Atheism and evolution

Hudson 4 ever

As a Christian I have often wondered if atheists who constantly rail against the faith of believers realise that their belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in God. You constantly talk about the mountains of evidence in favour of an evolutionary explaination for our existence and yet you don't seem to realise that the jury is still out, it is just a theory. I could easily theorize that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't have any credibility and neither do the rantings of an 19th century snob like Darwin. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just think people, particularly atheists, need to look at their own faith before they criticise another.

karen3212

Was Darwin really a snob?

Doctor DooM

Actually I don't believe in evolution, it's a theory which in the lack of any other more reasonable ones I accept as the most likely cause for humanities current state. Next?


EDIT: Atheists dont generally have faith. Faith implies belief without evidence or proof.

marco_polo

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

As a Christian I have often wondered if atheists who constantly rail against the faith of believers realise that their belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in God. You constantly talk about the mountains of evidence in favour of an evolutionary explaination for our existence and yet you don't seem to realise that the jury is still out, it is just a theory. I could easily theorize that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't have any credibility and neither do the rantings of an 19th century snob like Darwin. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just think people, particularly atheists, need to look at their own faith before they criticise another.

If that is true then why is it always non atheists that keep bringing the subject up here.

eoin5

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

As a Christian I have often wondered if atheists who constantly rail against the faith of believers realise that their belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in God. You constantly talk about the mountains of evidence in favour of an evolutionary explaination for our existence and yet you don't seem to realise that the jury is still out, it is just a theory. I could easily theorize that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't have any credibility and neither do the rantings of an 19th century snob like Darwin. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just think people, particularly atheists, need to look at their own faith before they criticise another.

The jurys out on everything, thats the beauty of science. Its designed to make the most of evidence. Does Australia really exist? I've never been there so how do I really know, hmm? Maybe its all just an elaborate ruse. All we can do is make guesses, but I'm betting Australia does exist and in the same way I'm betting I'm related to chimps.

The word 'is' drives our brains the wrong way as nothings for certain, so dont let it get to you.

Read this: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you don't sound arrogant but you do sound ignorant.

actually that's a lie, you do sound pretty arrogant

BJC

It's not faith because we don't say it definitley happened, we merely accept that it's more likely than any possibilities offered by religion.

But hey, you're right...it's way more likely we're all descendants from two incestuous nudists in a lovely garden....who were tempted by a talking snake.....and their biggest sin was covering their extremities....wait, that all actually sounds like a load of bullsh*t.

Zillah

Ahahahaha.


No, this has to be a troll. Seriously.

Zillah

Not that I'm not going to take the bait or anything though.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

As a Christian I have often wondered if atheists who constantly rail against the faith of believers realise that their belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in God.

Faith is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence. There is, as you say, mountains of evidence for evolution. I have faith in evolution in the same way I have faith in gravity and popcorn.

You constantly talk about the mountains of evidence in favour of an evolutionary explaination for our existence and yet you don't seem to realise that the jury is still out, it is just a theory. I could easily theorize that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't have any credibility and neither do the rantings of an 19th century snob like Darwin. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just think people, particularly atheists, need to look at their own faith before they criticise another.

I have no problem sounding arrogant: You're grossly ignorant about science.

A 'theory' in science is nothing like how we use the word theory day to day. First a scientist looks at the world and comes up with a potential model/explanation for whats going on. This is a hypothesis. He then gathers evidence, does lots of experiments and has lots of other scientists check his evidence and rerun his experiments. If after lots and lots and lots of testing and gathering of evidence the hypothesis appears to still be true then it is promoted to a theory.

So yes, in scientific lingo evolution is a theory.
But so is gravity.
And light.
And electricity.
And antibiotics.

So, uh, go read a book rather than idiotic creationist propaganda and come back to us.

Botany Bay

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

As a Christian I have often wondered if atheists who constantly rail against the faith of believers realise that their belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in God. You constantly talk about the mountains of evidence in favour of an evolutionary explaination for our existence and yet you don't seem to realise that the jury is still out, it is just a theory. I could easily theorize that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't have any credibility and neither do the rantings of an 19th century snob like Darwin. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just think people, particularly atheists, need to look at their own faith before they criticise another.

