atheists

[AvalonXQ]

simply, the Bible teaches us that God created discrete kinds of things;

any one example is EITHER ONE THING OR ELSE THE OTHER THING

So it's exactly as Cycel predicted - it doesn't matter what evidence you're presented with; you will always deny that it counts as evidence. Is that correct?

 

[Starcrash]

Ah, so I see that you:

A. Can't provide adequate evidence that follows the scientific method for evolution when asked for it. Perhaps another evolutionist can provide what I seek? (then again, out of all the evolutionists I've ever talked with, none have been able to provide it)

I'll make an attempt at this, but I'm going to have to establish a few things before such evidence will be useful.

First, let me explain the scientific method in easy terms -- it is a comparison between two identical groups with only one difference. For example, if you grow 2 of the same plant in the same environment and feed them in a slightly different way (such as adding sugar to the water in your 'experimental' group and giving unsugared water to your 'control' group) then you are doing a scientific experiment. If the two plants grow differently in any way, then we know the sugar was to blame because anything else that might have caused a change in one would have made the same change in the other. This is how science is conducted.

It also helps to know what evolution is. Evolution is the gradual change in a group's genes due to a change in the environment, resulting in diversity in that group. For example, if dogs in the United States are given homes and domesticated while those same dogs in Australia are not, we would observe whether the difference in environment causes these two identical groups to have different results -- and they do. US dogs would be put to sleep if they attacked humans, thus they are "selected" out of the gene pool because that trait won't help them to survive and pass on their genes. US dogs will not survive if they require an all-meat diet because they'll be exposed to a different diet made up of dog food -- mostly corn. US dogs will not survive if they are not playful, because they'll be neglected by their owners for lack of value. These things are not true of "dingos" in the environment of Australia. Because of these differences in environment, there are many necessary changes that will take place, and these changes fall within the definition of "evolution" -- thus we observe it in action. While it seems strange that such small changes could accumulate in the diversity we see in the natural world, which includes fish, mammals, reptiles, and birds all coming from a cellular ancestor, we can also observe analogous changes in language. Languages "evolve" through small changes that accumulate to the point where we consider them completely different languages... being fluent in one isn't very helpful in interpreting another. No one "creates" a language or intentionally shapes it to their will... it just morphs due to the usefulness of certain traits of the language in its environment (one very good example being whistled language in environments where long-distance communication is needed).

 

[danschance]

Avalonxq,

It would seem you enjoy casting aspersions and belittling Christian faith. If you want to engage others in a discusion, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you see my point.


As for me, I could care less about evolution. I don't read about it and prefer to not even mention it. I prefer to discuss topics about Jesus, the bible, God, etc. That's why I am here.

 

[Starcrash]

As for me, I could care less about evolution. I don't read about it and prefer to not even mention it. I prefer to discuss topics about Jesus, the bible, God, etc. That's why I am here.

I had personally hoped to avoid debate about evolution, as it has nothing to do with the relevant topic of this thread (atheism) and the topic of this specific forum (bible discussion). I also don't see the value of "winning" this argument, as it doesn't prove atheism or provide much value to the average person. Obviously biologists need to understand evolution, but most of us don't need it. So, if you want to continue to be skeptical of evolution, that's perfectly alright. Skepticism is often a very rational position, and so is doubt. Skepticism and doubt are how I came to be an atheism, and I certainly wouldn't want to be a hypocrite. Besides, there's no atheist heaven, so our position can't provide eternal happinss. All we offer is what is real and true, as far as it is currently possible to know.

 

[danschance]

I had personally hoped to avoid debate about evolution, as it has nothing to do with the relevant topic of this thread (atheism) and the topic of this specific forum (bible discussion). I also don't see the value of "winning" this argument, as it doesn't prove atheism or provide much value to the average person. Obviously biologists need to understand evolution, but most of us don't need it. So, if you want to continue to be skeptical of evolution, that's perfectly alright. Skepticism is often a very rational position, and so is doubt. Skepticism and doubt are how I came to be an atheism, and I certainly wouldn't want to be a hypocrite. Besides, there's no atheist heaven, so our position can't provide eternal happinss. All we offer is what is real and true, as far as it is currently possible to know.

I was an atheist for a time myself, but I never argued about it to others. I felt if the want to believe in a religion, that is their choice. I am still a skeptic or at least part skeptic. I also participate in a conspiracy theory debunking forum where I can actually put the things I learned in College to good use.

I agree atheists should be allowed to post her but tempers on both sides can easily flare up.

