Fair enough, but those who tend to debate semantics usually don't get anywhere. The point is both sides are blind and think they're accomplishing something by pointing out the obvious. Atheists will often point out that there are some Christians who hate gays. Yet, at the same time they refuse to acknowledge that most Christians don't hate gays and most of them are good people. Also, I think it's quite hiliarous when Athiests mention that most people included Christians haven't read the bible and still claim to be experts.
Fair enough, but those who tend to debate semantics usually don't get anywhere. The point is both sides are blind and think they're accomplishing something by pointing out the obvious. Atheists will often point out that there are some Christians who hate gays. Yet, at the same time they refuse to acknowledge that most Christians don't hate gays and most of them are good people. Also, I think it's quite hiliarous when Athiests mention that most people included Christians haven't read the bible and still claim to be experts.
I think that about all the "global warming does not exist" crowd which seems to have big numbers here on ATOT. The best part is that their posts demonstrate that they have zero understanding of what global warming is or what causes atmospherical weather patterns. I just love uninformed decisions. The same is behind denial of evolution.
The typical "it does not exist because I have been brainwashed not to believe in it" is a common answer for people who are too dumb to learn a thing or two about science.
No one's denying global warming, it's the people claiming that if the government does XYZ then everything will be ok. When in reality, you don't know if XYZ is really going to make a difference because you're still not sure how global warming works or the cause or even if you could stop it.
It is clear to me that green house gasses cause it. People contribute a lot of them. I am not one of the ones who say that we can stop it if we cut back 20%. It would be nice if people were more responsible but that won't happen any time soon. That still does not mean that if we take preventative measures it has no effect. It will but it will not stop the process.
What preventative measure should we take? I bet if we created a new federal agency that funded global warming research, set new enviromental standards, taxed global warming contributers, gave subsidies to "alternative energy" companies it's likely that we'll be on our way to global warming...
Oh, by the way this new federal agency needs a couple hundred billion a year and has asked that we ban the use of XYZ product because it's a big contributer to global warming even though XYZ consumer is completely dependant on it.
Tab,
If my purpose in posting was to convert all atheists to Christianity, it would be very foolish and hopeless. It may also be foolish, but I like to hope that something that I say may help at least one atheist someday, even if I never hear that from them. A slightly greater hope is that I might have a similar effect on an agnostic, because everybody was once an agnostic, whether they realized it or not. Therefore, the goal is not to win an argument, or to simply pass the time in an amusing fashion. People never remain the same person throughout their lives, therefore what counts is how they end up. I consider the conflict to be merely an opportunity.
If my purpose in posting was to convert all atheists to Christianity, it would be very foolish and hopeless. It may also be foolish, but I like to hope that something that I say may help at least one atheist someday, even if I never hear that from them. A slightly greater hope is that I might have a similar effect on an agnostic, because everybody was once an agnostic, whether they realized it or not. Therefore, the goal is not to win an argument, or to simply pass the time in an amusing fashion. People never remain the same person throughout their lives, therefore what counts is how they end up. I consider the conflict to be merely an opportunity.
Um, i just ran it through spell check. Nothing's wrong. Except fsking. And semi-purposeful minor grammatical errors (like begining a sentence with and). But then again i guess you've probably written your own dictionary haven't you? One where atheism isn't the positive belief that there is no God. I havent thrown a spin on anything you've said. You clearly say that 'a large number of atheists' define thier views just as you outline. And the way you outline is in contradiction to the objective, black and white definition of atheism. And I put the inflammatory remarks in there for a good reason, to wake you the hell up. You're trying to fight the dictionary here.
And do you really try and impress ladies with your spelling on internet forums? Because that would be just about the funniest thing i have ever heard.
Sorry to bore you.
Vic,
I believe it was you who denied morality in that thread about abortion. I can't find it now but you argued that morality wasn't really about right or wrong, it was just an evolved response designed to facilitate society. I argued that that may be true in a macro sense but that that theory broke down with specificity and that without right and wrong in your morality, simply benifit vs. risk, it ceased to be morality by the conventional definition. Wasn't that you? I'm pretty sure it was because you were arguing with Moonbeam. But i could be mistaken, if i am i'm very sorry.
Elfear
Diamond Member
- May 30, 2004
- 7,165
- 824
- 126
As others have pointed out not all evidence can be replicated in a petri dish or examined under a microscope. You seem to have found evidence that leads you to conclude that God does not exist or, at the very least, that God's existence is unprovable. For myself, I have found evidence of God's existence in every aspect of our lives, from the complexity of our nature to man's need for purpose and meaning in life (I'll bet that even those who claim that need for meaning is a crutch, deep down, have the same need themselves).