So says the person, that in one utterance, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the scientific process.


Why is it, that the biggest critics of the Theory of Evolution, are the very ones who know and understand it the least??

In this case it seems even a rudimentary knowledge of science is too much to ask for.

"It's only a theory":D WOW!! I suppose that makes it just like gravity then uh...??????

Great BIG HINT:

EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE IS A THEORY!!

AND BIOLOGY ONLY MAKES SENSE IN LIGHT OF EVOLUTION.

I suppose you'll be refusing those anti-biotics the next time you get sick then??????

Here's hoping.

robindch

Well, I'm a christian and I don't believe in electricity. It's just a theory you know.

Zombrex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

As a Christian I have often wondered if atheists who constantly rail against the faith of believers realise that their belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in God. You constantly talk about the mountains of evidence in favour of an evolutionary explaination for our existence and yet you don't seem to realise that the jury is still out, it is just a theory. I could easily theorize that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't have any credibility and neither do the rantings of an 19th century snob like Darwin. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just think people, particularly atheists, need to look at their own faith before they criticise another.

wait a minute. So internal affairs knew the cops were on to them?

Dave!

Fail.

cavedave

This explains the whole evolution thing from a christian perspective

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=70de402de83dc11609bd

For those without sound the script is roughly.
Name calling
Nonsense
Lying Nonsense
More Nonsense
Threats

CerebralCortex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

As a Christian I have often wondered if atheists who constantly rail against the faith of believers realise that their belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in God. You constantly talk about the mountains of evidence in favour of an evolutionary explaination for our existence and yet you don't seem to realise that the jury is still out, it is just a theory. I could easily theorize that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't have any credibility and neither do the rantings of an 19th century snob like Darwin. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just think people, particularly atheists, need to look at their own faith before they criticise another.

Wow re holster the finger pointing gun fellar. I'm an atheist not an evolutionary biologist, and I don't have any faith, I don't need it. In order to believe in what Christians tell my about the nature of existence I'd have to be a Christian which I'm not. I need not have faith in what evolutionary biologists tell me because they promote evolution as a theory and so far the theory sits very well with me only as an explanation of why we humans exist on this planet it has nothing to do with faith because remember I'M A F**KING ATHEIST!

Zombrex

cavedave wrote: »

This explains the whole evolution thing from a christian perspective

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=70de402de83dc11609bd

Sounds like JC and Wolfsbane ...

Tim Robbins

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

As a Christian I have often wondered if atheists who constantly rail against the faith of believers realise that their belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in God. You constantly talk about the mountains of evidence in favour of an evolutionary explaination for our existence and yet you don't seem to realise that the jury is still out, it is just a theory. I could easily theorize that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't have any credibility and neither do the rantings of an 19th century snob like Darwin. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just think people, particularly atheists, need to look at their own faith before they criticise another.

Oh no, here's another evolution is just a theory person.

Let's have a competition to see who can explain this the quickest?

The word "theory" in Science has a different meaning in normal speak. It doesn't just mean idea. In Science that would be referred to as hypotheisis.

A theory in Science has to be:
1. testable
2. falsifiable
3. all evidence consistent with it.

Evolution is quite a reliable theory because it has it has a large number of tests, huge amount of evidence.

Proofs do not exist in Science. This is because Science uses inductive logic.
Proofs exist in Maths, (you know that Q.E.D. you see at the end of triangle being 180 degrees theorm), because Maths uses deductive logic.

You can't have a logical proof in inductive. All you can have is reliable, testable, evidence based theories.

Examples:
Gravity - don't get on a plane because all we have is a theory of gravity, no proof.
Antibiotics - don't get antibiotics from your Doctor, because all we have is a theory about they work
Atoms - Yes protons, electrons, nuclear reactors, nuclear bombs, again all theory - this time call atomic theory.

Now the creationist propaganda is correct, evolution is just a theory. But it's deliberately misleading. What they omit is that word theory has a very different meaning, as I have just explained. This is just a proganda technique that you have fallen for.

Feel free to ask questions.

Hudson 4 ever

Well well well, I seem to ruffled a few feathers here and there. If you Godless (I use the term rather than atheistic, lets call a spade a spade shall we) evolutionists were so secure in your beliefs I hardly think you would seem so desparate to convince me that I am the one who has been grossly misleaded by the propaganda floating around out there.

