[_ Old Earth _] matter and energy(and other fallacies of atheism)

[Featherbop]

This wasn't even the point of the topic, This was not even the arguement.

But it strayed and we get to this...again.

Yes, anyway, yes evolutionists on these forums seem to put their "faith" in their "religion" of evolution. Please, this is a battle of beliefs, religions, and logic. etc etc.

If a belief is not a relgion then it shouldn't be followed around, and argued for like one.

Evolution is exactly that, and very deceptively tricky one at that I might add.

Therefore, I define it as relgion. Any belief that puts faith, trust, belief in, phlosipys that result, i consider religion. I won't debate this anymore here.

The point that I define evolution, and atheism as relgions is already proven.

Can a mod please lock this please, we're too far strayed from the topic.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The theory of evolution is based on evidence, not faith.

 

[Featherbop]

A little evidence(Which I don't consider it that even) will never prove something. You sintax, say its proven before, then show non-evolutionary processess to "prove" it. Thats why I think the theory of Evolution is based on nothing good at all.

But, I don't consider evolution to be more of a relgion than atheism.

Atheism is definately a relgion, evolution may be based on partly evidence.

But everyone has faith in something. And everyone must.

 

[Barbarian]

I have faith in God. But if you have a scientific hypothesis to show me, you better have some evidence with you.

Don't like it? Too bad. That's how the game works. And it does work. Very little humans do works better than science.

 

[Featherbop]

Humans don't do anything very good at all, science I don't think they do well in certain areas. But they never change. :-?

if you need evidence or proof of God, you don't need faith. I will never try to prove Gods existance simply because its currently impossible.

When people say science is superior, They miss what science doesn't do.

:robot:

 

[Barbarian]

Humans don't do anything very good at all,

We can make computers out of dirt. That's pretty good. For puny beings confined to Earth, we've traveled to another world and sent spacecraft out to the stars. Don't knock God's creation; we are just a little lower than the angels.

science I don't think they do well in certain areas.

Where it works, science works better than anything else we can do.

if you need evidence or proof of God, you don't need faith. I will never try to prove Gods existance simply because its currently impossible.

That's a remarkably sensible conclusion.

When people say science is superior, They miss what science doesn't do.

Science is limited in application. It is totally unable to do many things.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

A little evidence(Which I don't consider it that even) will never prove something. You sintax, say its proven before, then show non-evolutionary processess to "prove" it. Thats why I think the theory of Evolution is based on nothing good at all.

Incorrect quite a lot of evidence is explained best by the theory of evolution and many theories of physics, biology, chemistry, geology, etc work with evolution to provide a very elegant explanation of our world and its natural history.

 

[Featherbop]

I was speaking of organic evolution, sintax. Arten't there other kinds of evolution besides organic?

It also depends on what evolution is meant. Evolution can be completely proven true, or false, or unknown, depending on what is meant.

I was only referring to organic evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

I was speaking of organic evolution, sintax. Arten't there other kinds of evolution besides organic?

"Evolution" can refer to almost anything in a process of change. That's why I prefer Darwin's term; "descent with modification."

There certainly is an abundance of evidence for that, from microevolution, evolution of new species, all the way to common descent.

Would you like to talk about some of it?

 

[Featherbop]

No, would you like to quit asking that?

 

[Featherbop]

I was speaking of organic evolution, sintax. Arten't there other kinds of evolution besides organic?

"Evolution" can refer to almost anything in a process of change. That's why I prefer Darwin's term; "descent with modification."

There certainly is an abundance of evidence for that, from microevolution, evolution of new species, all the way to common descent.

Would you like to talk about some of it?

No offense, BTW, but thats annoying.

Anyway, yeah evolution is used in many ways. Sometimes to refer to living things changing to another, or simply changing in anyway, to life emerging from nonliving things, living and nonliving things changing in any way.

Thats why its important to clarify how its meant when talking about evolution. Think, people could even get into arguements when they agree! I've done that before.

Also, if Micro"evolution" and "evolution" of new 'species" is going to be used for evidnece or "proof" of evolution, not everyone is going to agree that those thingfs are evolution. or certain kinds of evo. anyway.

I believe that things change, always have, but I don't believe in human common ancestry, or life coming from nonliving things(Except God done of course), or that creatures change kinds.

But take for instance when creationists would say that animals don't evolve or change a bit, that they said that because the simple, God given natural abilitys, are called evolution.

oh, nevermind, just arguements can be a big mess like that.

 

[Barbarian]

No offense, BTW, but thats annoying.

I'm sincere. I'd be pleased to spend as much time as you'd like talking about it.

Anyway, yeah evolution is used in many ways. Sometimes to refer to living things changing to another, or simply changing in anyway, to life emerging from nonliving things, living and nonliving things changing in any way.

I hope you realize that the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Biological evolution (which is what we are talking about here) is defined as a change in allele frequency over time. That covers a lot of ground, of course, but then chemistry is about the interactions of valence electrons, so it's not an uncommon thing in science.

