Basically, this is what you want me to believe;
A man who needs to bathe regularly, and wear deodorant or he will smell badly, must eat what comes from the ground or he will starve to death, must drink water regularly or die of thirst by dehydrating, must sleep every night, could get a serious disease at any moment, is subject to death at any moment, can hate people and things, probably has ingrown toenails, could have arthritis, gout, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, hemmorhoids, gas, bloating, itchy skin, HIV, herpes, pimples, be constipated,etc. can live a few years on this big earth in this vast mysterious universe no one understands, attend school, read a few books, look at the earth with instruments more decrepid old men invented and TELL ME how old the earth is, then die the next day of a heart attack and rot in his grave.
Correct. He can do this because he is working upon the findings of others in a scientific structure that stretches back centuries, building on the knowledge of the past. He can do this because evidence points to it, in the shape of the visible effects of plate tectonics, of radiometric dating (in all it’s numerous methods) on many regions, on the observed existence of sedimentary rock, on the fact that we can
see other galaxies, even. Every speck of evidence gathered by numerous disciplines within science points to an Earth of billions of years in age.
And meanwhile you sit there and wax poetic on how a scientific system built on mortal men cannot possibly work. I don’t know if this irony is visible to you, but you are typing on a machine which is designed with physical tenets of conductance, lattice vibration and electron movement in mind. On a machine which is cooled by aerodynamic processes, again justified, outlined and measured by centuries of patient study via scientific principles. You send your messages, encoded, through the air via microwave transmission, again firmly measured and predicted by the study of radiation emission and interference. All the while, your machine draws electricity from a power station that combines the whole lot and, should it be nuclear, even verifies the correctness of scientific knowledge about decay rates, since that power station has clearly not turned into a giant mushroom cloud.
And you use this manifestation of centuries of patient research-upon-research, following the scientific method, to slag it off and claim that it is untenable and unworkable. Ironic, no?
There is no evidence for evolution. None.
Bzzt! Incorrect!
The fossil record already holds a large (if by no means complete) record of some of the species which have evolved on this planet, many transitional species (we shall get into that in due course) and shows the steady progression, rather than sudden creation, of many biological features, such as movable jawbones, flexible spines, exoskeletons, eyes, teeth etc.
In addition we have the evidence of isolated ecosystems (the Galapagos being the most obvious but lake Tanganika (sp?) and many other regions being further ones) in which new species exist with clear common ancestry with other species separated from their isolated ecosystems.
Furthermore we have evidence of beneficial mutations; the constant evolution via natural selection of diseases, becoming resistant to many antibiotics, the leap from sheep to cow to human of prion-based diseases (CJD), the increased resistance to poisons of rats and insect pests. Hell; even sickle-cell anaemia in humans shows a beneficial mutation which was selected for under the right environmental circumstances; also an example of evolution by natural selection.
As if that wasn’t enough, we have demonstrated examples in which speciation has been induced in fruit flies, creating two distinct populations.
-We have the evidence of common genetic ancestry in addition, now that the science of genetics has flourished. Our similarities with, and common ancestries with, many primates (chimpanzees in particular) has been observed
on the genetic level!
The fact is that not only is there evidence for evolution, but it is overwhelming, which is precisely why the entire scientific community now agree with it, arguing only over details, despite the birth of the theory against (at the time) intense common opposition from the religious majority. Despite this, the evidence has shown it through.
Darwin's fear that no transitional fossils would be found was realized a long time ago. You may claim there are, but I know better. The evolutionists were so desperate for something, they did the Peltdown Man lie along with other nonsense.
Wrong once more.
Transitional fossils can be defined in a couple of different ways: In one, they can be seen as fossils showing links between families or genera, often over a period of tens of millions of years. In another, they can be a sequence of fossils showing a species-to-species transition. Both result in the divergence of populations down speciated lines; they don’t even have to look particularly different. Both exist. Here are examples:
Palaeoniscoids: Primitive bony fish from which most modern bony fish are derived. They show significant similarities in certain parts of their bone structure to earlier families of fish.