Let's break this down.

One point that evolutionists insist on until they're blue in the face is the evidence in favour of their theory. This is evidence is always recounted with a certain amount of swaggering authorithy, as if the same isn't true of the creationist perspective. Creationists, as believers in the one true God, believe that they are in possension of the greatest piece of evidence availible, the word of God himself in the form of the bible. I realise that Godless evolutionists don't accept the word of God, frankly thats your problem, but what they must realise is that we Creation scientists are on, at the very least, a level pegging in terms of evidence. I ask, who is sounding arrogant now?

BJC

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Well well well, I seem to ruffled a few feathers here and there. If you Godless (I use the term rather than atheistic, lets call a spade a spade shall we) evolutionists were so secure in your beliefs I hardly think you would seem so desparate to convince me that I am the one who has been grossly misleaded by the propaganda floating around out there.

Let's break this down.

One point that evolutionists insist on until they're blue in the face is the evidence in favour of their theory. This is evidence is always recounted with a certain amount of swaggering authorithy, as if the same isn't true of the creationist perspective. Creationists, as believers in the one true God, believe that they are in possension of the greatest piece of evidence availible, the word of God himself in the form of the bible. I realise that Godless evolutionists don't accept the word of God, frankly thats your problem, but what they must realise is that we Creation scientists are on, at the very least, a level pegging in terms of evidence. I ask, who is sounding arrogant now?

I am proud to be Godless............and intelligent.

To even hint that a creation "scientist" is on the same level as real scientific professionals is absurd...or in words you'll understand, "blasphemy".

Let's take an example shall we, to help show the ridiculousness of any theory proposed by a creation "scientist".There is much to be learned about spiral galaxies, including how long they maintain their spiral structure. Although creationists claim that recent observations from the Hubble Space Telescope present problems for the density wave explanation of the spiral structures, this does not mean that an explanation will never be found that reconciles theory to observations. That's the beauty of science - its theories are constantly evaluated against observed data, and if the data so indicates, the theory is modified or rejected as required. This indicates huge weakness in many creationist arguments. Rather than indications of a young earth, their examples are often simply phenomena that scientists do not fully understand. Eventually, when they are fully understood, the vast majority of scientists expect that these phenomena will be consistent with an ancient earth / universe. - some quotes from from Charles Danforth.

And may I ask since you consider yourself a scientist, what are your qualifications? Maybe you're a Kent Hovind type with many qualifications.....that are all made up bullsh*t.

Edit - We are vehemently opposing your ridiculous ideals not because we are insecure in our beliefs but because:
1. You posted in the Atheists forum obviously looking for a response and you got one.
2. And some-one as ignorant as you deserves to be put down frequently on every point you make.

seamus

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I use the term rather than atheistic, lets call a spade a spade shall we

Well, no, let's play by your rules. "Godless" implies that there is definitely a God, such that one can be without it, in the same way that one can be armless or legless. But of course, God is just a theory, isn't he/she? Despite the "mountains of evidence" that theists claim to have, the jury is still out. So "atheist" is more correct than "Godless" because "atheist" implies a non-acceptance of theory in the same way that "creationist" does.

I realise that Godless evolutionists don't accept the word of God, frankly thats your problem, but what they must realise is that we Creation scientists are on, at the very least, a level pegging in terms of evidence. I ask, who is sounding arrogant now?

Well, you are. Mainly because you are claiming that "Bible = word of God", therefore "Bible = evidence".

If your initial theory is true, then your second one is solid. However, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever provided on which to prove your first theory. So if your first theory isn't true, then it stands to reason that all theories based upon that one are not correct. Therefore if "Bible != word of God", then "Bible != evidence".

So the burden is upon you to prove that the bible is in fact the word of God and by doing so, you will show that creationists are on a level pegging with evolutionists in terms of evidence.

So prove that the bible is the word of God, or otherwise provide a means by which that theory is

1. testable
2. falsifiable
3. all evidence consistent with it.

Dades

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Creationists, as believers in the one true God, believe that they are in possension of the greatest piece of evidence availible, the word of God himself in the form of the bible...