Thats why its important to clarify how its meant when talking about evolution. Think, people could even get into arguements when they agree! I've done that before.

Also, if Micro"evolution" and "evolution" of new 'species" is going to be used for evidnece or "proof" of evolution, not everyone is going to agree that those thingfs are evolution. or certain kinds of evo. anyway.

By definition, the evoltion of new taxa, including species, is macroevolution. Evolution within a species is microevolution.

I believe that things change, always have, but I don't believe in human common ancestry, or life coming from nonliving things(Except God done of course), or that creatures change kinds.

The evidence is overwhelming for common descent. Shall we talk?

 

[Featherbop]

No, barbarian, common decent, as you put it, has not been proven. Evidence for it, is not based on any sure thing.

Thats a reason I don't put my faith in evolution, it has no standered, it can make itself what it wants to be.

____

Enough with this.

Let me restate the topic, then lets get back on disscussion.

"if the universe has come into existance without God, were the things the universe is made of eternally existant? If so, how is that possible without God, and if it didn't always exist, how did it come into being without God?"

This is more about the biggest fallacy of atheism than about evolution.

Lets do not stray from the topic again please.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Scientists have theories and models but we don't know yet. Cosmology is still asking itself the question "How did the universe come about?" We've been able to answer a great deal of that. The Big Bang theory creates a model for the universe that fits extremely well with what we know about the universe, but we still lack a few fundamental tidbits of knowledge. We are however, sure that we are on the right track because our current model has been only slightly modified by the WMAP findings of the state of the early universe.
So the answer is no one knows everything about it yet, but from what we've seen of the puzzle so far, we can say it with 99.9999999% certainty that the Big Bang happened.

 

[Barbarian]

No, barbarian, common decent, as you put it, has not been proven.

In science, nothing is proven. Science is primarily inductive, and goes with the preponderance of evidence. But it is sufficiently well documented by the evidence to make it impossible for an informed person with an open mind to deny it.

Evidence for it, is not based on any sure thing.

It's a very sure thing. Evidence exists from numerous independent sources.

Thats a reason I don't put my faith in evolution,

Me neither. I have faith in God. For scientific theories, you have to have some evidence to show me.

it has no standered, it can make itself what it wants to be.

Nope. It has to fit the evidence.

Enough with this.

I think we've cleared that up nicely. Feel free to speculate now, on why there is something, rather than nothing.

 

[Featherbop]

No, barbarian, common decent, as you put it, has not been proven.

In science, nothing is proven. Science is primarily inductive, and goes with the preponderance of evidence. But it is sufficiently well documented by the evidence to make it impossible for an informed person with an open mind to deny it.

[quote:5d292]Evidence for it, is not based on any sure thing.

It's a very sure thing. Evidence exists from numerous independent sources.

Thats a reason I don't put my faith in evolution,

Me neither. I have faith in God. For scientific theories, you have to have some evidence to show me.

it has no standered, it can make itself what it wants to be.

Nope. It has to fit the evidence.

Enough with this.

I think we've cleared that up nicely. Feel free to speculate now, on why there is something, rather than nothing.[/quote:5d292]

The theory can create the evidence which in turn can be fitted around the theory.

It is what it wants to be. or what people want it to be.

And, also, are you claiming, that everyone is obligated to believe evolution, you certainly sound like that.

_____

Enough again.

The topic was diverted again.. ugh.

Back on topic. no evolution disscussion.

back to the subject. Or is it going to be dodged again?

 

[Barbarian]

The theory can create the evidence which in turn can be fitted around the theory.

Ur, no. Theories don't create evidence. They explain evidence.

It is what it wants to be. or what people want it to be.

A theory must conform to the evidence.

And, also, are you claiming, that everyone is obligated to believe evolution, you certainly sound like that.

Theories become theories when the evidence is sufficient to make it perverse disagree. That's where evolutionary theory is now.

 

[Gary]

Theories become theories

The Barbarian: "Theories become theories when the evidence is sufficient to make it perverse disagree. That's where evolutionary theory is now."

huh???

Please explain!

 

[Wertbag]

"if the universe has come into existance without God, were the things the universe is made of eternally existant? If so, how is that possible without God, and if it didn't always exist, how did it come into being without God?"

Surely if the universe is eternal, then it was not created, has always been and doesn't require a diety to do anything at all?
If it was created then we need to know the cause, God is but one claimed theory, but I've heard of a wave theory, big bang theory or many little bang theory. None of which can be proven. Lack of knowledge doesn't prove God.

 

[Featherbop]

AHHHHHH!!!!

We got off the topic again!

You sneaks.

barbarian: Are you saying that people are forced to be truthful with theorys and ideas?

You sound like because someone comes up with an idea, that they are forced to make it be based on evidence?

People are dishonest.

Now, this topic is matter and energy, get in or get out.