Parasemionotus: Show modified jaw features from earlier families but several similarities to Palaeoniscoids. They are intermediates between them and modern Teleosts.
Temnospondyls: A group of early amphibians, transitionals between ichthyostegids, very early amphibians, and later examples such as rhachitomes. Modifications of denstistry, ear, body size and other aspects are evident.
Triadobatrachus: Early proto-frog. Shared many features with more modern frogs but still had a tail, among other features.
Archeopteryx: Well known transitional between reptiles and early birds. Sadly, few such transitionals exist.
Palaechthon: Early examples leading to primate evolution. First primate-esque teeth.
Cantius: One of the first true primates.
Pelycodus: Primitive lemur-like primates.
This is a tiny drop in the ocean. There are many more.
The fossil record is consistent with a steady, or ‘punctuated-equilibrium’ model of evolution, with a steady increase in the complexity of species (such levels of differing complexity is reflected down to the DNA in modern organisms, indeed) and a steady accumulation of features which (sometimes the less-than-effective) pass on through the fossil records.
On the other hand, it fits not at all with a creationist point of view. Species are clearly seen to change and diverge from one form to another, and families and genera merge. I addition, features on animals turn up in steady progression, not all at once. This does not fit at all with the model literally described in the bible; that all kinds were created separately (whether those kinds were species
or families etc).
In addition the ordering of the fossils in sedimentary and other rocks formations do not even slightly fit with a global flood and resulting settlement, though I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not gullible enough to believe in a conceivable global flood.
Oh yes, once again; it was a collection of scientists, cynically studying the so-called 'Piltdown man',
who showed it to be a fraud. This is hardly a grand all-encompassing lie.
1) Atheism is a religion, so is evolution. If atheism had any facts to back it up, we would live in an atheist world. The order of the universe and all within it would proclaim atheism.
2) Thousands of years of progress has been supported by belief in God, not by atheism.
Atheism is a small black dot somewhere in the dark corner of a back room dungeon with no proof of it's claims.
3)The proof is in the pudding, and atheism has never, in thousands of years managed to overrule belief in God.
Believers in God rule the world.
1) Atheism is not a religion. Period. I shall guide you through this simply with dictionary definitions:
Atheism:
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Religion:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
All that is needed to be an atheist, by said definition, is not to belief in a deity. That would be a simple, passive, disbelief in a deity. As such, every child, untutored in religion, is an atheist by default, for example.
Atheism does not promote a fixed set of values, beliefs or practices. It certainly does not institutionalise them.
-It also requires precisely zero ardour and faith, as all that is necessary is a simple lack of belief in a deity. An atheist
can insist and belief as a matter of faith that there is no god, but he can also be an atheist by simple lack of belief, which is a passive issue and so not related to faith, as there is no belief for faith to be attached to.
So endeth that lesson.
2) You said:
Thousands of years of progress has been supported by belief in God, not by atheism.
Wholly incorrect. Thousands of years of technological progress has not stemmed from organised religion in the slightest. Early philosophers and mathematicians did not use the bible to guide them through their reasoning, early nautical engineers did not pray for guidance on shipbuilding, nuclear physicists at no point contacted the local church for tips and the programmer of this messageboard utility didn’t either.
Progress has been brought to us by achievement in the fields of science and engineering and the resultant effects on society, not by religion. The agricultural revolution was not inspired by belief in god. The industrial revolution was not inspired by belief in god. The Rennaisance was not inspired by belief in god (indeed, this was the period in which humanism first took root). The space race wasn’t, the revolution in air travel wasn’t, the development of the internet, of specialised means of production, of mechanised workplaces, of modern accounting, of electricity generation wasn’t… do you see where I am going here?
Atheism did not inspire any of this and neither did Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism or any of the rest. The progress of our society has been down to analysis of the world around us and the development of models and experiment which will allow effective design, realisation etc.
All this, happily enough, was achieved by mortal men and women working on past knowledge and experimenting, hypothesising and observing in order to add to it –
The very people you deride as being ineffective due to mortality!