...and therefore, will ignore any actual evidence to the contrary rendering the whole adult debate thing a frustrating waste of time.

Hudson 4 ever

If you are asking to prove the existence of God, I cannot, it is a matter of faith. If I ask you to prove to me that the theory of evolution is a valid one, you cannot, it is also a matter of faith. I am not trying to convert any heathens (yet ) I am simply trying to point out to you that while you see fit to ridicule my position and spew invective, you should realise the similarity between both faiths and accept that Creationists and Creation science is something which we should examine. I find the idea of focusing all our attention on one theory rather than examining all possible options to be a profoundly unscientific one. The creation scientists in America, the likes of Kent Hovind (leave ad hominem attacks out of this please, this man's name seems to magically induce atheists to start throwing them around) are more in line with the reality of the scientific method than Richard Dawkins (and all of his atheistic proslytizing)

redstar

Many Christians accept evolution - namely the Catholic Church for one (at least before Pope Benedict came to power). They accept it because God is considered to have created the laws which underpin evolution and set the process in motion. Evolution allows life to adapt to changing environments - surely this is a sign of Gods creative power ? Why do 'creationists' disallow Gods ability to have done this ?

Tim Robbins

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If you are asking to prove the existence of God, I cannot, it is a matter of faith. If I ask you to prove to me that the theory of evolution is a valid one, you cannot, it is also a matter of faith. I am not trying to convert any heathens (yet ) I am simply trying to point out to you that while you see fit to ridicule my position and spew invective, you should realise the similarity between both faiths and accept that Creationists and Creation science is something which we should examine. I find the idea of focusing all our attention on one theory rather than examining all possible options to be a profoundly unscientific one. The creation scientists in America, the likes of Kent Hovind (leave ad hominem attacks out of this please, this man's name seems to magically induce atheists to start throwing them around) are more in line with the reality of the scientific method than Richard Dawkins (and all of his atheistic proslytizing)

The troll sensor is going beep beep.

Evolution is testable. No God theory / hypotheisis is. Evolution has voluminous amount of empiracle evidence, 1 billion or so fossils every single one of them consistent with the theory. An infinite amount of DNA analysis. No God theory / hypotheisis has any empiracle evidence.

Now, most intelligent and educated Christians accept and believe evolution. This includes the Pope, most Anglican theologians, and several other Christians churches. Get your head out of the sand and you'll see they are many christians / theists who have an understanding of Science.

Evolution and Science is not faith, it's a tentative philosophy based on experimental evidence and rational examination.

Do you get on airplanes, even when our scientific understanding of gravity is far less than evolution?

By all means question and learn. But right now, you are talking utter ignorant nonsense. Don't expect people to have sympathy for you, if you are not going to read and digest what people have taken the time to write, especially when it's obvious you couldn't be bother reading up on any of this.

It's obvious you hadn't a clue of the Scientific method coming into this forum and it's obvious you are not bothered to acknowlege that or the fact it's being explained.

Waste your own time, but perhaps be considerate to others. Remember that golden rule thing?

Beruthiel

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If you are asking to prove the existence of God, I cannot, it is a matter of faith.

Indeed, a matter of faith, because there is no actual proof.

If I ask you to prove to me that the theory of evolution is a valid one, you cannot, it is also a matter of faith.

With decades of experiments and evidence behind it to make it a very solid arguement indeed.

I for one can see the difference there...


Are you trolling this forum?

seamus

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If you are asking to prove the existence of God, I cannot, it is a matter of faith.

Actually, I didn't ask you prove the existence of God. In that regard, I threw you a bone. While creationism relies on the existence of God to have any merit, evolutionism makes no judgement either way on the existence of God. So in comparing the two theories, the existence of God is irrelevant.

What you need to do is prove that the Bible is in fact the word of God.

If I ask you to prove to me that the theory of evolution is a valid one, you cannot, it is also a matter of faith.