 

[megaman125]

So it's exactly as Cycel predicted - it doesn't matter what evidence you're presented with; you will always deny that it counts as evidence. Is that correct?

Kinda like how it doesn't matter how much anti-evolution evidence is presented to you, you'll still cling to evolution?

I'll make an attempt at this, but I'm going to have to establish a few things before such evidence will be useful.

First, let me explain the scientific method in easy terms -- it is a comparison between two identical groups with only one difference. For example, if you grow 2 of the same plant in the same environment and feed them in a slightly different way (such as adding sugar to the water in your 'experimental' group and giving unsugared water to your 'control' group) then you are doing a scientific experiment. If the two plants grow differently in any way, then we know the sugar was to blame because anything else that might have caused a change in one would have made the same change in the other. This is how science is conducted.

Yeah, we know what the scientific method is. I'm still waiting to see it applied to the hypothesis that completely asexual organisms evolved and changed to become sexual reproducing organisms.

It also helps to know what evolution is. Evolution is the gradual change in a group's genes due to a change in the environment, resulting in diversity in that group.

Yes, yes, we've heard all the evolution dogma before. Whenever evolution is questioned, you just revert back to some vauge definition of evolution, and yet other times you want to use evolution as an answer for so many things, but when you're called out on it, you revert back to the vaugeness. It becomes a bit circular.

For example, if dogs in the United States are given homes and domesticated while those same dogs in Australia are not, we would observe whether the difference in environment causes these two identical groups to have different results -- and they do. US dogs would be put to sleep if they attacked humans, thus they are "selected" out of the gene pool because that trait won't help them to survive and pass on their genes. US dogs will not survive if they require an all-meat diet because they'll be exposed to a different diet made up of dog food -- mostly corn. US dogs will not survive if they are not playful, because they'll be neglected by their owners for lack of value. These things are not true of "dingos" in the environment of Australia. Because of these differences in environment, there are many necessary changes that will take place, and these changes fall within the definition of "evolution" -- thus we observe it in action. While it seems strange that such small changes could accumulate in the diversity we see in the natural world, which includes fish, mammals, reptiles, and birds all coming from a cellular ancestor, we can also observe analogous changes in language. Languages "evolve" through small changes that accumulate to the point where we consider them completely different languages... being fluent in one isn't very helpful in interpreting another. No one "creates" a language or intentionally shapes it to their will... it just morphs due to the usefulness of certain traits of the language in its environment (one very good example being whistled language in environments where long-distance communication is needed).

So to sum this up, instead of actually providing the specific evidence I asked for, you instead evade the subject at hand and present this wall of text, which, at its core, is just the same old "millions of years magically made it happen" catch all response evolutionists give when they can't give the details or evidence. Just believe millions of years can magically make all this evolution happen, because it can. How? Because millions of years. Don't question it or ask for further details, just accept the vauge millions of years magical catch all answer for anything evolution can't really answer (which is a lot).

I had personally hoped to avoid debate about evolution, as it has nothing to do with the relevant topic of this thread (atheism) and the topic of this specific forum (bible discussion).

But yet it always seems to misteriously come up in conversations with atheists. Most often the atheists love to interject evolution into the conversation, by asking things like "Do you believe in evolution?" as a deceiptive (but blatently obvious to those familiar with the typical atheist patterns) way of trying to discredit the Christians, because their conclusion is that anyone who doesn't blindly accept all the claims of evolution and billions of years ago must be instantly wrong about everything and is discredited in the atheists' eyes, and therefore the atheists are right and the Christians are wrong. Well, you didn't take it quite that far, and you did say it's ok for us to be skeptical of the radical billions of years ago claims of evolutionists, so that's at least a step away from the typical atheists who do follow the description I just presented.

 

[CoooCaw]

So it's exactly as Cycel predicted - it doesn't matter what evidence you're presented with; you will always deny that it counts as evidence. Is that correct?

you can turn that on its head

can I show him something and will he say it is intemediate

better still can he show me something and say it isintermedisate?

hang on!?

that was the original queation

can he show me something whose ancestors were dogs but is now well on its way to being something else?

If evolution was true we would be neck deep in fossils, all of which are on the way from being one type to another in such a way that there there ARE WOULD BE NO distinct kinds

If Creation IS true then all you will find IS DISTINCT KINDS

 

[Cycel]

Avalonxq,
If you want to engage others in a discusion, you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you see my point.

My approach as well, Dan.

