...." will eventually get to 1,000.
In the lab, all dating methods break down after a maximum of 3,000 years.
LOL! I'm not sure why you posted something that demonstrates brutal ignorance of the subject. Radiometric dating methods all work on different clocks, some methods are effective over different periods of time with different degrees of accuracy. Some methods are effective out to 10,000 years, others less, and others much, much more.
In the lab, dating methods become inconclusive if specimens get wet.
No, really, what is your source for this claim?
In the lab, nothing has ever defeated death for an extended period of time.
What does this have to do with anything?
In the lab, fossils of 80% of known living species have been found in the Cambrian layer, yet 0-0.0000001% of transitional fossils have been found.
Every fossil is a transitional form, I don't see how you came to that conclusion, and again, what are your sources for any of this information?
In the lab, a disassembled Mercedes Benz remains a pile of parts for 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, 1 century, 1 millenium without external input despite all of the pieces being there.
Oh boy, the 747 from a Junkyard Tornado argument. First off, car parts are not living organisms, and do not reproduce. Over a very, very long period of time, natural processes increase complexity within organisms.
In the lab, children, ranging in ages from 2-10 from a myriad of backgrounds, universally agree that a toy car, a cat, a painting, and the sun all have a creator.
You are relying on the scientific understanding of children regarding cosmology and biology? That's some sort of reverse-appeal to a false authority claim I haven't seen before. When those two year olds have degrees in astrophysics, biology, and cosmology, we'll listen to them. But if you are comfortable with the scientific knowledge of a two year old, then you are either an imbecile or intellectually dishonest.
It defies evidence that evolution could occur, so I gently implore these scaredy cats to stop saying, "The evidence points to evolution."
How does it do any of this? I hope there haven't been anybody who is taking this blog seriously; you have an astonishingly poor grasp of the fields of science in which you are addressing.
Whether this is the truth or not, it is a scientific analysis, it is both repeatable and measurable. Look at your keyboard, it proves a keyboard maker, your mouse proves a mouse maker, look at your eye, it is the most complex camera ever made, containing 137 million light sensitive cells which focus faster than you can think, with a protective covering and built in windshield wipers, not only so, but it contains a built in monocular method for depth perception in one-eye models; it proves an eye maker.
The eye came about over billions of years of biological processes.
If the religion of evolution is true, why did nature decide to see light waves and yet I can't see 97.5kHz on the FM dial? How come I can't hear red? Why can't I feel B-sharp? Evolution missed out on a huge and useful energy spectrum.
Sounds to me like the Creator screwed that one up, why would He let his creation waste all of that energy? You might as well ask "If evolution is true, why don't I have four arms?". Seriously, I hate to use the same word over and over again, but you are truly ignorant.
On the other hand, God asks, "Can you send electricity so that when it arrives it says, "Here I am."" (Job 38:35) Our bodies are designed to receive various information just like a radio or a tv or an oscilloscope, it is the only viable answer to our strangely inadequate sensory perception.
Can you demonstrate this? At all?
Evolution claims you can build a worldview on a heap of hydrologically sorted and preserved bones and say that nothing became everything. So far the only evidence evolution has produced is the scaredy cat.
And you are claiming some basic knowledge of the areas of biology and astronomy, which you simply have no grasp of them at all. For being somebody who has such high ambitions to become a religious leader, I suggest you try and read up on good arguments for Creationism (which is an oxymoron). All you have done is spat out ridiculous claims with no source, no supporting evidence for them at all, and frankly, based on your grotesque display of ignorance regarding the relevant scientfic fields, have demonstrated that you are either clueless or dishonest. There is no possible way you believe what you do for those reasons; they are ridiculously weak.
I hope you also get a chance to respond to my YouTube video, perhaps I've enlightened you a bit regarding the subject. But please, for the sake of intellectual honest, don't post things that you are totally clueless about.
My responses will be in bold.
Proponents of the religion of evolution have inadvertently proved evolution with their transition to Scaredy Cats (felicae scaredicae). Although there is no discernable external difference between a true scientist and these pseudoscientific scaredy cats, the inward differences are enormous.
A scientist looks at evidence and forms a hypothesis, then produces a study to test the hypothesis. If a hypothesis cannot be proven, it is determined to be false..
Evolution is not a hypothesis, evolution regarding the diversity of life on earth is a scientific theory.
A scaredy cat forms a conclusion, then desperately searches for corroborating evidence and becomes violent when scientists explain that what they are doing makes them religious fanatics instead of scientists.
So, what evidence do you have to support the claim that you make throughout your blog that the Christian God created the universe?
It is unclear at this point if this is the ancestor of the common house cat, that the scaredy cat is the long-lost missing link between homo evolutionus and our feline friends. Further study is necessary to determine if evolutionists have genetic traits which may someday, in a million years or so, produce improved night vision, and whether or not evolutionists have a higher propensity for rodents or birds. Another area to be studied is whether or not evolutionists enjoy being scratched behind the ears.
Your pseudoscience has reached the peak of "ridiculous".
It is clear, at this point, that the scaredy cat is ill-equipped to survive in its scientific environment. Studies show that this new species would be more suited to worship their gods, Father Time and Random Chance, in the intellectual vacuums of liberal colleges.
The natural enemies of felicae scaredicae are the domesticated canine, the scientifically minded human being, and the Righteous Judge of the Universe.
Again, more absurdities that show brutal ignorance of the subject at hand.
Whether you choose to believe evolution or not, you have to agree that it is separated from science by a vast margin. You could not start from a blank slate and build a worldview with the "evidence" for evolution. You have to start with the presupposition, 'Evolution occurs' and then you can pretend evidence fits the model.
Evolution makes a series of predictions, which are then confirmed. I'd accuse Creationists of the same thing and I'd actually have evidence to support my claim.
When you go to the doctor, would you rather he said, "Welcome to my office, you have appendicitis, now let me examine you and find supporting facts for my guess." Or would you rather he examine you then make his diagnosis?
Just as a building proves a builder and a painting proves a painter, creation proves a Creator. Natural laws prove order, the conscience proves absolutes in morality. Conversion proves that a huge number of people have underwent a major lifechange in connection with the name of Jesus Christ.
Ah, the Watchmaker argument. I'll destroy that later on. Hopefully you have something more reasonable than just the Watchmaker argument.
In the lab, nothing has never produced something. Therefore, from evidence, there had to be a first cause, the big bang is simply a bad guess at a point in time when everything was small, the existence of everything goes unanswered.
The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution. Your ignorance (apparently based on the intellectual sewage that you soak up from Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort) is staggering.
In the lab, nonliving things have never created life. Therefore, from evidence, life could not begin without external input.
In the lab, we have created amino acids in the lab, which are the building blocks of life. And again, biogenesis/abiogenesis is completely unrelated to evolution.
In the lab, gas is consumed when it burns. In the sun, gas is consumed when it burns. 20 Million years ago, the sun would have reached earths present position.
Are you actually saying that the sun burns the same way a gas does? You DO realize that the sun is undergoing nuclear fusion, right? And let's pretend that your claim is in any way correct: if gas was consumed, wouldn't the sun shrink, rather than than expand? And what is your source for this information? A single claim made in 1980 regarding the rate of the shrinkage of the sun?
In the lab, salinity content increases as salt is introduced. Increasing salinity of the oceans, as measured from 1850 to today point to a relatively pure ocean in ~2500 BC.
Such projection does not include two important consideration: fluctuations in the production of salt, and the systems which remove salt from the ocean.
In the lab, fossils require near perfect conditions to form. These conditions include instant submersion of bones into water.
What is your source for this?
In the lab, order requires external input. Failure to add external input results in disorder.
So when crystals form ordered lattices, what have you say about that? And what about this wild, vague, ambiguous claim about "disorder"? If I roll a dice enough, I'll get a string of "1,2,3,4,5,6,5,4,3,2,1", with no external input.
In the lab, no animal has ever transitioned between archetypes (except for felicae scaredicae).
Evolution takes place over millions of years, whereas the theory is only 150 years old. When we can add external features to fruit flies, we can actively see evolution happening. "1+1+1+1...." will eventually get to 1,000.
In the lab, all dating methods break down after a maximum of 3,000 years.
LOL! I'm not sure why you posted something that demonstrates brutal ignorance of the subject. Radiometric dating methods all work on different clocks, some methods are effective over different periods of time with different degrees of accuracy. Some methods are effective out to 10,000 years, others less, and others much, much more.
In the lab, dating methods become inconclusive if specimens get wet.
No, really, what is your source for this claim?
In the lab, nothing has ever defeated death for an extended period of time.
What does this have to do with anything?
In the lab, fossils of 80% of known living species have been found in the Cambrian layer, yet 0-0.0000001% of transitional fossils have been found.
Every fossil is a transitional form, I don't see how you came to that conclusion, and again, what are your sources for any of this information?
In the lab, a disassembled Mercedes Benz remains a pile of parts for 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, 1 century, 1 millenium without external input despite all of the pieces being there.
Oh boy, the 747 from a Junkyard Tornado argument. First off, car parts are not living organisms, and do not reproduce. Over a very, very long period of time, natural processes increase complexity within organisms.
In the lab, children, ranging in ages from 2-10 from a myriad of backgrounds, universally agree that a toy car, a cat, a painting, and the sun all have a creator.
You are relying on the scientific understanding of children regarding cosmology and biology? That's some sort of reverse-appeal to a false authority claim I haven't seen before. When those two year olds have degrees in astrophysics, biology, and cosmology, we'll listen to them. But if you are comfortable with the scientific knowledge of a two year old, then you are either an imbecile or intellectually dishonest.
It defies evidence that evolution could occur, so I gently implore these scaredy cats to stop saying, "The evidence points to evolution."
How does it do any of this? I hope there haven't been anybody who is taking this blog seriously; you have an astonishingly poor grasp of the fields of science in which you are addressing.
Whether this is the truth or not, it is a scientific analysis, it is both repeatable and measurable. Look at your keyboard, it proves a keyboard maker, your mouse proves a mouse maker, look at your eye, it is the most complex camera ever made, containing 137 million light sensitive cells which focus faster than you can think, with a protective covering and built in windshield wipers, not only so, but it contains a built in monocular method for depth perception in one-eye models; it proves an eye maker.
The eye came about over billions of years of biological processes.
If the religion of evolution is true, why did nature decide to see light waves and yet I can't see 97.5kHz on the FM dial? How come I can't hear red? Why can't I feel B-sharp? Evolution missed out on a huge and useful energy spectrum.
Sounds to me like the Creator screwed that one up, why would He let his creation waste all of that energy? You might as well ask "If evolution is true, why don't I have four arms?". Seriously, I hate to use the same word over and over again, but you are truly ignorant.
On the other hand, God asks, "Can you send electricity so that when it arrives it says, "Here I am."" (Job 38:35) Our bodies are designed to receive various information just like a radio or a tv or an oscilloscope, it is the only viable answer to our strangely inadequate sensory perception.
Can you demonstrate this? At all?
Evolution claims you can build a worldview on a heap of hydrologically sorted and preserved bones and say that nothing became everything. So far the only evidence evolution has produced is the scaredy cat.
