(This debate continued from MInTheGap's post on the "Number One Reason Christians Loose Their Faith".)
My religion is Christianity, I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior. He has always been there for me and i have no doubt that he will be there for me in the future.
Since I don't believe in Jehovah/Yahweh/God, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Your next point stated that the definition of atheism is that it is not a religion. If you believe that with all your heart and mind, you are in fact involved in a religion.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective
That is directly from the webster website. You can tell me that you dont have a religion all you want, but your Believe that there is not a God is in fact a belief that you hold to be true. therefore, you are in a religion. Even is you hold the belief that there is nothing past earth, you still believe in something. and that my friend as defined by the fourth entry on the webster dictionary as a religion.
And that, my friend, is a non sequitur. Let me explain a few of the reasons why.
First, let's look at your reasoning.
"...your Believe that there is not a God is in fact a belief that you hold to be true. therefore, you are in a religion. Even is you hold the belief that there is nothing past earth, you still believe in something."
Believing in something does not make it a religion. I believe that if I throw a ball up in the air, it will fall to the ground at a place that I can determine through mathematical calculations. However, that does not make physics a religion. I don't hold that belief, or any others I have, with "ardor or faith". I hold them because nothing has shown me otherwise. It's really that simple. If I were to throw the ball up into the air, and it were to accelerate until it escaped the atmosphere, I'd have to reexamine my knowledge of physics (not to mention get inside the house before I followed the ball).
Now, there are also a few things that you need to understand about Merriam-Webster's dictionary, and most others for that matter. Notice the numbers that group the different definition groups? Those are for priority. Now, notice that #3 is followed by "archaic". Often, only the first one, or two, definitions have any bearing on a debate. If you choose a definition, that comes after "archaic", to back up your argument, you are basically using a slang term to define the word. For instance...
Main Entry: ar·dor
Pronunciation: \ˈär-dər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ardour, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin ardor burning, heat, ardor, from aridus dry — more at arid
Date: 14th century
1 a: an often restless or transitory warmth of feelingb: extreme vigor or energy : intensity c: zeal d: loyalty
2: sexual excitement
and
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs [the Protestant faith]
Both of those definitions are also from Webster's (as was my link to the definition of religion, in the comment that you have responded to). So, religion could mean beliefs held with "sexual excitement and strong conviction"? No, that meaning "does not follow". Therefore, your "definition" of religion is far too loose as a debating tool.
At best, you are arguing that the belief that atheism is not a religion is a religion. Which is enough circular reasoning to send my computer into a logic loop. However, again, "it does not follow". The reason I believe atheism is not a religion is outlined above. By your reasoning, I must believe that Stevie Ray Vaughn is a god.
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler
However, that is not true. I just consider him a damn fine guitar player.
So, by Merriam-Webster's literal definition, a religion requires service and worship of a deity, or the supernatural. Atheism does not meet the criteria for religion.
I know that macro evolution cant be proven, and God can not be scientifically proven either. That just means as much as you want to disprove God, you cant because you actualy have nothing solid to back your arguement.
Believe it or not, I have no interest in disproving your deity. I don't go through my days trying to figure out ways to disprove him. Want to know why? I don't have to. There is absolutely no evidence that your deity, or any other, exists or ever existed. The world works exactly as I would expect it to if there are/were no god(s), and I therefore believe that there are no god(s). If evidence of his/her/their existance ever surfaces, I'll change my tune. Until then, I just go my merry way.
Check this website out, it kinda makes the story simple. http://thelordsmountain.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/the-genesis-of-science-the-big-bang-beginning/
Wow... that link had more non sequiturs than your "definition of religion" argument.
If you believe that everything happend just by chance all at the same time, you are crazy. I dont see how it all happend like evolution says it did just by chance.
If you think that link is a good primer for any sort of science, your more cuckoo than you believe me to be. For one, the Big Bang doesn't go into what existed before it happened. There is nothing in the theory about "nothing, zilch, nada" existing before it happened.
He does speak, although briefly, about some of the other theories regarding what happened before the Big Bang, but his casual dismissal doesn't do anything to help his argument, or yours.
It doesn't help when he says that
...I will admit however that there are certain things that I cannot understand in relation to physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and the other complex divisions of science. So much of science is beyond my grasp, however I do believe that I can understand enough to weigh the scales of science and theology in order to come to a logical conclusion.
