2 of 3
2
How then shall we live?
Posted: 22 May 2007 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12
[quote author=“edge100”][quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”][quote author=“edge100”][quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”] You use the terms “the rest of us” as if we all go around telling you that you deserve hell.  If that’s what you’re hearing, then I apologize for that.  That should not be the central message in anyone trying to witness to you.

Do you see what you’ve just done?  You’ve essentially claimed “Whatever ELSE you’re hearing about god is false messaging; I’VE got the real truth.”

This is the problem with faith, and it’s why religious moderation is no solution.  If YOU get to define your faith as anything you’d like, then the same right must be afforded to anyone else.  Your ‘holy’ scripture is just words on a page; there is nothing inherently ‘holy’ about the words unless you (or someone else with a slightly different take on things) say so.

You’ll find that that “...but that’s not MY faith…” argument doesn’t fly around these parts.  Until you are ready to subject your faith to the light of reason, and abandon it if it conflicts with that which is demonstrably true, then your version of Christianity is no different (in literal, if not moral terms) than anyone elses.

Exactly, all true Christians believe the same central theology.  Yes, we can disagree on Arminianism vs. Calvinism, predestination vs. free will, but we all believe in the power of Jesus’ death and resurrection, his atonement for our sins, and the sanctification when we accept Him as our Savior.  That’s why I Timothy says to “test the spirits.”  That’s what other Christians do, we see if there view of salvation lines up with ours.  That’s how you can tell if someone believes.  We can’t be a Christian and not believe in the virgin birth.  We can’t be Christians and not believe in the divinity of Christ, his theoanthropic qualities, and we can’t believe that Jesus is not God.  If you hear anyone say any of these things, they are not Christians.  So, you can say that millions of other people believe this way and that, and that helps your argument none.  Yes, there are things that can be argued in the Christian faith, but you CANNOT argue the central truth about Jesus and be a Christian.  There is but one way.

I’m certainly glad to see that you agree with the basic tenets of my post, but would you not also grant that one can believe all of these things, perform unmentionable atrocities such as torture and execution for blasphemy and apostasy , child torture and rape , or microwaving of children , and still call themselves “Christian”?  Their version of faith is on equal evidentiary (if not moral) ground as yours.  On what basis should we conclude that YOUR version of Christianity is right or wrong?  We accept that all Christians must accept the virgin birth and resurrection; some accept transubstantiation; are they right about that?  And if YOU (or anyone else) get to decide that, then why can’t I simply say “You know what?  You’re all wrong!”

This is all to say that the argument that what other people are doing isn’t the TRUE faith is very poor form indeed.

And that is exactly the problem with your argument.  You treat the abnormal as if it were normal.  Do you know how far I would distance myself from fanatics like this.  These are not examples of how strengthen your argument, because they are purely subjective.  You must also include the Christians that don’t practice such absurd things. 

Thats exactly what you do with evolution to.  There are so many holes in evolution that is should be the Science of Gaps, if you also call Yahweh the God of Gaps.  And yet, “brilliant” minds still hold onto the fallacy that is evolution, calling it FACT even in the face of loads of evidence against it.  Somehow in all your jargon and intellectualism you think you find a way around the huge holes in evolution, even to the point of denying that they exist.  Where does it stop?  As long as we treat as fact(evolution) what is truly fiction, we cannot make progress towards identifying the solution. 

I can’t wait for the rebuttal.  “Show me the FACT that God exists then.” 

Well, prove to me that He doesn’t.  I challenge you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

Krishna was born of a virgin.
Horus was born of the virgin Isis.
Buddha was born of a virgin.
Mithras was born of a virgin.

“All of these various stories of supernatural conceptions and births, which we meet with in folklore and the history of mythology, have this one point in common—they serve to point not so much to the similarity as to the complete contrast and dissimilarity which exists between the Christian birth-story and the tales which are current in various pagan circles.”