And you are claiming some basic knowledge of the areas of biology and astronomy, which you simply have no grasp of them at all. For being somebody who has such high ambitions to become a religious leader, I suggest you try and read up on good arguments for Creationism (which is an oxymoron). All you have done is spat out ridiculous claims with no source, no supporting evidence for them at all, and frankly, based on your grotesque display of ignorance regarding the relevant scientfic fields, have demonstrated that you are either clueless or dishonest. There is no possible way you believe what you do for those reasons; they are ridiculously weak.
I hope you also get a chance to respond to my YouTube video, perhaps I've enlightened you a bit regarding the subject. But please, for the sake of intellectual honest, don't post things that you are totally clueless about.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Response to Sam Ronicker
Sam's posts are in red, mine are in black.
"you know what I learned a long time ago my friend? The first person in an argument to use foul language or personal insult has lost the argument. So that being said you have already lost your own argument by being crass and proven that you have nothing to back up your argument. The real answer to the problem is that BOTH are THEORIES about the way the universe came about and BOTH should be given equally viable treatment in academic circles."
Profanity, while something you avoid in formal debates, does not itself constitute a fallacy. If your observation is correct, it becomes an instance of correlation, not causation.
As for your claims about "BOTH are THEORIES" and "BOTH should be given equally viable treatment...", you couldn't be any more ignorant of what science is and how it works.
In science, the term "theory" does not mean the same thing as the layman's theory. A layman's theory is a hypothesis. A theory in science has explanatory power, predictive powers, is falsifiable, concurs with evidence, etc. This is the case for evolution: it has explanatory power, it predicts things we'll discover to be true later on, it can be falsified, and concurs with an overwhelming majority of evidence. For creationism, this is NOT the case. It has NO explanatory power, nor predictive power, is totally nonfalsifiable, and does not have evidence to support the claims it makes.
What you are doing is committing the fallacy of equivocation.
"there is no testable provable evidence for evolutionary theory either so why are either taught as fact? I take it on faith that the Bible is true and it states that God created the earth in 6 days I am not saying that the Bible is a science text book or that it is even scientifically written but I have faith that it is true. As for proving that it isn't true and that there is no God and there is no design you are welcome to try but the basis for my belief in the Bible is faith then out of my faith through observation I see that there is a design."
This is a pretty wild claim, that there is no "testable provable [sic] evidence" for the theory of evolution.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ has a list of evidences for the theory of evolution's accuracy. DNA evidence is particularly gripping, consider what geneticist Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Research Project (also an evangelical Christian) stated: "Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."
And your defense of the Bible is that you have faith that it is true? I have faith that Cat in the Hat is true, what do you have to say about that?
And as for your challenge to prove there is no god, and that there is no design, you have dipped into ridiculous. You do not push the burden of proof on the opposing party to disprove your claim; you need to support it with evidence. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative claim.
As for your claims of design, it is totally nonfalsifiable. Can you give me an example of how such a claim could be falsifiable, that there is a design? If you cannot, then it most certainly is NOT science in the least.
"Examples
If the earth were even so much as one more degree tilted one direction or another life would cease on the planet.
If the earth was just a few miles closer or farther from the sun life would cease to exist.
Same with the moon if it were just a little closer or farther life would cease on the earth.
There are several planets in our solar system and even more in the universe but not one of them is like the other or even related to each other for example some spin on their side and some don't spin. Some spin fast some slow. Whole Galaxies have absolutely no rhyme or reason behind their placement. The reason this is evidence for design is: if you take a large explosive (or small) and put it inside some piece of matter and detonate it (like the so called "Big Bang") the pieces of matter are throw apart in a logical and predictable pattern but that logical and explainable pattern is not found anywhere in the universe."
1. Axial tilt would result in changes of the seasons. Life wouldn't "cease on the planet".
2. A few miles, you mean at least 30 million miles in either direction, right?
3. The tides would be effected, because the gravity of earth is much more than the moon's, but certainly wouldn't destroy all life on earth.
4. ALL planets spin in the solar system. ALL of them. Each and every single one of them. I have no idea who taught you this, but they are an idiot.
5. Your understanding of the Big Bang is an ignorant straw man, at best. The Big Bang is NOT what you described at all. There was no "explosion", especially in the sense that you are describing.
"More...
If matter can be neither created nor destroyed where did all the matter in the universe come from? I have heard some argue something like it was in a big ball of plasma in the center of the universe and it collapsed upon itself or exploded in some way to spark energy and light suns. Well, what caused the explosion? Where did the matter come from that made up this ball of plasma?
more to follow"
Well, we don't know for sure where it "came from", or even if it "came from" anything. Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation allows for matter and anti-matter pairs to simply exist from seemingly nothing, while still maintaining a net energy of the universe of 0.
As for how it was argued that some ball of the universe...etc, I suggest you look at the wikipedia entry for the Big Bang's Timeline, as it does a fantastic job of describing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang for the link.
"as a response to your statement that evolution is a verifiable fact I want you to point to clear current proof of some way in which some clear life from has become a different life form, i.e. a fish that transforms into some kind of rat.
1. The point that you can prove is adaptation not evolution.
2. Anything that states that there is no creation is by default stating that there is another method which caused the beginnings of life.
3. God states that he created the animals and people on the earth which pretty much excludes evolution.
4. I would never claim that we should teach our children not to question everything and strive for mental and scientific progress that is lunacy. Anyone that does teach that is close-minded."
P1: I've given a good variety of evidence for it above. Also, fish turning into a rat, would completely turn evolution upside down. Fish to not turn into rats. Rats do not turn into elephants. You are presenting a straw man which is based on ignorance of the subject at hand.
1. Yes, yes we can, with DNA evidence and the fossil record.
2. There was a point where life first came up on earth, but it certainly had nothing to do with a supernatural being. Completely natural explanations > supernatural explanations.
3. Horray for God. Who cares.
4. You are right. However, Creationism is NOT science. Not at all.
"you know what I learned a long time ago my friend? The first person in an argument to use foul language or personal insult has lost the argument. So that being said you have already lost your own argument by being crass and proven that you have nothing to back up your argument. The real answer to the problem is that BOTH are THEORIES about the way the universe came about and BOTH should be given equally viable treatment in academic circles."
Profanity, while something you avoid in formal debates, does not itself constitute a fallacy. If your observation is correct, it becomes an instance of correlation, not causation.
As for your claims about "BOTH are THEORIES" and "BOTH should be given equally viable treatment...", you couldn't be any more ignorant of what science is and how it works.
In science, the term "theory" does not mean the same thing as the layman's theory. A layman's theory is a hypothesis. A theory in science has explanatory power, predictive powers, is falsifiable, concurs with evidence, etc. This is the case for evolution: it has explanatory power, it predicts things we'll discover to be true later on, it can be falsified, and concurs with an overwhelming majority of evidence. For creationism, this is NOT the case. It has NO explanatory power, nor predictive power, is totally nonfalsifiable, and does not have evidence to support the claims it makes.
What you are doing is committing the fallacy of equivocation.
"there is no testable provable evidence for evolutionary theory either so why are either taught as fact? I take it on faith that the Bible is true and it states that God created the earth in 6 days I am not saying that the Bible is a science text book or that it is even scientifically written but I have faith that it is true. As for proving that it isn't true and that there is no God and there is no design you are welcome to try but the basis for my belief in the Bible is faith then out of my faith through observation I see that there is a design."
This is a pretty wild claim, that there is no "testable provable [sic] evidence" for the theory of evolution.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ has a list of evidences for the theory of evolution's accuracy. DNA evidence is particularly gripping, consider what geneticist Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Research Project (also an evangelical Christian) stated: "Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."
And your defense of the Bible is that you have faith that it is true? I have faith that Cat in the Hat is true, what do you have to say about that?
And as for your challenge to prove there is no god, and that there is no design, you have dipped into ridiculous. You do not push the burden of proof on the opposing party to disprove your claim; you need to support it with evidence. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative claim.
As for your claims of design, it is totally nonfalsifiable. Can you give me an example of how such a claim could be falsifiable, that there is a design? If you cannot, then it most certainly is NOT science in the least.
"Examples
If the earth were even so much as one more degree tilted one direction or another life would cease on the planet.
If the earth was just a few miles closer or farther from the sun life would cease to exist.
Same with the moon if it were just a little closer or farther life would cease on the earth.
There are several planets in our solar system and even more in the universe but not one of them is like the other or even related to each other for example some spin on their side and some don't spin. Some spin fast some slow. Whole Galaxies have absolutely no rhyme or reason behind their placement. The reason this is evidence for design is: if you take a large explosive (or small) and put it inside some piece of matter and detonate it (like the so called "Big Bang") the pieces of matter are throw apart in a logical and predictable pattern but that logical and explainable pattern is not found anywhere in the universe."
1. Axial tilt would result in changes of the seasons. Life wouldn't "cease on the planet".
2. A few miles, you mean at least 30 million miles in either direction, right?
3. The tides would be effected, because the gravity of earth is much more than the moon's, but certainly wouldn't destroy all life on earth.
4. ALL planets spin in the solar system. ALL of them. Each and every single one of them. I have no idea who taught you this, but they are an idiot.
5. Your understanding of the Big Bang is an ignorant straw man, at best. The Big Bang is NOT what you described at all. There was no "explosion", especially in the sense that you are describing.
"More...
If matter can be neither created nor destroyed where did all the matter in the universe come from? I have heard some argue something like it was in a big ball of plasma in the center of the universe and it collapsed upon itself or exploded in some way to spark energy and light suns. Well, what caused the explosion? Where did the matter come from that made up this ball of plasma?
more to follow"
Well, we don't know for sure where it "came from", or even if it "came from" anything. Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation allows for matter and anti-matter pairs to simply exist from seemingly nothing, while still maintaining a net energy of the universe of 0.
As for how it was argued that some ball of the universe...etc, I suggest you look at the wikipedia entry for the Big Bang's Timeline, as it does a fantastic job of describing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang for the link.
"as a response to your statement that evolution is a verifiable fact I want you to point to clear current proof of some way in which some clear life from has become a different life form, i.e. a fish that transforms into some kind of rat.
1. The point that you can prove is adaptation not evolution.
2. Anything that states that there is no creation is by default stating that there is another method which caused the beginnings of life.
3. God states that he created the animals and people on the earth which pretty much excludes evolution.
4. I would never claim that we should teach our children not to question everything and strive for mental and scientific progress that is lunacy. Anyone that does teach that is close-minded."
P1: I've given a good variety of evidence for it above. Also, fish turning into a rat, would completely turn evolution upside down. Fish to not turn into rats. Rats do not turn into elephants. You are presenting a straw man which is based on ignorance of the subject at hand.
1. Yes, yes we can, with DNA evidence and the fossil record.
2. There was a point where life first came up on earth, but it certainly had nothing to do with a supernatural being. Completely natural explanations > supernatural explanations.
3. Horray for God. Who cares.
4. You are right. However, Creationism is NOT science. Not at all.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Some Forum Somewhere
ORIGINAL POST, START OF THE THREAD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody said: " 3. Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education?