Apparently he can't. There wasn't a single argument or explanation in there that was even fit to call "layman's terms". Every single explanation was a strawman.
I can not prove God. I wish i could but i cant. All i have to go on is faith. so if you can prove your belief, and i cant prove mine, what makes me feel that mine is correct. I think that throughout history, the bible has been pretty acurate. Actually it has not been proven wrong yet. go to http://100prophecies.org/ . it has a nice list of fullfilled prophecies.
Not been proven wrong, yet?
Gen 7:20
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
A cubit is about 18 inches. So, that verse is saying that it only took 22 1/2 feet of water to cover the mountains. One of the mountains where I grew up is 2,831 feet above sea level. So, that biblical measurement is already over 100 times too small, without even including Mt. Everest into the debate.
As far as the prophecies that I saw, and I admit I don't really have time to go through them all, have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophesy? If a prophesy is perceived to be about a specific person, and that person reads it, they will most likely try to make the prophesy come to pass. At least, they will if that prophesy is a positive one. When the prophesy is about an entire group of people, there's much more impetus for that prophesy to come true. If the Bible included a prophesy about a devastating earthquake, that was to occur on a specific time, date, and location, that would be a true prophesy.
I really enjoy debating about this with you. You may email me, tkdwn_42@hotmail.com if you wish to do so and we can talk more and i wont feel guilty bout filling up the page. lol.
I also enjoy debating. That's why I put this on my blog, and I'm going to email you as soon as I finish this post.
23 comments:
A new brand of creationism, which creationists and secular science
are not familiar with is "Biblical Reality", which is better known as
the "Observations of Moses".
This "Old Earth" brand of creationism puts forth the view that
combines a seven 24-hr day week of original creation (Exodus 20:11),
with a separate "six 12-hr days of revelation" given to Moses
(Genesis 1:2 – 2:3). The pseudo discrepancy between the "sixth day"
in Genesis chapter one and in chapter two is explained as chapter two
being the beginning of modern mankind (Adam & Eve), and chapter
one as being an earlier species of prehistoric mankind in an earlier
restoration period, more than 60 million years ago.
Biblical Reality is defined as the "ordained marriage" of Biblical
Truth, and Scientific Reality. Think of Biblical Truth as historical,
present, or future data (information) that has been given to us by
the words written in the Bible, or what we shall call "The Printed
Word of God". It is events which took place in the past, that we may
not presently be able to confirm outside of the Bible.
Scientific Reality is defined as "That which has been discovered and
analyzed to be of true historical existence. That which has been
observed to be a real occurrence or phenomena, whether or not it
can be explained." For example, the discoveries of the extinctions
of life on Earth in what has been determined to be 245 Million BC
(dimetrodons) and 65 Million BC (dinosaurs) is accepted as Scientific
Reality.
Biblical Reality teaches that there are no "creation accounts" in
Genesis, and that "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!". What
is actually being said is "Moses wrote about multiple restorations".
Before the advent of "Biblical Reality", no faction of creationism
could explain both the "first day" of Moses and the "Fourth Day",
all being 24-hr days, without either denying literal interpretation or
"redefining" the scriptures.
The "six days of Moses" in Genesis chapter one are actually six
consecutive (12 hour) days in 1598 BC that God revealed to Moses
(on Mt. Sinai) from the ancient past. Each day was from the first
week of each of seven different geological eras in "biblical order".
The only day of Creation Week which Moses saw was the
"Fourth Day". Creation Week was 168 hours, in 4.6 Billion BC,
according to the geologist.
This book is the explanation that many people, who
are looking for the truth of Genesis, have been trying to find.
It reveals the scientific evidence that God showed to Moses,
and the reoccurring extinctions and restorations of Earth's
ancient past history. Everyone that wants to tell others of the
truth of the Bible should first learn the facts themselves from
this book, so that the Word of God will not be misrepresented.
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com
Berlzebub:
Sorry, even though I think that the bible is hogwash, I still have to call you on your Genesis 7:20 reference.
My copy says "the crest rising 15 cubit higher than the submerged mountains." That would be the height of the tallest mountain and an additional 20+ feet. The claim still looks ridiculous on its face, but it is internally consistant.