As for me, I could care less about evolution. I don't read about it and prefer to not even mention it. I prefer to discuss topics about Jesus, the bible, God, etc. That's why I am here.

At the last Christian forum I frequented a member argued that I must not think I could defend evolution because I seemed reluctant to discus it with her. That fact is, when I did, her response was always a one line denial, usually something disparaging about evolution, with the attached claim that my proposed intermediate fossil was only another example of a species created by God; but when prodded she would never explain how she would recognize the Real McCoy if she saw it. This is why I would really prefer to discus the Genesis creation account and Noah's flood which, I think, are the twin pillars of the anti-evolution crusade.

In regard the New Testament are you familiar at all with the writings of Robert Eisenman? If you know what Eisenman’s views are you will know where I stand on the subject of Jesus.

 

[Cycel]

you can turn that on its head
If evolution was true we would be neck deep in fossils, all of which are on the way from being one type to another in such a way that there there ARE WOULD BE NO distinct kinds

We are knee deep in such fossils CoooCaw, but creationists always deny the evidence, which is why I have been asking you in advance how you will recognize a true intermediate fossil when you see one. How will you know the Real McCoy when you see it?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Avalonxq,

It would seem you enjoy casting aspersions and belittling Christian faith.

Where do you get that idea? I do nothing of the sort.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I had personally hoped to avoid debate about evolution, as it has nothing to do with the relevant topic of this thread (atheism) and the topic of this specific forum (bible discussion).

Exactly right - many Christians accept the truth of evolution, including myself.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If evolution was true we would be neck deep in fossils, all of which are on the way from being one type to another in such a way that there there ARE WOULD BE NO distinct kinds

If Creation IS true then all you will find IS DISTINCT KINDS

Which is why Cycel's question is the correct one - what criteria are you using to determine whether creatures are of a distinct kind or not?

Creationist "experts" have looked at the progression from earlier hominid ape to modern human, and every single one of them is sure that each fossil is either an ape or a human, no question...
... but the irony is that each "expert" places the break in a different place! As you get to the middle of the transition, half of the creationist "experts" are certain that the fossil is a non-human ape, and the other half are certain it's a human. The fact is that the fossils show a transition.

It's always possible to ignore and deny the evidence when you use words like "kind" that you give no objective meaning, and ask for "transitional fossils" without defining what you mean. That's why Cycel wants to pin you down on what qualifies as evidence before the evidence is presented.

 

[megaman125]

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.[SUP]6[/SUP] Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.

[video=youtube;yXeKk18jUTc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXeKk18jUTc&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Answer 1: They aren’t missing. Every fossil ever found is a link between older and newer forms.
Rebuttal: This is assumed, not demonstrated. It is also patently absurd, as, numerically, the majority of fossils fit neatly into previously-described species (many of them documented in Living Fossils). It also obfuscates the real problem. Even on a species-by-species basis, transitional forms are the exception to the rule. There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life. This was recognized by Darwin himself as a huge problem for his theory. And this handful of disputed fossils is different from the disputed handful of the past. For example, the coelacanth fish was presented by evolutionists as ‘the ancestor’ of tetrapods (four-legged animals) for many years. It is no longer considered as such by evolutionary paleontologists, although it is still in many school textbooks.

Answer 2: Only a small fraction of animals are fossilized, the fossil record still remains largely incomplete.
Rebuttal: This begs the question, because the ‘evidence’ that the fossil record is incomplete is the rarity of intermediates! This argument may have been convincing in Darwin’s day, although Darwin’s paleontological opponents like Richard Owen, Louis Agassiz and Adam Sedgwick, didn’t buy it, when there were only a small number of fossils that were known. But today we have fossilized representatives of every living animal phylum and every plant division. There are many phyla that have fossilized representatives of every living group or class. We have pointed out before that 97.7% of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1% of living families of land vertebrates—87.8% if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized (see The links are missing). With so many forms accounted for, there doesn’t seem to be much room for transitional forms to do their work.

What evolutionists should say instead is that fossilization events are rare in processes occurring today. That should lead them to realize that fossils are mostly the result of an extra-ordinary event—such as a globe-covering flood that buried lots of creatures very fast, and prevented them from decomposing or being scavenged as today. See for example Hundreds of jellyfish fossils!—Darwin claimed, due to his faulty uniformitarian views, “No organism wholly soft can be preserved.”

Answer 3: They aren’t missing. There are millions of transitional forms.
Rebuttal: First, there is something bizarre when excuses are basically mutually incompatible, like #2 v. #1 and #3. Which is it? Are they commonplace, or rare because of the rarity of fossilization events?