It's amazing to me how evolution continues to be taught in schools as the "only" explanation of where we came from. Most kids don't even understand that a theory is not proven - especially that one! That's why there are adults today that will argue you down that evolution is factual. It is the law of primacy - whatever you learn first, sticks with you as the truth unless it is overwhelmingly proven incorrect. In this case - some people obviously have not researched it out to find it is not proven.
I have one hypothetical question to anyone that believes in evolution:
If the human race evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? Why didn't they evolve into humans?
I mean come on people - think about it!
I believe teaching evolution encourages children to believe that the bible isn't true. "
Evolution is the best current scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Your initial premise is incorrect. Creationism is NOT science. Say again: IS NOT SCIENCE. Its a totally nonfalsifiable claim which requires gaps in current explanations, and shrinks as the gaps go away. Evolution could be so wildly wrong, so far off the mark, and that alone would offer NOTHING to the support of creationists claims. You say that most kids don't understand a theory isn't proven.. so what do you have against the theories of gravity, germ theory, even the periodic table of the elements is based on theory? Evolution is a FACT, it happens, if you want to see things adapt and change, you needn't look further than flu vaccinations. Even Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian and the head of the Human Genome Project, states that:
"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." (www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html)
I also noticed that you took Duane Gish's approach to "debating" the topic: Simply throw as many obstacles and claims against evolution as possible, without offering any supporting evidence for your claims. If you want to actually learn about evolution, its evidence, and what it addresses, feel free to head to Talk Origins (talkorigins.org) and you are free to read what an overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees upon.
As for your hypothetical question: If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? The answer is simple: Not all animals go in the same direction when they evolve. Apes and humans share a common ancestor, one went one way, one went the other way. Its akin to saying "If we can trace our family history back to Europe, why are there still Europeans?"
Lastly, stating that teaching evolution is a step into teaching children that the Bible isn't true, I'm probably much happier not seeing the logic behind drawing that conclusion. Its simply non sequitur. As a matter of fact, our friend Francis Collins believes in a theistic evolution, which in no way conflicts with his faith. Unless, of course, you want to believe that the universe is 6-10 thousand years old, and God created all of the light from distant galaxies en route to earth and humans and dinosaurs shared the planet at the same time, until a global flood killed them all. In that case, science isn't your friend; faith would be the only thing on your side.
Stahlsmith said: 3. Creation vs. Evolution - how do I believe this has affected education? One word: Confusing.
It has clearly and undoubtedly expressed the purest image of confusion while promoting skepticism. It led me down a path toward strange philosophies about life, and took away any sense of "true purpose" or "absolutes." Personally, I accepted it as simply scientific and therefore proven. It affected me by changing my perspective and altering my mind's condition much like a drug; I couldn't be certain about anything; nothing was for sure, and that was essentially what I gained from the education. Evolution has done nothing at all in the progress of science. Evolution appears to be the biggest mistake, and it damaged my life before I had faith. Evolution is useless; creation teaches purpose, and very well promotes courage in life.
For starters, you seem to be committing the logical fallacy of "Argument from Ignorance". "Its hard and complex to think about, therefore, its not true". I'm not sure what led you to associate evolution with philosophies and life, rest assured, evolution is not a philosophy, nor is it a standard for morals or how to live your life or what your purpose in life is or any of that. It addresses a single subject: the diversity of life on earth. I'm also considerably certain that if you treat it "like a drug", you are obviously taking it a step too far. Really, you are making your own assertions about evolution, making it up as you go along. I'm completely astonished at your claims here: you couldn't be sure of anything, nothing was for sure, I suggest something else was happening in your head for this to happen. You might as well attribute the same things to writing with a blue pen compared to writing with a black pen.
Now, for your claim that evolution has done nothing at a all in the progress of science, I'm actually appalled at that claim. Are you familiar at all with biology? Perhaps with the aforementioned Human Genome Research Project?
The fact that you blame evolution for your damaged life before you stumbled across faith leads me to think that you are either not being honest in this forum, or are a bit "out of the box", so to speak.
Evolution is not useless, as shown above, however, it is NOT something that is supposed to teach purpose. Its not supposed to offer anything besides the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Bloom said: 3) Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education? -- It has. Christian schools always teach children the beliefs of the Bible. There have been archeological finds that have proven that the Bible is actually more fact than fiction. Whereas evolution is simply a theory that continues to be disproven. Why teach your children fiction and lies when the truth is right in front of them?
What archeological finds would that be, that prove that the Bible is more fact than fiction? Please give a few examples. Also, your argument about "simply a theory" was addressed above. Also, can you offer a few examples that disprove evolution? Lastly, what possible evidence do you have that your truth is, in fact, true? What series of rational, reasonable, logical arguments compel you to arrive at that conclusion?
Wann said: 3. Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education?
Well... not sure if you will like this answer but I think your question is different than what you meant... I might be wrong. Is your question strictly about the effects of education on the whole C VS E debate or are you looking for which of the two I believe in? I will just throw in my two cents on both. I do not believe EVERY single word in the bible is purely factual, scientific and so on. I do believe the story of the creation with in the Bible is purely poetry. Beautiful poetry at that but still a nice little poem. Moses didn't witness the creation. But I believe God allows everything to happen and is the ultimate scientist, I think he uses evolution (there are a lot of facts that prove evolution and there are a lot that prove creation) .
-How does it effect education? People should know both sides period! Our society is full of evolutionists and our faith points to creation in order to live in a civil society we need to understand each other.
I agree with you, that the creation story is purely poetry. However, I will disagree with your claim that there are lots of facts to support evolution that also support creationism. Now, I STRONGLY disagree with your position that people should know both sides. There isn't a conspiracy, there isn't a debate, creationism is NOT SCIENCE, it does NOTHING except answer a mystery with a mystery. Our society (America) actually has more Young-Earth Creationists than supporters of evolution. (www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Your last statement has me asking a few questions: What credibility does your faith have? How does it point to a creation? And how does supernatural creation come in to having a civil society where we understand each other?
Parmelee said: 3 Of course i believe in creations because it is hard to believe that we are here by accident, Evolution says that we exist do to the right weather conditions to support life, if you ask me there are to many variables to back that up. think about it according to that if there was a freak snow storm or tornado it would of stop or altered the evolutionary process.
First of all, I don't understand how you can claim to apply critical thinking to a totally naturalistic cause, to show it is incorrect, but not apply it when you conclude that a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being created everything. Evolution does NOT say that we exist due to the right weather conditions to support life, evolution does not address that at all. Your own personal incredulity does not constitute a rational argument against it. Lastly, your claim about the snow storm or tornado further sheds light on your ignorance (not used in a derogatory form) of the subject. You should also read up on talk.origins (link in the paragraphs above) to better understand the topic before making a brash decision that shows a blatant disregard for critical thought.
Gutierrez said: 3. I believe in a combination, a divine spark created the intial process and it all evolved from there. (There is a doctrine in the catholic church now, that accepts "Divine Evolution"
You get credit for at least accepting that evolution occurs. You and Francis Collins share a view on this. While I feel that Occam's Razor applied to the situation would render God useless, your position is seemingly the most rational in here.
Fedele said: 3. I believe in creation of course because that is what the Bible says. I think it causes alot of controversy in schools and they should just get rid of that teaching and leave it up to the students to decide or have their parents talk to them about it.
How do you know the Bible is right? I don't see how your claim that because it "causes controversy in schools" carries any merit at all. There is just as much controversy, if not more, that we didn't land on the moon and that the Holocaust was a lie. Do you suggest that we not teach them as well? How do you suggest that the students decide on which is a more realistic, rational approach: A totally natural process, or a all knowing, all powerful, all loving supernatural man in the sky made everything? Judging by the responses to question number 3 in here, I'm not sure if any of the responders are familiar with evolution enough to grasp it currently, let alone effectively teach it to their children. If a church wants to tell its congregation about creationism, let them do it.
Quincy said: 3. I believe in Creation because that's what the bible teaches. It only affects education how you let it. I can learn about evolution just like anyone else and pass a test but my beliefs will stay the same.
Same as above, how do you know the Bible is right? However, I do respect that you can (ipsedixitism aside) learn about evolution and pass the test. I disagree with whatever thought process somehow preferred creationism to evolution, but at least you state that you learned something.
Moody: Wow - you obviously have some strong convictions about evolution. I respect your right to have your opinion. I do want to point out some things for the sake of truth though.
1. Gravity is not a theory, it has been proven, hence, the "law of gravity." Evolution has not been proven, hence, the "theory of evolution."
Gravity IS a theory, laid down by Einstein's theory of relativity in most consensus. Granted, the phenomenon of gravitation does exist, however, the best explanation for how it does is still a theory.
2. Americans coming from Europeans - this is a result of migration and not evolution so it doesn't support the case for evolution.
Perhaps you missed the point of the analogy. There are still Europeans, and we came from Europeans, but we just branched off in a different direction. Chimps and humans went in different directions biologically, Europeans and Americans went in different directions geographically.
3. Adaptation and the theory of evolution are not the same . Adaptation is proven in many environments, but not any that change the DNA make-up of a human. Please study this out for the truth before standing on it as a fact.
How can you state this, when viruses change over time in order to become more immune to treatments to kill them? I'd ask you to actually read my entire post to responses, instead of simply asserting your own position is correct.
4. One Christian presenting a personal opinion that is contrary to the bible does not really help your arguement. It reveals a person with two beliefs that oppose each other. If you were hoping to use this person's comments to prove that "even Christians believe in evolution" I'm afraid it isn't enough. You'll find the majority of Christians actually believe that God created man in His image and that does not support the theory of evolution.
In this case, it is an extraordinarily prominent scientist. A scientist who didn't let his faith get in the way of the studies of science. In this case, it is obvious, according to the research he has done, that common descent is a fact. So, he is a Christian, and a very knowledgeable, very prominent figure in the scientific field. So, his vision, so to speak, was not blurred by such wild mythology that the universe was made 6-10,000 years ago.
5. The question was "Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education?" Most people that posted stuck to the topic. It is not a matter of which one is right, it is the impact of how it has been taught in schools. I'm all for science. In fact most scientist are finding that their work supports the bible more than opposes it. I just prefer that if the theory of evolution is taught, it should be presented as the "theory of evolution" and not as "evolution; how you were created."
According to an overwhelming (read: approaching 100%) of scientists in relevant fields of science agree that evolution and common descent are, by far, the most likely explanation for the diversity of life on earth. And evolution is taught the same way the Electronic Circuit Theory is taught as a theory. Overwhelming amounts of information all concur with common descent, same as Electronic Circuit Theory, or Germ Theory, or any other theory that is widely accepted with scientists. And, for the record, Creationism is a pathetically non-scientific, absolutely laughable alternative to evolution, which has little, if any, concurrence with actual evidence.
You would have presented a great opportunity for debate had this forum been specifically about evolution.
Judging by the responses I've seen here, there wouldn't be much to discuss. It is obvious that most of the people here haven't actually bothered to learn about the science behind evolution or any of the arguments against such a claim.
However, it is not. It is about Christianity.
4 of the other questions addressed Christianity. I wasn't interested in those. If you would have rather preferred, I could have simply made a new thread, but I decided to add it into this thread.
