A case for religion, and against AA.

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not confused;

Yes, you are. Thoroughly.

You made an assertion

I stated a fact.

"there are no organisms that are not transitional" which is the same as: "Every organism is transitional" therefore;if the theory (of evolution) is correct,there should be transitional examples for every organism.

Nonsense. There's no rule that says there must be a fossilized example of every organism. Do you have even the foggiest idea how rare fossilization is?

Second, pick any existent fossil. THAT'S a "transitional."

Out of every organism there is and ever has been,there are really no examples of transition.
No inter-species transition..none of it.period.

Again, you simply have wrongheaded ideas about evolution and basic biology. I'll repeat myself: every single individual organism represents the transition between its ancestors and it's descendents. There are no fossils that aren't transitional fossils.

 

[dphantom]

Thanks for the honest reply. It's not uncommon to see the others turn to Christianity in though times (prisoners, alcoholics for example) with positive results. Would you say it's the positive feelings alone that cemented your faith ?

Follow-up question: (without knowing the details) do you think you would have arrived at the same conclusions if you led had a more satisfactory life in the past?

It wasn't so much tough times as a general dissatisfaction with where I was going in very very broad terms.

For the second question, I can only speculate but I believe I would have at some point just perhaps not so soon.

 

[dphantom]

Would you say it's the positive feelings alone that cemented your faith ?

I didn't answer this part well. No, I felt God call to me when I turned to Him. He answered and ever since my life has been a blessing.

No change in career, no real change in financial status (comfortable), divorced and remarried but divorced before I felt Called.

I know it sounds impossible to non-believers but I can assure you that is what happened as impossible as it sounds.

And with that I think I exit the overall discussion here. I am not sure I can add more and appreciate the dialog with some here.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I didn't answer this part well. No, I felt God call to me when I turned to Him. He answered and ever since my life has been a blessing.

No change in career, no real change in financial status (comfortable), divorced and remarried but divorced before I felt Called.

I know it sounds impossible to non-believers but I can assure you that is what happened as impossible as it sounds.

And with that I think I exit the overall discussion here. I am not sure I can add more and appreciate the dialog with some here.

In before the Atheist start trying to explain away your response, by asking questions!!

I am Happy that you shared with us, a little about your understanding and faith in God!!

Peace!!

 

[schmuckley]

Yes, you are. Thoroughly.


I stated a fact.

Nonsense. There's no rule that says there must be a fossilized example of every organism. Do you have even the foggiest idea how rare fossilization is?

Second, pick any existent fossil. THAT'S a "transitional."

Again, you simply have wrongheaded ideas about evolution and basic biology. I'll repeat myself: every single individual organism represents the transition between its ancestors and it's descendents. There are no fossils that aren't transitional fossils.

So where is the evidence of anything transitioning then? So..
This is a "transitional"?

transitioning to what?
a clam?

a clam is still a clam.
There are no transitional fossils,because there is no transition.
There are extinct species and species that are alive;and that's it.
Natural Selection? sure
Evolution? No

 

[dphantom]

In before the Atheist start trying to explain away your response, by asking questions!!

I am Happy that you shared with us, a little about your understanding and faith in God!!

Peace!!

Peace Brother

:thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Is there a god , a debate that goes very close to how these threads do.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So where is the evidence of anything transitioning then?

What? You want observed instances of speciation?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Observed+speciation

So..
This is a "transitional"?

Yep.

transitioning to what?
a clam?

Its descendents.

a clam is still a clam.

So what? Mammals will always be mammals. Chordates will always be chordates. Amphibians will always be amphibians. Your problem is you think of evolution like a ladder, when it's really a tree. A branch may grow off-shoots of its own, but everything will still be part of the original branch, and every branch will be part of the same trunk.

There are no transitional fossils,because there is no transition.

Everything is always in transition. From past to future.

There are extinct species and species that are alive;and that's it.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true on our planet.

Natural Selection? sure
Evolution? No

Oh, please. You're embarrassing yourself.

Tomorrow I'll start a thread, and in it you are going to be cordially invited to debate me on the merits of evolution. Be sure to look for it.

 

[sandorski]

What? You want observed instances of speciation?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Observed+speciation

Yep.

Its descendents.


So what? Mammals will always be mammals. Chordates will always be chordates. Amphibians will always be amphibians. Your problem is you think of evolution like a ladder, when it's really a tree. A branch may grow off-shoots of its own, but everything will still be part of the original branch, and every branch will be part of the same trunk.