This answer would require practically every fossil to be a transitional form (actually, several transitional forms at once, given that only about 250,000 fossil species are actually known). But many fossils are practically identical to living creatures, in which case the adjective ‘transitional’ becomes meaningless.





So as you can see, the problem is clearly addressed, and all of the typical/predictable evolutionist answers have been refuted. Now all we need is an evolutionist to attempt to use a typical 1 liner ad hominem like "They're creationists, therefore they're wrong," to try and dishonestly dismiss everything here.

 

[TheKringledOne]

Besides, there's no atheist heaven, so our position can't provide eternal happinss.

This is debatable.

 

[Cycel]

Avalonxq,
It would seem you enjoy casting aspersions and belittling Christian faith.

My understanding is Avalon is Christian.

 

[Cycel]

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Megaman, this post of yours has been cut and pasted. The entire document has been put together through quote mining, a very typical approach used by Creationists. The result of course is a group of quotes set in a very misleading context. Evolutionary biologists may not at all mean what they seem to be saying, but as misrepresentation is the goal of such efforts they are very often successful at twisting the truth.

I don’t blame you Megaman, I see you as a victim in this. If you actually read Gould (and others) and not just the sound bites fed to you by those seeking to twist the truth, you would recognize the deception. I can point out the errors to you, but it is time consuming to track down all the original quotes to provide the proper context. Cutting and pasting takes moments, doing the foot work to provide the evidence for what I am telling you will probably take hours.

 

[Starcrash]

instead of actually providing the specific evidence I asked for, you instead evade the subject at hand and present this wall of text...

Okay, I regret wasting my time on you. I obviously didn't "evade the subject"... I took a lot of time and effort to explain it as fully as I could. It took a "wall of text" because the explanation isn't easy. And it was a waste of time. You'll never understand because your belief depends on not understanding.

"They're creationists, therefore they're wrong"

It's as dumb as "They're evolutionists, therefore they're wrong", and almost as logically fallacious as "evolution is wrong, therefore creationism has been proven".

 

[Kerry]

I see ya'll are back on the evolution debate, Thats amazing to me. Any way, Evolution is a false doctrine that has strongly deceived many people simply because they are unwilling to see both sides. In many years of watching the discovery channel, Which I used to love until they got caught up in the delusion of so called evolution or that is to say by chance. The bible declares that in the last days their would be a strong delusion and many would fall by it. I would say the past 50 years has brought this on. Yet no one has seen take place, only educated guesses, yet there is one who saw creation take place and passed it down to his childrens, childrens, children and then recorded in a book. That never happened in the evolution theory. Why didn't the man that became a man record this event orf at least pass it down to his children, simple it didn't happen, not one person alive today or in the past 6,000 years witnessed it. Yes aminals do adapt to strange environments ( thats called adaptive strategy and not evolution, in other words they do not become a new species) as God blessed them and told them to multiply. Notice that God only blessed animals and separately Human kind and also said replenish the Earth. Which connotes a whole nother discourse that could explain a lot of things such as fossils. I have never heard a scientist or atheist explain when and why we started wearing clothes. The climate is debunked, monkeys live in the warmest of climates, yet they retain heir hair and thick skin. No animal is interested in wearing clothes and if you put them in some, they would tear them off. Evolution is a good escape( so some think) from the authority of almighty God and will go to extremes to avoid the accountability that God has placed on man for their sin, unless they place their faith in the work of the cross.

 

[Starcrash]

The bible declares that in the last days their would be a strong delusion and many would fall by it. I would say the past 50 years has brought this on.

Wow! What an amazingly specific prophecy! And there's no way that people would have fallen for "a strong delusion" before the past 50 years!

I'll just quote atheist Sam Harris on this one, because I can't possibly top his argument.

But just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make specific, falsifiable predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage like, "In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers -- the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus -- and this system shall be called the Internet." The Bible contains nothing remotely like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.

 

[Kerry]

Wow! What an amazingly specific prophecy! And there's no way that people would have fallen for "a strong delusion" before the past 50 years!

I'll just quote atheist Sam Harris on this one, because I can't possibly top his argument.

Good avoidance, I am not a politician as your brother. Even though the bible does not give specifics, although it does concerning Jesus Christ which is undeniable and many other events as well. But, the events that it declares will happen years before it happened, did happen. Not only the bible backs it up but, history backs it up. The Egyptians recording a lot of it and Greece and Rome. Where is evolutions backup?