- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
Quote I don't believe the theory of evolution is true at all. A theory is different than a fact. Evolution itself is change over a period of time, thats also different than the THEORY of evolution…,
Actually it is not the theory of evolution. It is the fact of evolution explained by the theory of natural selection. Evolution is a fact because the fossil record, the DNA record and the appearance of new species together make it something so well demonstrated that it would be perverse to deny it.Quote I agree it is just a theory, and one that is relatively easily refuted.
Go on then, refute it!Quote Here are some arguments that I find compelling – collectively, they have convinced me that Darwinian evolution (the general theory of evolution) is completely fallacious:
What is fallacious is calling it ‘the general theory of evolution’. Do you know what you are talking about??Quote 1. Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
If the living things we see around us today had really evolved from primordial single-celled organisms – there would be many intermediate or transitional forms (i.e those with halfway structures). However, there is not one specimen which someone could make a water tight argument for. A few highly-debatable fossils have been held up but their validity has been subsequently demolished by the majority of the palentological intelligensia (e.g archaeopteryx).
So demolish archaeopteryx for us then! Tell us that it is not a dinosaur with feathers that is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. The fossil record does not track every single speciation event in detail: fossils are rare. To say there are no transitional forms is either ignorance or an intentional lie. Talkorigins lists some of them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.htmlQuote 2. The absurdity of transitional forms.
It is a widely held evolutionary belief that birds evolved from land animals. Although many pondered how feathers could have developed (they are lightweight, strong aerodynamically-shaped with an intricate structure of barbs and hooks – a near perfect adaption for flight) given that the macro-evolution is essentially directionless and random (what would be the mechanism for the change?). Even if it could have happaned the transitional form would be this creature with partially-developed feathers on its limbs. This would have inhibited its competitiveness (it would be less fit to survive) – being not developed enough to allow flight (or insulation) but developed enough to reduce mobility. This halfway organism, totally vulnerable to any predator, would be selected AGAINST, quickly becoming extinct. You could make the same case for any of the transition phases btwn main forms.
Is ‘the absurdity’ a scientific argument or an opinion based on ignorance? The transitional form would this and the transitional form would that. The transitional form might not do these things too. What a load of bollocks.Quote 3. DNA is too complex to have evolved.
DNA is the most compact and efficient information storage and retrieval system known to mankind. There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica (30 volumes) three or four times over. Further, the amount of DNA that you could on a pinhead is equivalent in information content to a pile of books that when stacked would reach 300 times the distance the earth is from the moon. Yet it has specified complexity – that is the specific way it is ordered produces a meaningful instruction. This cannot evolve from nothing – not in any concievable timeframe.
That’s an impressive list of facts about DNA, isn’t it! Spot though the ignorant opinion amongst them: “This cannot evolve from nothing” Note it does not say why it cannot. In fact DNA did evolve. Not from nothing though. Complexity is exactly what Darwin explained. Do you know how it happened?Quote 4. Cosmology
How did the universe come about?
creationist's answer: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1)
Is that an explanation? To ask the same question as above, what is the mechanism for it?Quote Evolutionist's answer (at present): In the beginning there was nothing…….then it exploded.
What is an ‘evolutionist’? What does this have to do with Darwin’s theory?Quote The anthropic principle is also good evidence for a God-created earth. It states that everything is in perfect balance. The size of the earth is just big enough to support an atmosphere. The distance from the sun is just right to support life (1% closer or further away and we would be incinerated or snap frozen). It all points to design.
Douglas Adams: Being surprised that the universe seems so well suited to life is like a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole.Quote 5. Mutations dont add information.
Mutations are essential to explain the addition of information needed to facilitate a change of one organism to another. However, mutations can only eliminate information and cannot produce new features. Ditto for natural selection – it can account for the modification of existing structures (e.g. Darwins finchs and their diverse beak morphologies) but not the development of new ones.