You stated that you do not believe the bible is factual so it makes me wonder why you entered the forum.
To be honest, I came in here looking to see what other Airmen thought about Christianity, and when I read question 3, it interested me enough to address practically every post in here. I posted here because I think I've only seen such grossly ignorant posts regarding evolution on pages linked on FSTDT.
I believe you are searching for the truth so I'm glad you came to read about it.
Why does every Christian think I am looking for your "truth" when I come into a forum and address a topic that isn't Christianity, but is the topic of evolution and creationism? I'm curious about what you believe and why, I'd prefer you to not preach at me as I am not emotionally vulnerable, nor am I looking to waste my life pursing such beliefs.
I pray the truth continues to stir on the inside of you and provoke you to search for more.
The more I look for actual answers, the more I find such a belief in creationism to be totally absurd, along with a belief in God (but I'm straying from my topic here).
I believe you really want a better explanation as to why humans are here and where we came from so you are provoking the Christian Community to give an explanation of why we believe what we do.
No, I'm very happy with an explanation that is concurrent with the overwhelming amount of scientific data, not believing in what some desert-wandering nomads decided the origins of the universe would be. I did not come in with the means of provoking, I came in with the means to educate, as it is blatantly obvious that most / all of the quoted posters are considerably ignorant on the topic.
You said - "Faith is the only thing you have on your side." It is. I have faith in God and believe His word. It is enough for me. It's not that I have faith for no reason.
So "logic" and "reason" are allies not worth having? If "faith" is enough for you, what makes your "faith" any different from the faiths of countless other people with different beliefs? Having a Muslim extremist, who are you to say his faith is any less right than yours?
By studying the word and having a relationship with God, faith comes easily because the truth is revealed. Everything is expained in His word and when we study it, we receive great wisdom and understanding in all things.
And we come upon the paradox of "faith" being "true", because if it is, in fact, true, then you wouldn't need faith to believe it. Unless, of course, you need faith to see that it is the truth, and its the truth because you have faith, which is a circular argument.
There's just something about the truth that can't be denied and can't be imitated.
Bats are not birds. Rabbits do not chew cud, nor have cloven hooves. There was no global flood. The earth is not flat, nor does it have corners, nor is it stationary. Prayers do not move mountains, even with a person with ten times the faith of a mustard seed cannot tell a mountain to jump into the water. The earth could not have been in existence before the sun. Plants could exist before the sun.
Unless you deny the parts of the Bible like Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Psalms, etc, which state those sorts of things.
Behling said:
3. The Bible presents the most believable/credible account of how the universe got here.
Not to really attack anyone's faith, but "magic man in the sky made the world" is somehow believable and credible? I mean, how could you POSSIBLY know that the Biblical account is correct? What evidence do you have?
Evolution requires MORE "faith" than the Bible account. Evolution is NOT scientific AT ALL. For a very clear prospective, please read the book, "From Eternity To Eternity" by Albert Sippert---who is NOT affiliated with any denomination/church body.
Care to offer evidence, or are you just parroting out a book you heard of? And if a book written by somebody who obviously doesn't carry a doctorate in any sort of relevant field is your strongest case, we've got Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Research Project and an Evangelical Christian, and according to him, human DNA points to common descent, there is no doubt about it.
As for the book's arguments, I am familiar with it a little bit. One of the major arguments against evolution is that all of the science disagrees with the Biblical Flood. Come on, now.
This is an in-depth look at the histories of both evolution and the Bible accounts. Evolution is the official "government" version accepted by most of society--in many institutions of higher education, the FORCED version.
While your conspiracy theory takes a dip into the absurd, I'll have to note that an overwhelming amount, approaching 99%, of all scientists in relevant fields, agree with evolution.
There are too many items in the natural world that support the Bible and DO NOT support evolution.
Oh goody! You have evidence that supports the Biblical claim. Let's hear it.
IF man derived from apes, then why are there no more men or "transitional models" being born to apes?
Evolution is fairly young in terms of when we became aware of it, but takes incredible amounts of time. And you have presented a common misunderstanding about evolution. Man and ape share a common ancestor. We aren't "derived from apes".
Evolution would have to be a continuing process and we don't see this happening.
It is a continuing process, we see organisms changing and adapting constantly. Look at the flu virus, for example.
Humans have just as much reason to believe(as Amerind legends state)man "developed" from a Grizzly bear by supernatural operations.
Wait, what?
Check the human hand and the skeleton paw of the bear.
Better yet, check the human hand and that of the chimpanzee. You'll notice a lot more similarities. ;)
Gravity is a LAW, provable & testable & repeatable; evolution is a (often- flawed)THEORY that is wrongly mandated in school texts. Read the book.
Wait, which ones are we talking about, Newtonian, or General/Special Relativity?
Evolution is demonstrable, testable, repeatable, and provable. Evolution happens, it is a fact. The theory of evolution is the one I imagine you are bringing up, which explains the diversity of life on earth.
And another common misconception: committing the fallacy of equivocation, using the word "theory" in the common, layman's sense, but applying it to the scientific definition. I suggest you read up on the scientific method to learn what a theory in science is.
And I'm still waiting for that evidence for creationism, all you have done is try and attack evolution (with no success at all), claiming that there are many things in the world that support the Bible, not evolution, but you apparently forgot to include them in your post.
EDIT: 5. I agree with Angie's statement here, but would add: If I'm wrong about my religion/faith then I have lost everything because all will share the same eternal destruction. BUT, if I'm right I gain everything, including eternal salvation & perfect happiness, which no man-made "religion" can offer.
Are you presenting Pascal's Wager?
Quincy said: Someone asked "How do you know the Bible is right?" I don't believe in trying to convince to someone that there is a God and that he is real and that the bible is real. I have found that it is a complete and total waste of time. People who refuse to believe have hardened their hearts and minds to God and basically, that is just that. I believe and they don't. I guess all we can do is wait until the end and we will all know without a shadow of a doubt.
So, why do you think that the Bible is true? And why do you think that my heart is hardened to think the way I do? If you give me evidence and a compelling argument to support the claim that a god exists, the Bible is right, and that the Christian god exists, I would believe you. Otherwise, if you are saying that you can't support your claim with well-reasoned arguments and evidence, I believe you fail the command at 1 Peter 3:15.
EDIT: You say it is a total waste of your time... what, is everybody else's soul not worth it? What do you think Jesus would say after hearing that you take him for granted like that?
Behling said: "Max:
The book I referenced is a compilation of opinons by prominent scientists on both sides of the
issue. There are quotes from Jean Lamark, Hugo De Vries and Niles Eldridge, and Bufon, to name a few on the evolution side. There are also quotes from St. George Mivart(1890); Dr. Theo Graebner(1932); Kepler; Newton; Faraday; Galileo; Brewster; Linnaeus; Pasteur; Kelvin; Prof. Rudolph Virchow; Louis Agassiz; Dr. Wm. Bateson(Prof. of Biology, Cambridge); Botanist Dr. Wm. Carruthers; Charles W. Eliot(former Pres. of Harvard U.); Dr. Ethridge (British Museum); Zoology Prof. Fleishman; Dr. A. Cressy Morrison(former Pres., N.Y. Academy of Sciences); Chicago physicist Dr. Robert Millikan; astronomer & Nobel Prize winner Sir Fred Hoyle, and others, all of whom disagree with you.
Is there any particular reason that all but maybe three of the names you've listed are from people who lived 150 years ago, who are obviously ignorant of the scientific discoveries we've made in the last 50, 100, and 150 years, regarding evolution? How evolution has changed so drastically that it is likely Darwin himself wouldn't recognize it?
Perhaps I should begin dropping the names of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of scientists in the relevant fields who all agree that evolution is the best scientific explanation of the diversity of life?
You asked for "evidence" of creation. Please review the work of Dr. Robert Gentry relative to "Pleochroic (multi-colored)halos in 218Po (Polonium)found in granite rock. After years of work, he concluded they indicate earth did not cool/solidify from some hot gaseous mass over millions of years, but was formed in a time span as short as 3 minutes.
Really now? PROTIP: If you are a physicist, try not to pass yourself off as a geologist. Also: seems like a professional geologist beat me to it.
NASA had designed lunar landers to cope with several feet of "moon dust"--supposedly acquired over billions of years of meteoric impact, etc. Imagine their surprise to find only a few inches present, indicating a young universe.
Since you seem to love AiG so very much, you should be aware of their "bad argument" FAQ. I'm astonished that you obviously spend a lot of time there, but managed to totally pass over this part of their website. [link to the AiG "Arguments you shouldn't use" page]
“Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.”
For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one, either). See Moon-dust argument no longer useful and Moon dust and the age of the solar system (Technical).
I believe you would be interested in treatises more closely related to your "field" by Dr. Georgia Purdom, "Junk DNA-past, present, & future, Part 2" Oct. 17, 2007 and "Human Evolution-Faster Than a Speeding Bullet" Jan. 30, 2008. These are viewable via : http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org for your convenience."
The first article, what do we have?
Assumption that Evolution is there to eliminate God? check.
Use of the totally ambiguous word "kinds" to act as a way to categorize creatures? check.
Ignorance as shown through the long-refuted "things don't gain information" claim? check.
Giant conspiracy theory involving evolution and how it is tainting science? check.
Drawing new conclusions that build strawmen out of the article and run with it? check.
Yep, a totally reasonable, brilliantly constructed article that has plenty of evidence and the author has constructed studies (in contrast to simply writing an article in response to actual studies), this article IS NOT.
As for the second article, frankly, it looks like a considerably ignorant response to another article (which, in contrast to the AiG article, has evidence to support it that isn't as circular as, say, the Bible). The author of your article references "Was Charles Darwin a Racist?", a totally irrelevant topic to the validity of evolution.
Hill said: "3. Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education?
I believe that our public educaiton system is lacking in this area. It is only being taught evoluation as the only reason why we are here. It is a shame. But if we keep ourselves in Sunday School we will know the truth."
...evolution doesn't claim to be the "reason why we are here", you make that up yourself. And what on earth could Sunday School possibly offer to any explanation, to include evidence, that any sort of Creationism is accurate in the slightest? Evolution is the best current scientific explanation for the diversity of life. That is all it does. It explains why there are mammals and birds and fish and reptiles and all of the other forms of life on earth. If it doesn't mesh with mythology, so be it.
Bell said: Max, how about YOU convincing me that there is NO GOD????
Well, my job isn't to convince you that there is no God. I'm a firm believer in the first amendment, so you can believe whatever you want to believe. However, I would much rather believe something that I can argue with evidence and without committing logical fallacies, whether formal or informal. However, if you are actually wondering about my argument against the existence of the Christian God, I'd be happy to present it to you.
McGowan said: Guys and girls, it doesn't do any good to argue with a non-believer. The best evidence of Christianity is that it changes peoples lives, not to mention that it has been around for over 2,000 years now. No other faith is based on the simple fact of God's love and forgiveness. All of the others are based on being good enough to earn some kind of heavenly reward. For a non-believer to believe, they have to be drawn by the Holy Spirit. All are drawn, then they either accept or recect the message that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died in our place for our sins and that He rose again the third day.