How so? The theory of evolution is backed by evidence from all over the place - from fossil records, from DNA. All of this evidence supports the current theory of evolution. That theory, in itself, tends to be altered every so slightly whenever new evidence appears. It's altered so that all of the existing evidence fits into the current theory, but it's never taken as "this is how it is, and ever shall be, world without end, amen".
The other theories which the theory of evolution relies on (such as mutation, societal trends, reproduction and so forth) are themselves again, just theories, but again are backed up by tonnes of actual evidence. Yes, all of this amounts to a house of cards, where if any one card was to be shown to be completely wrong, the whole thing could come tumbling down. But this has yet to happen. New evidence usually shows us that one of the cards needs to be realigned slightly, it rarely requires us to remove or replace a card.

Creationism on the other hand, never tests itself or its theories. It says that the bible is the evidence. It has no house of cards - it simply tells people that the house exists, but you can't see it, you just have to have faith that it's there.

I find the idea of focusing all our attention on one theory rather than examining all possible options to be a profoundly unscientific one.

Again, it's not a black-and-white scenario. Scientists do search for evidence to support a theory, but they test it to see if it supports the theory. If it doesn't support the theory, the evidence isn't discarded, in fact usually the theory is. This is the scientific method.
However, there has yet to be any evidence found which would thus far cause us to discard the theory of evolution, hence it's the most popular and plausible theory there is.

Tar.Aldarion

Hudson 4 ever do you know what evolution is?
Please explain it to me so I can be please knowing.

Dades

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If you are asking to prove the existence of God, I cannot, it is a matter of faith. If I ask you to prove to me that the theory of evolution is a valid one, you cannot, it is also a matter of faith.

Unless you actually start addressing the responses you have already received regarding this notion, you will be banned for trolling.

Simply repeating yourself is not a worthwhile discussion.

Doctor DooM

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Well well well, I seem to ruffled a few feathers here and there. If you Godless (I use the term rather than atheistic, lets call a spade a spade shall we) evolutionists were so secure in your beliefs I hardly think you would seem so desparate to convince me that I am the one who has been grossly misleaded by the propaganda floating around out there.

Let's break this down.

One point that evolutionists insist on until they're blue in the face is the evidence in favour of their theory. This is evidence is always recounted with a certain amount of swaggering authorithy, as if the same isn't true of the creationist perspective. Creationists, as believers in the one true God, believe that they are in possension of the greatest piece of evidence availible, the word of God himself in the form of the bible. I realise that Godless evolutionists don't accept the word of God, frankly thats your problem, but what they must realise is that we Creation scientists are on, at the very least, a level pegging in terms of evidence. I ask, who is sounding arrogant now?

Yay, it's a creationist!

1) Completely unruffled, sorry. You have said absolutely nothing not already mentioned in the Creationist thread.

2) Saying I'm godless implies you own god. Shame on you.

3) Not trying to convince you of anything: You came to an atheist forum and started going on about how atheists are ignorant, so the people in the forum engaged in discussion.

4) The bible alone is not evidence, just like a science book alone is not.

5) No one here has said with any authority that evolution is true: they have merely stated that, given the current evidence, it is the most likely and believable source of life currently.

cavedave

redstar Many Christians accept evolution - namely the Catholic Church for one(at least before Pope Benedict came to power)

How are we supposed to accept the theories on the teachings of christ when there is so much controversy? If christians cannot come up with one theory of biblical creation that they all agree on we should teach the controversy in religion class.

Sure while were at it lets include other churches creation myths while were at it. If christians cannot accept the Norse creation myth is just as valid as the christian one you are as closed minded as they are accusing scientists of being.

Hudson 4 ever

Accusing me of joking around or whatever slang you have for that is not conducive to actual debate, forget about it, I am genuine.

seamus wrote: »

Actually, I didn't ask you prove the existence of God. In that regard, I threw you a bone. While creationism relies on the existence of God to have any merit, evolutionism makes no judgement either way on the existence of God. So in comparing the two theories, the existence of God is irrelevant.

I cannot accept the idea that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence of God. I admit there are no explicit references to this, but look at it this way. If somebody saw paint suddenly arrange itself into a painting, they would have serious doubts as to whether or not there was such a thing as a painter. Similarly, a theory which postulates that all life on earth was not created by God (an important part of belief in God) but instead came about by the means of natural processes is clearly questioning the whether or God exists. I think evolution is an intrinsically atheist set of beliefs.

Beruthiel

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I think evolution is an intrinsically atheist set of beliefs.

Have you ever actually read a book on the theory of evolution?