Mutation can and does add new information, and that arises by radiation causing changes and copying errors in DNA replication. Indeed natural selection does find new uses for existing structures. Our earbones were previously parts of the jawbones of our distant ancestors.Quote The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Ps 19:1. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His etern
al power and devine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse. Rom 1:20
Seems quite reverential and grand. Does it actually tell you a single thing about how we came to have such an amazing diversity of life on earth? Only Darwin has done that so far.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 29 2008,16:00) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 29 2008,03:57) Stu,
I believe what I said was clear enough I will let it stand as is. You attempt to put your opponents on the defensive by distorting or twisting what they say. Can't you win your arguments with an opposing line of reasoning? Of course considering what your trying to defend…Wm
I think I have simply pointed out that there is no actual reasoning that links this neuroscience research to spirituality, and that it is ridiculous to accept seekingtruth's assertion that it will be impossible to make measurements of spirituality. If you call that twisting then I suppose any old thing will do in god's fantasy world. Real science requires just a little bit more robustness than the low standard of probity you both seem content with.Stuart
No facts, just blusterQuote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 30 2008,06:08) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 29 2008,16:00) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 29 2008,03:57) Stu,
I believe what I said was clear enough I will let it stand as is. You attempt to put your opponents on the defensive by distorting or twisting what they say. Can't you win your arguments with an opposing line of reasoning? Of course considering what your trying to defend…Wm
I think I have simply pointed out that there is no actual reasoning that links this neuroscience research to spirituality, and that it is ridiculous to accept seekingtruth's assertion that it will be impossible to make measurements of spirituality. If you call that twisting then I suppose any old thing will do in god's fantasy world. Real science requires just a little bit more robustness than the low standard of probity you both seem content with.Stuart
No facts, just bluster
I know. Still you retracted some of it, so well done.(/patronising tone)
Stuart
If anyone besides Stu believes I retracted something, then maybe I wasn't clear, as for Stu I've seen you do this before with others to put them on the defensive and draw them into an argument.
Thanks, Stuart, for answering Isaiah's post.
I am beginning to realize that a lot of evolution/scientific explainations make sense, and as you and other's have said, there is no need for a god (in regards to those explainations). But somehow even if my mind accepts that the scientific explaination is right, I do not want to let go of my love for God! I may doubt that the bible is the actual word of God and all the stories contained within are true – but I cannot doubt that God exists and that I know him.
You may ask, “What do you know about him?” and the answer would be unsatisfactory to you because there is not a shred of evidence to prove anything I would say. Other than the peace in my life, the events that I deem as miracles, the answered prayers that go beyond circumstantial coincidences and the like. Mostly it's the communication that I feel in my spirit. I can be moved to tears during prayer and feel a tingle sensation from head to toe – even a breath of air on my forehead – I know it's God's holy Spirit. It's the missing part of me that only God can fill. And the longing…..oh the longing for more of him…..sometimes it is the most powerful emotion. Anyway, I don't expect you to understand but yet I try to explain because I'm working this all out in my head AND my heart.
Love,
MandyQuote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 30 2008,14:44) If anyone besides Stu believes I retracted something, then maybe I wasn't clear, as for Stu I've seen you do this before with others to put them on the defensive and draw them into an argument.
We could carry on in this tedious manner if you want. I didn't start it, you did by posting fatuous nonsense based on a journalist taking the usual unscientific liberties with scientific data. I thought that publication had higher standards. No doubt the scientists did not challenge the wrong interpretation because they are born-again types themselves. Note that they have cleverly not gone beyond their brief by letting someone else do the preaching part for them. If you can't follow the simple logic I outlined and the reason I gave why you have retracted your claim about this being spirituality research then I'm afraid I have little more energy for it. If you need to go on the defensive here, maybe it is because you have something to be defensive about.Stuart
Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 30 2008,18:02) Thanks, Stuart, for answering Isaiah's post. I am beginning to realize that a lot of evolution/scientific explainations make sense, and as you and other's have said, there is no need for a god (in regards to those explainations). But somehow even if my mind accepts that the scientific explaination is right, I do not want to let go of my love for God! I may doubt that the bible is the actual word of God and all the stories contained within are true – but I cannot doubt that God exists and that I know him.