The best evidence of Christianity is that it changes lives, and has been around for a long time? What do you have to say of Buddhism or Taoism, or any of the other religious beliefs that have been around for such as long? As for the fact of God's love and forgiveness, can you demonstrate that it is, indeed, a fact? Frankly, any God that would punish ANYBODY forever, for a finite crime, is an tyrannical monster, and apostasy is the thing that'll get you there the fastest. For a non-believer to believe, all they would need is a good reason to believe. I don't know about your particular beliefs, however, I try not to take such things solely on faith, particularly far-fetched stories that a ghost got a woman pregnant, who was both the son of God and God Himself which also includes the ghost, that the 1 is the 3 and the 3 is 1, but the 1 is not 3 and the 3 are not 1, who turned water into wine and walked on water and did all kinds of miracles (none of which have any evidence to support them), and came back to life (again, something that has no evidence to support it).
The world is getting worse and worse, just as Christ told His disciples it would. The focus now is on the Middle East, just as the prophets said. Science has reigned supreme for about a century, and during that century we have slid down hill. Right now the entire world situation is uncertain and all of the PHDs in the world can't do anything about it.
The world is getting worse and worst? I wholly disagree. We have the capabilities to cure diseases, incredibly widespread knowledge distribution made possible by the internet, we've developed food sources that can feed a billion people, we've had incredible progression in philosophy, biology, astronomy, geology, chemistry, and physics.
They can't find a cure for cancer, they can't stop earthquakes or hurricanes and they can't even decide for sure if there is such a thing as global warming and what it might mean if there is.
God doesn't grow back limbs, God doesn't grow food for the hungry, God doesn't immunize people against polio, and God doesn't tell people when a storm is coming. But scientists do. [link to the man regrowing a finger tip, the Wikipedia entry for Norman Borlaug, Wikipedia entry for polio, weather forecasting website]
Much of science is just as much faith as Christianity, based on theories that become "fact" only because they are widely accepted by peers.
...What, how could you POSSIBLY relate the two? Much of science is just as much faith as Christianity? Frankly, I don't have the time to offer a remedial course in the subject, but frankly, you are either not being honest, or you are woefully ignorant.
The only thing that is certain is death. Everything else has to be based on faith in something, no matter what it is. I choose Christ.
Well, I hope you choose right, because you'd be in for a really bad day if the Jews turned out to be right, or the Norse, or the ancient Greeks, or none of them but rather a totally unknown religion were to be true.
Bell said: Yes, I would LOVE to hear your argument. You strike me as a "troll", someone who has come to this section to stir up trouble, if you do not believe in God fine, so be it. But those of us who DO believe in God have just as much right to our opinions as you do. Here is my stance, I am 44 years old, probably twice as old as you are. I probably served and was Discharged from the AF before you were ever born. As someone who actually defended the Constitution I whole heartedly support your choice to believe whatever you want, because of people like me you have this right. I know of some good men and women, brother AP/SP/SF who died to give you this right. This is NOT an attack against those of you who were not Combatants, I am just staring a fact.
I'm not a troll at all. The ONLY part in this thread that I addressed was regarding evolution, something I've clearly read more about than practically everyone here. And I already stated that it wasn't my job to change your mind, that you can believe whatever you want, so how could I possibly even claim that I would want to restrict your rights to hold your opinion? Frankly, if it wasn't for me coming into this thread, it would have died out months ago, and a little open discussion ever hurt anybody, has it? As for your complete red herring about how you were in the Air Force and defending the right of people to not believe in God, you also defended the right of the people TO believe in God. I suggest you make your facts a bit more accurate. As for your 5 years in service, congrats, I bet you did a lot. However, totally irrelevant to this discussion at hand, particularly, evolution.
Because of my age and what I have been through in my time on this Earth I very seriously doubt there is one single sentence you can present to convince me that there is no such thing as God. But, as you stated, it is your right so go ahead and try. I will respect whatever you write and will read it with an open mind.
There isn't just one sentence, however, a bit more than that, as I'll restate from my earlier post (as I'm sure you didn't bother to read, you were busy chasing me around in the forums), is the Problem of Evil as first presented by Epicurious.
"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"
To extend on that: Where was God during Hurricane Katrina? Where was God during the earthquake in China? Where was God during the Holocaust? Where was God during Darfur? Where was God when millions of children died from starvation? Where was God when cancer kills people, or other horrible diseases do the same? Where was God when children born with such horrible birth defects can only hope to live to the next day, or are limited with a brain that can barely work well enough to tell them to breathe every once in a while? Nowhere.
That is why an all-powerful, all-loving God CANNOT exist.
As far as evolution, I own 6 adult Eastern Box Turtles and every single one looks different from the others. So I guess that came about as a result of evolution?????? As far as your statements about people with PhD's how does having a college degree make one any smarter?
I never said that having a PhD makes you "smarter", the closest thing to that would be the appeal to the appropriate authority. If I have four or five dozen biologists, physicists, geologists, etc, I am going to take their word over that of any random individual who doest not carry a PhD or other relevant degree in that field.
For example, you have somebody like me who doesn't follow football at all, would you take what I saw about it, when I was passing it off as true, to be at all accurate? Not at all, which is why you have people like John Madden as such a popular announcer and authority on the game.
As for your turtles: Yes, this is an incredible example of evolution.
Bell said: Yep, I checked out replies you made to see what you were posting, and like this thread you are stirring up trouble. What made you turn against Christians so badly? And again, I want you to prove to me that there is no God. Can you do that? Go ahead, prove myself and everyone else who believes in God that we are wrong. The ball in in your court, don't hide and say it isn't your place, go ahead and do what you can to prove to me that there isn't a God. Put your money where you mouth is.
Please read my response. Don't worry, the fact that I use a lot of words shouldn't be scary to you. Actually read what I posted.
While I cannot prove that no god or gods exist (proving a negative is impossible, outside of tautologies), I can (and did) make an argument against the Christian God, and how his traits and reality form a paradox.
EDIT: And can you give me evidence to support the claim that a God does, in fact, exist? The burden of proof DOES remain with the person making the affirmative claim. But I'm sure that these rules of logic are fairly new to you, and you'll no doubt butcher them and turn this into a chess game where you are the pigeon, crapping all over the board, knocking the pieces off the table, and flying away claiming victory.
This thread was actually full of good discussion before you came into it. Either offer something useful or leave. You don't have the inherent right to stalk me throughout the boards, regardless of what 5 years of service 20 years ago might make you think.
[PRIVATE MESSAGE] On Jun 16, 2008, Bell wrote:
So are you going to prove to me that there is no God or just keep up your little spiteful attacks???
For the FOURTH time over the course of a few days:
I cannot disprove the existence of any gods, such a thing is impossible, because you cannot prove a negative outside of tautologies. Such a thing is impossible. You cannot prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars.
Also, the burden of proof would initially fall onto YOU, because you are making the affirmative claim that there is a God. Once you can provide evidence and a well-reasoned argument that is fallacy free, to support your claim of the existence of a god or gods, you satisfy the burden of proof. But I'd love to see what you have to support the existence of a god, and which logical fallacies you commit.
However, the Christian God cannot exist because of the Problem of Evil. The argument goes like this:
God is all powerful.
God is all loving.
Evil exists.
Now, according to the description of God, he carries these traits above, being all powerful and all loving. However, evil does, in fact, exist. By evil, of course, I mean from your rudimentary evil such as somebody raping and killing a little girl, to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the recent earthquake in China, to things like birth defects, cancer, horribly damaging bacteria, etc.
So, either God CAN eliminate suffering, but he doesn't want to, or, God CANNOT eliminate suffering, but wants to.
If God wants to eliminate evil, but cannot, he is weak.
If God wants to eliminate evil, but choses not to, he is wicked.
So, the existence of evil is the strongest case against the existence of the Christian God, because, among other things, it does not correlate at all in reality.
This is the same exact thing I have stated THREE TIMES on that page of the entire thread. The fact that you continued to ask me what the argument was, shows a bit of ignorance on your side, or laziness to not read the thread.
Bell said: Max, why can not not accept my challenge? I could give a hoot about the big words you use, must be some form of over compensation??? Why do you turn the tables and tell me to prove to you there is no God? And you can tell me I have no right to be on this board, are you Staff?
I did accept your "challenge", three times in the thread so far. And I presented it to you via PM and on here AGAIN for you to read. The fact that you even care about the length of my words is indication that you are awfully new to this sort of discussion. I pick them carefully and intentionally. And I'm not "turning the tables", I'm asking you to justify your position that a God exists. The burden of proof, before I went for the bait and presented my argument for the Christian God, falls on you, and it still does. You need to substantiate your claim with evidence.
As for the "no right", you don't have the right to stalk me around the boards, that is some sort of harassment.
But if you are so anxious to hear what I have to say, I suppose I could treat you like a screaming fan.
[PRIVATE MESSAGE] Bell said: I am not going to bother you anymore little boy, it's obvious that your mind is made up. I remember what it was like to be young like you, all knowing. So you can continue trolling the site and taking pot shots at Christians.
As far as my evil that you like to speak of, I assure you I saw more of it in my first 22 years on Earth then you ever will. So so not speak to me of death, evil, etc, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Anyhow, have fun trolling the site, how come you atheists do not go around like Christians and try to convert Christians over to "your side"?????
Please notice how he didn't address my argument at all, but keeps falling back on his 5 years of service 20 years ago as evidence for his rebuttal, which pretty much says "I've seen a lot of death, therefore you don't know what you are talking about, therefore your argument is invalid. Oh, and you think you know everything, I'll call you 'little boy' to belittle you, and maintain that you are a troll."
Please, learn from this guy's mistakes. Learn about the arguments before you go ahead and stirring garbage up. He obviously doesn't represent any significant portion of Christians, as he has shown he is brutally and maliciously ignorant of the subject at hand.
But please, I hope many more of you notice how he doesn't even bother to refute my argument, and just says "Your mind made up" instead of offering a counter-argument (which could *gasp* change my mind if it was a good argument!).
Please, don't be like this guy. I know that a good chunk of Christians are smart, educated, articulate people. Just avoid the mistakes this guy has made and you can be a great contributer to some really good discussions.
EDIT: And I'm sure you can understand my frustration. I gave a pretty long, detailed post, and the only way he responds is "Well, your mind is already made up" and does wildly immature things like call me "little boy" and get on some high horse because of his 5 years 20 years ago.
Oh, and Bell, if you'd like to discuss the subject like an adult, you are more than welcome to come back and talk about it. I'm always up for some good discussion.
EDIT 2: Also a thing of note: He asked me to prove that there is no God. I responded with an argument against the Christian God. How does he get from "Okay, now convince me of X" to "Well, your mind is already made up for X", without even preceding it with an argument to the contrary?
Where is the Christian community?My response remains in black text. The poster's test will alternate colors, so you can follow along with the discussion a little easier. Keep in mind, I'm transferring a whole thread, and the forum is a bear to get to, so this is the best I can do. The names of the posters have been slightly altered, and I have retained my pseudonym here. My apologies for the spacing errors, but going through and changing the colors is much easier than going to "preview", noting all of the spacing errors that developed in cut/paste, and fixing them.
Of the thousands of members in this network, surely there must be some.