I may not know all the facts in the bible, however i am smart enough to know that the bible says earth is about 6000 years old. Evolution says something a lot longer than that. (it changes, and i dont really care, it is a lot more than 6000). There is no record however of cities or nething before about 4000 years ago. which would be about the time the bible says that we were created. creation tells us that we basically stoped evolving around 100,000 years ago.(i dont have time to research, but this is pretty much my understanding of evolution.) The only problem that i have with that is how did all of a sudden did we get extremely smarter and figure out how to farm and build houses and languages were formed. one would think that there would have been something before around 4000 years ago. ???
just a thought.
1. Geology (not evolution) has been telling us the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, give or take.
2. Cities and humanity are not synonymous. Building a city demands a lot of knowledge and circumstances that mankind didn't always have.
3. We routinely find things older than anything the YECs say is possible, using several different methods.
The only problem that i have with that is how did all of a sudden did we get extremely smarter and figure out how to farm and build houses and languages were formed. one would think that there would have been something before around 4000 years ago. ???
There's a difference between smarts and knowledge. Your average neolithic person was just as smart as the average person today. They just didn't have the knowledge base and means of communication we take for granted.
Circumstances throw in a lot more variables. If the hunting in a region is routinely good, why settle down on labor-intensive farming? If all your knowledge is easily passed on by the spoken word, why write things down? Necessity is the mother of invention, and sometimes the necessity wasn't really that big.
Population growth (which, by the way, has no built-in reason to conform to ultra-simple curves) would probably play a role. Once you got enough knowledge to feed everyone with fewer people, division of labor was possible. You could have people sitting around making things and coming up with ideas who didn't have to directly contribute to putting food on the table.
Life isn't a game of Civilization where building a city is as simple as pressing the B button.
I love when people just parrot garbage they have been told by their pastors.....
There is no record however of cities or nething before about 4000 years ago.
I wonder where these 30,000 year old paintings came from
Or perhaps you may have heard about the ancient chinese from around the year 4500 BC and a variety of other cultures that surpasses your 4000 year mark
Then of course there are the 5000 year old mesopotamians
Of course a quick jaunt over to wikipedia, and the sources it references, would have shown you that there were in fact a ton of evidence for civilization well over 4000 years old. In fact there are a number of evidence of civilization that are 9500 years old.
creation tells us that we basically stopped evolving around 100,000 years ago.(i dont have time to research, but this is pretty much my understanding of evolution.)
BTW creation doesnt say anything about evolving: starting, continuing, or stopping.
Berle,
You know, I used to get into this kind of debate with people like Min. I have now realized that evidence , real evidence, the kind of evidence that you can record, repeat, show to other people and so forth is totally secondary to them.
I usually ask "What would make to realize that there is no god?"
The answer is usually "Nothing".
i.e. debate is pointless.
ok my fault i ment to right evolution. look, it is obvious that no matter what you are going to look at what you want to. and by the way that is not what my pastor told me so you can stop assumeing anytime.
What about the grand canyon. please explaine that to me. Cause when i was @ the grand canyon they told me that every thousand years a foot is taken out of the grand canyon. That is very reasonable, but how old is the earth acording to your standards. and yes i know what your gonna say, "well what about your theory, that would make it only about 4 or so feet deep and that is inacurate". well let me ansewer that, i believe that the great flood caused it. Have you ever seen what happens to a damn when there is a crack and the water can get through just even a little bit, it quickly applies a lot of pressure. and it usually breaks....is is possible that a giant flood could have caused it... i think so. and to add an ending, tell me where they found the delta from the grand canyon, because we all know the colorado goes all the way through. guess what, you cant because it is not found. every other major river has a major deposit spot such as the mississippi river. Not the colorado. this one is from my pastor, "it often takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a christian." you have to get up everyday, look outside to find an amazing day and tell yourself "wow im so glad that is a nice day and there is nothing outside of an accedent that made everything work so perfectly."
That is the major thing i have wrong with evolution, I just watched the history channel last night and they said 600,000 years ago the first form of modern man walked into the grand canyon. How do they know. They cant, because acorrding to what i have seen, they have didnt have the communication abilities that we have now. (so they were not as smart) Then you go on to say that they new how to feed everyone without farming, (they were smart). I dont know what you do for a living, but i do know one thing is for sure, I was a wrestler for 10 years, I know what abuse a body can take and what it cant. People can not survive on meat alone, You need vegies to live. Especially since they didnt have medicine, (or did they, but that would make them smart) What were they, smart or not. Could they farm, or could they not. could they communicate or not.
For your geology, the geologic column is only used in geology by people tha believe that garbage. The column is dated by layers.
The layers are dated by the fossils that are found in the layers.
The fossils are dated by what column they are found in....
let me tell you what that is "Circular reasoning" You are saying that you date the layers by the fossils that are in the layers that are dated by which layer they are in. doesnt work im sorry.
some of the same fossils are found in different layers.
fossilfication is also scewed by evolution. There are many cases of fossilized acorns, or fossilized pine cones.
There were trees that were fossilized over millions of years apparently, http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-petrified-tree.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-formation-coal.htm&h=1506&w=977&sz=215&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=pWegpZHhECmFCM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfossilized%2Btrees%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX
There are to many holes, and even geology is a part of evolution, because it all goes in the same category and they need each other to work.
Well, I'm afraid that once again you simply choose not to look up your assertions (and if it wasn't your pastor, it was some other nitwit that told this rubbish to you).
Its like when you creationists say there is no evidence for evolution.
Except for all the evidence
Including beneficial mutations to human beings
especially evidence that debunks nonsense and poor understanding of the geologic column
and that geological dating is corrobrated by radiometric data and not solely fossils
We've even seen new species arise.
In an unbelievable number of circumstances and events
we've even observes distributions of subspecies
I dont know what you are getting at about acorns and pine cones and trees in general Are you under the impression that evolution says there were no trees before humans or something? So those species have been around a long time.. so what? Ferns are even older.
I'm guessing that you just don't have a good understanding of evolutionary theory (or even acceptance of evolutionary fact - there is a difference)
Evolution is one of the most the most robust, most evidenced by multiple sources, and most useful theories we have. If you read some book in 1983 that agrees with your world view (most of your assertions come from: Huse, Scott, 1983. The Collapse of Evolution), and take it to be fact, thats your problem
If you wanna play catch up before you continue pretending that you actually have a grasp of the theory, and the other sciences that are involved in it
I suggest you start here
Then go here
And try a little of this
The challenges in evolutionary theory are at a level they dont teach in high school or even undergraduate college. These challenges aren't about if evolution happens, but how various biological systems evolved.
When you both understand what evolution actually is, and the amazing preponderance of evidence from multiple sources for it, THEN and only then, lets talk about what is real and what isnt.
Because until then, all that nonsense has been debunked for decades and even centuries for some of it. Its your responsibility to understand the concepts you are trying to argue against.
Hi Boys and Girls.
Tech, do you actually go and read the references you post or do you just parrot references in the hope that burying people in references actually supports your arguments?
For the record.... again..... evolution is hogwash. It cannot be proven as it is a philosophical viewpoint not ameanable to direct experimentation and is therefore outside the domain of science. You can parade an endless number of articles and "brainiacks" "learned opinions, and that is all it will ever be... an opinion. I took the plunge and thought I would read the articles you posted in support of speciation. What tripe. Much like all articles in support of evolution. In all, the primary assumption is felt to be already proven. Then conjecture with a sparse sprinkling of fact fabricate an illusion of science, which the average lay person and most scientists themselves can't distinguish from true science. The fact that you listed a page where Helayton gartleri is felt to be a "new species" is a joke. That then draws into contention how do we define a new species? Like everything the scientist who holds his religion of evolution to be true waters the definition down to meaninglessness.
You should read "science's blind spot" by Cornelius Hunter. Perhaps then you may see that whilst science is vaguely adaptable in the light of new info scientists themselves aren't. People are still people, blinded by preconceived ideas, no matter how open they delude themselves to be.