—Dr. Thomas Thorburn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”] 

I can’t wait for the rebuttal.  “Show me the FACT that God exists then.” 

Well, prove to me that He doesn’t.  I challenge you.

A few years ago there was a tsunami in the Indian Ocean that killed about 300,000 people, many of them children.  If God existed, He would have prevented that horrible event.

A tremendous amount of evil exists, therefore God does not.

1) If God existed, there would not be a tremendous amount of evil.
2) There is a tremendous amount of evil
3) God does not exist.

More detailed version:

1) An omnipotent being can do everything that it is logically possible to do.
2)  An omniscient being knows everything.
3) An omni-benevolent being wants to prevent all unnecessary suffering.
4) It is logically possible to prevent all unnecessary suffering that results from tsunamis, earthquakes and other natural disasters.
Therefore,
5) An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being (henceforth, GOD) will prevent all suffering that result from natural disasters.
But,
6) There is a tremendous amount of unnecesary suffering that results from natural disasters.
Therefore,
7) There is no omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being.  In other words, GOD does not exist.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

[quote author=“waltercat”][quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”] 

I can’t wait for the rebuttal.  “Show me the FACT that God exists then.” 

Well, prove to me that He doesn’t.  I challenge you.

A few years ago there was a tsunami in the Indian Ocean that killed about 300,000 people, many of them children.  If God existed, He would have prevented that horrible event.

A tremendous amount of evil exists, therefore God does not.

1) If God existed, there would not be a tremendous amount of evil.
2) There is a tremendous amount of evil
3) God does not exist.

More detailed version:

1) An omnipotent being can do everything that it is logically possible to do.
2)  An omniscient being knows everything.
3) An omni-benevolent being wants to prevent all unnecessary suffering.
4) It is logically possible to prevent all unnecessary suffering that results from tsunamis, earthquakes and other natural disasters.
Therefore,
5) An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being (henceforth, GOD) will prevent all suffering that result from natural disasters.
But,
6) There is a tremendous amount of unnecesary suffering that results from natural disasters.
Therefore,
7) There is no omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being.  In other words, GOD does not exist.

I hate to say it, but that is a pathetically weak argument, and fails to hold water in any light whatsoever.  I can stop reading after your first sentence about evil.  You first assume that God doesn’t exist, for which you have not proof.  And then you mention the evil that exists in the world, and that He wouldn’t allow it if He were there.  First of all, I thought atheists denied the existence of evil.  Secondly, if we do serve and omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign Creator, He owes us no explanation for how He brings about His purpose.  If you were a Christian, you would understand that nature is also Christian, and it cries out with growing pains for the coming of the Lord.  Natural disasters can then be simply defined as nature fighting back against the sewer in which we have made Creation.  Thirdly, and most importantly, if you want evil eliminated, lets start with you.  The next time you slander someone, curse, lie, cheat, steal, you will be stricken from the earth immediately.  You see, we have this idea of corporate evil, but when we boil it down to a personal level, it doesn’t exist. 

Charlie Chaplain, a famous atheist, during one of his public appearances, blasphemed the name of God, beseeching Him to “strike me down” if you so exist.  When it didn’t happen, he said, “You see, He doesn’t exist.”  A voice from the crowd said aloud, “Maybe that’s true Charlie, but perhaps the eternally sovereign God isn’t going to change his plan just to appease an arrogant comedian.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 01:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2007-04-19

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]
And that is exactly the problem with your argument.  You treat the abnormal as if it were normal.  Do you know how far I would distance myself from fanatics like this.

You may (rightly) distance yourself from them morally.  But your faith is as valid as theirs; which is to say, not very.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]These are not examples of how strengthen your argument, because they are purely subjective.  You must also include the Christians that don’t practice such absurd things.