You give the impression that you have accumulated so much evidence that God does not exist that there is really no question in the debate and that there is no way anyone will be able to give you the evidence you ask for. I feel the same way about the amount of evidence proving God's existence.
I won't begrudge you your free agency and your right to make whatever decision you choose based off the evidence you have, even though I don't see it. Maybe you should do the same for others.
Originally posted by: Elfear
Originally posted by: Crono
Excellent postI am a Christian, and I guess you could call me a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian (though I really don't like all the baggage that comes with those terms). Again and again I hear people referring to evolution as fact. But the truth is that only microevolution has been proven. You simply cannot demonstrate macroevolution, and that's the whole reason it has never been successfully rejected as a theory. The so-called evidences that have been brought up have been either proved false, deliberate lies, circumstantial, or logically flawed. It's amazing, compared to actual sciences, how worthless and full of lies the "science" of evolution is.
The "fossil record" does not prove anything - I could "link" fossils of a human with a mutation (an extra finger, for example) from 4,000 years ago to a different human skeleton from 100 years ago who had an extra finger, and say that the human from 100 years ago is a descendant of the 4,000 year old human. Furthermore, I could probably find similar fossils in between that would bridge the two.
Belief in macroevolution takes a lot of faith, and those who defend it defend it religiously. The funny thing is, real scientists acknowledge that theories, no matter what the theory is, are always subject to revised or even discarded. That is the essence of science, that it is always changing and is never absolute. You only need to look at the many theories over the centuries that were believed by many for the longest time, but turned out to be false. Just because we live in a "modern" era with high tech tools doesn't mean we are any more intelligent or less susceptible to error than our predecessors. The best and truest scientists are the ones who have humility and wisdom enough not to insult others, and aren't lording their arrogance over everyone else.
Yes, I believe in a God. Yes, I do so by faith. I don't care if that makes me a fool in the sight of this world. Truth is truth no matter what the public or common opinion of the day is.
Thanks and I agree with your sentiments, especially your last paragraph.
So what is the difference between the mechanisms behind macro and micro evolution?
What exactly is wrong with Chirstianity?
Lets see. . .
People that profess to Love their neighbor as themselves, turn the other cheek, Feed the Poor, give aid the the widow and the fatherless. Sounds like a nice bunch of folks to me. After Katrina, it was the churches that provided the most help to those who needed it.
Believing in Evolution is irrelevent. What good can come from believing in evolution, which is an unprovable theory?
How did life begin? What is your theory on that?
Lets see. . .
People that profess to Love their neighbor as themselves, turn the other cheek, Feed the Poor, give aid the the widow and the fatherless. Sounds like a nice bunch of folks to me. After Katrina, it was the churches that provided the most help to those who needed it.
Believing in Evolution is irrelevent. What good can come from believing in evolution, which is an unprovable theory?
How did life begin? What is your theory on that?
That's because there isn't one. Natural selection is the only only major mechanism behind evolution - there is no difference between the explanation between the two.
The reason for this is that there really isn't such a thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution - these are arbitrary labels thrown onto the exact same process. If I wanted to, I could throw my own labels... I'll call "micro evolution" species level, "mini evolution" at Genus level, "kilo evolution" Family level, "mega evolution" Order etc etc. No matter how many of these labels I put in, this won't change the fact that there is still only one actual evolution.
The reason why people like you use these these labels is that evolution on longer timescales relies on less intuitive evidence such as genetics, whilst evolution on shorter timescales can be more readily seen.
Martin,
For either adaptation or evolution to work as you described, by natural selection, it would require a constant series of mutatations within all species of life. While mutations do occur, they do not breed new species. As rare as these mutations are, for them to even survive is even rarer. Even if they are fertile, they would have to find partner that would accept them, and that is against nature. Mutations generally are items such as an extra limb or head. A mutation such as this has a better chance of survival when it is human, than within the animal kingdom. But, even if such a mutant has a sexual life, they do not have similar offspring.
The "theory" that birds came from dinosaurs, is so absurd that it isn't even funny. It isn't surprising that you persist in spouting the same tired assertions, because that is about all that is possible. Even if you do not really know anything about the justifications that science uses, it would be interesting to hear how you would be able to rationalize this...or have you ever tried?
For either adaptation or evolution to work as you described, by natural selection, it would require a constant series of mutatations within all species of life. While mutations do occur, they do not breed new species. As rare as these mutations are, for them to even survive is even rarer. Even if they are fertile, they would have to find partner that would accept them, and that is against nature. Mutations generally are items such as an extra limb or head. A mutation such as this has a better chance of survival when it is human, than within the animal kingdom. But, even if such a mutant has a sexual life, they do not have similar offspring.