You don't believe in God but pretend to be rational and believe an unprovable theory. Good luck to you, but luck won't save you when you stand before God's Judgement Seat. I prefer a belief in Him and His word in whom there is no fault or hint of change. Your scientific theories are as changeable as the wind. 70 years ago, smoking was good for you. 100 years ago women and blacks were stupid and there were brain size data to prove it. Dig deeper and mice came from dirty underwear. Another 50 years and scientists will be laughing at evolution. Sad thing is people always assume that their present society has it all correct. People can't distinguish between knowledge and wisdom. They think that because we have more knowledge and facts that scientists aren't capable of foolishness. How wrong! Present science, particularly the fields of geology, cosmology and evolution are so rooted in assumption it is not funny. And then people forget that there was an assumption in the first place after they've created some new bizarre theory. what are the assumptions? Naturalism and
Uniformitarianism. You can't prove either are true but build grandiose delusions upon these assumptions. When you are dead you will know them to be false. My hope is you realise that, this side of the dirt.
Wow... I'm gone for a few days, and I get more comments than I've gotten in the last couple of months. I should take vacations more often.
Anyway...
@ Mr. Cummings:
Thank you for visiting. Hopefully, some of my readers will find your comment more interesting than I.
@ Pvblivs:
Which version do you have? I grew up hearing citations from the KJV.
@Tom (first comment):
BD and TS have already handled your incorrect assumptions about the ages of civilization. I also have something to add, though. My 4 year old daughter can use a computer. I can honestly say I didn't learn how to use a computer until I was about 11 or 12 years old. Why? Because I didn't have access to one before then. Congratulations, you've just performed another non sequitur.
@ BD:
Thanks for commenting in my absence.
@ TS:
Thanks to you, also.
I know that they may not listen, but other readers might find some of the information helpful.
@ Tom (second comment):
Re: The Grand Canyon
Unfortunately, you've done another non sequitur. The proposed Great Flood would have covered all of the Earth, and not just flowed down the grand canyon. Ever seen a really large flood? Once the water overflows the banks, the current slows because it has more area to flow through. That's why there are houses still standing, but with a boatload of mud piled up on the floor.
Re: The deltas
The Amazon River does not have a delta. The fresh water from the Amazon can be found over 100 miles out at sea because of the exceptionally strong current. There goes your assertion about "every major river", since the Amazon puts more water into the ocean than any other river in the world.
Also, the Colorado did have a delta until the early 20th century. Damming of the river has screwed that up, though.
Concerning what your pastor says, that's a non sequitur, again. One of the top two definitions of faith is belief without evidence. I don't believe because of no evidence. That isn't faith, that's logic.
Re: How did they know about man and the Grand Canyon
Why didn't you ask them? Maybe they found evidence of campsites surrounding the canyon, or maybe pottery in caves on the walls. There are a bunch of trails that lead down into the canyon. How can you find them, if you don't have the technology we have now? Watch the animals, and see how they get down to the floor of the canyon.
Re: Vegies to live
Well, duh! So, how did the nomadic aboriginal tribes survive on so many different continents? Here's a hint. You don't have to be a farmer to find, or eat, vegetables. I used to hike, quite a bit, where I grew up. I knew of a few things that I could eat, that weren't poisonous. How did I know? My dad told me. How did he know? Someone told him. By trial and error (and careful study and experimentation), people have found which plants were edible, and which ones weren't.
Re: Smart or not
I explained this when I did the analogy about my daughter. This is yet another non sequitur. Any human being can farm, but how many actually do, today? As I explained about getting vegetables, you don't have to be a farmer to get them. Even onions grow in the wild. I've actually eaten them.
Re: Geologic Column
As TS pointed out, it isn't just the fossils that are used to date the geologic column. Actually, it's the other way around. The geologic column is used to date the fossils. That is also supported by radiometric dating. So, you've not only done a non sequitur, but this time it's also a strawman.
Re: Fossilized acorns and pine cones
Like TS, I'm not sure how this is evidence against evolution. I actually have a fossil, at home, of some sort of bamboo like plant stalk that my dad found when he worked on a strip mines. Plants have been around for millions of years. Finding fossils of them doesn't disprove evolution.
Re: geology is part of evolution
Bzzzt... wrong again. Geology supports evolutionary theory. Even cosmology supports geology.
As TS points out, you apparently have no understanding of science, let alone biology, geology, cosmology, etc. So, please try to do better with your arguments before we continue.
Also, why did you completely drop your argument that atheism is just another religion? The closest you came was the quote from you pastor, who I doubt is an authority on atheism.