Doctor DooM

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Accusing me of joking around or whatever slang you have for that is not conducive to actual debate, forget about it, I am genuine.





I cannot accept the idea that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence of God. I admit there are no explicit references to this, but look at it this way. If somebody saw paint suddenly arrange itself into a painting, they would have serious doubts as to whether or not there was such a thing as a painter. Similarly, a theory which postulates that all life on earth was not created by God (an important part of belief in God) but instead came about by the means of natural processes is clearly questioning the whether or God exists. I think evolution is an intrinsically atheist set of beliefs.

Try answering some of our points then, and we can see how mighty your intellect is, as opposed to saying "the bible is right cos I think it is."

In reference to your painter thing, I give you a paraphrase of Douglas Adams:

"After a rain, a puddle finds itself nestled into a hole in the ground.

Amazed that the hole seems to fit it perfectly, the puddle thinks "wow, this situation is so perfect, someone must have created it just for me.""

CerebralCortex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Accusing me of joking around or whatever slang you have for that is not conducive to actual debate, forget about it, I am genuine.





I cannot accept the idea that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence of God. I admit there are no explicit references to this, but look at it this way. If somebody saw paint suddenly arrange itself into a painting, they would have serious doubts as to whether or not there was such a thing as a painter. Similarly, a theory which postulates that all life on earth was not created by God (an important part of belief in God) but instead came about by the means of natural processes is clearly questioning the whether or God exists. I think evolution is an intrinsically atheist set of beliefs.

I think thats rather limiting the power of a super intelligent, omnipresent being's ability to confuse you no? I baffles me consistently when Christians put faith in this all powerful being but are consistently undermining him at the same time. He can do what he likes if he so powerful including making life capable of evolution.

CerebralCortex

SDooM wrote: »

Try answering some of our points then, and we can see how mighty your intellect is, as opposed to saying "the bible is right cos I think it is."

In reference to your painter thing, I give you a paraphrase of Douglas Adams:

"After a rain, a puddle finds itself nestled into a hole in the ground.

Amazed that the hole seems to fit it perfectly, the puddle thinks "wow, this situation is so perfect, someone must have created it just for me.""

Lol I must read D Adams.

Beruthiel

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Lol I must read D Adams.

For shame if you haven't! Go out and buy the lot right this minute!

seamus

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If somebody saw paint suddenly arrange itself into a painting, they would have serious doubts as to whether or not there was such a thing as a painter.

And rightly so, because it arranged itself spontaneously into a painting.

And if someone saw a painting and had not seen it being painted, they would assume there was a painter, what's your point?

If on the other hand, someone left a canvas on the ground, and over a few hundred thousand years of wind and rain and dirt and mud, a painting emerged, you would quite rightly say, "There was no painter, this painting is the result of thousands of years of nature".

Doctor DooM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Lol I must read D Adams.

Another personal favourite goes something along the lines of:

"2,000 years after someone was nailed to a cross for asking people to be nice, mankind invented wristwatches."

Another one was "I would like to say that all my intelligent friends are atheists with a few notable exceptions, sadly their aren't any."

Gegerty

Is there no proof of evolution? here are 3 very quick obvious proofs:

1. All living things have a parent.
2. Simpler versions of animals and plants existed long before complex ones. For this there is physical evidence in fossils and in some cases fully preserved animals (Wooly mammoth for example). More specifically for the OP we have fossils of early humans, the further back you go the more they resemble apes.
3. We are still evolving, an example of this all around us today is survival of the fittest.

It is not blind faith. We do not believe it simply because it was written down. And as pointed out the wonder of science is that it is scrutinised and tested and debated. Everything we take as fact today is open to criticism, provided that critiscism is itself backed up by proof. Scientists are not afraid to say they got it wrong (Hawkins for example). The irony is it is all part of mans evolution - survival of the fittest minds.

btw, "The bible says so" is not proof.

Doctor DooM

Beruthiel wrote: »

For shame if you haven't! Go out and buy the lot right this minute!

I know this is completely off topic, but I found his predicition of USB replacing "little dongly things" in an essay in "so long and thanks for all the fish" to be really startling. Clever man.

Hudson 4 ever

Beruthiel wrote: »

Have you ever actually read a book on the theory of evolution?