Everything is always in transition. From past to future.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true on our planet.

Oh, please. You're embarrassing yourself.

Tomorrow I'll start a thread, and in it you are going to be cordially invited to debate me on the merits of evolution. Be sure to look for it.

I'm pretty sure the first pic is a calcified hat often erroneously cited by YECs as being "fossilized" or "petrified".

 

[Retro Rob]

Is there a god , a debate that goes very close to how these threads do.

I listened to a debate some time ago between them two, and while I don't care much for either of them, Comfort is an intellectually dishonest idiot.

He made a claim that since science cannot say for sure that the universe is 13 billion years old or 14 billion, he can legitimately say its 6000 years old.

Secondly, I don't see why atheists bother to argue against the existence of God. They have more standing, IMO, arguing the veracity of religion.

 

[sandorski]

I listened to a debate some time ago between them two, and while I don't care much for either of them, Comfort is an intellectually dishonest idiot.

He made a claim that since science cannot say for sure that the universe is 13 billion years old or 14 billion, he can legitimately say its 6000 years old.

Secondly, I don't see why atheists bother to argue against the existence of God. They have more standing, IMO, arguing the veracity of religion.

What else would they argue, it is the central issue.

 

[Retro Rob]

What else would they argue, it is the central issue.

Because...there is "no evidence" for his existence or non-existence, so you end up arguing religion or "poor design" anyway. It always cycles back to the same bullshit.

 

[sandorski]

Because...there is "no evidence" for his existence or non-existence, so you end up arguing religion or "poor design" anyway. It always cycles back to the same bullshit.

The debate is all about the Evidence. Some goes to Religion, some to Life, etc. All these things are pertinent to the question at hand.

 

[Retro Rob]

The debate is all about the Evidence. Some goes to Religion, some to Life, etc. All these things are pertinent to the question at hand.

Lol dudes have been debating this for decades which is the reason why I don't bother to watch them anymore really.

We use the same evidence. I think it's more or less how it's interpreted.

 

[sandorski]

Lol dudes have been debating this for decades which is the reason why I don't bother to watch them anymore really.

We use the same evidence. I think it's more or less how it's interpreted.

Therein lies the problem, just like how the Bible is interpreted. It's the old Dogma vs Evidential based position dilemma. One assumes the Conclusion, one assumes nothing.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The debate is all about the Evidence. Some goes to Religion, some to Life, etc. All these things are pertinent to the question at hand.

In your mind it is all about the evidence.....

I just read this....

An Atheist Says There Is No Evidence For God

by Matt Slick

This short dialogue deals with evidence for God's existence. Though the discussion didn't really examine any proofs for God, it dealt more with Dan's presuppositions and what evidence he would accept as sufficient to show that God exists.

It was brought to my attention that some atheists think this dialogue was contrived, that it is a lie from me to make atheists look bad. The truth is that it is a real dialogue. I did not make it up. If the atheists have to resort to defamation to hold their position, then they have no position worth defending.
Matt: Why is it that you do not believe in God?
Dan: Because there is no evidence that he exists.
Matt: You can't say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.
Dan: Let's just say I don't see sufficient evidence for gods existence.
Matt: But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through... and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?
Dan: Come up with a way that you would believe in unicorns, and Ill show you a way to fake it. You come up with an air tight way to believe in unicorns, then get back to me about the illogic of my position.
Matt: The way to believe in unicorns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically, the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way.
Dan: Well, how about, if he [God] could do something that was clearly illogical, like make a square circle, and show it to me. Then I would believe.
Matt: A square circle is a non-sequitur. It is self contradictory by definition. God cannot violate his own nature. Besides how would you comprehend such a contradictory thing if it somehow were able to be done? You wouldn't know it and your proof would be useless since you couldn't understand it. Besides, it can't be done anyway.
Dan: Why not?
Matt: Can you violate your own nature? Can you will yourself to be bigger than the sun?
Dan: No, but if there is a god, I'd expect him to exist outside of logic.
Matt: Perhaps, but not against logic, since He created it.
Dan: If he created logic, why can't He do things that run against it?
Matt: If God created the universe and everything in it, then he created it out of his own nature. The design and natural laws had to originate in His mind. Therefore, it will have His characteristics woven into it: logic, physics, etc. These are all reflections of Gods awesome creative character. Also, since God is self-sufficient, He cannot be self contradictory. Otherwise, He could not sustain Himself. Therefore, He cannot violate His own nature.
Dan: So? Is he limited to the things he built into the universe? Isn't he omnipotent?
Matt: Yes....
Dan: Why can't he act against His own universe?
Matt: He could. He could destroy the entire universe. But He chooses not to.
Dan: What a crock. Just like I could stomp the earth and crush all armies with a wave of my hand. I just choose not to. Your argument isn't valid.
Matt: Why? Just because God doesn't choose to do something He has the power to do, it does not mean He does not exist. After all, does it prove that you do not exist if you choose not to do something you could do? If you choose not to clap your hands right now, does that mean you do not exist? Of course not.
Dan: [no response]
Matt: Think about this. God choosing to not exercise His will in something is the same as you choosing not to exercise belief in a god. You could, but you just don't. Both are a lack of action. So, how can you complain against God for not moving according to your criteria, when you choose to not move at all in believe in Him?