@ Justin:
It seems that, by your reasoning, gravity is "outside the domain of science", which is wrong.
Let me give you an example.
Gravity says that if we propel an object, at a certain elevation and in a certain direction, it will orbit the Earth indefinitely. Well, we can prove that through satellites.
Evolution says that if one species branches off from another, their should be a transitional form. Geology says that transitional form should be found in a certain range of the geologic column, in a certain location. So, a group of scientists goes looking for such a fossil, and, voila, they found tiktallik.
Concerning the rest of your rant...
If there is a deity, and he's the one you worship, I'm not really concerned. If he judges me by my wrongs, and not just whether I believe in him, then I'm not concerned about the trial. However, if he wants to send me to eternal punishment, just because I thought he didn't exist, he can kiss my ass. Especially since he never showed himself to me, or gave me any evidence that he existed.
Now, Justin, go back to the cheap seats. You're welcome to comment on topic, but if all your comments have to contain threats of fire and brimstone, then don't bother commenting. If I wanted that, I'd go to church.
Tech, do you actually go and read the references you post or do you just parrot references in the hope that burying people in references actually supports your arguments?
I dont read them each time I reference them. I have read them however. All of them. How can I argue for or against something that I have not read? It takes a while, but its better then spouting off ignorant nonsense. You dont see me quoting the bible, I have not read the whole thing (but I have read huge portions of it).
We went through this, you and tom are both intellectually lazy. I am sorry, I realize that is harsh, but both of you claim to understand evolution and then when you start to describe your understanding of it, it is painfully clear that you in fact have not bothered to even understand it, and then proceed to call it "hogwash".
no one says the theory of evolution is provable (as opposed to the provable fact of evolution, do you know the difference?). That is why it is a theory. The difference between a theory and a god myth is that a theory has supportable evidence for it ( heres more that I left out before). I listed many links to this evidence. You can not provide a single link to observable evidence for god. I'd call that hogwash.
I can't have made it easier for you to go and actually understand evolution. The fact that you don't go and understand it, is a clear sign that you have chosen intellectual laziness over honesty in your life.
Examples of your laziness:
"but luck won't save you when you stand before God's Judgement Seat."
do you know anyone who stood there? What color was the seat? How did they tell you about the seat? What was god wearing. If you had evidence that this seat existed then you would be able to answer these easy questions. Instead you have not bothered to que4stions anything you have been told and accept it blindly.
Your scientific theories are as changeable as the wind.
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO CHANGE!!! It doesnt change with the wind, it changes with evidence. That is how it works. Saying something like that displays utter ignorance of how science works and why it is so powerful. You will notice that in all your examples the results of science have become MORE accurate.
In fact, what type of things don't change? well, there is astrology, homeopathy, acupuncture, phrenology, numerology, water dowsing and of course god(s) of any of the thousands of religions. No change. None. No drift towards better and better accuracy and prediction of the behavior of the world around us. No evidence whatsoever of its predictive value or accuracy (in fact tons of evidence that all of these are the same as chance or sham)
Sad thing is people always assume that their present society has it all correct.
No one knowledgable in science, not scientists, not educated people, not engineers, thinks that everything we know now is the most we will know, or that everything is as correct as it will always be. That is a huge strawman, displaying, once again, utter ignorance of the way science works and the way scientists view the world and our knowledge.
What we do know is that we have a the best and most accurate representation of the world with incredible predictive value for now that is possible right now. With further observations and further testing, it will become even more accurate. Its a never ending process of understanding the universe instead of copping out with "God did it" for everything and progressing nowhere.
When you are dead you will know them to be false.
oh how convenient for you..your evidence exposes itself after you die! LOL. What a joke.
Berle,
@ TS:
Thanks to you, also.
I know that they may not listen, but other readers might find some of the information helpful.
you know what would be interesting? Have Min, Tom or Justin give us a lesson on evolution. I'm serious. Have them describe to us what they think evolution is. not what they think is wrong with it or what they think contradicts the theory, but have them explain to us what the theory is in complete detail.
Not a one liner, but what it is, what its predictions are, how we know it is true, and what we can learn from it.
Then we can explain to them what we think creationism is, what its predictions are, how we know it is true, and what we can learn from it.