Leave a post; leave a legacy:
1. Why are you a Christian?
2. What do you think about the world's condition today?
3. Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education?
4. What "personal evidence" do you keep for your faith?
5. Why Christianity?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody said: " 3. Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education?
It's amazing to me how evolution continues to be taught in schools as the "only" explanation of where we came from. Most kids don't even understand that a theory is not proven - especially that one! That's why there are adults today that will argue you down that evolution is factual. It is the law of primacy - whatever you learn first, sticks with you as the truth unless it is overwhelmingly proven incorrect. In this case - some people obviously have not researched it out to find it is not proven.
I have one hypothetical question to anyone that believes in evolution:
If the human race evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? Why didn't they evolve into humans?
I mean come on people - think about it!
I believe teaching evolution encourages children to believe that the bible isn't true. "
Evolution is the best current scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Your initial premise is incorrect. Creationism is NOT science. Say again: IS NOT SCIENCE. Its a totally nonfalsifiable claim which requires gaps in current explanations, and shrinks as the gaps go away. Evolution could be so wildly wrong, so far off the mark, and that alone would offer NOTHING to the support of creationists claims. You say that most kids don't understand a theory isn't proven.. so what do you have against the theories of gravity, germ theory, even the periodic table of the elements is based on theory? Evolution is a FACT, it happens, if you want to see things adapt and change, you needn't look further than flu vaccinations. Even Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian and the head of the Human Genome Project, states that:
"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." (www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html)
I also noticed that you took Duane Gish's approach to "debating" the topic: Simply throw as many obstacles and claims against evolution as possible, without offering any supporting evidence for your claims. If you want to actually learn about evolution, its evidence, and what it addresses, feel free to head to Talk Origins (talkorigins.org) and you are free to read what an overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees upon.
As for your hypothetical question: If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? The answer is simple: Not all animals go in the same direction when they evolve. Apes and humans share a common ancestor, one went one way, one went the other way. Its akin to saying "If we can trace our family history back to Europe, why are there still Europeans?"
Lastly, stating that teaching evolution is a step into teaching children that the Bible isn't true, I'm probably much happier not seeing the logic behind drawing that conclusion. Its simply non sequitur. As a matter of fact, our friend Francis Collins believes in a theistic evolution, which in no way conflicts with his faith. Unless, of course, you want to believe that the universe is 6-10 thousand years old, and God created all of the light from distant galaxies en route to earth and humans and dinosaurs shared the planet at the same time, until a global flood killed them all. In that case, science isn't your friend; faith would be the only thing on your side.
Stahlsmith said: 3. Creation vs. Evolution - how do I believe this has affected education? One word: Confusing.
It has clearly and undoubtedly expressed the purest image of confusion while promoting skepticism. It led me down a path toward strange philosophies about life, and took away any sense of "true purpose" or "absolutes." Personally, I accepted it as simply scientific and therefore proven. It affected me by changing my perspective and altering my mind's condition much like a drug; I couldn't be certain about anything; nothing was for sure, and that was essentially what I gained from the education. Evolution has done nothing at all in the progress of science. Evolution appears to be the biggest mistake, and it damaged my life before I had faith. Evolution is useless; creation teaches purpose, and very well promotes courage in life.
For starters, you seem to be committing the logical fallacy of "Argument from Ignorance". "Its hard and complex to think about, therefore, its not true". I'm not sure what led you to associate evolution with philosophies and life, rest assured, evolution is not a philosophy, nor is it a standard for morals or how to live your life or what your purpose in life is or any of that. It addresses a single subject: the diversity of life on earth. I'm also considerably certain that if you treat it "like a drug", you are obviously taking it a step too far. Really, you are making your own assertions about evolution, making it up as you go along. I'm completely astonished at your claims here: you couldn't be sure of anything, nothing was for sure, I suggest something else was happening in your head for this to happen. You might as well attribute the same things to writing with a blue pen compared to writing with a black pen.
Now, for your claim that evolution has done nothing at a all in the progress of science, I'm actually appalled at that claim. Are you familiar at all with biology? Perhaps with the aforementioned Human Genome Research Project?
The fact that you blame evolution for your damaged life before you stumbled across faith leads me to think that you are either not being honest in this forum, or are a bit "out of the box", so to speak.
Evolution is not useless, as shown above, however, it is NOT something that is supposed to teach purpose. Its not supposed to offer anything besides the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Bloom said: 3) Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education? -- It has. Christian schools always teach children the beliefs of the Bible. There have been archeological finds that have proven that the Bible is actually more fact than fiction. Whereas evolution is simply a theory that continues to be disproven. Why teach your children fiction and lies when the truth is right in front of them?
What archeological finds would that be, that prove that the Bible is more fact than fiction? Please give a few examples. Also, your argument about "simply a theory" was addressed above. Also, can you offer a few examples that disprove evolution? Lastly, what possible evidence do you have that your truth is, in fact, true? What series of rational, reasonable, logical arguments compel you to arrive at that conclusion?
Wann said: 3. Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education?
Well... not sure if you will like this answer but I think your question is different than what you meant... I might be wrong. Is your question strictly about the effects of education on the whole C VS E debate or are you looking for which of the two I believe in? I will just throw in my two cents on both. I do not believe EVERY single word in the bible is purely factual, scientific and so on. I do believe the story of the creation with in the Bible is purely poetry. Beautiful poetry at that but still a nice little poem. Moses didn't witness the creation. But I believe God allows everything to happen and is the ultimate scientist, I think he uses evolution (there are a lot of facts that prove evolution and there are a lot that prove creation) .
-How does it effect education? People should know both sides period! Our society is full of evolutionists and our faith points to creation in order to live in a civil society we need to understand each other.
I agree with you, that the creation story is purely poetry. However, I will disagree with your claim that there are lots of facts to support evolution that also support creationism. Now, I STRONGLY disagree with your position that people should know both sides. There isn't a conspiracy, there isn't a debate, creationism is NOT SCIENCE, it does NOTHING except answer a mystery with a mystery. Our society (America) actually has more Young-Earth Creationists than supporters of evolution. (www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Your last statement has me asking a few questions: What credibility does your faith have? How does it point to a creation? And how does supernatural creation come in to having a civil society where we understand each other?
Parmelee said: 3 Of course i believe in creations because it is hard to believe that we are here by accident, Evolution says that we exist do to the right weather conditions to support life, if you ask me there are to many variables to back that up. think about it according to that if there was a freak snow storm or tornado it would of stop or altered the evolutionary process.
First of all, I don't understand how you can claim to apply critical thinking to a totally naturalistic cause, to show it is incorrect, but not apply it when you conclude that a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being created everything. Evolution does NOT say that we exist due to the right weather conditions to support life, evolution does not address that at all. Your own personal incredulity does not constitute a rational argument against it. Lastly, your claim about the snow storm or tornado further sheds light on your ignorance (not used in a derogatory form) of the subject. You should also read up on talk.origins (link in the paragraphs above) to better understand the topic before making a brash decision that shows a blatant disregard for critical thought.
Gutierrez said: 3. I believe in a combination, a divine spark created the intial process and it all evolved from there. (There is a doctrine in the catholic church now, that accepts "Divine Evolution"
You get credit for at least accepting that evolution occurs. You and Francis Collins share a view on this. While I feel that Occam's Razor applied to the situation would render God useless, your position is seemingly the most rational in here.
Fedele said: 3. I believe in creation of course because that is what the Bible says. I think it causes alot of controversy in schools and they should just get rid of that teaching and leave it up to the students to decide or have their parents talk to them about it.
How do you know the Bible is right? I don't see how your claim that because it "causes controversy in schools" carries any merit at all. There is just as much controversy, if not more, that we didn't land on the moon and that the Holocaust was a lie. Do you suggest that we not teach them as well? How do you suggest that the students decide on which is a more realistic, rational approach: A totally natural process, or a all knowing, all powerful, all loving supernatural man in the sky made everything? Judging by the responses to question number 3 in here, I'm not sure if any of the responders are familiar with evolution enough to grasp it currently, let alone effectively teach it to their children. If a church wants to tell its congregation about creationism, let them do it.
Quincy said: 3. I believe in Creation because that's what the bible teaches. It only affects education how you let it. I can learn about evolution just like anyone else and pass a test but my beliefs will stay the same.
Same as above, how do you know the Bible is right? However, I do respect that you can (ipsedixitism aside) learn about evolution and pass the test. I disagree with whatever thought process somehow preferred creationism to evolution, but at least you state that you learned something.
Moody: Wow - you obviously have some strong convictions about evolution. I respect your right to have your opinion. I do want to point out some things for the sake of truth though.
1. Gravity is not a theory, it has been proven, hence, the "law of gravity." Evolution has not been proven, hence, the "theory of evolution."
Gravity IS a theory, laid down by Einstein's theory of relativity in most consensus. Granted, the phenomenon of gravitation does exist, however, the best explanation for how it does is still a theory.
2. Americans coming from Europeans - this is a result of migration and not evolution so it doesn't support the case for evolution.
Perhaps you missed the point of the analogy. There are still Europeans, and we came from Europeans, but we just branched off in a different direction. Chimps and humans went in different directions biologically, Europeans and Americans went in different directions geographically.
3. Adaptation and the theory of evolution are not the same . Adaptation is proven in many environments, but not any that change the DNA make-up of a human. Please study this out for the truth before standing on it as a fact.
How can you state this, when viruses change over time in order to become more immune to treatments to kill them? I'd ask you to actually read my entire post to responses, instead of simply asserting your own position is correct.
4. One Christian presenting a personal opinion that is contrary to the bible does not really help your arguement. It reveals a person with two beliefs that oppose each other. If you were hoping to use this person's comments to prove that "even Christians believe in evolution" I'm afraid it isn't enough. You'll find the majority of Christians actually believe that God created man in His image and that does not support the theory of evolution.
In this case, it is an extraordinarily prominent scientist. A scientist who didn't let his faith get in the way of the studies of science. In this case, it is obvious, according to the research he has done, that common descent is a fact. So, he is a Christian, and a very knowledgeable, very prominent figure in the scientific field. So, his vision, so to speak, was not blurred by such wild mythology that the universe was made 6-10,000 years ago.
5. The question was "Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education?" Most people that posted stuck to the topic. It is not a matter of which one is right, it is the impact of how it has been taught in schools. I'm all for science. In fact most scientist are finding that their work supports the bible more than opposes it. I just prefer that if the theory of evolution is taught, it should be presented as the "theory of evolution" and not as "evolution; how you were created."
According to an overwhelming (read: approaching 100%) of scientists in relevant fields of science agree that evolution and common descent are, by far, the most likely explanation for the diversity of life on earth. And evolution is taught the same way the Electronic Circuit Theory is taught as a theory. Overwhelming amounts of information all concur with common descent, same as Electronic Circuit Theory, or Germ Theory, or any other theory that is widely accepted with scientists. And, for the record, Creationism is a pathetically non-scientific, absolutely laughable alternative to evolution, which has little, if any, concurrence with actual evidence.
You would have presented a great opportunity for debate had this forum been specifically about evolution.