At this point, the conversation ended.....

I believe that Dan was incapable of finding God because he had a false method of verifying evidence for God. He seemed to require evidence that was naturally impossible. I attempted to show him the error in his logic.

 

[Retro Rob]

Therein lies the problem, just like how the Bible is interpreted. It's the old Dogma vs Evidential based position dilemma. One assumes the Conclusion, one assumes nothing.

Actually, we need to treat this more delicately. Where in history can we find where man wasn't religious to some degree?

We are a "religious animal", so I think the issue isn't a simple as people inferring a conclusion without some reason to. I think atheists want to skimp over this truth and that's...ignorant really, because dismissing something as innate as religion and worship is hand-waving the nature of man.

No real scientists can look me into the eye and tell me that doesn't matter.

 

[sandorski]

In your mind it is all about the evidence.....

I just read this....

An Atheist Says There Is No Evidence For God

by Matt Slick

This short dialogue deals with evidence for God's existence. Though the discussion didn't really examine any proofs for God, it dealt more with Dan's presuppositions and what evidence he would accept as sufficient to show that God exists.

It was brought to my attention that some atheists think this dialogue was contrived, that it is a lie from me to make atheists look bad. The truth is that it is a real dialogue. I did not make it up. If the atheists have to resort to defamation to hold their position, then they have no position worth defending.
Matt: Why is it that you do not believe in God?
Dan: Because there is no evidence that he exists.
Matt: You can't say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.
Dan: Let's just say I don't see sufficient evidence for gods existence.
Matt: But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through... and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?
Dan: Come up with a way that you would believe in unicorns, and Ill show you a way to fake it. You come up with an air tight way to believe in unicorns, then get back to me about the illogic of my position.
Matt: The way to believe in unicorns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically, the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way.
Dan: Well, how about, if he [God] could do something that was clearly illogical, like make a square circle, and show it to me. Then I would believe.
Matt: A square circle is a non-sequitur. It is self contradictory by definition. God cannot violate his own nature. Besides how would you comprehend such a contradictory thing if it somehow were able to be done? You wouldn't know it and your proof would be useless since you couldn't understand it. Besides, it can't be done anyway.
Dan: Why not?
Matt: Can you violate your own nature? Can you will yourself to be bigger than the sun?
Dan: No, but if there is a god, I'd expect him to exist outside of logic.
Matt: Perhaps, but not against logic, since He created it.
Dan: If he created logic, why can't He do things that run against it?
Matt: If God created the universe and everything in it, then he created it out of his own nature. The design and natural laws had to originate in His mind. Therefore, it will have His characteristics woven into it: logic, physics, etc. These are all reflections of Gods awesome creative character. Also, since God is self-sufficient, He cannot be self contradictory. Otherwise, He could not sustain Himself. Therefore, He cannot violate His own nature.
Dan: So? Is he limited to the things he built into the universe? Isn't he omnipotent?
Matt: Yes....
Dan: Why can't he act against His own universe?
Matt: He could. He could destroy the entire universe. But He chooses not to.
Dan: What a crock. Just like I could stomp the earth and crush all armies with a wave of my hand. I just choose not to. Your argument isn't valid.
Matt: Why? Just because God doesn't choose to do something He has the power to do, it does not mean He does not exist. After all, does it prove that you do not exist if you choose not to do something you could do? If you choose not to clap your hands right now, does that mean you do not exist? Of course not.
Dan: [no response]
Matt: Think about this. God choosing to not exercise His will in something is the same as you choosing not to exercise belief in a god. You could, but you just don't. Both are a lack of action. So, how can you complain against God for not moving according to your criteria, when you choose to not move at all in believe in Him?


At this point, the conversation ended.....