There are millions of Christians who don’t practice such things.  I readily admit that.  BUT, you don’t get off the hook that easily.  By asking me to respect your faith, to not challenge it on evidentiary grounds, and to provide undue respect to it, simply reinforces the idea that ANY interpretation of something ‘holy’ must be accorded the same respect.  Why is your FAITH (again, not your morality) any better than theirs?  It is based on the same tenets.


[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Thats exactly what you do with evolution to.  There are so many holes in evolution that is should be the Science of Gaps, if you also call Yahweh the God of Gaps.

Ok, now you’re in my wheelhouse; I’m a scientist.  Science IS about the gaps; any scientist worthy of the title practices this every day.  We collect data, create theories that explain that data, and then test the theories with new data.  If data emerges that contradicts our theories, the theories change, or are jettisoned altogether.  Religion does exactly none of this.  There ARE holes in evolutionary theory; does it proceed linearly or in short bursts?  How do we explain the Cambrian explosion?  These will be filled as data emerges.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]And yet, “brilliant” minds still hold onto the fallacy that is evolution, calling it FACT even in the face of loads of evidence against it.

I would, of course, point out that the theory of evolution is better supported by data than virtually any other scientific theory.  There is more data supporting evolutionary theory than there is supporting the theory of gravity.  Seriously.

And if you have a better theory, then put it forward and subject it to falsification.  There are holes in evolution, but the basic structure has been subject to so many attempts at falsification that we can now safely state that evolution is a fact.  The holes are just in the details.

And you should be reminded that every hole in the theory of evolution is not evidence FOR creation.  You’ll need to do your own evidence gathering for that.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Somehow in all your jargon and intellectualism you think you find a way around the huge holes in evolution, even to the point of denying that they exist.

Nope, they exist.  All scientific theory has holes, which get filled as new data emerges.  This is how science has always worked.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Where does it stop?  As long as we treat as fact(evolution) what is truly fiction, we cannot make progress towards identifying the solution.

Sorry, evolution is fact.  You can choose to ignore the voluminous data in support of it, but you’ll have to come up with your own testable theory first.

Tell you what, why don’t you tell me what YOU think the holes in evolutionary theory are (I’ve already given you two examples of what I think the holes are), and we’ll see if we can’t set you straight.  Keep in mind, any mention of “holes” that contain the words “transitional fossil” or “gain of information” or “second law of thermodynamics” or “random chance” will be treated VERY harshly.  Perhaps you can come up with some new “holes” that haven’t yet been “filled” numerous times. 

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]I can’t wait for the rebuttal.  “Show me the FACT that God exists then.”
Well, prove to me that He doesn’t.  I challenge you.

Oh boy, not this again.  I am 100% confident you don’t actually believe this argument.  Prove to me that Zeus doesn’t exist.  Or Ra.  Or Apollo.  Or the tooth fairy.  Or the celestial teapot .  There are an infinite number of things we cannot disprove.  You are making the positive claim, so you muct provide the evidence.

Remember, simply because two things are both possible does not imply that they are equally probable.  You are clinging to Iron Age myths, in an age where we know the structure and function of the basic components of life itself, or of the basic structure and function of the universe, or of the chemical elements.  The universe is so full of wonder, and discarding your non-existent god will not cheapen, but elevate the experience; you will recognize that THIS life is all there is; that it is your distinct honour to discover all you can about THIS life, and to examine and enjoy THIS llife to the fullest.

Virtually all of the gods that have ever existed are now extinct.  Your god remains popular only by the most curious twist of fate, but that doesn’t make him any more TRUE than the other discarded gods.

 Signature 

“If there is nothing that can convince you that you are wrong, then you don’t need anything to convince you that you are right.” - waltercat

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 04:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26

[quote author=“edge100”]And you should be reminded that every hole in the theory of evolution is not evidence FOR creation.

I agree. While I’m not a scientific expert in evolution, I have noticed that just about every self-proclaimed expert who tries to debunk evolution seems to have a Christian agenda. I have grown frustrated that so many Christians treat Genesis as the only alternative to evolution, limiting the debate in their religion’s favor.