Judging by the responses I've seen here, there wouldn't be much to discuss. It is obvious that most of the people here haven't actually bothered to learn about the science behind evolution or any of the arguments against such a claim.
However, it is not. It is about Christianity.
4 of the other questions addressed Christianity. I wasn't interested in those. If you would have rather preferred, I could have simply made a new thread, but I decided to add it into this thread.
You stated that you do not believe the bible is factual so it makes me wonder why you entered the forum.
To be honest, I came in here looking to see what other Airmen thought about Christianity, and when I read question 3, it interested me enough to address practically every post in here. I posted here because I think I've only seen such grossly ignorant posts regarding evolution on pages linked on FSTDT.
I believe you are searching for the truth so I'm glad you came to read about it.
Why does every Christian think I am looking for your "truth" when I come into a forum and address a topic that isn't Christianity, but is the topic of evolution and creationism? I'm curious about what you believe and why, I'd prefer you to not preach at me as I am not emotionally vulnerable, nor am I looking to waste my life pursing such beliefs.
I pray the truth continues to stir on the inside of you and provoke you to search for more.
The more I look for actual answers, the more I find such a belief in creationism to be totally absurd, along with a belief in God (but I'm straying from my topic here).
I believe you really want a better explanation as to why humans are here and where we came from so you are provoking the Christian Community to give an explanation of why we believe what we do.
No, I'm very happy with an explanation that is concurrent with the overwhelming amount of scientific data, not believing in what some desert-wandering nomads decided the origins of the universe would be. I did not come in with the means of provoking, I came in with the means to educate, as it is blatantly obvious that most / all of the quoted posters are considerably ignorant on the topic.
You said - "Faith is the only thing you have on your side." It is. I have faith in God and believe His word. It is enough for me. It's not that I have faith for no reason.
So "logic" and "reason" are allies not worth having? If "faith" is enough for you, what makes your "faith" any different from the faiths of countless other people with different beliefs? Having a Muslim extremist, who are you to say his faith is any less right than yours?
By studying the word and having a relationship with God, faith comes easily because the truth is revealed. Everything is expained in His word and when we study it, we receive great wisdom and understanding in all things.
And we come upon the paradox of "faith" being "true", because if it is, in fact, true, then you wouldn't need faith to believe it. Unless, of course, you need faith to see that it is the truth, and its the truth because you have faith, which is a circular argument.
There's just something about the truth that can't be denied and can't be imitated.
Bats are not birds. Rabbits do not chew cud, nor have cloven hooves. There was no global flood. The earth is not flat, nor does it have corners, nor is it stationary. Prayers do not move mountains, even with a person with ten times the faith of a mustard seed cannot tell a mountain to jump into the water. The earth could not have been in existence before the sun. Plants could exist before the sun.
Unless you deny the parts of the Bible like Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Psalms, etc, which state those sorts of things.
Behling said:
3. The Bible presents the most believable/credible account of how the universe got here.
Not to really attack anyone's faith, but "magic man in the sky made the world" is somehow believable and credible? I mean, how could you POSSIBLY know that the Biblical account is correct? What evidence do you have?
Evolution requires MORE "faith" than the Bible account. Evolution is NOT scientific AT ALL. For a very clear prospective, please read the book, "From Eternity To Eternity" by Albert Sippert---who is NOT affiliated with any denomination/church body.
Care to offer evidence, or are you just parroting out a book you heard of? And if a book written by somebody who obviously doesn't carry a doctorate in any sort of relevant field is your strongest case, we've got Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Research Project and an Evangelical Christian, and according to him, human DNA points to common descent, there is no doubt about it.
As for the book's arguments, I am familiar with it a little bit. One of the major arguments against evolution is that all of the science disagrees with the Biblical Flood. Come on, now.
This is an in-depth look at the histories of both evolution and the Bible accounts. Evolution is the official "government" version accepted by most of society--in many institutions of higher education, the FORCED version.
While your conspiracy theory takes a dip into the absurd, I'll have to note that an overwhelming amount, approaching 99%, of all scientists in relevant fields, agree with evolution.
There are too many items in the natural world that support the Bible and DO NOT support evolution.
Oh goody! You have evidence that supports the Biblical claim. Let's hear it.
IF man derived from apes, then why are there no more men or "transitional models" being born to apes?
Evolution is fairly young in terms of when we became aware of it, but takes incredible amounts of time. And you have presented a common misunderstanding about evolution. Man and ape share a common ancestor. We aren't "derived from apes".
Evolution would have to be a continuing process and we don't see this happening.
It is a continuing process, we see organisms changing and adapting constantly. Look at the flu virus, for example.
Humans have just as much reason to believe(as Amerind legends state)man "developed" from a Grizzly bear by supernatural operations.
Wait, what?
Check the human hand and the skeleton paw of the bear.
Better yet, check the human hand and that of the chimpanzee. You'll notice a lot more similarities. ;)
Gravity is a LAW, provable & testable & repeatable; evolution is a (often- flawed)THEORY that is wrongly mandated in school texts. Read the book.
Wait, which ones are we talking about, Newtonian, or General/Special Relativity?
Evolution is demonstrable, testable, repeatable, and provable. Evolution happens, it is a fact. The theory of evolution is the one I imagine you are bringing up, which explains the diversity of life on earth.
And another common misconception: committing the fallacy of equivocation, using the word "theory" in the common, layman's sense, but applying it to the scientific definition. I suggest you read up on the scientific method to learn what a theory in science is.
And I'm still waiting for that evidence for creationism, all you have done is try and attack evolution (with no success at all), claiming that there are many things in the world that support the Bible, not evolution, but you apparently forgot to include them in your post.
EDIT: 5. I agree with Angie's statement here, but would add: If I'm wrong about my religion/faith then I have lost everything because all will share the same eternal destruction. BUT, if I'm right I gain everything, including eternal salvation & perfect happiness, which no man-made "religion" can offer.
Are you presenting Pascal's Wager?
Quincy said: Someone asked "How do you know the Bible is right?" I don't believe in trying to convince to someone that there is a God and that he is real and that the bible is real. I have found that it is a complete and total waste of time. People who refuse to believe have hardened their hearts and minds to God and basically, that is just that. I believe and they don't. I guess all we can do is wait until the end and we will all know without a shadow of a doubt.
So, why do you think that the Bible is true? And why do you think that my heart is hardened to think the way I do? If you give me evidence and a compelling argument to support the claim that a god exists, the Bible is right, and that the Christian god exists, I would believe you. Otherwise, if you are saying that you can't support your claim with well-reasoned arguments and evidence, I believe you fail the command at 1 Peter 3:15.
EDIT: You say it is a total waste of your time... what, is everybody else's soul not worth it? What do you think Jesus would say after hearing that you take him for granted like that?
Behling said: "Max:
The book I referenced is a compilation of opinons by prominent scientists on both sides of the
issue. There are quotes from Jean Lamark, Hugo De Vries and Niles Eldridge, and Bufon, to name a few on the evolution side. There are also quotes from St. George Mivart(1890); Dr. Theo Graebner(1932); Kepler; Newton; Faraday; Galileo; Brewster; Linnaeus; Pasteur; Kelvin; Prof. Rudolph Virchow; Louis Agassiz; Dr. Wm. Bateson(Prof. of Biology, Cambridge); Botanist Dr. Wm. Carruthers; Charles W. Eliot(former Pres. of Harvard U.); Dr. Ethridge (British Museum); Zoology Prof. Fleishman; Dr. A. Cressy Morrison(former Pres., N.Y. Academy of Sciences); Chicago physicist Dr. Robert Millikan; astronomer & Nobel Prize winner Sir Fred Hoyle, and others, all of whom disagree with you.
Is there any particular reason that all but maybe three of the names you've listed are from people who lived 150 years ago, who are obviously ignorant of the scientific discoveries we've made in the last 50, 100, and 150 years, regarding evolution? How evolution has changed so drastically that it is likely Darwin himself wouldn't recognize it?
Perhaps I should begin dropping the names of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of scientists in the relevant fields who all agree that evolution is the best scientific explanation of the diversity of life?
You asked for "evidence" of creation. Please review the work of Dr. Robert Gentry relative to "Pleochroic (multi-colored)halos in 218Po (Polonium)found in granite rock. After years of work, he concluded they indicate earth did not cool/solidify from some hot gaseous mass over millions of years, but was formed in a time span as short as 3 minutes.
Really now? PROTIP: If you are a physicist, try not to pass yourself off as a geologist. Also: seems like a professional geologist beat me to it.
NASA had designed lunar landers to cope with several feet of "moon dust"--supposedly acquired over billions of years of meteoric impact, etc. Imagine their surprise to find only a few inches present, indicating a young universe.
Since you seem to love AiG so very much, you should be aware of their "bad argument" FAQ. I'm astonished that you obviously spend a lot of time there, but managed to totally pass over this part of their website. [link to the AiG "Arguments you shouldn't use" page]
“Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.”
For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one, either). See Moon-dust argument no longer useful and Moon dust and the age of the solar system (Technical).
I believe you would be interested in treatises more closely related to your "field" by Dr. Georgia Purdom, "Junk DNA-past, present, & future, Part 2" Oct. 17, 2007 and "Human Evolution-Faster Than a Speeding Bullet" Jan. 30, 2008. These are viewable via : http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org for your convenience."
The first article, what do we have?
Assumption that Evolution is there to eliminate God? check.
Use of the totally ambiguous word "kinds" to act as a way to categorize creatures? check.
Ignorance as shown through the long-refuted "things don't gain information" claim? check.
Giant conspiracy theory involving evolution and how it is tainting science? check.
Drawing new conclusions that build strawmen out of the article and run with it? check.
Yep, a totally reasonable, brilliantly constructed article that has plenty of evidence and the author has constructed studies (in contrast to simply writing an article in response to actual studies), this article IS NOT.
As for the second article, frankly, it looks like a considerably ignorant response to another article (which, in contrast to the AiG article, has evidence to support it that isn't as circular as, say, the Bible). The author of your article references "Was Charles Darwin a Racist?", a totally irrelevant topic to the validity of evolution.
Hill said: "3. Creation vs. Evolution - how do you believe this has affected education?
I believe that our public educaiton system is lacking in this area. It is only being taught evoluation as the only reason why we are here. It is a shame. But if we keep ourselves in Sunday School we will know the truth."
...evolution doesn't claim to be the "reason why we are here", you make that up yourself. And what on earth could Sunday School possibly offer to any explanation, to include evidence, that any sort of Creationism is accurate in the slightest? Evolution is the best current scientific explanation for the diversity of life. That is all it does. It explains why there are mammals and birds and fish and reptiles and all of the other forms of life on earth. If it doesn't mesh with mythology, so be it.
Bell said: Max, how about YOU convincing me that there is NO GOD????
Well, my job isn't to convince you that there is no God. I'm a firm believer in the first amendment, so you can believe whatever you want to believe. However, I would much rather believe something that I can argue with evidence and without committing logical fallacies, whether formal or informal. However, if you are actually wondering about my argument against the existence of the Christian God, I'd be happy to present it to you.