You may ask, “What do you know about him?” and the answer would be unsatisfactory to you because there is not a shred of evidence to prove anything I would say. Other than the peace in my life, the events that I deem as miracles, the answered prayers that go beyond circumstantial coincidences and the like. Mostly it's the communication that I feel in my spirit. I can be moved to tears during prayer and feel a tingle sensation from head to toe – even a breath of air on my forehead – I know it's God's holy Spirit. It's the missing part of me that only God can fill. And the longing…..oh the longing for more of him…..sometimes it is the most powerful emotion. Anyway, I don't expect you to understand but yet I try to explain because I'm working this all out in my head AND my heart.
Love,
Mandy
I guess the challenge is to determine that indeed these ephemeral things are the effects of a god. I have the same experiences and I don't see any particular pattern that demands a god to explain them. If these things constitute 'spirituality' then I have that as much as anyone here. I think my explanations for them are straightforward and more amazing than the christian view might be.Stuart
Who wrote this?
https://heavennet.net/answers/answer02.htm
Quote Only a fool would say that a 747 airplane could come about by a tornado blowing through a refuse yard that contained the parts to the airplane, or a camera came about by blind chance. Only a fool would believe that a web site could create itself in cyberspace without the intervention of a programmer, even though all the ingredients exist there.
Who would claim any of these things? Men of straw?Quote One of the most blinding philosophies today is the Theory of Evolution, a so called modern science. It is a theory because it lacks any proof that would change it to fact.
Evolution is a fact. The fossil record, comparative DNA study and the emergence of new species in the last 150 years make it fact.Quote Evolution's lack of absolute proof makes it just another religion and it actually requires a degree of blind belief because contrary to what many think, there is no evidence that the universe came about by evolutionary processes.
It is crass, basic ignorance to mix up biological evolution with theories of the origins of the universe. ‘Lack of proof’ only makes it non-mathematical, but it does not claim to be maths.Quote Yet the proof of a master designer of the universe is all around us, its actually obvious.
Go on then, show us that proof.Quote The theory of Evolution may explain some of the processes or laws that God used to create, but the concept that these processes happened without a designer is seriously flawed.
If evolution is right then the designer conjecture is wrong. Evolution by natural selection has no room for teleology.There is no little irony in the accusation of ‘fool’ that heads up this page.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 30 2008,19:23) Quote (Not3in1 @ Aug. 30 2008,18:02) Thanks, Stuart, for answering Isaiah's post. I am beginning to realize that a lot of evolution/scientific explainations make sense, and as you and other's have said, there is no need for a god (in regards to those explainations). But somehow even if my mind accepts that the scientific explaination is right, I do not want to let go of my love for God! I may doubt that the bible is the actual word of God and all the stories contained within are true – but I cannot doubt that God exists and that I know him.
You may ask, “What do you know about him?” and the answer would be unsatisfactory to you because there is not a shred of evidence to prove anything I would say. Other than the peace in my life, the events that I deem as miracles, the answered prayers that go beyond circumstantial coincidences and the like. Mostly it's the communication that I feel in my spirit. I can be moved to tears during prayer and feel a tingle sensation from head to toe – even a breath of air on my forehead – I know it's God's holy Spirit. It's the missing part of me that only God can fill. And the longing…..oh the longing for more of him…..sometimes it is the most powerful emotion. Anyway, I don't expect you to understand but yet I try to explain because I'm working this all out in my head AND my heart.
Love,
Mandy
I guess the challenge is to determine that indeed these ephemeral things are the effects of a god. I have the same experiences and I don't see any particular pattern that demands a god to explain them. If these things constitute 'spirituality' then I have that as much as anyone here. I think my explanations for them are straightforward and more amazing than the christian view might be.Stuart
To what do you attribute random experiences of so-called spirituality OR whatever you would call it? What kind of explaination can you attach to feeling of a presence greater than yourself? Or the longing for something that is unexplainable, yet very real to you?
Thanks,
MandyHi Not3
Quote To what do you attribute random experiences of so-called spirituality OR whatever you would call it?
As I’m not sure what you define spiritually as exactly, I’ll have to improvise a bit. Let’s take the situation where you think of a friend you have not seen or thought about for a while and then later that day the same person rings you. What is your hunter-gatherer brain to make of that? It is constantly working in the background, sifting data and looking for patterns. It will find a pattern here, of course! Now think about it rationally. You think of several different people every day, and may get a phone call from a friend a few times a week. On average we know about 2000 other people well enough to put a name to a face and be recognised by them. You should actually be surprised if the thinking of someone and a phone later thing NEVER happened, in fact it should happen quite often. Your brain will not register that idea intuitively though because it is not programmed by natural selection to calculate probabilities automatically like the automatic pattern-seeking thing you do so well. The evolutionary advantages in pattern seeking are to do with finding food and mates and engineering the environment to help those things. What evolutionary advantage is there in calculating probability? Not much, probably! That’s why we are so bad at it, and why we see patterns even where none really exist.Quote What kind of explaination can you attach to feeling of a presence greater than yourself?
I suppose there are a number of angles here, but to me the simplest is the replacement of parent figures, who are more important for human children than for any other mammal offspring, with an imaginary parent figure. Also, people who believe in ‘greater presences’ are sometimes conditioned to that idea from an early age and because there is a huge survival advantage in very young children simply believing what they are told by adults, it may be that no effort is given later to considering whether the ‘greater presence’ you were told about as a young person is really there. I was told from a young age to brush my teeth and I still have an uneasy feeling if ever I nearly forget my dental routine. Why do you think churches are so desperate to get people when they are young? The religion meme sticks much better that way.Quote Or the longing for something that is unexplainable, yet very real to you?
Again, not sure what you mean exactly. Do I want to see my deceased ancestors and friends again? Not really. They live on in my memory and in the children they left behind. Our time comes and we must go, leaving room for the next generation. Our atoms must be returned to the soil, they are needed.This might sound foreign, but I think anything else really is wishful thinking. Thanks for asking!
Stuart
Hi Stuart,
I guess I'm not expressing myself very well but I'm really not sure how to explain the idea I'm trying to get accross to you. It's like trying to tell someone what it feels like to go swimming when they have never been in water…. You and I have two totally different presuppositions that we build our views upon. There may also be spiritual reasons why we do not understand one another, but I'm not totally sure about that.
To say that you have to experience God for yourself sounds like a cliche, at best. You may even ask me, “How would one 'experience' God?” and I wouldn't have a clear answer to give you. God meets you where you are when you ask him. If you do not demand proof but are willing to accept the unknown – he will meet you. If I believe that the fairies exist at the bottom of the garden it will do me no good. They do not truly exist even if I believe with all my heart that they do! However, if you truly believe in God even though you can not see him…….he will meet you and make himself known to you (it will be undeniable). This I know is true because it has happened to me. I have also tried to believe in fairies, but I've never had any experience with them!
Love,
MandyWell I hope you get to know the fairies Not3, but take care because they can turn on you if you're not careful!
My message is still that our experiences are pretty much the same but your interpretation of them is different. I often come to new realisations about what I do out of habit, and there is so much going on in our subconscious and so much that is a product of the strange methods our brains use that I think there is much to be investigated before you get to 'it must be god'. The god of the neuroscience gaps is shrinking fast.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2008,23:31) My message is still that our experiences are pretty much the same but your interpretation of them is different.
I agree. We start from a differet presupposition and build from there.I'm wondering though, I'm able to take my Christianity glasses off to view your world…..are you able to put my glasses on to view mine?
Thanks,
MandyQuote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 01 2008,05:57) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2008,23:31) My message is still that our experiences are pretty much the same but your interpretation of them is different.
I agree. We start from a differet presupposition and build from there.I'm wondering though, I'm able to take my Christianity glasses off to view your world…..are you able to put my glasses on to view mine?