I believe that Dan was incapable of finding God because he had a false method of verifying evidence for God. He seemed to require evidence that was naturally impossible. I attempted to show him the error in his logic.

How about some Evidence? If the being in question is beyond Natural to begin with, asking for unnatural evidence is perfectly reasonable. However, there's still the complete lack of any evidence ever offered, unnatural or otherwise.

 

[JEDIYoda]

How about some Evidence? If the being in question is beyond Natural to begin with, asking for unnatural evidence is perfectly reasonable. However, there's still the complete lack of any evidence ever offered, unnatural or otherwise.
__________________

How about reading the article and understanding what was said ---did you read the beginning??

I quote --

Though the discussion didn't really examine any proofs for God, it dealt more with Dan's presuppositions and what evidence he would accept as sufficient to show that God exists.

 

[dphantom]

How about reading the article and understanding what was said ---did you read the beginning??

Unfortunately too many don't read. Almost like a broken record. Show the evidence, but only on terms they accept.

 

[sandorski]

Actually, we need to treat this more delicately. Where in history can we find where man wasn't religious to some degree?

We are a "religious animal", so I think the issue isn't a simple as people inferring a conclusion without some reason to. I think atheists want to skimp over this truth and that's...ignorant really, because dismissing something as innate as religion and worship is hand-waving the nature of man.

No real scientists can look me into the eye and tell me that doesn't matter.

This is an appeal to popularity. Certainly religion is very common amongst humans, but not all humans. There have been isolated tribes with no religious thought at all. Amongst those with religion, those religions were vastly different going from everything being a god or having some kind of spirit existence to just one god.

All that really shows is that we have struggled to understand the world around us and attempted to explain things as occurring by the actions of outside forces. This even goes into a wide variety of Superstitions and our desire to get every advantage over what happens we can through Luck and various lucky trinkets.

In no way is this evidence of any being or thing existing outside our perceived world, it is merely evidence of belief in things existing outside the perceived world.

 

[sandorski]

How about reading the article and understanding what was said ---did you read the beginning??

I quote --

Completely moot to the subject. Evidence still required. It is unfortunate that you quote Matt Slick, as his apologetic is completely centered around not presenting Evidence at all. It is the Pre-suppositionalist way.

As we have discussed before in this very thread, it is difficult to know what evidence would be convincing. However, if your god exists as you or theists define it, surely that god would know what would convince me or any Atheist.

That said, why can't one(literally) Theist ever present anything approaching Evidence? We get fallacious arguments, anecdotes, dubious claims to miracles or signs, constant appeals to one fallacy or another.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is an appeal to popularity.

You don't understand what that fallacy is.

Certainly religion is very common amongst humans, but not all humans. There have been isolated tribes with no religious thought at all.

Like whom? Don't make anything up. Secondly, isolated tribes still will worship something...either a god, or the human mind.

Amongst those with religion, those religions were vastly different going from everything being a god or having some kind of spirit existence to just one god.

So what? The point is, religion is religion. I think you're in denial.

All that really shows is that we have struggled to understand the world around us and attempted to explain things as occurring by the actions of outside forces.

Who knows. You don't...that's for sure. But whatever the reason, we are religious by nature (and I am not referring to the current religions we have today) and I don't think that can be ignored or "explained away" as you're attempting to do.

Anyone interested in human nature would work to understand this. It seems you're too afraid of uncomfortable facts....you're afraid that a god could actually exists...so you've put words into my mouth and your arguments are overflowing with straw.

This even goes into a wide variety of Superstitions and our desire to get every advantage over what happens we can through Luck and various lucky trinkets.

lol -- I don't know why I am even talking to you. You're desperately grasping at straws here.

In no way is this evidence of any being or thing existing outside our perceived world, it is merely evidence of belief in things existing outside the perceived world.

Strawman, as I never said that....and WTF?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Completely moot to the subject. Evidence still required. It is unfortunate that you quote Matt Slick, as his apologetic is completely centered around not presenting Evidence at all. It is the Pre-suppositionalist way.

As we have discussed before in this very thread, it is difficult to know what evidence would be convincing. However, if your god exists as you or theists define it, surely that god would know what would convince me or any Atheist.

That said, why can't one(literally) Theist ever present anything approaching Evidence? We get fallacious arguments, anecdotes, dubious claims to miracles or signs, constant appeals to one fallacy or another.

all we get is prove it....hmm.....now that an intellectual comment!

 

[sandorski]

all we get is prove it....hmm.....now that an intellectual comment!

Evidence.