McGowan said: Guys and girls, it doesn't do any good to argue with a non-believer. The best evidence of Christianity is that it changes peoples lives, not to mention that it has been around for over 2,000 years now. No other faith is based on the simple fact of God's love and forgiveness. All of the others are based on being good enough to earn some kind of heavenly reward. For a non-believer to believe, they have to be drawn by the Holy Spirit. All are drawn, then they either accept or recect the message that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died in our place for our sins and that He rose again the third day.
The best evidence of Christianity is that it changes lives, and has been around for a long time? What do you have to say of Buddhism or Taoism, or any of the other religious beliefs that have been around for such as long? As for the fact of God's love and forgiveness, can you demonstrate that it is, indeed, a fact? Frankly, any God that would punish ANYBODY forever, for a finite crime, is an tyrannical monster, and apostasy is the thing that'll get you there the fastest. For a non-believer to believe, all they would need is a good reason to believe. I don't know about your particular beliefs, however, I try not to take such things solely on faith, particularly far-fetched stories that a ghost got a woman pregnant, who was both the son of God and God Himself which also includes the ghost, that the 1 is the 3 and the 3 is 1, but the 1 is not 3 and the 3 are not 1, who turned water into wine and walked on water and did all kinds of miracles (none of which have any evidence to support them), and came back to life (again, something that has no evidence to support it).
The world is getting worse and worse, just as Christ told His disciples it would. The focus now is on the Middle East, just as the prophets said. Science has reigned supreme for about a century, and during that century we have slid down hill. Right now the entire world situation is uncertain and all of the PHDs in the world can't do anything about it.
The world is getting worse and worst? I wholly disagree. We have the capabilities to cure diseases, incredibly widespread knowledge distribution made possible by the internet, we've developed food sources that can feed a billion people, we've had incredible progression in philosophy, biology, astronomy, geology, chemistry, and physics.
They can't find a cure for cancer, they can't stop earthquakes or hurricanes and they can't even decide for sure if there is such a thing as global warming and what it might mean if there is.
God doesn't grow back limbs, God doesn't grow food for the hungry, God doesn't immunize people against polio, and God doesn't tell people when a storm is coming. But scientists do. [link to the man regrowing a finger tip, the Wikipedia entry for Norman Borlaug, Wikipedia entry for polio, weather forecasting website]
Much of science is just as much faith as Christianity, based on theories that become "fact" only because they are widely accepted by peers.
...What, how could you POSSIBLY relate the two? Much of science is just as much faith as Christianity? Frankly, I don't have the time to offer a remedial course in the subject, but frankly, you are either not being honest, or you are woefully ignorant.
The only thing that is certain is death. Everything else has to be based on faith in something, no matter what it is. I choose Christ.
Well, I hope you choose right, because you'd be in for a really bad day if the Jews turned out to be right, or the Norse, or the ancient Greeks, or none of them but rather a totally unknown religion were to be true.
Bell said: Yes, I would LOVE to hear your argument. You strike me as a "troll", someone who has come to this section to stir up trouble, if you do not believe in God fine, so be it. But those of us who DO believe in God have just as much right to our opinions as you do. Here is my stance, I am 44 years old, probably twice as old as you are. I probably served and was Discharged from the AF before you were ever born. As someone who actually defended the Constitution I whole heartedly support your choice to believe whatever you want, because of people like me you have this right. I know of some good men and women, brother AP/SP/SF who died to give you this right. This is NOT an attack against those of you who were not Combatants, I am just staring a fact.
I'm not a troll at all. The ONLY part in this thread that I addressed was regarding evolution, something I've clearly read more about than practically everyone here. And I already stated that it wasn't my job to change your mind, that you can believe whatever you want, so how could I possibly even claim that I would want to restrict your rights to hold your opinion? Frankly, if it wasn't for me coming into this thread, it would have died out months ago, and a little open discussion ever hurt anybody, has it? As for your complete red herring about how you were in the Air Force and defending the right of people to not believe in God, you also defended the right of the people TO believe in God. I suggest you make your facts a bit more accurate. As for your 5 years in service, congrats, I bet you did a lot. However, totally irrelevant to this discussion at hand, particularly, evolution.
Because of my age and what I have been through in my time on this Earth I very seriously doubt there is one single sentence you can present to convince me that there is no such thing as God. But, as you stated, it is your right so go ahead and try. I will respect whatever you write and will read it with an open mind.
There isn't just one sentence, however, a bit more than that, as I'll restate from my earlier post (as I'm sure you didn't bother to read, you were busy chasing me around in the forums), is the Problem of Evil as first presented by Epicurious.
"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"
To extend on that: Where was God during Hurricane Katrina? Where was God during the earthquake in China? Where was God during the Holocaust? Where was God during Darfur? Where was God when millions of children died from starvation? Where was God when cancer kills people, or other horrible diseases do the same? Where was God when children born with such horrible birth defects can only hope to live to the next day, or are limited with a brain that can barely work well enough to tell them to breathe every once in a while? Nowhere.
That is why an all-powerful, all-loving God CANNOT exist.
As far as evolution, I own 6 adult Eastern Box Turtles and every single one looks different from the others. So I guess that came about as a result of evolution?????? As far as your statements about people with PhD's how does having a college degree make one any smarter?
I never said that having a PhD makes you "smarter", the closest thing to that would be the appeal to the appropriate authority. If I have four or five dozen biologists, physicists, geologists, etc, I am going to take their word over that of any random individual who doest not carry a PhD or other relevant degree in that field.
For example, you have somebody like me who doesn't follow football at all, would you take what I saw about it, when I was passing it off as true, to be at all accurate? Not at all, which is why you have people like John Madden as such a popular announcer and authority on the game.
As for your turtles: Yes, this is an incredible example of evolution.
Bell said: Yep, I checked out replies you made to see what you were posting, and like this thread you are stirring up trouble. What made you turn against Christians so badly? And again, I want you to prove to me that there is no God. Can you do that? Go ahead, prove myself and everyone else who believes in God that we are wrong. The ball in in your court, don't hide and say it isn't your place, go ahead and do what you can to prove to me that there isn't a God. Put your money where you mouth is.
Please read my response. Don't worry, the fact that I use a lot of words shouldn't be scary to you. Actually read what I posted.
While I cannot prove that no god or gods exist (proving a negative is impossible, outside of tautologies), I can (and did) make an argument against the Christian God, and how his traits and reality form a paradox.
EDIT: And can you give me evidence to support the claim that a God does, in fact, exist? The burden of proof DOES remain with the person making the affirmative claim. But I'm sure that these rules of logic are fairly new to you, and you'll no doubt butcher them and turn this into a chess game where you are the pigeon, crapping all over the board, knocking the pieces off the table, and flying away claiming victory.
This thread was actually full of good discussion before you came into it. Either offer something useful or leave. You don't have the inherent right to stalk me throughout the boards, regardless of what 5 years of service 20 years ago might make you think.
[PRIVATE MESSAGE] On Jun 16, 2008, Bell wrote:
So are you going to prove to me that there is no God or just keep up your little spiteful attacks???
For the FOURTH time over the course of a few days:
I cannot disprove the existence of any gods, such a thing is impossible, because you cannot prove a negative outside of tautologies. Such a thing is impossible. You cannot prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars.
Also, the burden of proof would initially fall onto YOU, because you are making the affirmative claim that there is a God. Once you can provide evidence and a well-reasoned argument that is fallacy free, to support your claim of the existence of a god or gods, you satisfy the burden of proof. But I'd love to see what you have to support the existence of a god, and which logical fallacies you commit.
However, the Christian God cannot exist because of the Problem of Evil. The argument goes like this:
God is all powerful.
God is all loving.
Evil exists.
Now, according to the description of God, he carries these traits above, being all powerful and all loving. However, evil does, in fact, exist. By evil, of course, I mean from your rudimentary evil such as somebody raping and killing a little girl, to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the recent earthquake in China, to things like birth defects, cancer, horribly damaging bacteria, etc.
So, either God CAN eliminate suffering, but he doesn't want to, or, God CANNOT eliminate suffering, but wants to.
If God wants to eliminate evil, but cannot, he is weak.
If God wants to eliminate evil, but choses not to, he is wicked.
So, the existence of evil is the strongest case against the existence of the Christian God, because, among other things, it does not correlate at all in reality.
This is the same exact thing I have stated THREE TIMES on that page of the entire thread. The fact that you continued to ask me what the argument was, shows a bit of ignorance on your side, or laziness to not read the thread.
Bell said: Max, why can not not accept my challenge? I could give a hoot about the big words you use, must be some form of over compensation??? Why do you turn the tables and tell me to prove to you there is no God? And you can tell me I have no right to be on this board, are you Staff?
I did accept your "challenge", three times in the thread so far. And I presented it to you via PM and on here AGAIN for you to read. The fact that you even care about the length of my words is indication that you are awfully new to this sort of discussion. I pick them carefully and intentionally. And I'm not "turning the tables", I'm asking you to justify your position that a God exists. The burden of proof, before I went for the bait and presented my argument for the Christian God, falls on you, and it still does. You need to substantiate your claim with evidence.
As for the "no right", you don't have the right to stalk me around the boards, that is some sort of harassment.
But if you are so anxious to hear what I have to say, I suppose I could treat you like a screaming fan.
[PRIVATE MESSAGE] Bell said: I am not going to bother you anymore little boy, it's obvious that your mind is made up. I remember what it was like to be young like you, all knowing. So you can continue trolling the site and taking pot shots at Christians.
As far as my evil that you like to speak of, I assure you I saw more of it in my first 22 years on Earth then you ever will. So so not speak to me of death, evil, etc, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Anyhow, have fun trolling the site, how come you atheists do not go around like Christians and try to convert Christians over to "your side"?????
Please notice how he didn't address my argument at all, but keeps falling back on his 5 years of service 20 years ago as evidence for his rebuttal, which pretty much says "I've seen a lot of death, therefore you don't know what you are talking about, therefore your argument is invalid. Oh, and you think you know everything, I'll call you 'little boy' to belittle you, and maintain that you are a troll."
Please, learn from this guy's mistakes. Learn about the arguments before you go ahead and stirring garbage up. He obviously doesn't represent any significant portion of Christians, as he has shown he is brutally and maliciously ignorant of the subject at hand.
But please, I hope many more of you notice how he doesn't even bother to refute my argument, and just says "Your mind made up" instead of offering a counter-argument (which could *gasp* change my mind if it was a good argument!).
Please, don't be like this guy. I know that a good chunk of Christians are smart, educated, articulate people. Just avoid the mistakes this guy has made and you can be a great contributer to some really good discussions.
EDIT: And I'm sure you can understand my frustration. I gave a pretty long, detailed post, and the only way he responds is "Well, your mind is already made up" and does wildly immature things like call me "little boy" and get on some high horse because of his 5 years 20 years ago.
Oh, and Bell, if you'd like to discuss the subject like an adult, you are more than welcome to come back and talk about it. I'm always up for some good discussion.
EDIT 2: Also a thing of note: He asked me to prove that there is no God. I responded with an argument against the Christian God. How does he get from "Okay, now convince me of X" to "Well, your mind is already made up for X", without even preceding it with an argument to the contrary?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
Blog Archive
- July 2009 (1)
- September 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (1)
- June 2008 (1)