Kind of like debating from the other perspective. Then we can assess whether or not we full understand the other side point of view.
Just a thought. Might even be an interesting blog entry.
Berlzebub:
The version I have is called the New American Bible.
Justin,
The fact that you listed a page where Helayton gartleri is felt to be a "new species" is a joke.
Do you think there are different species of amoeba? Plankton? algae?
If you understand that there are... then why would you not consider HG to be a species?
If you still want to adamantly deny that HG is a species, then does that discount the 14 other speciation or subspeciation events listed at that link?.. or will you simply deny all of them?
Oh my cher! some of these comments are better than the drivel over at Min's place. Sorry it took me so long to get here!
@ Samurai/Justin:
Don't you remember I said,
Now, Justin, go back to the cheap seats. You're welcome to comment on topic, but if all your comments have to contain threats of fire and brimstone, then don't bother commenting. If I wanted that, I'd go to church.
I'm tired of you. You didn't even give one link supporting your claims. So, I hope you saved your comment here, because it's getting deleted for proselytizing. You've not only had your shot at disproving ToE, but also at proving your God. You've never given links, or anything but anecdotal evidence for either.
Now, if you want to redo it, and then repost it without the "you're going to hell" part, feel free. However, better people than you have tried to tell me that "I already know God", and those are even people I respect.
So, either watch from the cheap seats, post your "proof" that ToE is wrong (or the solid evidence that God exists), or get lost. Life's to short for me to bother with you.
Oh, and for future refernce "Samurai", please italicize, bold, or combine the two when you're quoting someone elses comments. It was hard to tell where you stopped quoting TS and started giving your "response". Well, other than the righteous holier-than-thou attitude. But not everyone is as familiar with that as me.
I wanted to post what i think evolution is. Or at least what i know of evolution.
What i gather from evolution is that a rather long time ago, like millions of years ago, there was an explosion, that explosion sent dust and whatnot in an explosive mannor outwards. I wanna say that then a black hole was formed, not sure, but neway all the debree got sucked back and it all started spiraling and over time, it created the earth and the sun and all the other planets. The earth was then formed but the atmospher sucked. then after a while there was a primitive soup formed and long story short, forgive me for my inexactness but i kinda wanted to do this just from what i know, multi celled organizams were formed. Then the dinosous came about several several years later. Then the meteor hit and wiped out the dinos. Then it gets fuzzy but i think from there, the earths atmospher changes and plants started growing and we eventauly evolved into what we are today. Once again sorry for my inacuracy of timeline but i feel that it is at least kinda close.
Well I think we can understand why you are having a hard time believing evolution.
There is nothing of evolutionary theory in your description. What you have there is a history of the universe with different theories combined.
The first part is the Big Bang theory followed by expansion of the universe. The next part you describe as:
long story short
is
abiogenesis . Quick note, and this is a common misperception, Darwins book is called Origin of Species, not Origin of Life or Origin of Man. With good reason, it only deals with understanding the mechanism by which organisms change with time.
Then the dinosous came about several several years later.
This is the part where evolutionary theory should have been described. because evolution does not deal with the genesis of the first single celled organisms, its only deals with the observed fact that organisms change over time.
The theory explains why this happens.
After this you go into paleontology.
So, now I am imploring you, before we continue discussing the merits of evolution versus the fact that there is no other theory which explains how species change with time, please take the time and read the links I already provided which describe evolution, and the amazing amount of observed evidence for it, the strong predictive power is has, and how all of our medicine is based on this theory, once again showing its incredible strength. Even if some hick doctors choose to pretend it doesnt happen.
@ Tom & whoever else is interested:
I'll be starting a new post, beginning with what you've said about your understanding of evolution, here. I won't be able to get it started today, but I will soon.
Suffice it to say, Techskeptic is correct. If that was how evolution, or even science in general, was explained to me, I wouldn't believe it either.
I've addressed Tom's last comment here.
Epic troll. Tom, you are my hero.
By the way, Berlze, you have been getting trolled. I appreciate the FAQ of comments that it has created, and I wish you would make it into a formal FAQ; perhaps submit it to an atheist wiki.
In any case, don't let your blood pressure rise over it. There are idiot christians out there, but this commenter (tom/whoever) isn't one of them.
Post a Comment