I have actually; I think it was called “On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection” by a man named Charles Darwin. Have you heard of it?

To address some of the points people are making:

If we are to advance our knowledge in a scientific manner we need to examine the theory of evolution carefully and with an open mind. This is how scientists usually conduct themselves, examining the evidence before them objectively and without any preconceptions. This is the basis of the scientific method. However, in the case of evolution this is not possibly for many mainstream scientists, and for a very basic reason. Science is based on a materialistic world view, and this decrees that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth. If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality. Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution. A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed. The same came be said of the eye. Darwin himself admitted that the very idea that is was formed by natural selection is an absurd one.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Evolution is testable. No God theory / hypotheisis is.

Have to say I disagree with this. Lots of God theories are testable, just not the ones that theists have been forced to adopt recently.

Let's imagine a world where blasphemers are struck by lightning from the sky. There's no reason why science couldn't study this effect even if the source of the lightning was not directly accessible, it would be strong evidence for the existence of a supreme being who doesn't like his name used in blasphemy.

Scientists could measure the lethality of the strike, the words and phrases that cause it etc. etc. Yes in this fictional word some may insist that the lightning has a natural explanation, but science would definitely be on the side of the God theory.

All God theories that are testable pretty much have been tested and have failed (Intercessory prayer, direct creation etc.) God theories are not by definition untestable, it's just that the only way for theists to have any left standing at this stage was to introduce some that can't be tested.

marco_polo

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I have actually; I think it was called “On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection” by a man named Charles Darwin. Have you heard of it?

To address some of the points people are making:

If we are to advance our knowledge in a scientific manner we need to examine the theory of evolution carefully and with an open mind. This is how scientists usually conduct themselves, examining the evidence before them objectively and without any preconceptions. This is the basis of the scientific method. However, in the case of evolution this is not possibly for many mainstream scientists, and for a very basic reason. Science is based on a materialistic world view, and this decrees that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth. If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality. Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution. A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed. The same came be said of the eye. Darwin himself admitted that the very idea that is was formed by natural selection is an absurd one.

How can anyone declare themselves to be a creationist and to have an open mind at the same time?

The fact that they arrive at their conclusions first and then go looking for "evidence" to support it suggests quite the opposite to me.

Oh the ironing.

CerebralCortex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

....Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth.

Why should they? "Hey buddy I don't want you study computer engineering unless you consider there is a God and that computers have little computer fairies inside."

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality.....

So only creationists can have an open mind? Do they have to be Christian? What if you're a Buddhist scientist?

CerebralCortex

marco_polo wrote: »

....Oh the ironing.

:pac: roflmao

Beruthiel

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed.

An oxymoron.

Tim Robbins

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I have actually; I think it was called “On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection” by a man named Charles Darwin. Have you heard of it?

To address some of the points people are making:

If we are to advance our knowledge in a scientific manner we need to examine the theory of evolution carefully and with an open mind. This is how scientists usually conduct themselves, examining the evidence before them objectively and without any preconceptions. This is the basis of the scientific method. However, in the case of evolution this is not possibly for many mainstream scientists, and for a very basic reason. Science is based on a materialistic world view, and this decrees that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth. If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality. Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution. A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed. The same came be said of the eye. Darwin himself admitted that the very idea that is was formed by natural selection is an absurd one.

This is nothing to do with having an open mind, it's about not being deluded.
As was pointed out to you in an earlier post, Science and Scientific method is a tentative philosophy, explain specifically what's closed about that?

As for your argument there it has already rebutted. If you bothered to even investigate it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum#Irreducibly_complex.3F

There are simple rebuttals to that, from wikipedia:

"Potentially viable evolutionary pathways have since been proposed for the bacterial flagellum.[37][38] In addition, the Type III secretory system, a molecular syringe which bacteria use to inject toxins into other cells, appears to be a simplified sub-set of the bacterial flagellum's components, meaning that it is not irreducibly complex.[39]

Behe's arguments have been examined and rejected by the scientific community. Exaptation explains how systems with multiple parts can evolve through natural means.[40]"

If you favour objectivity, you'd be better off reading some up to date science. There is much more evidence for evolution since Darwin. Most obvious is DNA and plenty of rebuttals to any crack pot intelligent design psuedo science.

Now you speak of open mind, read some science books, even ones written by Christians such as Finding Darwin's god by Ken Miller, at least do that or get your coat and join the creationist thread.

Suggest thread be locked?

Doctor DooM

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I have actually; I think it was called “On the Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection” by a man named Charles Darwin. Have you heard of it?

Ho ho, why you certainly pwned her! Try this- I read the bible as a kid and it seemed made up then, let alone as an adult.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

To address some of the points people are making:

THis isn't addressing anyones points. Here, do it like this, with quotes. Otherwise we wont know what point you are addressing.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If we are to advance our knowledge in a scientific manner we need to examine the theory of evolution carefully and with an open mind.

So far, so good.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is how scientists usually conduct themselves, examining the evidence before them objectively and without any preconceptions. This is the basis of the scientific method. However, in the case of evolution this is not possibly for many mainstream scientists, and for a very basic reason.

How so, pray tell?

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Science is based on a materialistic world view, and this decrees that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Incorrect, it has simply never found any evidence of the supernatural, despite many, many experiments.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth.

Not true. Scientists weigh up all hypotheticals and formulate their theories based on the most likely. Which god? Zeus is kinda cool, I hope he did, but I can't ask any of them.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If they were proceeding with an open mind like creationist such as Michael Behe and Duane Gish they would be more able to see the reality.

You mean, how you percieve reality.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution.

Eh, no. Evolution implies gradual change. Extra bits don't just pop on one morning.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

A far more parsimonious and logical conclusion is to say that it must have been designed. The same came be said of the eye. Darwin himself admitted that the very idea that is was formed by natural selection is an absurd one.

There is no logic in assuming that a sky god decided he wanted to create a world like this but wants us to love him because he is insecure.

As for the eye, you are aware several animals retain the photosensitive nerve clusters which evolved into eyes, right?

I haven't read that Darwin quote, but he isn't the "god" of scientists you know. His word isn't law.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

seamus

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed. It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution.

Those exact examples have been countered already, but you need to stop thinking of evolution as a "step by step" process, like building a house, but more of a progressive process, such as the sea laying down a new beach, grain by grain.

One big problem is that human beings have trouble thinking about long periods of time. To us, something which happens "quickly" happens in a matter of seconds, and something which takes a long time takes anywhere from days to 50 years.
For us, something which happens in 100 milliseconds is indistinguishable from instantaneous, and something which takes thousands of years appears completely static.
Depending on the POV of the observer, either of these timeframes could be an eternity or instantaneous, respectively.

As such, many people find the concept of a slow, progressive evolution hard to understand because such a change cannot be observed within their lifetime.

Hudson 4 ever

SDooM wrote: »

Ho ho, why you certainly pwned her! Try this- I read the bible as a kid and it seemed made up then, let alone as an adult.



THis isn't addressing anyones points. Here, do it like this, with quotes. Otherwise we wont know what point you are addressing.



So far, so good.



How so, pray tell?




Incorrect, it has simply never found any evidence of the supernatural, despite many, many experiments.




Not true. Scientists weigh up all hypotheticals and formulate their theories based on the most likely. Which god? Zeus is kinda cool, I hope he did, but I can't ask any of them.



You mean, how you percieve reality.

Eh, no. Evolution implies gradual change. Extra bits don't just pop on one morning.



There is no logic in assuming that a sky god decided he wanted to create a world like this but wants us to love him because he is insecure.

As for the eye, you are aware several animals retain the photosensitive nerve clusters which evolved into eyes, right?

I haven't read that Darwin quote, but he isn't the "god" of scientists you know. His word isn't law.

See, that wasn't too hard, was it?

I am far too lazy to write out the whole thing like that, but you basically just ignored what I said and continued with your own presuppositions, congrats, I'm not surprised you're an evolutionist.

marco_polo

Beruthiel wrote: »

An oxymoron.

There is too much oxy in that sentence .

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

I am far too lazy to write out the whole thing like that, but you basically just ignored what I said and continued with your own presuppositions, congrats, I'm not surprised you're an evolutionist.

So are you just going to ignore the last four pages then or are you going to actually reply to a few of the points raised?