The "theory" that birds came from dinosaurs, is so absurd that it isn't even funny. It isn't surprising that you persist in spouting the same tired assertions, because that is about all that is possible. Even if you do not really know anything about the justifications that science uses, it would be interesting to hear how you would be able to rationalize this...or have you ever tried?
Jimmy Carter = Real Christian
Jerry Falwell = False Christian and False Sheperd
Look at the difference between how the two project their faith or in Falwell's case "so called" faith.
First, your idea of "mutation" seems to have come out of a 1950s superhero comic and has little to do evolution. Second, yes, I've read a few books on it that explain it in great detail wonderfully. However as I and a few others mentioned earlier such books are inaccessible to people like you because there is no common frame of reference.
In your particular case, discussing how humans and chimps differentiated themselves from their common ancestor over 5m years is rather meaningless, since you don't even think the earth has been around for more than a few thousand years. With other people, it's not that obvious (or hilarious) - for example they may lack a understanding of genetic concepts, they might be generally ignorant etc.
Martin,
It is becoming more and more clear that you will say anything that is convenient, so long as it serves your purpose.
You pretend that to educate someone like me, is so hopeless that you don't want to waste your valuable time. But, you don't mind wasting your time to compose your a continous diatribe of denigrating remarks toward anyone that would dare to ask you for something more substantial than your empty refrains. If this makes you feel more secure in your dark little niche, then be it far from me to want to disturb you. As far as your secret library is concerned, the only scientific data that might be dealt with in such a fashion, is something related to national security. Evolution does have alot to do with national security, but not in the fashion that the government would care about.
It is becoming more and more clear that you will say anything that is convenient, so long as it serves your purpose.
You're pretty much spot on - you are in fact quite hopeless. I discuss these things with friends quite a bit and its easy to tell the ones you can talk to and the ones you can't. For example I can't really talk to the bible literalist Coptic Christian or the one that spent time in China as a missionary, but with others its much easier.
Now, there is nothing secret about my library (I get my books from the public library after all), but even I were to recommend this book and you were to read the words, the meaning would still be far beyond you.
Martin,
How old are you? I'm beginning to believe that I'm talking to a kid. As far as your book goes, it doesn't even appear to be a scientific volume. There is an abundance of books available to support any kind of an idea that would appeal to anyone's particular biases. I have no doubt that you have like minded friends, that is what generally forms friendships in the first place. Maybe you and they should organize and form your own little church, you already have the religion.
How old are you? I'm beginning to believe that I'm talking to a kid. As far as your book goes, it doesn't even appear to be a scientific volume. There is an abundance of books available to support any kind of an idea that would appeal to anyone's particular biases. I have no doubt that you have like minded friends, that is what generally forms friendships in the first place. Maybe you and they should organize and form your own little church, you already have the religion.
Martin,
Your reference to Asian and oriental churches makes me wonder what country that you live in?
Your reference to Asian and oriental churches makes me wonder what country that you live in?
"People that profess to Love their neighbor as themselves, turn the other cheek, Feed the Poor, give aid the the widow and the fatherless. Sounds like a nice bunch of folks to me."
If that were the actual case, it would be great!
How can you substantiate that claim? Simply declaring the various theories of speciation as wrong is unacceptable, as is demanding a summary of a theory with literally millions of pieces of supporting evidence. If you honestly want to learn how new species can evolve then please read some sources on it and bring up individual points. Declaring the entire theory flawed and invalid is not only an unreasonable point, but, in this case, is the reason why nobody wants to give you detailed responses. Why should I type up a long summary of the basics of evolution when I already know that you will dismiss it with some flawed, superficial reasoning?
Now, if you seriously want to learn about speciation I suggest you read the wikipedia entry (linked below). Its relatively short and should make for a quick read.
Link
Martin's point is very valid. Explaining how evolution occurs over millions of years will fall flat on someone who believes that all of our dating methods are wrong.
Its in my profile. Toronto has an immense immigrant population so having friends from around the world is pretty much the default state.
Thanks, someone gets what I was tripping over myself trying to say. My goal was to defend everyone?s right to have their beliefs treated with the dignity they deserve, one I didn't accomplish very well apparently. I can't prove one way or another on the God issue any more than anyone else, and I don't even care to try. This is something of an impossible question, so all that really offends me when discussing it is people trying to tell one another that they know better than anyone else whether God exists or not. We're all in the dark here.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter