[_ Old Earth _] Scientists against evolution

[Oran_Taran]

If I saw concrete evidence that evolution was a proper theory, I would be forced to re-evaluate my stance

Ok, here- 29+ evidences for evolution- ... oh, MACROevolution- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
and if that wasn't enough, here- observed evolution (speciation, one species turning into another)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
it has been observed many times(by actually SEEING evolution in action... from natual selection to sexual selection to microevolution, to macroevolution), tested and confirmed many times (by finding something out, making predictions based on evolution, and then finding out they were right), etc. and let me emphasize MANY TIMES.
And there is no evidence against it, it just fits perfectly. Evolution is one of the most roboust scientific theories.

and faith necessarily implies a departure from strict logic and reason.

I have to agree. You have to be illogical and irrational to believe something without zero evidence, just because you like what it says.

 

[ArtGuy]

I have to agree. You have to be illogical and irrational to believe something without zero evidence, just because you like what it says.

I'll go through your links in the near future and see what they have to say. In the meantime, I would like to ask that you have a little more respect for the beliefs of others. I respect that you don't share my belief in the Lord, and while I would certainly like you to, I don't see that as justification for calling you irrational or illogical.

I don't hold my beliefs simply because I like what they say. If that were the case, I would also believe in Santa, because the idea of a fat guy coming around every year to cram presents down my chimney is, frankly, pretty nifty.

You do realize that you can no more disprove God than you can prove him, right? You seem pretty convinced, though, that he isn't there. You have faith that he doesn't exist. You may base this faith in large part on fact, but at the end of the day you have to jump that extra distance and simply assert, past the scope of reason, that there is no God. Such as it is with me, and with other theists. I see evidence of God's existence, and Jesus's goodness. Is it enough to prove that He's there? No, of course not. But I still believe he's there, just as you believe that he's not. We have evidently observed the same world and come to different conclusions, using a mixture of reason and faith. I believe He exists. You don't. The difference, apparently, is that I'm willing to tolerate your existence without viewing you through a filter of thinly-veiled contempt.

You seem an intelligent fellow. I would like to continue discussing this matter, but I ask that you provide me a little more courtesy.

 

[Oran_Taran]

I would like to ask that you have a little more respect for the beliefs of others

I respect some of the things christianity teaches (I realize not everything is preached by every denomination), such as tolerance, giving to poor, etc, and not others, such as believing without evidence, that homosexuality is a sin, opposition to stem cell research etc. Because they are irrational and illogical. I was just stating why I'm not a christian.

I don't hold my beliefs simply because I like what they say.

Then why?

You do realize that you can no more disprove God than you can prove him, right? You seem pretty convinced, though, that he isn't there.

Well, I'm agnostic, not atheist. God(s) may or may not exist. However, I do believe god as christianity paints him doesn't exist. Because I CAN (at least to myself... you really can't disprove god to anyone who believes in one) disprove that one god. Evolution being an example... science has proven that cows just don't pop up out of thin air. And I also have philosophical arguments, but those are for another thread.

I see evidence of God's existence, and Jesus's goodness.

What evidence?

The difference, apparently, is that I'm willing to tolerate your existence without viewing you through a filter of thinly-veiled contempt.

I don't view YOU with contempt, but I do strongly disagree with some of your beliefs (or at least the ones I know so far, which admittedly aren't very many). And there's no need for filters... I already told you I think belief through faith alone is illogical and irrational.

You seem an intelligent fellow.

lol, I've only posted what? four times? and they weren't very long posts either.

I would like to continue discussing this matter, but I ask that you provide me a little more courtesy.

Define courtesy. I value honesty probably more than any other character trait. While I'm not going to call you names (ok, I can't promise I won't, just that I'll try not to... I've lost my temper a couple of times... although they were completely twisting my words, ignoring what I said, etc... it could happen again), I'm not going to hide what I think about your beliefs. You're welcome to be honest with me too. I think that political correctness is a form of hypocrisy. You pretend you don't think something when you actually do.
If you think my views are illogical, irrational, even outright stupid, I don't mind if you tell me.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: id

[

And what proof is there of ET's? :o Why do atheists conintually live in their imaginations and deny eye-witness testimony and documentary evidence that Jesus lived, performed miracles, died for us, and resurrected? :o This shows that evidence and reality plays zero part in the beliefs of atheists.

We have no "proof" but we do have a LOT of suggestive "hard" evidence to make a point . I am not going to go into all that now but even the bible talks of things that are easily linked to ET's if thats what you want to call them. I also said that some religious pictures ages several hundred years ago clearly show a spacecraft. Again you have NO evidence outside the bible where Jesus lived otherwise you would have shown it already. Even if Jesus did come back to life after almost three days it still isn't as big as the miracle of all those saints rising from their graves and appearing to many. Wouldn't you agree? Matt 27:52

 

[ArtGuy]

I don't hold my beliefs simply because I like what they say.

Then why?

Why do you believe what you believe? Is it simply because you like the idea? If so, then you're guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. Is it because your observations and experiences have led you to your current system of beliefs? If so, then why is it so hard to accept that I've done the same?

I can't just plop down a bullet list of reasons, because it's more complicated than that. I've developed my faith gradually over the course of a decade, and it's a combination of a million facts and feelings. It's like being married. I love my wife. If pressed, I could give you a list of reasons, but it would be incomplete. A large part of my love is simply based on a nebulous set of feelings I get when I'm with her. And I'm convinced she loves me. Is it because of a rigorous set of facts and figures? No, it's because I feel that she does. My faith is the same way. It's part rational, and part emotional.

However, I do believe god as christianity paints him doesn't exist.

Christianity as described by whom? There are a lot of contradictory accounts, some more plausible than others.

Because I CAN (at least to myself... you really can't disprove god to anyone who believes in one) disprove that one god. Evolution being an example... science has proven that cows just don't pop up out of thin air. And I also have philosophical arguments, but those are for another thread.

Science has proven that today cows don't just pop out of thin air. Who's to say that the laws of physics haven't changed? Theories regarding the Big Bang suppose that the laws of physics didn't come into existence until a short while after the initial explosion, so it appears even scientists admit that the rules can change after the game has begun.

[quote:da313]I see evidence of God's existence, and Jesus's goodness.

What evidence?
[/quote:da313]

As I said, it's a lot of little things. When I sit on a beach and witness a beautiful sunrise, I see that as evidence of a higher power. I don't think random chance could create such beauty.

I don't view YOU with contempt, but I do strongly disagree with some of your beliefs (or at least the ones I know so far, which admittedly aren't very many). And there's no need for filters... I already told you I think belief through faith alone is illogical and irrational.

Well, given that you hardly know my beliefs, other than that I don't quite buy evolution, I think you may be guilty of judging a book by its cover. And I agree that belief through faith alone is illogical. Belief through faith that doesn't contradict observed phenomena, though, is both logical and necessary.

lol, I've only posted what? four times? and they weren't very long posts either.

No, but you seem well-spoken. Perhaps I just have faith. ;)

Define courtesy. I value honesty probably more than any other character trait. While I'm not going to call you names (ok, I can't promise I won't, just that I'll try not to... I've lost my temper a couple of times... although they were completely twisting my words, ignoring what I said, etc... it could happen again), I'm not going to hide what I think about your beliefs.

Well, this last post here? That was courteous. Let this serve as a working definition. I don't mind disagreement at all, and I in fact think that disagreement and debate result in a greater understanding of our views.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: id

[

First, it is very possible for a perfect being to create imperfection, provided he is consciously choosing to do so.
Then if he knowingly chooses to create imperfection then he does so with malice and/or an attitude of not doing ones best at what one attempts to accomplish. This in my opinion wreaks of imperfection.

He just can't create imperfection on accident. Free will is logically incompatible with perfection, and so God had to choose one or the other. He chose free will.
If God chooses "free will" then God cannot know what is going to happen in the future then God is not all knowing.

Second, all evidence of contact with extraterrestrials is fairly sketchy. The day that a credible witness comes forth with evidence that consists of more than a photograph of a fuzzy dot is the day that I start to seriously consider the possibility that aliens are trying to contact us.
There are a host of ancient artwork depicting alien beings, stories in their culture hinting at nuclear war including some descriptions in the bible. As far as aliens "trying" to contact us, I don't think that is the case. Contacting us should be no problem whatsoever if they exist. Whatever the reality there is more to suggest aliens in our past than Gods.

And lastly, I hardly find it surprising that our man-made attempts to eradicate pests closely mimic some of nature's own methods.
I can't think of any other system in nature that will kill itself off with STD's. Do you? Man has done this with chemicals but in nature it doesn't exist to my knowledge.

That's not evidence of aliens, any more than the fact that a light-bulb resembles the sun is evidence that the latter was created by ET.
I don't think you've thought enough about it.

 

[Oran_Taran]

Why do you believe what you believe? Is it simply because you like the idea?

No, because there's is reason (evidence) for me to believe it. As someone once said, "It's not reality's job to satisfy or egos". I don't believe things because I want to, I believe them because I have to.
I don't want to believe, I want to know.

Is it because your observations and experiences have led you to your current system of beliefs? If so, then why is it so hard to accept that I've done the same?

Yes. Well, that's why I asked what your evidence was, and why you believed what you believe.

I can't just plop down a bullet list of reasons, because it's more complicated than that. I've developed my faith gradually over the course of a decade, and it's a combination of a million facts and feelings.

Well, you can't give specific reasons why you love your wife, but that's because love and all those other feelings are themselves not something you can really explain. Like you said, it's a nebulous set of feelings. Meaning you can't exactly describe what you feel for her.
Believing that JESUS (specific name of a specific person in a specific time frame, etc) and god (with specific traits, etc) exist are specific things, therefore you should have specific reasons to believe. If you were telling me that you believe some sort of higher being(s) started the universe or something like that, I might accept that your list of why you believe may not be very complete.
So I guess in short what I'm saying is that you can't make specific conclusions with general feelings and emotions. I don't have much of a problem with people saying they believe in higher being(s), but I do have a problem when people start naming and giving certain attributes to that/those higher being(s).

Christianity as described by whom? There are a lot of contradictory accounts, some more plausible than others.

That's why I said I'm aware that not every denomination teaches those things.

Who's to say that the laws of physics haven't changed?

Who's to say they HAVE?
From the time humans have been alive until this very second, the laws of physics have remained exactly the same. There is no reason to believe that they change. It would be irrational/illogical to believe that they do, as we have never seen any evidence whatsoever for it.

As I said, it's a lot of little things. When I sit on a beach and witness a beautiful sunrise, I see that as evidence of a higher power.

aha! Like I said, it all comes down to making specific conclusions from very general things. You cannot possibly EVER (logically and rationally) get jesus, the ressurection, etc. from that.
I don't see that as evidence of a higher power... beauty isn't objective, it's subjective. It's pure perception, and perception can change. Someone or something else might look at a sunrise with fear (I don't know any examples for sunrises, but I do remember that the chinese were scared of solar eclipses as they thought a dragon was eating the moon). If something was created by a higher being to be beautiful, doesn't it stand to reason that everyone and everything would percieve it as beautiful?

Well, given that you hardly know my beliefs, other than that I don't quite buy evolution, I think you may be guilty of judging a book by its cover.

Yeah, I know you're a creationist, and I know you're a christian. I can make conclusions that apply to every christian, such as belief in the bible, belief that jesus is our savior, etc.

Belief through faith that doesn't contradict observed phenomena, though, is both logical and necessary.

How is it logical? now is it NECESSARY? I don't think I have faith... I'm perfectly happy being faithless. I don't think it's necessary at all.

No, but you seem well-spoken. Perhaps I just have faith.

LOL! faith.

Well, this last post here? That was courteous. Let this serve as a working definition.

Well gee, great definition :P

I don't mind disagreement at all, and I in fact think that disagreement and debate result in a greater understanding of our views

I agree. Debating makes people smarter. That's why I love debating...

 

[armed2010]

They ruined thier argument on the first page when they try to debunk abiogensis. For the last time. I mean it I'm never saying it again.

evolution does not try to explain the beginnings of life

edited for using all caps. See the TOS

But it does try to explain the beginnings of humans by claiming that apes turned into humans which is a lie. I just debated an evolutionist on EVC forum who made the false statement that apes & humans can interbreed. This is the kind of lie on which the theory of evolution is based. He admitted it, and I proved the theory of evolution is a lie so we ended the debate.

What, you mean your "debate" with Nuggin where you constantly misused the term Ape, and when finally asked to define what an Ape is, you outright refused? You were restricted to that debate thread after you showed such outright ignorance and made so many false statements, and guess what, now you're back here!

Once again, for your educational benefit, here is what an Ape is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

 

[Frost Giant]

Why do you believe what you believe? Is it simply because you like the idea? If so, then you're guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. Is it because your observations and experiences have led you to your current system of beliefs? If so, then why is it so hard to accept that I've done the same?

Because your so-called observations and experiences can't be verified. There's no objective way to determine if you're feeling God or something else.

I can't just plop down a bullet list of reasons, because it's more complicated than that. I've developed my faith gradually over the course of a decade, and it's a combination of a million facts and feelings. It's like being married. I love my wife. If pressed, I could give you a list of reasons, but it would be incomplete. A large part of my love is simply based on a nebulous set of feelings I get when I'm with her. And I'm convinced she loves me. Is it because of a rigorous set of facts and figures? No, it's because I feel that she does. My faith is the same way. It's part rational, and part emotional.

Love and belief in a God are two very different things. Love is more of an opinion. How is how everything was created an opinion?

Christianity as described by whom? There are a lot of contradictory accounts, some more plausible than others.

Christianity as described by the Bible. I.e. a benevolent God who murders his own people.

Science has proven that today cows don't just pop out of thin air. Who's to say that the laws of physics haven't changed? Theories regarding the Big Bang suppose that the laws of physics didn't come into existence until a short while after the initial explosion, so it appears even scientists admit that the rules can change after the game has begun.

There's no evidence that the laws of physics have changed since then. Science assumes nothing.

As I said, it's a lot of little things. When I sit on a beach and witness a beautiful sunrise, I see that as evidence of a higher power. I don't think random chance could create such beauty.

Beauty is an opinion, much like loving your wife. They vary from person to person. There's no ultimate authority of beauty.

Well, given that you hardly know my beliefs, other than that I don't quite buy evolution, I think you may be guilty of judging a book by its cover. And I agree that belief through faith alone is illogical. Belief through faith that doesn't contradict observed phenomena, though, is both logical and necessary.

No, that opens the door for people to explain away everything.

 

[Heidi]

They ruined thier argument on the first page when they try to debunk abiogensis. For the last time. I mean it I'm never saying it again.

evolution does not try to explain the beginnings of life

edited for using all caps. See the TOS

But it does try to explain the beginnings of humans by claiming that apes turned into humans which is a lie. I just debated an evolutionist on EVC forum who made the false statement that apes & humans can interbreed. This is the kind of lie on which the theory of evolution is based. He admitted it, and I proved the theory of evolution is a lie so we ended the debate.

What, you mean your "debate" with Nuggin where you constantly misused the term Ape, and when finally asked to define what an Ape is, you outright refused? You were restricted to that debate thread after you showed such outright ignorance and made so many false statements, and guess what, now you're back here!

Once again, for your educational benefit, here is what an Ape is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Nuggin said in bold capital letters that apes and humans can interbreed which is a blatant lie. He got stuck in this lie in the first pplace because he claimed that humans are apes. But that's what mixing up animals and humans does. It eventually begets more lies.

So since evolutionists can't tell the difference between humans and apes, then all you need to do is go to a zoo to see what animals are which is exactly where humans put them because as the bible says, humans rule over the animals. And if you try to lie about that too, then I will conclude that you are openly lying with zero conscience about it because even children know that.

 

[Heidi]

They ruined thier argument on the first page when they try to debunk abiogensis. For the last time. I mean it I'm never saying it again.

evolution does not try to explain the beginnings of life

edited for using all caps. See the TOS

But it does try to explain the beginnings of humans by claiming that apes turned into humans which is a lie. I just debated an evolutionist on EVC forum who made the false statement that apes & humans can interbreed. This is the kind of lie on which the theory of evolution is based. He admitted it, and I proved the theory of evolution is a lie so we ended the debate.

What, you mean your "debate" with Nuggin where you constantly misused the term Ape, and when finally asked to define what an Ape is, you outright refused? You were restricted to that debate thread after you showed such outright ignorance and made so many false statements, and guess what, now you're back here!

Once again, for your educational benefit, here is what an Ape is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Nuggin said in bold capital letters that apes and humans can interbreed which is a blatant lie. He got stuck in this lie in the first pplace because he claimed that humans are apes. But that's what mixing up animals and humans does. It eventually begets more lies.

So since evolutionists can't tell the difference between humans and apes, then all you need to do is go to a zoo to see what animals are which is exactly where humans put them because as the bible says, humans rule over the animals. And if you try to lie about that too, then I will conclude that you are openly lying with zero conscience about it because even children know that.

 

[Heidi]

They ruined thier argument on the first page when they try to debunk abiogensis. For the last time. I mean it I'm never saying it again.

evolution does not try to explain the beginnings of life

edited for using all caps. See the TOS

But it does try to explain the beginnings of humans by claiming that apes turned into humans which is a lie. I just debated an evolutionist on EVC forum who made the false statement that apes & humans can interbreed. This is the kind of lie on which the theory of evolution is based. He admitted it, and I proved the theory of evolution is a lie so we ended the debate.

What, you mean your "debate" with Nuggin where you constantly misused the term Ape, and when finally asked to define what an Ape is, you outright refused? You were restricted to that debate thread after you showed such outright ignorance and made so many false statements, and guess what, now you're back here!

Once again, for your educational benefit, here is what an Ape is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Nuggins said in bold capital letters that apes and humans can interbreed which is a blatant lie. He got stuck in this lie in the first pplace because he claimed that humans are apes. But that's what mixing up animals and humans does. It eventually begets more lies.

So since evolutionists can't tell the difference between humans and apes, then all you need to do is go to a zoo to see what animals are which is exactly where humans put them because as the bible says, humans rule over the animals. And if you try to lie about that too, then I will conclude that you are openly lying with zero conscience about it because even children know that.

 

[Heidi]

Since evolutionists cannot see the difference between humans and animals then it's a waste of time trying to communicate with people who are either that ignorant or blatant liars. Nothing they say can therefore be trusted. But since evolutionists are not capable of seeing reality while they are alive, I guarantee they will when they die. ;-)

 

[Oran_Taran]

He got stuck in this lie in the first pplace because he claimed that humans are apes

humans ARE apes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
talking about humans:

a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

So since evolutionists can't tell the difference between humans and apes

Ok, tell me why we are NOT apes, then tell me why we are NOT animals.

 

[Frost Giant]

Since evolutionists cannot see the difference between humans and animals then it's a waste of time trying to communicate with people who are either that ignorant or blatant liars. Nothing they say can therefore be trusted. But since evolutionists are not capable of seeing reality while they are alive, I guarantee they will when they die. ;-)

No, sorry. The definition of animal includes us so we are animals.

 

[Solo]

Since evolutionists cannot see the difference between humans and animals then it's a waste of time trying to communicate with people who are either that ignorant or blatant liars. Nothing they say can therefore be trusted. But since evolutionists are not capable of seeing reality while they are alive, I guarantee they will when they die. ;-)

No, sorry. The definition of animal includes us so we are animals.

Some men, mostly unbelievers, have decided to include man into the same catagory as animals, whether true or not. Other men, usually believers, understand the difference between animals and mankind. There is quite a distinction.

 

[ArtGuy]

Some men, mostly unbelievers, have decided to include man into the same catagory as animals, whether true or not. Other men, usually believers, understand the difference between animals and mankind. There is quite a distinction.

Well, since definitions are man-made creations, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have humans and animals falling into the same category in certain situations. I mean, Granny Smith and Red Delicious are both apples, even though they're different. Apples and oranges are both fruits, even though they're very different. And apples and people are both organic matter, even though they're really really different. That apples and people share the category "organic matter" doesn't in any way make humans less worthy or distinct, any more than does having both humans and puppies be considered "animals". It's just a matter of zoological semantics. It's not a matter of "true" or "false".

 

[kellivision]

Nuggins said in bold capital letters that apes and humans can interbreed which is a blatant lie. He got stuck in this lie in the first pplace because he claimed that humans are apes. But that's what mixing up animals and humans does. It eventually begets more lies.

So since evolutionists can't tell the difference between humans and apes, then all you need to do is go to a zoo to see what animals are which is exactly where humans put them because as the bible says, humans rule over the animals. And if you try to lie about that too, then I will conclude that you are openly lying with zero conscience about it because even children know that.

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

 

[kellivision]

Nuggins said in bold capital letters that apes and humans can interbreed which is a blatant lie. He got stuck in this lie in the first pplace because he claimed that humans are apes. But that's what mixing up animals and humans does. It eventually begets more lies.

So since evolutionists can't tell the difference between humans and apes, then all you need to do is go to a zoo to see what animals are which is exactly where humans put them because as the bible says, humans rule over the animals. And if you try to lie about that too, then I will conclude that you are openly lying with zero conscience about it because even children know that.

Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

 

[kellivision]

Triple post