Hypothetically, Genesis might be wrong and some other religion’s creation story might be right, or the world’s plants and animals may have come into being through some natural non-evolutionary process that had nothing to do with supernatural causes. Claims about such causes are the scientific equivalent of writer’s cheats, like having the story’s protagonist get himself out of trouble by picking up a gun that was nowhere to be found earlier in the scene.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

Tell you what, why don’t you tell me what YOU think the holes in evolutionary theory are (I’ve already given you two examples of what I think the holes are), and we’ll see if we can’t set you straight. Keep in mind, any mention of “holes” that contain the words “transitional fossil” or “gain of information” or “second law of thermodynamics” or “random chance” will be treated VERY harshly. Perhaps you can come up with some new “holes” that haven’t yet been “filled” numerous times.

Well, you’re volleying back and forth with a scientist in myself, so don’t sell me short just yet.  Scientists are a funny sort, really apologetically speaking of their “beliefs” about science, and where we came from.  I don’t blame them, as I do the same about things that I feel strongly about.  Now, before I launch into a few of the holes in evolution, the disclaimer must be that these holes are in no way proof of existence of God.  There are many many many brilliant non-theists that disagree totally with the theory, and I stress theory of evolution.  How can that be?  It is always met with much criticism when a contemporary, non-theist or theistic person challenges evolution and the theories that you hold so dear.  And you can bring harshness against the fossil record if you want, but unless you have something new and groundbreaking to share, the issue is closed for now.  There exist very very few fossils displaying the micromutation that you would demand out of Darwinian theory.  “Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved beings.”  Thats a wonderfully eloquent sentence, but denies itself in many examples in science. 

(1)There is little to no evidence that exists to support the evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited modifications” of complex structures such as the wing or the eye.  In fact, its hard to even imagine an advantage of gradual changes that eventually produce an eye that can discern things.  What would the transitional animal look like?  And how would it be “profitable to the preserved beings?” 

(2)The avian lung is another highly developed organ that would seem impossible to have evolved through infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved beings.

“Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes.  Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of repiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.”

—Denton’s Evolution:  A Theory in Crisis

I quote there because I could not have said it better myself. 

(3)Richard Dawkins himself cannot explain why the nautilus, after hundreds of millions of years, has yet to develop the lens for its eye despite having a retina that is “practically crying out for this particular simple change.”

Michael Behe has also written extensively on the vertebrate eye, and the evidence is damning. 

There are many more holes, and we can discuss them at will, but frankly my fingers evolved poorly, and get very tired quickly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 06:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]
I hate to say it, but that is a pathetically weak argument, and fails to hold water in any light whatsoever.

You know that you’ve got them when they claim to be unimpressed by your argument.  Thanks for the praise.

I can stop reading after your first sentence about evil.  You first assume that God doesn’t exist,

That was never an assumption of either proof.  LEARN TO READ PLEASE.

for which you have not proof.

I was offering a proof.  The evidence is the evil that exists.

And then you mention the evil that exists in the world, and that He wouldn’t allow it if He were there.  First of all, I thought atheists denied the existence of evil.

Some do.  But most do not.  I do not. I understand that God has nothing to do with morality.  Education is a great thing, I suggest you try it.

Secondly, if we do serve and omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign Creator, He owes us no explanation for how He brings about His purpose.

Why would you want to serve a megalomaniac who created us just to serve Him?

  Natural disasters can then be simply defined as nature fighting back against the sewer in which we have made Creation.

This is non-sensical. God made nature, Right?  So God is responsible for making the disasters possible.  He has the responsibility to reduce the suffering that results from them.

Thirdly, and most importantly, if you want evil eliminated, lets start with you.  The next time you slander someone, curse, lie, cheat, steal, you will be stricken from the earth immediately.