Thanks,
Mandy
For me to think (as you might not) that most of the world is deluded because they don't seem to get the greatness of god in all the little coincidences and pleasantnesses I experience would require me to suspend so much of what I have learned. I think putting on christian shoes would mean me having to forget so much of what I have learned about the bible and the motives of religous zealots. If you pare it down to something I could relate to, you would jettison most christian 'truths' and be left with Matthew 7:12. I would still have to forget all the other philosophies that did the golden rule earlier and better than the religion of Paul did.No, I'm struggling to see it from your point of view. I have been too spoiled by the true beauty of the universe!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 01 2008,20:11) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 01 2008,05:57) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 31 2008,23:31) My message is still that our experiences are pretty much the same but your interpretation of them is different.
I agree. We start from a differet presupposition and build from there.I'm wondering though, I'm able to take my Christianity glasses off to view your world…..are you able to put my glasses on to view mine?
Thanks,
Mandy
For me to think (as you might not) that most of the world is deluded because they don't seem to get the greatness of god in all the little coincidences and pleasantnesses I experience would require me to suspend so much of what I have learned. I think putting on christian shoes would mean me having to forget so much of what I have learned about the bible and the motives of religous zealots. If you pare it down to something I could relate to, you would jettison most christian 'truths' and be left with Matthew 7:12. I would still have to forget all the other philosophies that did the golden rule earlier and better than the religion of Paul did.No, I'm struggling to see it from your point of view. I have been too spoiled by the true beauty of the universe!
Stuart
That's a shame.You can only truly understand another human being and their beliefs, imo, by being able to see the world through their glasses. Otherwise, your understanding is limited to what you alone deem as truth.
Mandy
Ah, but you will never be able to see things from Stu's perspective unless you stop believing in God. So it is not different for him as he must start believing in God to see things from your perspective.
Quote (kejonn @ Sep. 02 2008,13:26) Ah, but you will never be able to see things from Stu's perspective unless you stop believing in God. So it is not different for him as he must start believing in God to see things from your perspective.
Ah, but I think you're wrong! I am able to appreciate his view and even put myself in his shoes, so to speak. I can imagine there is no God. I can even educate myself on science and evolution to understand what he sees as truth. But can he do the same? He said that he could not. I don't have to stop believing in God to imagine that there is not God. I can ponder the possibilities and even accept that they may be true. But Stuart has said that he cannot.
Mandy
Hi Not3
Not3 I have always held open the door to anyone with evidence. I think to understand my worldview it is more important to accept that there is uncertainty and that the only honest truth claim is one based on evidence. I don't think being able to not believe in god for a while is necessary. You just have to accept that everything is up for question and be prepared for treasured beliefs to die or at least go into a holding pattern in the face of evidence. Remember atheism is only a provisional conclusion, it cannot be fact. Agosticism is the only fact when it comes to things that cannot be disproved.
I did not say I could not, only that it would be a struggle. In any case do I have to actually take on temporary god belief to understand your point of view? I don't think you have to drop god belief to understand mine.
If we cut to the chase, time and again I have asked various people here what they know that I cannot. Can you remember a single good answer to that?
Stuart
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 01 2008,23:53) Quote (kejonn @ Sep. 02 2008,13:26) Ah, but you will never be able to see things from Stu's perspective unless you stop believing in God. So it is not different for him as he must start believing in God to see things from your perspective.
Ah, but I think you're wrong! I am able to appreciate his view and even put myself in his shoes, so to speak. I can imagine there is no God. I can even educate myself on science and evolution to understand what he sees as truth. But can he do the same? He said that he could not. I don't have to stop believing in God to imagine that there is not God. I can ponder the possibilities and even accept that they may be true. But Stuart has said that he cannot.
Mandy
Having spent some time around others like Stu and also seeing how many theists react to them, I can pretty much say you are still wrong. You will never really be able to understand Stu until you completely stop believing (or at least have very strong doubts).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