Well, just be happy that you are wrong and that, as a result of your incredible incorrectness on this issue, you are able to live and work in a comfortable, developed, technological nation instead of a medieval hovel. Bravo!
3) You said:
The proof is in the pudding, and atheism has never, in thousands of years managed to overrule belief in God.
Believers in God rule the world.
Fortunately for us all, truth is not defined by popularity and numbers. If that were so, the Earth would be flat, disease would stem from god’s will, people with schizophrenia would be assumed to be possessed and Chinese would be the world’s premier language.
Indeed, here is an interesting point: The majority of the population of this planet (6-6.5 billion people) are in fact
not Christian. Do you still wish to proceed with philosophy via popular vote?
Christianity has revolutionized the world. It controls the world. It leads the world. Evil tries, but God's grace is abounds more.
Nope. Technological development has revolutionised the world, trade and wealth control it and nobody yet leads it, despite many attempts to.
There is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God.
This statement is found in the Bible.
Every power, or force existing is of God. God made it for his own purpose.
Blind, unbacked assertion. Well done.
Your belief that education, ie:scientists, philosophers, educators, etc. are right is not true.
Men who die are not dependable. If they're so smart, why do they die?
Why do they die? As smart as they claim to be, the grow old and die, then decay and to dust they go as God said they would.
If they are so useless and ignorant, why do your computer, your TV and your nuclear power station work?
Decay is obvious. How much more proof do you need?
Decay of what? Thermodynamic order, yes. Unrefrigerated flesh, yes. Your DNA in most of your bodily cells, yes.
And yet your children will live beyond your death, their DNA fresh and new. Obviously some of your ‘decay is inevitable and leads to death’ logic is incorrect or at least badly-phrased.
Shall I post names of so called great men who killed themslves?
My point? Man cannot be trusted! Who knows what he will do. History is a record of man's abilties and actions and we know what it says.
Why do you have such faith in men who die?
Because the roots of our entire technological society rest upon the discoveries of now-dead men.
I told you what order is, what chaos is. You refuse it
No you didn’t. You never made a testable empirical definition at any point at all. All you have said is tidbits like ‘chaos is order’s servant’, ‘a tornado seems to bring chaos but does not’ and ‘order is right’. At
no point have you ever properly defined your terms.
I even gave you a sample definition for you to use; thermodynamic order and disorder. It’s key facets are that it can be measured and tested. Your assemblage of poetic language cannot.
All the journals you read are written by evolutionists. Try reading what men of God scientists say.
I do. Most scientists are theists, as study after study has shown. Try again.
I love Kent Hovind's website, it offers $100,000.00 to anyone who can give proof of evolution. It is a real offer and the money is there, but in ten years, the money has never been claimed.
Kent Hovind is an educated man and is a colleague of more educated men and his website is proof there is no proof of evolution.
I am familiar with Kent Hovind. He is a spouter of pseudoscience and rubbish. He has argued that the flood is possible and that there are no problems with stuffing every creature on Earth onto a wooden ark, that moon-dust is too shallow for an old Earth, that U236 is found on the moon, that the flood could have created the grand canyon or glacial valleys etc.
As a peasing display in irony, many of his ‘arguments’ can be found
HERE. Tell me that isn’t ironic!
As for his offer, not only does he not just include evolution in his demands (the entire realm of cosmology and abiogenesis are thrown in too), but it is worded so that to win the prize you must
prove that god does not exist and was not involved. As you know, proving a negative is a
logically impossible feat (I refer you to the invisible pink unicorn under my bed).
Hovind is a scam-artist.
But to summarise this all, you have so far entirely failed to back up my question on how a decay in order prevents evolution, you haven’t at any point defined any of your terms correctly, you argue via assertion (I have yet to see any backing reasoning on logical grounds or evidence backing your views) and you still haven’t explained your ridiculous ideas about how the scientific method and the accumulation of scientific and engineering knowledge over time is pointless due to mortality.
For Christ’s sake, try to define your terms and
back up your assertions! If you are unable, as you seem to be, you have picked the wrong argument. I don’t want a stream of assertive poetic language; I want firm logical reasoning backed by evidence. Now get it!
.
:-?