Is this a prediction?  Let’s test it:  I think it is the ravings of someone who is Fucked up in the head. 

Nope.  No strickenness.  Still here.  You must be fukking wrong.  Shitt!!

Thanks for confirming Salt Creek’s and Noggin’s assessment.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 06:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Please keep in mind, edge100,  that you are arguing with person who thinks that the theory of the evolution of life on earth is a fiction.  Think about this for a moment.  A person with an average IQ could have read Darwin’s original text 140 years ago and in the face of all the excellent and convincing evidence that Darwin presented, might still have remained skeptical. But in the intervening century and a half, innumerable documentation has supported and enhanced the original Darwinian theory to the point that today, evolution is an obvious fact. Yet this character (“nutjob”) is unable to comprehend the basic principles of the theory and is still skeptical about its veracity.

There is no rational reason to argue with this bloodyJesus person.  Anyone who thinks that the theory of evolution is fiction doesn’t even deserve to know the time of day.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 07:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

[quote author=“CanZen”]Please keep in mind, edge100,  that you are arguing with person who thinks that the theory of the evolution of life on earth is a fiction.  Think about this for a moment.  A person with an average IQ could have read Darwin’s original text 140 years ago and in the face of all the excellent and convincing evidence that Darwin presented, might still have remained skeptical. But in the intervening century and a half, innumerable documentation has supported and enhanced the original Darwinian theory to the point that today, evolution is an obvious fact. Yet this character (“nutjob”) is unable to comprehend the basic principles of the theory and is still skeptical about its veracity.

There is no rational reason to argue with this bloodyJesus person.  Anyone who thinks that the theory of evolution is fiction doesn’t even deserve to know the time of day.

Bob

With every sentence you sound more and more like a complete moron.  How many brilliant scientists exist, which I state in my argument above, both theists and NON-THEISTS alike, have called Darwin the biggest bunch of garbage ever written. 

And now I am unable to understand the basic principles of evolution huh?  Wow, I really thought you had something between those 2 evolved ears of yours, but obviously not.  I understand every aspect of evolution, and all its fallacies and blunders, and it amazes me that “smart” people like yourself still by into a total lie. 

In fact, I would like you to PROVE to me THE FACT of evolution, starting with the lack of intermediate fossils, and then continue to explain how multi-faceted extremely complex things like the eye or wing “evolved” keeping in mind the absolute necessity for the “infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being.”  And then, if you would, tell me how we get from fish to man, from gills to lungs.  And in your explanation, I need PROOF of the intermediate species that are directly related to the descent of man.  Go for it there pal.

Anyone who thinks the theory of evolution is fiction doesn’t deserve to know the time of day?  I can list 100 names off the top of my head that are brilliant scientists, with many published works, that completely and totally deny Darwinian THEORY.  So they don’t deserve to know the time of day either huh? 

You yourself referred to evolution as a theory.  You really shouldn’t talk out of both sides of your evolved mouth, it can really do terrible things to your evolved brain.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2007 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2007-01-12

Is this a prediction? Let’s test it: I think it is the ravings of someone who is Fucked up in the head.

Nope. No strickenness. Still here. You must be fukking wrong. Shitt!!

You obviously didn’t read my little story on Charlie Chaplain.  And if you had half a brain, you would understand that I was making the point that evil exists in everyone, so if you want it eliminated, we need to start somewhere.  Why not you?  You have no idea what I meant though, so your ignorance is expected.  Dumbest smart people I have ever dealt with.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2007 02:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2007-04-19

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]

Well, you’re volleying back and forth with a scientist in myself, so don’t sell me short just yet.

I’m sorry, but based on the way you characterized science earlier in the thread, I have a hard time believing you are a scientist.  Where did you get your Ph.D.? (Mine is from the University of Ottawa)  This isn’t meant to imply that ones opinions are not valid even if one does not hold a Ph.D. (your opinions are not valid because they are false), but simply to state that we must be careful whom we designate a “scientist”.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]Scientists are a funny sort, really apologetically speaking of their “beliefs” about science, and where we came from.  I don’t blame them, as I do the same about things that I feel strongly about.  Now, before I launch into a few of the holes in evolution, the disclaimer must be that these holes are in no way proof of existence of God.

Quite right, and I’m glad you mentioned it.  Any proof of the Christian god will, by definition, require evidence supporting the physical reality of some or all of the following: virgin birth, resurrection, transubstantiation (in some cases), consubstantiation (in other cases), and at least some evidence that god has (a) positive predictive power (i.e. can make definitive, unambiguous statements about the future) and (b) the ability to answer ALL prayer (since Jesus makes this perfectly clear…regrowth of severed limbs qualifies here).  You’d need other evidence as well, but this is a good start.

You see, if you’re going to make a theoretical prediction about the universe (i.e. god exists), you need to test that theory and, if it doesn’t fit with observation, modify or even discard it.  It is not our responsibility to disprove anything.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]There are many many many brilliant non-theists that disagree totally with the theory, and I stress theory of evolution.

First off, you’re wrong.  The vast, vast majority of those who believe that evolution has never taken place are theists.  Ever wonder why we hear so little criticism of Special Relativity, for instance?  it has tenets which are incompatible with what we observe in our daily lives, and yet it is nearly universally accepted.  Why?  Because it doesn’t conflict with anyone’s religious views.

There is NO controversy.  Evolution is fact; there are gaps in the theory that are being worked out, but this is true of all scientific theories.  But the core premise is sound, having been subjected to 140 years of attempts at falsification.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]How can that be?  It is always met with much criticism when a contemporary, non-theist or theistic person challenges evolution and the theories that you hold so dear.

Because criticism of the core principles of evolution flies in the face of what is demonstrably true.  It is not simply a matter of differing interpretations of data; if that were the case, there would be journals FULL of data directly supporting ID.  There aren’t.  The entire creationist cause is based on picked supposed holes in evolution.  There is no positive data FOR creationism; there are mountains of data in support of evolution.  My professional life is about finding out what is demonstrably true about the universe (or, in my case, the human cell).  You’ll have to forgive me for getting somewhat bothered when someone comes along and disputes, based on erroneous, faulty thinking, what has taken a century and a half of excellent science to build.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]And you can bring harshness against the fossil record if you want, but unless you have something new and groundbreaking to share, the issue is closed for now.  There exist very very few fossils displaying the micromutation that you would demand out of Darwinian theory.

I told you not to discuss transitional fossils.  There ARE transitional fossils.  Here is some good reading:

 
 

Suffice to say, the fact that we have ANY fossils is quite amazing.  We are ALL transitional organisms.  And I would also state thatthe presence of even ONE “transitional fossil” completely destroys this argument.  I will not address this argument any further; the links above should suffice.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]“Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved beings.”  Thats a wonderfully eloquent sentence, but denies itself in many examples in science. 

(1)There is little to no evidence that exists to support the evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited modifications” of complex structures such as the wing or the eye.  In fact, its hard to even imagine an advantage of gradual changes that eventually produce an eye that can discern things.  What would the transitional animal look like?  And how would it be “profitable to the preserved beings?”

 
 

The fact that you can’t conceive of something is evidence only of your own ignorance of that topic.  Half an eye IS valuable; any photo-sensitive cell is useful than none at all.  Irreducible complexity is NOT an argument about evolution.  I feel a “Behe” coming soon…

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”](2)The avian lung is another highly developed organ that would seem impossible to have evolved through infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved beings.

See the links above.  Whether or not you can think of a mechanism is irrelevant.  This is no argument at all.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]”“Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes.  Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of repiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.”

—Denton’s Evolution:  A Theory in Crisis

I don’t even know where to start on this.  It’s just a convoluted way of saying “I can’t fathom a mechanism by which the lung evolved, so it couldn’t have happened”.

Why do you people assume that everything you see now (human lungs, for instance) are the perfect result of some predestined process?  Oh, because that’s exactly your worldview.

All lower organisms have simpler lungs than we do; the lung doesn’t HAVE TO look like ours to function.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]“I quote there because I could not have said it better myself.

I think it may be that you simply cannot say yourself.  And your degree in physiology is from??????  Mine’s from McGill University.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]”(3)Richard Dawkins himself cannot explain why the nautilus, after hundreds of millions of years, has yet to develop the lens for its eye despite having a retina that is “practically crying out for this particular simple change.”

This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about evolution.  Nothing HAS TO evolve.  It does so based on selection pressures.  You have this preconceived notion about what an eye SHOULD be.  But in reality, an eye is whatever is required to maximize reproductive fitness in a given environment.  Again, this is NOT an argument against evolution.  Instead, it shows that you don’t know the basic principles.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]“Michael Behe has also written extensively on the vertebrate eye, and the evidence is damning.

What was damning was when Behe was torn to shreds during the Dover trial.  Behe has been roundly discredited.  His concept of irreducible complexity is a non-issue; there are MANY ways to build systems that are apparently irreducibly complex.  I would point you to the Talk Origins links above for a complete discussion of this fallacy.

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]“There are many more holes, and we can discuss them at will, but frankly my fingers evolved poorly, and get very tired quickly.

At this point, having addressed your holes, I would assume that you now recognize the fallacy of your previous resistance to evolution, and are now prepare to move over to the rational side of the “controversy”.  Assuming that this is just wishful thinking, I will say this:

I am not prepared to entertain any further discussion about evolution until such time as you are prepared to proffer an alternate theory, which can be tested against the available data (i.e. is falsifiable).  There is more than ample evidence to suggest that evolution is occuring (seriously, more than the current theory of gravity).  If you choose to ignore that, or to convince yourself that personal incredulity is a valid logical argument, so be it.  But I’m not having any part of this discussion until such time as you describe an alternate theory which can be tested and subjected to falsification.

THAT is how science works.

 Signature 

“If there is nothing that can convince you that you are wrong, then you don’t need anything to convince you that you are right.” - waltercat

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2007 03:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”] Now, before I launch into a few of the holes in evolution, the disclaimer must be that these holes are in no way proof of existence of God.

Does that mean that you don’t have an agenda to convince people to believe in God? If so, it doesn’t make sense to me that you seem to care so much about disproving evolution.

I can’t speak for Edge or anyone else here, but I care about evolution because I want the freedom to observe the world and make my own conclusions about it. Biblical literalism tells people to accept the party line or suffer forever after death, which is an attempt to control people’s minds. No one tells me what to think or what to believe.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2007 03:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2007-04-19

[quote author=“Carstonio”][quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”] Now, before I launch into a few of the holes in evolution, the disclaimer must be that these holes are in no way proof of existence of God.

Does that mean that you don’t have an agenda to convince people to believe in God? If so, it doesn’t make sense to me that you seem to care so much about disproving evolution.

I can’t speak for Edge or anyone else here, but I care about evolution because I want the freedom to observe the world and make my own conclusions about it. Biblical literalism tells people to accept the party line or suffer forever after death, which is an attempt to control people’s minds. No one tells me what to think or what to believe.

Virtually no one who questions the core principles of evolution does so because they have an honest debate with the theory.  They do so because it conflicts with the dogma that has been taught to them through pieces of dubious Iron Age literature.  The science is sound; as a professional scientist (meaning, I earn my living through the daily practice of science), I thrive on real, honest debates about honest interpretations of data.  This isn’t honest.

If you don’t like the theory because you feel the data suggests something else, then so be it: proffer your own theory, and test it.  But if you don’t like the theory in spite of what is plainly suggested by the voluminuous data, this is quite another thing indeed.

Where is the data in support of creationism?  Where is the positive data suggesting evolution is false?  Holes in a theory do not disprove the theory; they simply suggest that there is more data to be discovered.  We have enough data to suggest that the core of evolutionary theory is true; the holes get filled in every day.

Consider what Darwin was working against when he formulated the theory.  He knew nothing of the genetic material, which is the fundamental mechanism through which natural selection functions.  He knew nothing of the universal genetic code, which explains the intrinsic similarities between higher and lower organisms.  When Crick et al were working on elucidating the genetic code, they HYPOTHESIZED, based on evolutionary theory, that the triplet genetic code must be universal, and that any differences in the code must occur only in lower organisms.  That is precisely what they found.  It didn’t have to turn out that way.  THIS is a falsifiable statement, based on the theory, that was shown to be true.  THIS is the sort of evidence that lends support to evolutionary theory.

Similarly, evolutionary theory predicts that whatever the nature of the genetic material, it must be (a) easily reproduced, (b) copied with a high degree of fidelity, and (c) subject to some random variability.  Darwin didn’t know about DNA, which, as it turns out, displays all of these characteristics.  Moreover, the fact that related organisms show lower genetic variability in regions of DNA that code for proteins than in other non-coding, non-regulatory regions of the genome, suggests that natural selection, as predicted, works on the phenotype by influencing the genotype; if evolution were not true (again, see how I’m subjecting the theory to falsification), we would expect to see (a) no distinct genetic similarity between organisms and (b) random variations throughout the genome.  In fact, we see that organisms show a great deal of similarity in regions that are subject to selection pressures, and a great deal of difference in regions that are not.

Evolution is a fact, supported by ample data.  There is no controversy here.

 Signature 

“If there is nothing that can convince you that you are wrong, then you don’t need anything to convince you that you are right.” - waltercat

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2007 03:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

[quote author=“nothingbutthebloodofjesus”]

Is this a prediction? Let’s test it: I think it is the ravings of someone who is Fucked up in the head.

Nope. No strickenness. Still here. You must be fukking wrong. Shitt!!

You obviously didn’t read my little story on Charlie Chaplain.

WRONG.  The story made absolutely no sense in the context of the problem of evil.  God, being omni-benevolent, should eliminate all unnecessary evil. That he is uninterested in impressing a comedian is neither here not there, as far as this issue is concerned.  So your comment:

The next time you slander someone, curse, lie, cheat, steal, you will be stricken from the earth immediately.

seems like some kind of bizarre prophecy.  It is clearly unrelated to the issue at hand: namely, the fact that the there is a tremendous amount of unnecessary suffering is very good evidence that God does not exist. If you don’t want to talk about that issue, I understand.  It is very inconvenient for you.  Asking you to take the problem seriously is apparently asking too much of you.  It would require you to severe your emotional bonds to your beliefs, beliefs which you know to be absurd but are the only things preventing your utter emotional collapse.

And if you had half a brain,

How very Christian of you.  Your emotional needs apparently extend to wishing to believe yourself intellectually superior.  Trust me, there are millions of people much brighter than you.  Deal with it.

you would understand that I was making the point that evil exists in everyone, so if you want it eliminated, we need to start somewhere.  Why not you?

Again, this betrays a profound unwillingness to deal with the issue.  God is the one who is all-powerful and omni-benevolent.  He is the one who should be eliminating evil.  Why isn’t He?

NBTBOJ,
You have proven that you are incapable of being moved by reason.  There remains no reason to converse with you.  However, I believe that you are much more intelligent than you have been demonstrating here.  You can think rationally about these issues.  It is difficult, but nobody is as complete a moron as would be suggested by your posts.  Please re-consider your commitment to mocking others.  Listen to what others are telling you.  Disagree, but in a thoughtful and articulate way when you do.  There are precedents, even on this site, for thoughtful Christianity.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed