Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 241
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Ways to disprove Christianity?

  1. #1 Ways to disprove Christianity? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6
    I need a not too exceedingly complicated way to logically disprove Christianity.

    The reason is that i a few days ago took the choice not to believe in Christianity anymore, for logical reasons (mostly everything i read, suggests Christianity is wrong). I am a 15 year old person living in a Christian family, and they obviously want me to stay Christian. My parents can't convince me to believe again, and our arguments tend to end in my favor. For that reason, they decided we should invite the pastor this evening (to prove me wrong).

    Most probably, they won't manage to convince me, but i still need some help disproving it (after all, they are three persons of around 40 years, who has been Christian all their lives. I am a 15 year old person, with two hours to gather information how to disprove it). Throughout the web, i have found a lot of content on how to disprove Christianity, but they involve advanced logic, can often be disproved, and are not easy to use against Christian people.

    I have been Christian all my life, but always have been doubting. Mostly all my social environment is Christian, i go to an Christian school, and i have exactly two friends who are not Christian.

    Sorry for my overly basic English, but i am Norwegian, and 15 years old; still don't be overly simple, i am not stupid (i tend to think that way, at least). I could not find a better place to post this, for all i know this question might be asked (answered) before.

    Thanks,
    Djakobsen.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Hi djakobsen,

    It's not entirely easy to "logically disprove" christianity since it does not found itself on logical claims. It talks of fitting two of every living organism on the planet on to a boat, and virgin births, and coming back to life after being put to death, and splitting the waters of the red sea, and all kinds of other mythology. These are not logical positions.

    Further, logic is not always the best weapon when trying to demonstrate the silliness of christianity. The same applies to other religions. I don't mean to single out one strange delusion over others. Each of these mythologies are odd, yet reinforced socially through fear and in-group behavior and promises of rewards which have no evidence of existence.

    With that said, you generally cannot use logic or reason to rebut the position of a person who used neither when coming to that position. Religious people are not religious due to logical or reasonable analysis. They are generally religious due to indoctrination and social reinforcement.

    Logic and reason are usually most effective when the person already has doubts based on their own reason and logic.


    Here are a few links which I think come close to the request you made, though. Enjoy, and good luck.


    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...istencies.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...y_of_the_Bible
    http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bib...sistencies.pdf
    http://www.evilbible.com/


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6
    Thanks for the answer
    I just remembered a thought i had: how can God at one point of time decided to create Earth, when he is from eternity to eternity? (logic flaw due to omniscience, if that is the right word)
    Would the above be a way to disprove Christianity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Perhaps, but really the burden of proof belongs to the believers. They are the ones making the claims, so it is up to them to defend them with evidence. It is not up to us who challenge their claims to disprove them. They have the onus of proof since they are the ones making the claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    52
    It is particularly hard to disprove a religion, because it in itself is a scattered body of knowledge, where each embodiment of knowledge may/may not have been added to through time.

    Let's say you find a fault with a certain area of Christianity, someone else would just point out something else without a flaw, and it becomes impossible to falsify the whole body of knowledge.

    It's like throwing a pebble into an ocean. To prove that an ocean does not exist requires the falsification of all of its properties. Otherwise, bodies of knowledge would not have existed for such a long time. Proving 1 water particle does not exist does not remove that ocean.

    Especially when facts meet faith. Oh, I give up. A meaningless battle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by theSocraticomplex
    It's like throwing a pebble into an ocean. To prove that an ocean does not exist requires the falsification of all of its properties.
    And in the case of Christianity, you first have to wait for the Christian community to decide exactly what these properties are, and construct these into a naturalistic hypothesis. This is never going to happen, because the general concensus is that the Christian god is not naturalistic at all.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6
    Thanks for the replies, i've spoken to the pastor now, and we arrived at it being impossible for either of us to convince each other. You could say we made a compromise: i agreed to make a prayer; that if God exists, he would give a sign.

    Honestly i don't believe it will happen, but what won't you do to make your family happy? They keep on saying i should read the Bible until i find it logic, but that would pretty much be self-deception, would it not? My next challenge will be getting to know some non-Christians (heh, not as easy as it sounds)...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Good luck with it. It's a difficult balance. Had a Jehovah Witness try to covert me for a while and it was quite touching how he genuinely seemed to worry about my soul burning in hell fire. Guess the pastor is coming from the same belief. But then you've always got to stay true to yourself and it's no surprise you have found doubt in something which is so doubtful.

    Can i ask; is Norwegian society open to turning from Christianity or is it something still looked down upon? I always thought of Scandinavian society to be amongst the most open.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    We’ve already proved that quantum dice rolled, with the no-beginning coming from the eternal causeless realm and that the mass density of the universe sums to the near ‘nothing’ of the quantum tunneling—for which the proof matches out through experiment—that whatever had no cause could thus have no design and so there had to be an indeterminate chaos, as seen. So, since God cannot be, there is nothing that He did; that’s the beauty of the proof—it cuts him off at the source, not to mention that systems of mind that do planning and creation cannot be more fundamental than what makes them up. Then, just for fun, and to give every chance, we looked everywhere else, finding only the natural—and no supernatural. Take your pick.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    51
    If god were omnipotent, he would be able to create a rock that no human could lift... he would be able to create a rock that no machine could ever lift.
    If he were omnipotent he would be able to create a rock that even HE couldn't lift.

    But then, if he couldn't lift it he wouldn't be omnipotent.
    If he couldn't create that rock then he wouldn't be omnipotent.
    If you say that god doesn't interact with matter, so doesn't lift rocks.. then he is still incapable of lifting that rock that he created, or he is incapable of creating that rock. Either way he is not omnipotent.


    The real conclusion is that omnipotence is impossible and illogical. That pretty much rules out gods.
    jimmyc1983 and supernerd97 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    It's very easy to disprove the Abrahamic stories. Just the first chapters have events that should have left lots of objective physical evidence that is either lacking or in direct contradiction to scientific reconstructions of events.

    The problem is of course belief in the religions doesn't depend on proof and are thus rather immune from the simple exercise of disproving them based on scientific analysis.

    They are based on faith, and pre-cognitive emotions that can thrive even in the face of rational arguments to the contrary.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    Can i ask; is Norwegian society open to turning from Christianity or is it something still looked down upon? I always thought of Scandinavian society to be amongst the most open.
    The Norwegian society is open to turning from Christianity, yes. in fact, a lot of (if not most) people being raised as Christians, ends up leaving. Although most Norwegians (above 80%) are members of the Norwegian State Church, only a small percentage of these are christian, many of the others would categorize themselves as atheists.
    jimmyc1983 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Although most Norwegians (above 80%) are members of the Norwegian State Church, only a small percentage of these are christian, many of them would categorize themselves as atheists.
    That sounds very nice.
    jimmyc1983 likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by TGlad
    If god were omnipotent, he would be able to create a rock that no human could lift... he would be able to create a rock that no machine could ever lift.
    If he were omnipotent he would be able to create a rock that even HE couldn't lift.

    But then, if he couldn't lift it he wouldn't be omnipotent.
    If he couldn't create that rock then he wouldn't be omnipotent.
    If you say that god doesn't interact with matter, so doesn't lift rocks.. then he is still incapable of lifting that rock that he created, or he is incapable of creating that rock. Either way he is not omnipotent.


    The real conclusion is that omnipotence is impossible and illogical. That pretty much rules out gods.
    The real conclusion from this, is that comparing one infinity to another can be vexing.

    What you're saying is, if God is infinitely strong and the rock is infinitely heavy, can he lift it? The question makes no logical sense, because one infinity can't be bigger than another infinity.

    See what I mean?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    51
    I'm not suggesting infinities, just a logical question, can god make something that he cannot lift?

    Similar logical self-contradictions can be found for omnipresence and omniscience.

    Here are some more things that god wouldn't be able to do:
    http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2...do-part-1.html
    http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2...do-part-2.html
    http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2...do-part-3.html
    http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2...do-part-4.html
    http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2...do-part-5.html
    http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2...do-part-6.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by TGlad
    I'm not suggesting infinities, just a logical question, can god make something that he cannot lift?
    I think if you gave omnipotent God any task He could do it. Ask God to make something He can't lift and bingo, a rock appears that He can't lift. He would have accomplished what you asked of Him. Now you ask Him to lift it and if I was God I would remind you that you asked him to make the rock unliftable. To ask Him to lift it is absurd since He just designed the rock so He couldn't lift it. You're beat. Where would God have gone wrong?

    Not going to disprove God that easy my friend. Actually it can't be done. Don't think I haven't tried using some kind of perverse logic to prove God's non existence. The best I could do was a question I'm asking in another thread at the moment. It's in Philosophy so you might want to check on it in the "Another God Paradox" thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    ‘God’ is supposed to be fundamental, existing before everything, and then planning and making everything that we know and love. This Mind (God) who supposedly planned and made All can indeed be refuted, by the only way possible for that of invisibles, that of self-contradiction…

    (It’s bad enough that people propose ‘God’ out of nowhere, and then even worser that they then preach ‘God’ as truth and fact, and while this goes nowhere as even a notion, much less a theory, they still preach it, and that’s why I’m providing a disproof of the Guy even in lieu of anyone not being able to prove Him.)

    Disproof:
    This Guy who supposedly does planning and creation is still a system of mind, and is thus not fundamental at all, since something had to come before Him, such as the parts of His composite complexity, which He would therefore be dependent on for His existence. If the notion of Him being fundamental is dropped, then all one has is a smart life form—an alien, and not a God at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    51
    "You're beat. Where would God have gone wrong?"

    So when another man comes to him in 1000 years time and says
    "why is that big rock still on your toe?"
    he'll say
    "Hah! I beat that clever swine who thought I couldn't make a rock too big for me to lift.. but I COULD! because I'm ALL POWERFUL HA HA!"
    and of course the human will say
    "So you're so powerful and so smart that a puny little human tricked you to into getting stuck under a rock for eternity... nice"

    Here's another one:
    - god is supremely benevolent, only does good
    - god is all powerful and knows everything
    - badness exists in the real world

    These three contradict. If god knows that bad happens, and he doesn't make it good, then he is not supremely benevolent.

    It's no good arguing that god decides that some bad is worth it for a longer term good, because god could easily create the longer term good AND ensure the shorter term good.

    The reason there are so many self contradictions in deism (let alone theism) is that the claims are just too strong, and they are too strong because they were made up to persuade people as strongly as possible to follow their rules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    djakobsen,

    I would recommend that you read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkin's. It will provide you with plenty ammunition to respond to theist. There are a number of arguments the theists use to prove the existence of God, I believe this book address most of them, if not all. For example, the intelligent design, the first cause, the anthropic principle, pascal wager etc.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by TGlad
    So when another man comes to him in 1000 years time and says
    "why is that big rock still on your toe?"
    he'll say
    "Hah! I beat that clever swine who thought I couldn't make a rock too big for me to lift.. but I COULD! because I'm ALL POWERFUL HA HA!"
    and of course the human will say
    "So you're so powerful and so smart that a puny little human tricked you to into getting stuck under a rock for eternity... nice"
    Jesus H Christ man, I would hope that when God makes a boulder He can't lift that He doesn't put it on His toe if He has one. If He could make such a rock then I would think He could unmake it.

    Here's another one:
    - god is supremely benevolent, only does good
    - god is all powerful and knows everything
    - badness exists in the real world
    I suppose one could argue that flooding the world and killing nearly every living land creature is bad but that's not the case. What you think is bad and what God thinks are two different things. If you are a Xian then you believe God does things for a reason, a betterment of something. If God allows a Catholic priest to molest an 8 year old then perhaps He does so because more awareness of an issue will instigate a change for the better, I don't know.

    Let's put it this way: Think of the most heinous act possible and there is good in it. If it's a priest buggering a kid then it's good for the priest, provides a job for police & lawyers, right down the line.

    What I'm saying is that Xians and their ilk have handled these issues before. I'm starting to think atheists need a different approach. We need better questions, ones that will probably never deny His existence but will drive God deeper into a unassailable realm that is totally not of this universe.

    Maybe something like this, along the lines of Questor's last paragraph in his post previous to this one:

    Where did the place God has always existed in, come from? In order for God to always have been, He would have required a place that has always been. If God created it then He did so after He was already somewhere...that can't be right. If something else created it, then hold on, we're only one step away from saying God was created. However it does imply God never created everything. Xians won't deny that God never created everything but generally reserve that for a God who couldn't have created Himself.

    Standard answers include but are not limited to: God is incomprehensible to us, He lives beyond time and space, or He resides deep within our subconscious. The best we can do right now is make a case for God's absence by tucking Him away in His little corner of eternity..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    51
    Give the arguments a little more thought zinjanthropos. I could equally ask, can god create a permanent and immovable rock on his foot? Which is no harder than making a rock he can't lift, if he's omnipotent. If he unmade it, then it wouldn't be permanent.
    Did I have to spell that out? And please don't Jesus Christ me.

    On the second argument, read again: "It's no good arguing that god decides that some bad is worth it for a longer term good, because god could easily create the longer term good AND ensure the shorter term good. "
    Because that is what you just argued.

    "We need better questions.."
    I'm not part of a quest, so don't include myself in that 'we', I'm just pointing out a couple of contradictions to help the original poster, he can take them or leave them as he wishes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by TGlad
    Give the arguments a little more thought zinjanthropos. I could equally ask, can god create a permanent and immovable rock on his foot? Which is no harder than making a rock he can't lift, if he's omnipotent. If he unmade it, then it wouldn't be permanent.
    Did I have to spell that out? And please don't Jesus Christ me.
    I apologize for the condescending JHC beginning. Wasn't meant to belittle but an expression of my disdain for another crack at this divine task that appears over and over and over again

    The original task put forth didn't require much thought to answer. I was only trying to give the Xian response and to suggest that they've seen those kinds of things before.

    Better questions like the one you now propose are what I'm talking about. I think it's a good question, so why didn't you mention it in place of the heavy boulder? Can a Xian answer that one and put God in the same universe that would allow for a rock to permanently weigh down His foot?

    On the second argument, read again: "It's no good arguing that god decides that some bad is worth it for a longer term good, because god could easily create the longer term good AND ensure the shorter term good. "
    Because that is what you just argued.
    I do believe I mentioned that I don't know, so let's put perhaps at the beginning of each sentence here.... For you it's bad. For God it's good. For perpetrators of evil it's good. That's all one has to know. God's got something up His sleeve and we just have to wait for it. The argument ties in directly at how Xians respond to horrible happenings. God had a reason. That reason can only be good. How He does it is no concern of ours. He can do anything, anyway He wants. No one can judge His actions. God is beyond our understanding so none of this means squat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Ways to disprove Christianity? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by djakobsen
    I need a not too exceedingly complicated way to logically disprove Christianity.

    The reason is that i a few days ago took the choice not to believe in Christianity anymore, for logical reasons (mostly everything i read, suggests Christianity is wrong). I am a 15 year old person living in a Christian family, and they obviously want me to stay Christian. My parents can't convince me to believe again, and our arguments tend to end in my favor. For that reason, they decided we should invite the pastor this evening (to prove me wrong).
    Greetings,

    I am of overall the opinion as the other people on this topic. However, I always fancied attack on the Global Flood/Noah's Ark bit.

    Problems with a Global Flood
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

    I even (more in jest) used the Quran's flood and their nonsense of inerrant and perfect in every word to the extreme.
    It reads two of every animal ,one male and one female which instantly lit off Bdelloid rotifers reproducing exclusively by asexual means. No males.
    I refuted Allah....
    Oddly enough it didn't work.


    Quote Originally Posted by djakobsen
    Most probably, they won't manage to convince me,
    but i still need some help disproving it (after all, they are three persons of around 40 years, who has been Christian all their lives. I am a 15 year old person, with two hours to gather information how to disprove it). Throughout the web, i have found a lot of content on how to disprove Christianity, but they involve advanced logic, can often be disproved, and are not easy to use against Christian people.
    Lilith praises you for your attempts.

    Quote Originally Posted by TGlad
    I'm not suggesting infinities, just a logical question, can god make something that he cannot lift?

    Similar logical self-contradictions can be found for omnipresence and omniscience.
    Of course!

    Quote Originally Posted by djakobsen
    Thanks for the replies, i've spoken to the pastor now, and we arrived at it being impossible for either of us to convince each other. You could say we made a compromise: i agreed to make a prayer; that if God exists, he would give a sign.

    Honestly i don't believe it will happen, but what won't you do to make your family happy? They keep on saying i should read the Bible until i find it logic, but that would pretty much be self-deception, would it not? My next challenge will be getting to know some non-Christians (heh, not as easy as it sounds)...
    I hope you see the flaw here.
    How about this:
    Pray that god give you no sign!
    or
    Pray that god give you a sign he does not exist.

    See how that works out

    When you use the word god, do you even know what it refers to?
    Try and define this god and if you can, where do you derive those attributes?


    Religions of the world: Information about
    40 organized religions and faith groups
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm

    There are some sources to some other god concepts to play around with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6
    I need some sources that proves how the four gospels and the old testament borrows ideas from other religions. I am looking myself, but as a 15 year old boy i am not entirely sure where to find the sources i am looking for.

    For instance, i have heard that many of the elements like virgin birth, three days before revival, 12 disciples and others are borrowed from the Roman religion around Mithras.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by djakobsen
    Thanks for the replies, i've spoken to the pastor now, and we arrived at it being impossible for either of us to convince each other. You could say we made a compromise: i agreed to make a prayer; that if God exists, he would give a sign.

    Honestly i don't believe it will happen, but what won't you do to make your family happy? They keep on saying i should read the Bible until i find it logic, but that would pretty much be self-deception, would it not? My next challenge will be getting to know some non-Christians (heh, not as easy as it sounds)...
    Just argue personal freedom. In order to tell someone else not to be Christian, you would be expected to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. If they want to tell you not to be atheist, then it's fair for you to demand the same of them. They should prove you wrong beyond reasonable doubt.

    If they agree to that criteria, then deflecting their feeble attempts at proof should be easy enough.

    Also cite Judges Chapter 6, verses 25-31 to them (which deal a little bit with religious freedom). See what they think of the arguments contained therein when you apply them to God instead of Baal.

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by TGlad
    If god were omnipotent, he would be able to create a rock that no human could lift... he would be able to create a rock that no machine could ever lift.
    If he were omnipotent he would be able to create a rock that even HE couldn't lift.
    Quote Originally Posted by TGlad
    I'm not suggesting infinities, just a logical question, can god make something that he cannot lift?
    I've dealt with this argument in the past. It's easily refuted. If God can lift a rock weighing infinity pounds, then a rock too heavy for him to lift would have to weigh infinity plus one.

    The very idea of "infinity plus one" is a logical contradiction, since there cannot (by definition) be a number after infinity.

    You might as well ask if God can create a round square.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    51
    As I said before kojax, it isn't about infinity, just a logical contradiction in the concept of omnipotence. You could equally say, 'can god wedge a rock so strongly that he can't move it?' or 'can god intend to do something but fail?'.

    If I said to you 'I am lying now', I hope you would conclude that my statement is a self contradiction and so is not valid.
    If god said to you 'I cannot fail', I hope you would also conclude that this is a self contradiction and so invalid. If he cannot fail then he has by definition sited something that he cannot do.. which is failing.. which means he would fail at it, which in turn means he can fail.

    djakobsen, if you would like some more self-contradictions in Christianity, this is an interesting summary: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-inerrant.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by djakobsen
    I need some sources that proves how the four gospels and the old testament borrows ideas from other religions
    .

    Hmm. Wouldn't it be better to find out if this story is in fact actually true first? Open-mindedness and all that ...

    It's not actually true. The early Christians were very hostile to paganism, just as modern Christians are, to the extent that they refused to make the gesture of burning a piece of incense to the genius of Caesar and became one of the very few illegal religions in the Roman empire. The claim that they did is only made as a jeer, as a way to run the latter around. If they actually did, it would lose all its point.

    Checking: a very large number of primary sources are online in English these days. If you see someone make a claim that X is a copy of Y, look to see if there is a reference for Y, and go and look and see if it actually says what it is supposed to. Often it doesn't.

    * If there is no reference, presume the claim is junk.
    * If the only reference is to some modern book, presume the claim is junk.

    For instance, i have heard that many of the elements like virgin birth, three days before revival, 12 disciples and others are borrowed from the Roman religion around Mithras.
    I'm sure. Mithras was born from a rock. No ancient text records a death of Mithras, never mind resurrection. He certainly did not have 12 "disciples" -- he was a god, not a teacher. The stuff you have read is by Acharya S, or D. Murdock as she calls herself these days. The raw *facts* that she gives about what the ancient texts and inscriptions say about Mithras are wrong.

    Be very sceptical. Christianity may or may not be true, but this sort of stuff is invented by not very well educated and not very honest people in order to deceive ordinary people who would naturally suppose that such claims could hardly be made if they are not based on *something*. Sadly this is not the case. But you'll need to verify these claims for yourself.

    All the best,

    Roger Pearse
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6
    Thanks for the help
    Sadly nothing what-so-ever seems to be able to disprove a Christian, the problem is that they believe what they want to believe:
    If there is a contradiction in the Bible, you can be sure they have some weird explanation, or that they plainly ignore it, and say that since the Bible is Gods words, and he is infallible, it is contradictory to say a contradiction is present (yeh, logic at it's best).

    And then they will tell you how evil you are trying to break down what they have spent their precious time and mind building up. And, of course; they will start telling you it has to be true, since there are so many Christians. Also, they will start to speak about how everyone in the world has a belief in some form (especially atheists), and deflect everything you say as "trying to break them down". Then they tell you that you base your life only on what you can know, and need too much evidence before you believe in something, and that you need to be more open-minded (as if they know what is means...).

    By the way: HOW DARE YOU CALL GOD FALSE? YOU BLASPHEMIC SATANIST!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I understand your frustration, but also you might try to recall that you're essentially causing much of it yourself. There's no mandate for you to change the minds of others, even though it's a worthy goal. You just have to be comfortable with your own beliefs (or lack thereof) and try to live your life as a kind human being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    tglad said: (back a ways)

    These three contradict. If god knows that bad happens, and he doesn't make it good, then he is not supremely benevolent.
    What bad happened? And how do you know it was bad? Who decides what is good and what is bad?

    As a probable reletivist, tglad must assume that things which are bad to him may well be considered good by someone else. Unless, of course, tglad, is close minded on the issues of what are goods and what are bads such that he is the final judge on what is good and what is bad.

    A rotting apple is good for yellow jackets to eat, but bad for humans to eat.

    djakobsen said:


    Sadly nothing what-so-ever seems to be able to disprove a Christian, the problem is that they believe what they want to believe
    There is something wrong with this in a society which champions freedom of thought and freedom of expression? Are not we all allowed to believe what we want to believe? Or are we allowed to believe only those things which others want us to believe?

    I am not sure what you mean by "disprove a Christian." I assume you are suggesting that it is difficult to change the beliefs of a Christian. So what? Do you think anyone is going to change the atheist beliefs of, say, Christopher Hitchings or Richard Dawkins?

    djakobsen questions (sometimes apparent) "contradictions" in the Bible and then complains about someone explaining why they are there and why they may be contradictory.

    Such anomalies appear throughout religious and scientific writings. I do not have one at hand to cite (nor did djakobsen site one) but today's textbooks in schools are often fraught with conflicting information.

    roger_perse gave some good advice about trying to get to the actual facts of a matter. We have too much today of person A repeating something person B reportedly said without actually seeing if that is what person B said or if it is in the context person B was saying it. Nor do they even check to see of person B had any expertise on the subject. (But we all do that when we trust our source.) The thing here is that when you see something that does not seem to add up, it would be wise to check it further before repeating it.

    As we discuss various topics, it should be realized that we are all looking at the exact same information, the same materials, the same facts. Religious people do not have some secret repository of information that is not available to everyone else. Non-religious people do not have some repository of information which is not available to Christians.

    We are all dealing with exactly the same bits of information and reacting to it based on our life experiences which influence what we believe and how we interpret those bits of information.

    Some people look at the vast complexity of a living cell and see the handiwork of intelligent purposeful effor; others look at the vast complexity of a living cell and see the result of random, meaningless orgainzations of atomic structures. But both people are looking at exactly the same living cell.

    Oddly, the latter conclusion has, for some reason, been categorized as scientific conclusion while the former conclusion based on exactly the same inquiries into the nature of the living cell, are deemed non-science.

    It was, I think, George Simpson who wrote in "The Meaning of Evolution" something to the effect that "although many details remain to be worked out, it is evident that everything can be explained by naturalistic, materialistic factors."

    Hmm! If there are "many details" left to be worked out, how can it be evident? Using that thinking, one could say, although there are many questions left to be answered, it is evident that everthing can be explained by metaphysical, philosophical factors.

    The problem has become that so many people are trying to prove the "other guy" wrong that we have lost a sincere search for truth and reality that motivated people like Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Yet a search for truth must be contingent on a common and rational set of basic principles, and the religious abandon those in favor of what they want to believe. You're not searching for truth. You're searching for ways to reinforce your worldview.

    That's not truth. That's picking and choosing to accept or ignore information based on how it ties into your hopes and faith. In other words, self-reinforcing delusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    inow said:

    Yet a search for truth must be contingent on a common and rational set of basic principles
    Actually, when YOU are the one who gets to set what the common rational and basic principles are and eliminate any others that do not conform to YOUR idea of what is a common set of basic principles, you have eliminated the potential to find a better truth that does not conform to YOUR pre-set basic principles.

    There is no truth in what YOU find, only confirmation of YOUR incomplete rational and set of basic principles -- none of which, I might point out, have you recited here.

    What are your basic principles? Where do you get them? How do you know that they are the ONLY principles which come into play? Why should I not believe that YOU have merely picked and chosen the rational and basic principles which appeal to you at the exclusion of higher rationale and deeper basic basics?

    Plus -- I did not realize that you would agree that there is anything such as real truth only that there are perceptions of truth. Did not take you for an absolutist.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Actually, when YOU are the one who gets to set what the common rational and basic principles are and eliminate any others that do not conform to YOUR idea of what is a common set of basic principles, you have eliminated the potential to find a better truth that does not conform to YOUR pre-set basic principles.
    One of the points I was making, dayton, is that you and theists like you tend to differentially apply your rules. You apply the same burden of proof to other religions and other religious claims that I apply to yours... You just ask for special pleading when its your faith being challenged.

    In short, you and I both tend to share, as a general rule, the same exact set of common principles when it comes to truth... You just dismiss them when viewing your own beliefs.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I did not realize that you would agree that there is anything such as real truth only that there are perceptions of truth. Did not take you for an absolutist.
    Real truths need not be absolute. Many can be (and are) context dependent, and contingent upon the assumptions made. You're the one who added the concept of "absolute," not me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    inow said:

    One of the points I was making, dayton, is that you and theists like you tend to differentially apply your rules. You apply the same burden of proof to other religions and other religious claims that I apply to yours... You just ask for special pleading when its your faith being challenged.
    In short, you and I both tend to share, as a general rule, the same exact set of common principles when it comes to truth... You just dismiss them when viewing your own beliefs.
    I still do not know what your common principles are, so it is difficult to discuss them. But, having discussed stuff with you before, I hardly think you and I share a common set of principles. It seems to me, historically speaking, that your guiding principle has been to see how offensive and disrespectful you can be toward religion, but I do allow that you may be able to disuade me of such an opinion. The problem we have here is that we do not really have the space to fully develop a thought that some writer would spend a whole chapter on.

    What rules are being applied differently? What do I dismiss? I need examples of some burden of proof that I might apply to another religion that I do not apply to my own. Applying the same burden of proof would be the only way I could compare what I believe to that which others believe -- whether it be another religion or some non-religion. What special pleading have I asked for?

    You, inow, consistently make these kinds of allegations without ever providing examples so that others can see what you are actually talking about. I perceive this as being hyperbolic or rhetorical.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    inow said:

    One of the points I was making, dayton, is that you and theists like you tend to differentially apply your rules. You apply the same burden of proof to other religions and other religious claims that I apply to yours... You just ask for special pleading when its your faith being challenged.
    In short, you and I both tend to share, as a general rule, the same exact set of common principles when it comes to truth... You just dismiss them when viewing your own beliefs.
    I still do not know what your common principles are, so it is difficult to discuss them. But, having discussed stuff with you before, I hardly think you and I share a common set of principles.
    Common principles about what constitutes truth. Can we please try to remember the context of our comments, dayton?



    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It seems to me, historically speaking, that your guiding principle has been to see how offensive and disrespectful you can be toward religion
    No. My guiding principle has been that our beliefs and descriptions of the world around us should be based on reason, logic, rationality, and evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    but I do allow that you may be able to disuade me of such an opinion.
    Prove myself to you? You're the one making the claims, so that onus is yours old boy. I'm simply here calling you out for your bullshit.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    What rules are being applied differently? What do I dismiss?
    I thought my point was fairly simple, but I forgot my audience. I'll try again. You reject other religions claims of truth due to lack of logic or reason or evidence. You also reject the existence of the tooth fairy for the same reasons I do. We share that. You reject that gravity makes object move apart from one another, and you reject that it's healthy to eat radioactive objects in large quantities... We share a lot of common truths rooted in a common approach to finding them... a common and shared set of principles.

    The point, though, is that you reject other religious claims for the same reason I reject yours. You are applying your standards differently to other religious claims than you are to your own. That's what I'm referring to when I mention that you have double standards, are being hypocritical, and are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    You, inow, consistently make these kinds of allegations without ever providing examples so that others can see what you are actually talking about. I perceive this as being hyperbolic or rhetorical.
    It's not my fault you are too stupid to grasp my points, dayton. I'm fairly articulate and clear, but you're too often blinded in a god fog to comprehend them. That's your problem, not mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    There is something wrong with this in a society which champions freedom of thought and freedom of expression? Are not we all allowed to believe what we want to believe? Or are we allowed to believe only those things which others want us to believe?
    No. So long as we are explicit whether they are beliefs based on pure faith, or whether we have some empirical evidence. Personally, i only have a problem when someone makes an argument trying to use evidence when in fact their argument is faith based.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I assume you are suggesting that it is difficult to change the beliefs of a Christian. So what? Do you think anyone is going to change the atheist beliefs of, say, Christopher Hitchings or Richard Dawkins?
    djakobsen will have to clarify exactly what he meant, but i read it as it is difficult to change the mind of someone who takes a purely faith based view of the world. A scientist should always be open to falsification if presented with evidence. I would hope that, if presented with reasonable evidence, Dawkins would change his mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Some people look at the vast complexity of a living cell and see the handiwork of intelligent purposeful effor; others look at the vast complexity of a living cell and see the result of random, meaningless orgainzations of atomic structures. But both people are looking at exactly the same living cell.
    But both are not equally valid for several reasons. Given the complexity of something, a scientist will reduce it to its constituent parts and experiment on how each bit works. To claim to know how each bit works he needs to provide empirical evidence. If he can work these parts out he may then theorise how this component fits in with another more complex entity. This theory will be tested via several hypotheses which will make predictions about how this complex structure will behave... and so on. The scientist conducting this should always be open to the possibility he's wrong.

    The process of awe at complexity has no such inductive process. Also it is unsound deductive reasoning to assume creation because of complexity; it is not a logical conclusion. If your awe at complexity is sufficient for you to base your belief in it, fair enough, so long as you acknowledge it is based on intuition not evidence or logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Oddly, the latter conclusion has, for some reason, been categorized as scientific conclusion while the former conclusion based on exactly the same inquiries into the nature of the living cell, are deemed non-science.
    What do you mean by exactly the same inquiries into nature?

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It was, I think, George Simpson who wrote in "The Meaning of Evolution" something to the effect that "although many details remain to be worked out, it is evident that everything can be explained by naturalistic, materialistic factors."
    I would agree it is not readily evident, and would suggest his words were poorly chosen. It is, however, a philosophical position - the causal principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The problem has become that so many people are trying to prove the "other guy" wrong that we have lost a sincere search for truth and reality that motivated people like Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein.
    I think this is a misunderstanding of scepticism. A scientists mind is sceptical about all things. For him to accept them he requires evidence. This process of scepticism can appear very harsh. Scientists are rough with each other, more so than you get on this forum. My mate just did a viva voce to defend his PhD - she said she felt like she'd been gang raped. But it's part of the process; if your evidence can withstand such scathing scepticism the evidence will likely be accepted. Religion gets this same scathing treatment.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    inow said:

    My guiding principle has been that our beliefs and descriptions of the world around us should be based on reason, logic, rationality, and evidence.

    The problem, as I perceive it, is that when you use those terms, they mean something differen to you than they do to me. So far as you are concerned, the only legitimate definitions of those words are the ones to which you subscribe.

    I can only say that your writings do not conform to my understandings of reason, logic and rationality based on my classroom and subsequent readings in the areas of logic and ethics and you seem willing to reject as evidence anything that does not conform to what you consider to be evidence.

    Even if I were as bad at these things as you seem to claim I am, I would still not be as far from those things as you are.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Fine. Define what YOU mean by evidence, then. My definition seems to fit that used by over ~98% of the scientific community. Since you're now using a semantic argument about the word "evidence" in an attempt to displace your burden of proof, please clarify for us readers the nature of your semantic position. What do YOU mean by "evidence," dayton... and how precisely do our positions on this concept differ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Promethius: thank you for being discussive rather than lambastic as is the other commenter.

    Promethius said:


    No. So long as we are explicit whether they are beliefs based on pure faith, or whether we have some empirical evidence. Personally, i only have a problem when someone makes an argument trying to use evidence when in fact their argument is faith based.
    Again, the problem is in what one might consider faith based argument. Many people here would suggest that Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, William Dembski and others of their ilk who point out flaws in evolution are faith based arguments when I do not see any use of faith. Rather, they generally point out what they consider flaws in some of the current interpretations of evolutionary thinking and supply alternative explanations.

    It seems the more we actually learn about genetic biology the less and less likely that the mechanisms envisioned by Darwinism and neo-Darwinism can provide more than a cursory relevance to anything other than micro-evolution.

    Promethius said:

    I would hope that, if presented with reasonable evidence, Dawkins would change his mind.
    I dunno. Darwin, himself, said of his conclusions in On the origin of species, "I should without hesitation adopt this view, even if it were unsupported by other facts or arguments."

    Promethius said:


    But both are not equally valid for several reasons. Given the complexity of something, a scientist will reduce it to its constituent parts and experiment on how each bit works. To claim to know how each bit works he needs to provide empirical evidence. If he can work these parts out he may then theorise how this component fits in with another more complex entity. This theory will be tested via several hypotheses which will make predictions about how this complex structure will behave... and so on. The scientist conducting this should always be open to the possibility he's wrong.
    The process of awe at complexity has no such inductive process. Also it is unsound deductive reasoning to assume creation because of complexity; it is not a logical conclusion. If your awe at complexity is sufficient for you to base your belief in it, fair enough, so long as you acknowledge it is based on intuition not evidence or logic.
    I agree with you although I am not sure it actually plays out that way. What we do is look at a crystal and how it forms by natural processes and then extrapolate that process to account for the vastly more complex structure of a living cell. Actually, I think, complexity is the most difficult argument of design for accidental organization enthusiasts to defeat. (I find the teleological and moral arguments a little more difficult to sell.)

    I doubt we would get away with discussing that fully in this thread since it is, in no way, a religious based discussion. Plus, science oriented people would just as soon ignore these arguments.

    Promethius asked:

    What do you mean by exactly the same inquiries into nature?
    Well, I was just reading an article about embryonic development which discusses cleavage, gastrulation, pharyngula stages of development. Because all vertebrates at the pharyngular stage have what have termed gill slits, there is the conclusion that this shows that all these animals have a common fish born ancestor. However, they go through far different processes during the earlier cleavage and gastrulation phases. What's more, while the gill slits develop into gills in fish, they develop into vastly different aspects of different animals such as the inner ear and the parathyroid gland. Both Darwinists and anti-Darwinists claim this observation supports their view.

    Another similar example is found in sea urchins. Most sea urchins metamorphose into adult form after going through a feeding larva stage. Some, however, skip this feeding larva stage and metamorphose directly into adult form. They share the same habitat, living side by side. This differing path is also found in several other animals including mollusks and frogs (not all frogs go through a tadpole stage). Again, each side uses these phenomena to support or refute Darwinism. (This info is from an article by Jonathan Wells found in Mere Creation, a compilation of articles from a symposium held at Biola University, edited by William Dembski. Wells, by the way, is a PhD in Molecular and Cell biology. Dembski is a PhD in math.)

    There are different ways to look at the very same information and different conclusions can be drawn therefrom. So long as there is substantial support for at least two views, neither view can be said to have prevailed.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I would hope that, if presented with reasonable evidence, Dawkins would change his mind.
    I dunno. Darwin, himself, said of his conclusions in On the origin of species, "I should without hesitation adopt this view, even if it were unsupported by other facts or arguments."
    Ironic you'd pull a quote which wouldn't even be possible unless he made it after putting forth other strong evidence. He's simply saying there's already sufficient evidence. It does not support your doubt that even Darwin might have changed his mind if provided powerful enough proof to the contrary.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42 Discredited reference 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Here are a few links which I think come close to the request you made, though. Enjoy, and good luck...evilbible.com/
    The more that someone appeals to evilbible.com the more they discredit themselves as evilbible.com is saturated with fallacies of every sort and has been discredited.
    Check out “Evilbible.com – accurate or fallacious?”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by MarianoApologeticus
    The more that someone appeals to evilbible.com the more they discredit themselves as evilbible.com is saturated with fallacies of every sort and has been discredited.
    Check out “Evilbible.com – accurate or fallacious?”
    It sure is a good thing that I shared three other sources, then.



    Quote Originally Posted by inow






    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Many people here would suggest that Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, William Dembski and others of their ilk who point out flaws in evolution are faith based arguments when I do not see any use of faith. Rather, they generally point out what they consider flaws in some of the current interpretations of evolutionary thinking and supply alternative explanations.
    Except, their criticisms have been addressed and the flaws in their logic demonstrated time and again. What is perhaps more fascinating is how people continue to cite them despite this.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
    http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Behe.HTM
    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...nism/behe.html

    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/stillbad.cfm
    http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/bad...g_creationism/


    Although, it is nice to see that even SOME christians reject Demski's flawed arguments:

    http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...icles-and.html




    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It seems the more we actually learn about genetic biology the less and less likely that the mechanisms envisioned by Darwinism and neo-Darwinism can provide more than a cursory relevance to anything other than micro-evolution.
    No. It doesn't seem that way, at all. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. It's all evolution, and this term you creationists like to throw around "macro" ... even if it were valid... is merely a collection of "micro" evolutionary events.


    I also like how you're now trying to change the subject to evolution instead of sticking with the existing topic, or addressing the criticisms directed at you.

    I'd say it's like nailing jello to a wall, but your wavering and evasion (like other theists) is a bit worse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Even if Christianity could be disproved by either conventional or unconventional means, I doubt very much if Christians would accept it. The thread is looking for ways to disprove and I can only think of one sure fire method. However it hasn't been invented yet or may never be.

    All that's needed is a device that we can use to observe the past. Science fiction at the moment and maybe always. My feeling is that even if such an instrument existed there would still be diehards left clinging to their belief. Perhaps such a device would be labelled a tool of the devil or as something people can claim exists but isn't really there and everything is made up on a computer, whatever. You could prove a lot of things with such a device, there'd be no secrets.

    Meanwhile we are left to disprove mythology the old fashion way. Science, logic and reason. One caveat: Magic is always going to trump the irrefutable despite no evidence that can prove the impossible possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    All that's needed is a device that we can use to observe the past. Science fiction at the moment and maybe always. My feeling is that even if such an instrument existed there would still be diehards left clinging to their belief. Perhaps such a device would be labelled a tool of the devil or as something people can claim exists but isn't really there and everything is made up on a computer, whatever. You could prove a lot of things with such a device, there'd be no secrets.
    I'm not sure what that would accomplish. I mean, even if you could go back and see that there's no Adam (or Moses or Noah), it would only disprove the denominations that believe that the story was not symbolic, but literal. Even if you could show that the Earth was not made in a weak, you would only disprove the Young-Earth Creationists. Even with a time machine, you can only go as gar back as time goes, to the moments just after the big bang, so it's not like you could disprove the war in heaven or anything.

    I don't think a time machine could disprove Christianity as a whole, but then, even if you could prove that many denominations are false, most Christians would just agree with you. We're actually a pretty cutthroat bunch...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Again, the problem is in what one might consider faith based argument. Many people here would suggest that Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, William Dembski and others of their ilk who point out flaws in evolution are faith based arguments when I do not see any use of faith. Rather, they generally point out what they consider flaws in some of the current interpretations of evolutionary thinking and supply alternative explanations.
    I do not know of these people. There are many people who point out the flaws in evolution. When Mendelism was first proposed it was initially seen to be antagonistic to Darwinian theory. Hypotheses along these lines were generated and found false; other experiments tested the theory and found Mendelism to be complementary to Darwinism.

    Without knowing of the people to whom you are referring it's hard to criticise. I imagine, though, that they are unable to generate testable hypotheses to verify their interpretation of the data. This is how i would define faith based interpretation: untestable.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It seems the more we actually learn about genetic biology the less and less likely that the mechanisms envisioned by Darwinism and neo-Darwinism can provide more than a cursory relevance to anything other than micro-evolution.
    This all goes to heart of science. Where data exists many interpretations of that data may be suggested. The more tenuous that data the more interpretations proffered. Physical sciences suffer less from this due to their nature. Evolutionary theory, and its data, is harder to quantify than in the physical sciences. However, this does not mean all interpretations are equally valid. There are a number of criteria required for data to satisfy if it is to support a given idea. In epidemiology we use the Bradford-Hill criteria:http://www.drabruzzi.com/hills_crite..._causation.htm.
    Biologists probably have something similar.

    The key point in determining if an interpretation is 'scientific' is whether it is falsifiable. This is the very definition of science.

    If not falsifiable, it may be a philosophical argument. However, philosophy isn't everything not covered in science and it isn't equally as valid as empiricism. Such reasoning must still follow strict logical reasoning (maths is the purest form of philosophy, i feel), and only applicable to certain situations as it should deal only with those things not verifiable via empiricism.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I agree with you although I am not sure it actually plays out that way. What we do is look at a crystal and how it forms by natural processes and then extrapolate that process to account for the vastly more complex structure of a living cell. Actually, I think, complexity is the most difficult argument of design for accidental organization enthusiasts to defeat. (I find the teleological and moral arguments a little more difficult to sell.)
    I find the complexity argument the easiest to rebuff. The arguments make no testable hypotheses therefore it are not scientific. The argument that 'complexity exists; it is impossible for me to imagine how such complexity exists without a creator, therefore god exists' is not a logical conclusion and so is not a philosophical argument either. The argument is faith based. (God as initial creator before the big bang, i.e. before any observable phenomenon, is a philosophical argument, though not scientific.)

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, I was just reading an article about embryonic development which discusses cleavage, gastrulation, pharyngula stages of development. Because all vertebrates at the pharyngular stage have what have termed gill slits, there is the conclusion that this shows that all these animals have a common fish born ancestor. However, they go through far different processes during the earlier cleavage and gastrulation phases. What's more, while the gill slits develop into gills in fish, they develop into vastly different aspects of different animals such as the inner ear and the parathyroid gland. Both Darwinists and anti-Darwinists claim this observation supports their view.
    How bizarre. I thought recapitulation theory had been disproved.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Another similar example is found in sea urchins. Most sea urchins metamorphose into adult form after going through a feeding larva stage. Some, however, skip this feeding larva stage and metamorphose directly into adult form. They share the same habitat, living side by side. This differing path is also found in several other animals including mollusks and frogs (not all frogs go through a tadpole stage). Again, each side uses these phenomena to support or refute Darwinism.
    But both interpretations are not equal, if one is testable while the other not.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    There are different ways to look at the very same information and different conclusions can be drawn therefrom. So long as there is substantial support for at least two views, neither view can be said to have prevailed.
    Only if both interpretations are falsifiable and testable (or both unfalsifiable). Substantial support is not enough to verify truth.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Promethius said:

    I do not know of these people. [Dembski, Johnson, Behe]
    This statement kind of bothers me but I suspect it would also be true of many others who post on this forum in support of some form of naturalistic thinking. That is, they speak only from inspecting naturalistic materials without having any background in non-naturalistic writings.

    This would be like me saying I do not know of Dawkins, Hitchings or Dennett. It would be like me commenting on Darwinism without having read On the Origin of Species or on Marxism having not read Communist Manifesto. If you know only what your side is saying, you do not really have a complete picture of the other side's argument. My observation is that when Person A talks about his opponent, Person B, it is highly likely that Person B's position is going to be somewhat distorted. Of course, there are a lot of people here who talk about the Bible having never read it, knowing only what Bible detractors have said about it.

    When Person A gives you only the punchline, so to speak, of what Person B has to say, you have no idea of the development of the idea. You only have Person A's counter argument which is set out and developed making Person B's conclusion appear shallow and undeveloped.

    I cannot know if you are familiar with or have read anything by any of the evolution-naturalism antagonist writers. But if you haven't, I would think it is very difficult for you to actually know the background or development of what they are saying. I have read Dawkins and have viewed some of the Hitching's debates with designers. So, I do not just take what other people say about them as a complete picture.

    If you have not read anything by the leading evolution-naturalism antagonists, how can you claim it is faith based? Is that what Dawkins and Hitching's say it is? If you have not read some of the things these people are writing, but only the supposed refutations, how do you know they have been actually refuted? The issues surrounding, say evolution, are far more complex than a few missing bones.

    Perhaps, as a lover of math, you would consider reading some Dembski. He is a mathmetician. While his writings do not focus on mathematical formulas, they are put together from a mathematical mindset and sequencing.

    When someone here says something has been refuted, my first reaction is to be skeptical because it is very difficult to actually refute anything. You can, perhaps, claim that a different outcome is more probable or more reasonable.

    I think there is sometimes a tendency to forget how we evaluate things. If I told you I had a round square I would sell you for $10, would you buy it sight unseen? Of course not -- because you know there is no such thing as a round square. You don't have to test it or anything. You know that is an impossibility. The point is that not everything must or can be evaluated by the process of testing through scientific method. In fact, I don't know that you could scientifically prove that I don't have such a thing. If you showed that out of 1 million squares, you never found a round one, it does not prove the next one won't be round. Yet, you would not expect to ever find such a thing.

    The scientific method has its place in testing certain things, but in other things it is either not necessary or not applicable or not even necessary. Things like emotions, moral actions or subjective decision making is not testable nor predictable.

    The discussion here is not so much about evolution or anti-evolution, but more about scientism and naturalism vs. the insufficiency of naturistgic causation to explain everything.

    Evolution is only a small part of Darwin's contibution to the religion/anti-religion discussion which has raged for centuries. Darwin provided a nail for naturalists to hang their hat on. Prior to Darwin, there was no underpinning for naturalism because they had no alternate explanation to creation -- not that they have, as yet, actually come up with one.

    I am not well versed in the most recent naturalist doctrine of falsification. It does seems to me that falsifiability a complex evaluation process and is not something we do intuitively. This would be as opposed to evaluating through calculating probabilities which do we seem quite intuitively adept at.

    While I have not pulled a lot of quotes from your post, I hope I did address most of it even if only peripherally.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Perhaps, as a lover of math, you would consider reading some Dembski. He is a mathmetician. While his writings do not focus on mathematical formulas, they are put together from a mathematical mindset and sequencing.

    When someone here says something has been refuted, my first reaction is to be skeptical because it is very difficult to actually refute anything. You can, perhaps, claim that a different outcome is more probable or more reasonable.
    It's more probable and more reasonable to realize that the works of those you cite have been shown fallacious, and that their assertions rest largely on false premises and misrepresentations.

    It is also more reasonable to review some of the information I myself personally shared earlier in this thread demonstrating this; information supporting my reasons for rejecting your citations as flawed.

    I also find it more probable that you reject evolution due more to your faith than due to actual flaws you see in the study of evolution. This probability is easily demonstrated by your previous posts on this topic at this very site, the robustness with which they have been answered, the well supported responses they have received, and the fact that despite this you maintain your position of rejection.

    It's both probable and reasonable that you are disingenuous or simply ignorant, and that you will continue to evade the questions I put to you in earlier posts... Evasion we see frequently when discussing topics of religion with you and you switch them to discussing evolution or some other complete red herring... It's rather probable that you'll never do anything more than completely obfuscate and avoid addressing the core criticisms of your belief, and that you'll merely continue to change the subject or cry foul against those replying to you... running from the question by claiming hurt feelings or offense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    inow said:

    It's more probable and more reasonable to realize that the works of those you cite have been shown fallacious, and that their assertions rest largely on false premises and misrepresentations.
    Whether I looked at your links is of no matter. I did not, without reading them, call bullshit on them as you have always done to my references. And you wonder why I pay no attention to your drivel and no heed to your comments. It is difficult to dignify your ignorant attempts to appear intelligent with a reply which reaches to the depths of disrepect which you are able to attain. I'm just not that good at it, so I admit defeat in that column.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    As I predicted... You did little more than pivot to attacking me instead of addressing the questions and criticisms. I love how you did it, too... "I didn't read your rebuttals, but you always call my references nonsense so I'm gonna do it to you." You're kinda funny, especially since you don't generally offer references. My chances to criticize them are limited.

    Here's the thing, dayton. I HAVE read works from these creationists you cited. I have reviewed their claims, and after I found so many of them to be complete bullshit, I stopped listening. I spent time trying to ensure I did not hold feelings or beliefs based on flawed information. These folks you cited gave me pause, and I chose to research it further. I found that they were mistaken and misrepresenting what evolution actually says (interesting to note, so too did a catholic judge appointed by Bush in a case citing them in Dover, Pennsylvania).

    Again, little more than an epic fail from you. You're nothing if not consistent.


    Now... again... back on topic. Disproving christianity... we can begin by the over 700 inconsistencies and internal contradictions within the bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    This would be like me saying I do not know of Dawkins, Hitchings or Dennett.
    I've never heard of Hitchings, read Dennett on his neuro-philosophy but never on evolution/creationism and Dawkins only in regard to the selfish gene, again never on evolution/creationism (though i know him to be fervently anti-creationist).

    I don't need to consider their arguments, i will construct my own conclusions from the evidence. I would only read them if there were considerable doubt on the subject. Once evolution was well explained to me i did not need further supporting arguments.

    In part this is because i have come across all the philosophical arguments advocating the existence of god and am satisfied they hold no water. No god means creationism isn't on the radar, until it brings testable hypotheses.

    You will have to do your best to represent the creationist perspective to me, but i am unlikely to consider it unless there is empirical evidence, testable hypotheses or philosophical perspectives i have yet to consider - which my peers inform me is unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    My observation is that when Person A talks about his opponent, Person B, it is highly likely that Person B's position is going to be somewhat distorted. Of course, there are a lot of people here who talk about the Bible having never read it, knowing only what Bible detractors have said about it.
    I appreciate that it is sensible to gain multiple perspectives before deciding on something. However, it is not quite the case of evolution vs creationism. There are countless creation stories and i will not give each one equal credence. Neither will i consider alternatives simply because they are popular. Again, alternatives to evolution require empirical evidence and testable hypotheses, without which i will not consider.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    Without knowing of the people to whom you are referring it's hard to criticise. I imagine, though, that they are unable to generate testable hypotheses to verify their interpretation of the data. This is how i would define faith based interpretation: untestable.
    If you have not read anything by the leading evolution-naturalism antagonists, how can you claim it is faith based?
    Read back. I have addressed this. If they demonstrate testable hypotheses i will look at the results of their experiments.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The point is that not everything must or can be evaluated by the process of testing through scientific method. In fact, I don't know that you could scientifically prove that I don't have such a thing... The scientific method has its place in testing certain things, but in other things it is either not necessary or not applicable or not even necessary. Things like emotions, moral actions or subjective decision making is not testable nor predictable.
    Emotions/decision making are testable and predictable so it is a poor example, but i take point. There are ways of knowing without empiricism. 1+1=2 is the simplest, we do not need experiments to verify what is true by definition (i am poor at maths, by the way, hence the simplest of examples). The arguments will fall into empiricism, inductive reasoning (philosophy) or faith. To which category to creationist arguments belong?

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The discussion here is not so much about evolution or anti-evolution, but more about scientism and naturalism vs. the insufficiency of naturistgic causation to explain everything...
    Theory of knowledge is my favourite philosophical subject. I invite you to put forward creationist perspectives of theory of knowledge on the philosophy sub-forum, and leave the empirical stuff here.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    While I have not pulled a lot of quotes from your post, I hope I did address most of it even if only peripherally.
    Only a bit. Of most interest to me is whether creationist interpretations generate testable hypotheses, as this will help clarify these points:

    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Another similar example is found in sea urchins. Most sea urchins metamorphose into adult form after going through a feeding larva stage. Some, however, skip this feeding larva stage and metamorphose directly into adult form. They share the same habitat, living side by side. This differing path is also found in several other animals including mollusks and frogs (not all frogs go through a tadpole stage). Again, each side uses these phenomena to support or refute Darwinism.
    But both interpretations are not equal, if one is testable while the other not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    There are different ways to look at the very same information and different conclusions can be drawn therefrom. So long as there is substantial support for at least two views, neither view can be said to have prevailed.
    Only if both interpretations are falsifiable and testable (or both unfalsifiable). Substantial support is not enough to verify truth.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Well, inow, I see nothing in the rules and regs here that require me to respond to you.

    I do not mind at all discussion things with reasonable posters such as Promethius or Kalster whose goal does not seem to be to see just how offensive and derisive they can be, but rather to elicit further discussion or to express their understanding of a concept.

    At one point, you accused me of hijacking this thread to push an agenda toward evolution discussion. I looked back at my original post which included the following two quotes:

    djakobsen questions (sometimes apparent) "contradictions" in the Bible and then complains about someone explaining why they are there and why they may be contradictory.
    and
    We are all dealing with exactly the same bits of information and reacting to it based on our life experiences which influence what we believe and how we interpret those bits of information.

    Some people look at the vast complexity of a living cell and see the handiwork of intelligent purposeful effort; others look at the vast complexity of a living cell and see the result of random, meaningless orgainzations of atomic structures. But both people are looking at exactly the same living cell.

    Oddly, the latter conclusion has, for some reason, been categorized as scientific conclusion while the former conclusion based on exactly the same inquiries into the nature of the living cell, are deemed non-science.
    This latter comment which was intended only as an example of of the phenomenon of differing views based on same information. I have no idea how that precipitated an eventual discussion on evolution.

    Promethius, almost out of the blue, suggested that some anti-evolution arguments are faith based and I suggest that he inspect the works of a few people to see if their arguments called upon faith or dealt with factual information.

    djacobson nor you, inow, have ever listed any of the so called Bible discrepancies which you somehow think disproves it. Bible scholars have been dealing with these apparent anomolies and explaining them for centuries -- even before we entered into these recent years of disputes with naturalists, humanists, relativists and post-modernists. If you wish to accuse me of an agenda, please understand that it is to argue against those world views which are, generally, anti-religious in and anti-Christian more specifically.

    There are perceived discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible but often the problem is with someone's misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the information, much as you claim non-evolutionists misunderstand and misinterpret the information about bio-diversity.

    I am certainly willing to address a few specific discrepancies or contradictions you might wish to point out, but I would not even consider addressing your exaggerated shotgun list of 700.

    I am more than capable of understanding that others may not look at the same information that I am looking at and find the same meaning and significance in it. You do not seem to have that capacity. You reject as invalid anything that does not agree with your perception.

    Discrepancies, contradictions, anomolies and the like are never far away. Take for instance your screen name. I do note that in avatar part of your posts, your name is inow with a lower case "n", but in your signature, your name is iNow with a capital "N".

    This, by your standard, would suggest that you are not to be believed since you do not even seem to know how to spell your own name. And its only FOUR letters long!!!! Sheeesh!!!!
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, inow, I see nothing in the rules and regs here that require me to respond to you.
    It's not a rule. It's a critical component of a discussion. This is, after all, a discussion forum, dayton.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    djacobson nor you, inow, have ever listed any of the so called Bible discrepancies which you somehow think disproves it.
    I linked to four sources which listed them for me. It helps you to understand the discussion if you at least take the time to review the information people share in support of their comments. You've openly conceded you don't look at other peoples links, though... So, yeah.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am certainly willing to address a few specific discrepancies or contradictions you might wish to point out, but I would not even consider addressing your exaggerated shotgun list of 700.
    Exaggerated? Start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...Bible#Examples


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Discrepancies, contradictions, anomolies and the like are never far away. Take for instance your screen name. I do note that in avatar part of your posts, your name is inow with a lower case "n", but in your signature, your name is iNow with a capital "N".

    This, by your standard, would suggest that you are not to be believed since you do not even seem to know how to spell your own name. And its only FOUR letters long!!!! Sheeesh!!!!
    Or, maybe I forgot to capitalize it when creating my account and registering.

    Also, the discrepancies I referenced within the bible are hardly equivalent to one word being capitalized and another not. Please do try to avoid conflating the two, dayton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Prometheus said:

    I don't need to consider their arguments, i will construct my own conclusions from the evidence. I would only read them if there were considerable doubt on the subject. Once evolution was well explained to me i did not need further supporting arguments.
    and
    Of most interest to me is whether creationist interpretations generate testable hypotheses,
    There are a couple of things here. I wonder if you see the conflict in these two statements? On the one hand you don't need to consider any more arguments and on the other you wonder if they present a testable hypothesis.

    I don't know how you can determine the latter if you are not, in the first place, going to consider their arguments.

    Next thing is that one must realize that creationism and design are slightly different in that creationsim emphasizes the Bible and the creator while design emphasizes the process which is why I directed you to Dembski, Johnson and Behe. Their discussions are process oriented rather than religious oriented. This is not to say they are devoid of Biblical reference points. These reference points are usually in response to anti-Biblical argument.

    Just thumbing through a book Against All Gods, I find that Johnson addressing the neuroscientific suggestion that:
    ". . . a genetic explanation for his [God's] existence in terms of brain chemistry [is]why people believe in God or anything else. The one subject to which the corrosive Darwinian method is never applied is to Darwinism itself, which is too cherished to be subjected to such undignified investigation. It must be a rock of certainty, while everthing else is dissolved into shifting sand by the acid of reductionism. In consequence, the possibility that Darwinism itself is a product of brain chemistry rather than reason is never mentioned. . ."
    You will not find these people saying evolution has a problem because the Bible says, blah, blah, blah.

    I am not sure of what to think of someone to whom "evolution was well explained to me [such that] i did not need further supporting arguments."

    This sounds like someone who has heard one side of an issue and been convinced of it's correctness and now refuses to investigate further either to shore up his conclusion or allow it to be questioned. It is, perhaps, similar to if I went back to when I first learned of thermodynamics and clung to those definitions today despite the subsequent changes. Can you really claim to be any different from someone who says, "When my pastor explained what was wrong with evolution, I did not need any further supporting arguments (to know it was incorrect)?"

    Why should the religious person seriously consider arguments from the pro side of evoltion if the pro side of evolution does not seriously consider the arguments from anti side? But evolution is merely one of the playing fields as different world views vie to influence people. We all have an agenda-based platform from which we speak. Anyone who comments here and says he does not have an agenda is lieing, mostly to himself, and anyone who does not see an agenda is stupid. As I said in my previous post to inow (iNow?), my agenda is not focused on disproving aspects of evolution, but rather in challenging naturalistic, humanistic, relativistic, post-modern agendas.

    If one really wants to get to the bottom of an issue, he should read what Side A has to say about the topic and then what Side B has to say. Usually, each side will provide rebuttal to what the other side is saying and you are left to put these things together to see which one makes more sense.

    There are those who are not convinced that evolutionary theories, especially Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, can fully account for the present biodiversity on Earth.

    I have seen many people here use the quote, "Evolution is fact." First of all, I sincerly doubt they even know whom they are quoting. Secondly, they are not using the full quote (although it is close enough) and I doubt they even know the context of the quote.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    OK, inow (iNow), if all we are doing is trading links, try this one:

    http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

    I don't think this discussion is indicative of anything other than that anti-Bible people will grasp at any straw to discredit the Bible while never addressing the actual message of the Bible.

    No one says the Bible is perfectly understandable without assistance of those who are learned in the topics of their languages, their cultures and their beliefs and even then, there remain questions. I do not recall that my geometry book was perfectly understandable without the assistance of a person who actually understood it and it remained that somethings were still a mystery to me.

    I would not have expected my English teacher to help me understand geometry nor should you expect non-believing, non-Bible commentators to help you understand the Bible. The difference is I did want to understand geometry and use it while you have absolutely no desire to actually understand the Bible other than for the purpose of demeaning and discrediting it. That is certainly one of your agendas.

    Actually, most of the so called discrepancies are of similar importance to your accidental mispelling of your name which is why I mentioned it.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I don't think this discussion is indicative of anything other than that anti-Bible people will grasp at any straw to discredit the Bible while never addressing the actual message of the Bible.
    You mean like where they advocate slavery and rape? Or when mass slaughter is sanctioned by god? Or how homosexuals should be put to death? Are those the actual messages of the bible to which you're referring? You don't get to pretend those messages are not in there, because they are, and whole sects of people act on them as if they are valid.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I do not recall that my geometry book was perfectly understandable without the assistance of a person who actually understood it and it remained that somethings were still a mystery to me.
    But, at least your geometry text was internally consistent, and not self-contradicting from one passage to the next. It was not based on personal subjective interpretation, but consistent rules applied equally by all people. Really bad comparison, dayton.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The difference is I did want to understand geometry and use it while you have absolutely no desire to actually understand the Bible other than for the purpose of demeaning and discrediting it.
    Bullshit. I was raised religious, and have read the bible at least 3 or 4 times. My own exploration showed me what a bunch of horseshit it is... not some other person like Dawkins or Dennett or whomever else you like to pretend every atheist gets their arguments from. Again, though... I understand the bible for what it is... A flawed work written by humans without much merit and lots of self-contradictions. Do you care to wedge your foot into your mouth any deeper?


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Actually, most of the so called discrepancies are of similar importance to your accidental mispelling of your name which is why I mentioned it.
    You mean like these?

    GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
    GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

    GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
    GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

    GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
    2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

    GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
    GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
    NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

    EX 20:14 God prohibits adultery.
    HO 1:2 God instructs Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry."

    GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
    HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.



    Remember... There are like 700 of these things, so I could keep going, and I think it's rather disingenuous of you to suggest the above (and others like it) are equivalent with me not capitalizing the N in my username.


    Hey... Look... Yet another site (in addition to the previous four I shared) showing the vast inconsistencies:

    http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...s_in_the_Bible
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    OK, inow, let's look at what you say the verses say and what they actually say:

    inow says:

    GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
    GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

    Bible says: In GE 2:8-9 Man (created in verse 7) was placed in the Garden of Eden and God planted all sorts of trees that were pleasant to see and good for food. Nothing is said in these verses about God creating trees. I may be stupid but I do know that planting and creating are two different events. The creation of plant life is covered in verses 5-6 where it says that there were no plants because it had never rained but then a mist (moisture) appeared to water the whole earth -- and thus the conditions for plantlife had been completed. It is after that when Adam is created and placed in the garden where God makes certain there are beneficial plants including trees.

    inow says:

    GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
    GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

    Bible says: Again, man was created in verse 7. Verse 19 says that God created animals and brought them to Adam to be named. Nothing in this verse says when God created the animals, but if you look back at Gen 1:24-27 it is quite clear that other animals were created before man. The NIV renders this verse, "Now God had formed. . ." which is indicative of a previous past act.

    inow says:

    GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
    2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

    Bible says: 2CH 19:7 says ". . .[T]here must be no injustice among God's judges, no partiality, no taking of bribes." This is a mandate that courts should apply justice equally, not that God treats everyone alike. I should think it is obvious that God does not treat his enemies the same as he does his children. Your premise that God treats everyone alike is just stupid.

    AC 10:34 says: ". . . Truly, I perceive that God show no partiality. . ." Again this does not mean God treats everyone the same; it means He holds everyone to the same standards. He judges all on the same basis. He does not hold one person accounted to the 10 Commandments and another person to the 9 commandments.

    RO 2:11 refers back to verse 10 which says that glory and honor and peace are is meant for all who do good and this promise is available to both Jews and Greeks. God does not exclude any group or person from what He has to offer. But he does not offer glory, honor and peace to those who neglect to do go. So again, the idea that this says God treats everyone the same is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.

    inow says:

    GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
    GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
    NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

    Bible says: It is true that 10 of the spies who came back from their mission to the holy land said that some of the people there were giants and compared them to the children of Anak. This is not God saying there were still Nephilim on Earth. Just because someone is quoted as having said something in the Bible does not make what they said true. The Bible has several stories of people telling lies. This does not turn their lies into truth. Yet, it is probable, considering the David and Goliath story, that there was a population of people there who were especially large, but that does not mean they were actually Nephilim or even descendants of Nephilim. More likely, there was a concentration of people who had the genetic condition we have come to know as Gigantism as had Andre the Giant. Few translations refer to the Numbers giants as Nephilim. The Hebrew word can, generally, mean giant or tyrant. I can find no antediluvian references to Anak or the Anakim. Meanwhile, I am not troubled by this because I do not quite accept the idea of a world wide flood but rather a series of regional floods and this particular flood wiped out the spiritual beings and their offspring who had the capacity to interbreed with humans. Nor do I think the giants of Numbers were actually related to the Nephilim of Gen. 6. If one were to say today, "He was a mammoth of a man," would you assume he was a direct descendent of the wooley mammoth? I think it highly likely that the 10 spies were painting the worst possible picture they could and a reference to the Nephilim (if, indeed, they made it) was the worst thing they could think of.

    inow says:

    EX 20:14 God prohibits adultery.
    HO 1:2 God instructs Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry."

    Bible says: These things are literally true, but I do not know how Hosea marrying a prostitute violates the commandment. Hosea, however, is an allegorical tale of the relationship between God and the nation of Israel. It shows how no matter the degree of sinfulness, God is willing to accept the sinner and no matter how far that sinner may wander from God, God is willing to take him back. You have taken a wonderful story about the grace of God and turned it into your own perversion. I think you have a ways to go to show how this story promotes or allows the practice of adultry when, taken as a whole, the Bible is very explicit about the impropriety of adultry.

    inow says:

    GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
    HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

    Bible says: Abraham had one legitimate son of the promise which he offered up as a sacrifice. Of the discrepancies inow has submitted, this is the stupidest. Does anyone think the writer of Hebrews or the readers of this text would be unaware of the Old Testament and the birth of both Isaac and Ishamael? Ishmael was not the son of faith, but the son of doubt. He would, then, have hardly been afforded even mention in this chapter about faith. The obvious comparison here is between Isaac as Abraham's only legitmate son under the promise made to him (Abraham) and the only begotten son of God.

    All in all, your objections, which I am sure you did not find all by yourself are the products of various errors in the process of interpeting and understanding scripture. You assert Bible teaching which is not Bible teaching; you take things out of the context; you give litteral meaning to allegorical stories; you insert assumptions which are the basis of your objections.

    If these are your most outlandish "discrepacies," you are far from discrediting the Bible. You are merely showing your ignorance in this area and your willingness to view the Bible in the worst possible light you can find. And that is pretty easy to do when you live in darkness.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Scripture can be arranged to suit any purpose. Scripture(written word) is the most unreliable of proofs for anything.

    Take this quote(not scripture but close enough):
    The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
    Adolf Hitler
    Mein Kampf

    Hitler doesn't actually say the Jew is the devil personified. In fact he is referring to a symbolic representation of all evil and in no way asserts that it's the devil. Allegorically speaking, he is simply saying that if you want to look for total evil then it's from humanity where you'll find it. Evil is a living thing shape like a human, it's us.

    He's saying the devil is not a real live entity since it requires the shape of something living, personification is another way of saying the same thing. The devil is an abstract idea, something mankind invented to act as their surrogate evildoer.


    Scripture interpretation is the easiest thing going. Child's play. Yet we know a lot about Hitler to know that what I just said is a bunch of bullshit. What do we know of the Bible scribes, Biblical events, Bible characters, or the truth?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If these are your most outlandish "discrepacies," you are far from discrediting the Bible. You are merely showing your ignorance in this area and your willingness to view the Bible in the worst possible light you can find. And that is pretty easy to do when you live in darkness.
    I am just going to assume you would offer the same response were I to share the other 697 discrepancies and internal inconsistencies in your "perfect word of god."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Prometheus said:

    I don't need to consider their arguments, i will construct my own conclusions from the evidence. I would only read them if there were considerable doubt on the subject. Once evolution was well explained to me i did not need further supporting arguments.
    and
    Of most interest to me is whether creationist interpretations generate testable hypotheses,
    There are a couple of things here. I wonder if you see the conflict in these two statements? On the one hand you don't need to consider any more arguments and on the other you wonder if they present a testable hypothesis.
    The first quote was actually in reference to anti-creationists Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchings.

    I will clarify; i would consider arguments if, and only if, empirical data were presented. I could do this by reading abstracts of articles, before deciding whether the full paper deserved further consideration.

    This is because the question is an empirical one, i.e. based on observable data which makes predictions for further exploration.


    ". . . a genetic explanation for his [God's] existence in terms of brain chemistry [is]why people believe in God or anything else. The one subject to which the corrosive Darwinian method is never applied is to Darwinism itself, which is too cherished to be subjected to such undignified investigation. It must be a rock of certainty, while everthing else is dissolved into shifting sand by the acid of reductionism. In consequence, the possibility that Darwinism itself is a product of brain chemistry rather than reason is never mentioned. . ."
    This is a hypothesis put forward by someone. That religion has a genetic basis can be tested (i.e. knocking off certain genes will make someone religious no longer religious). I don't think this has been verified yet, though i do know neuro-imaging techniques have isolated where religious experience takes place., and can be externally stimulated (i will look for the study for you). I see no reason why the same couldn't be done for people who believe in evolution, just different genes/areas of the brain responsible for different processing pathways would need be targeted. Either way, someday we could test both ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    This sounds like someone who has heard one side of an issue and been convinced of it's correctness and now refuses to investigate further either to shore up his conclusion or allow it to be questioned. It is, perhaps, similar to if I went back to when I first learned of thermodynamics and clung to those definitions today despite the subsequent changes. Can you really claim to be any different from someone who says, "When my pastor explained what was wrong with evolution, I did not need any further supporting arguments (to know it was incorrect)?"
    I have heard many religious arguments for god. I have studied the bible with Jehovah's Witnesses and, to less extant, the Quran with an Islamic society. I'm actually buddhist myself, though i don't believe a fair bit. It is those particular authors i have not heard, and feel no need. This boils down to theory of knowledge. I have, on study, decided that the question of the authenticity of evolution is an empirical one , therefore i will listen only to empirical evidence - or you would need to successfully challenge my understanding of theory of knowledge (if you want to discuss this, i would be happy to do so, please start a thread on the philosophy sub-forum).

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Anyone who comments here and says he does not have an agenda is lieing, mostly to himself, and anyone who does not see an agenda is stupid.
    Scientists are often blinded by political considerations, it is a genuine problem. However, it is the great strength of the scientific method to require such proof that these consideration are minimised.


    Based on some of your replies am i not sure you have thoroughly read my replies. You are the only source of creationist argument i will be exposed to, so i'd appreciate more input by answering specific points in some of my earlier posts.

    And trying to prove/disprove god based on scripture is like trying to prove Star Wars happened by examining the script.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    inow said:

    I am just going to assume you would offer the same response were I to share the other 697 discrepancies and internal inconsistencies in your "perfect word of god."
    Hmmm. You gave me six examples of things you thought were discrepancies and internal inconsistencies. I addressed each one separately based on the verses you had used. And now you accuse me of having offered the same answer to each one? And that I would use the same answer on your other alleged discrepancies?

    I must assume that the other 697 discrepancies will demand the same response because they are the same discrepancy. I can understand that they would be similar kinds of discrepancies which involve the same kinds of errors as the six you first set down.

    I probably could provide the exact same answer to each of your objections: You are wrong because you do not know how to rightly understand the Bible.

    Now, shall I address the discrepancy in your posts?

    Earlier inow said:

    There are like 700 of these things
    You gave me six examples which I addressed and there are now 697 discrepancies left? Six from 700 in my math book was 694. At this point I must consider whether this discrepancy is a deliberate lie or an example of your inadequate math skills. Or, I am holding you to a literal meaning of 700 which you did not intend. But that is the standard to which you hold the Bible! Nothing can be understood or have meaning other than its literal specificity. I suppose it is also possible that you just mistyped the number. But I can still determine, even with your obvious error, that you think there are a lot of discrepancies in the Bible and that my addressment of just six of them has shown you that, very likely, the rest of your basket can also be explained as not really discrepancies.

    Let's see: You don't know how to spell your own name and you can't do math (either that or you lied), and you expect me to believe anything you say?

    One of the major Bible discrepancies usually pointed out by your ilk is in Proverbs 26:4 and 5 where we are first told:

    "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

    and then in the next verse:

    "Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."

    I am not sure which of these admonitions I am violating but I am pretty sure it is one of them.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    140
    To djakobsen

    If you are still having problems with your parents trying to make you believe in Christianity again.

    Give them a lecture about how the god they believe in created freewill and that you use that free will to not believe.

    btw I know that it isn't quite a good argument due to that you do not believe in the bible and thus you cant use something written there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    You are wrong because you do not know how to rightly understand the Bible.

    <...>

    At this point I must consider whether this discrepancy is a deliberate lie or an example of your inadequate math skills.

    <...>

    Let's see: You don't know how to spell your own name and you can't do math (either that or you lied), and you expect me to believe anything you say?
    Oh, FFS. I really don't know why I bother with you sometimes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I probably could provide the exact same answer to each of your objections: You are wrong because you do not know how to rightly understand the Bible.
    I love this answer. It's so ripe with arrogance and holier-than-thou attitude that I can hardly take you seriously. I know you're serious, and I think that that is the saddest part, but I can't accept the seriousness of your post.

    The Bible is full of contradictions, and it's only cleared through interpretation, not literal meaning. God is impartial, means he holds no bias. He judges all as equals, and treats all with no preconceived judgement. inow is right, and you are simply contorting the words to make yourself appear morally higher on the matter of the Bible. You outline your own ignorance and stupidity in your explanations defending the bible, and further that apparent stupidity in your address to inow about a lack of capitalization in his username and an arithmetic error. You've made dozens of errors of the ilk that inow has, in this thread alone, and berate him for the errors he's made? You hold yourself to a much lower standard than you hold others, and it's both sad and hilarious. Clear your own muck before you attack others' dayton.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    To say that Daytonturner is a creationist may not clearly show what he believes. Some creationists believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old, which I think Daytonturner does not believe that either. So I would like to ask Daytonturner what he believes about evolution, so that we can debate more instructively.

    Do you believe man has a common ancestor with ape?
    Do you believe Homo sapien existed when Dinosaurs were roaming the earth?
    Do you believe all lives have a common ancestor, which is a micro-organism?
    Do you think the evolution process is correct most of the time, but with some divine intervention in some critical time?
    Do you think most (if not all) biologists believe the Evolution Theory is true?
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    prasit asked:

    To say that Daytonturner is a creationist may not clearly show what he believes. Some creationists believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old, which I think Daytonturner does not believe that either. So I would like to ask Daytonturner what he believes about evolution, so that we can debate more instructively.

    Do you believe man has a common ancestor with ape?
    Do you believe Homo sapien existed when Dinosaurs were roaming the earth?
    Do you believe all lives have a common ancestor, which is a micro-organism?
    Do you think the evolution process is correct most of the time, but with some divine intervention in some critical time?
    Do you think most (if not all) biologists believe the Evolution Theory is true?
    I do not exactly consider myself a creationist in the classic understanding of that word. I would more consider myself an intelligent design sympathist. The dividing line may be fairly narrow, but members of your group have a couple of designations which would be similar. I think there is probably a only a slight difference between an atheist and an a-deist in that they likely agree on far more than they disagree on. Creationism and design differ probably mostly in that creationism emphasizes the creator while design emphasizes the process. The two do walk hand in hand as to atheism and a-deism. I do not find that religious arguments against naturalism is particularly effective. The naturalist approach to evolution is flawed in its process, not because it conflicts with Genesis.

    I do not have strong convictions on most of the questions you pose but will try to address them. And I hope you are not looking for simple yes or no answers on each of them and I can say, based on my experience, these questions are very loaded.

    1. I do not preclude the possibility of humanoids having experienced some evolution particularly in view of fossil remains of early humanoids. I do not find, however, that there is conclusive evidence to support or refute any conjectures beyond that. The Genesis story could potential depict God engineering a special humanoid or it could also be an allegorical story with Adam and Eve representing the emergence of humans' awareness of their own personal mortality (an awareness which other animals do not seem to share) and the emergence of a moral consideration toward their extended group that goes beyond parental and survival instincts. But I would certainly disagree with any claim that humans evolved "from" apes.

    2. I do not think that Dino was still around to be Barney Flintstone's pet.

    3. I am not inclined to agree that all of life can be shown to be linked to a single one celled organism or that life began as the result of spontaneous undirected random chemical activity. The process of a crystal forming in nature is a far cry from the process of developing amino acids, let alone the spontaneous development of the polypeptides from which amino acids are made. Spontaneous life is but one of several competing conjectures as to how life began on Earth, none of which have any strong evidence to support them as vastly superior to the others. Also, why limit the starting point to one single organism? Why not 10 original one-celled organisms or 100 or 1,000? This, of course, would eliminate the whole idea that all of life has one common ancestor which, strangely, seems to be an unnecessary cornerstone of Darwinism.

    4. I do not know how much or at what points a designer might have intervened or if it was actually necessary. This, of course, goes back to question two. I am not trying to be ambivalent. It seems equally within the ability of a designer to have set a course which evolution inevitably followed or that a designer could enjoy a more hands-on involvement. I think the non-naturalistic, design postion would be that the designer chose the more hands on approach.

    5. First of all, I have no idea which evolution theory you mean. Personally, I think if there were a Church of Evolution you would have as many denominations as we Baptists have. If I tell you I am a Baptist and you are a Baptist, too, you don't have a complete picture of what I believe or accept as a Baptist. So it is not all that difficult for someone to say he believes in evolution and his belief being vastly different from the guy next to him who also says he believes in evolution. What I find ironic here is that some evolutionists adopt one of the mutually exclusive theories and then turn around and object to mutual exclusivity in religion.

    The discussion, as I have tried to point out, is part of a more broader question surrounding naturalism and whether naturalistic causation can explain every phemonenon and observation we have been able to insert into our knowledge base. There is a growing group of biologists, particularly micro-biologists, who do not believe naturalistic causes can fully serve as an explanation for the beginnings of life or observed biodiversity. Yet, they would not say they do not believe in evolution. One of my good friends is a former university professor of biology who believes in both evolution and design. I would agree that most biologists believe in, at least, micro-evolution, but that the support of macro evolution would be considerably less, though I have no statistical data on a percentage. (In fact, I find it incredulous that any reasonable well educated person, biologist or not, could disagree with micro-evolution for which we have many examples. I do not think, however, that micro-evolution is a automatic validation of macro-evolution any more than the natural formation of crystals is validation of the natural formation of amino acids.)

    I think a lot of people believe or disbelieve evolution, for example, based on their predisposed position on whether God exists. I have no statistical study to support this, but my guess is that at least 90 percent of the non-biologists believers in spontaneous formation of life could NOT explain what would have had to take place for an amino acid to form spontaneously.

    This is far from a settled topic other than in the individual minds of individual people.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Arcane said:

    It's so ripe with arrogance and holier-than-thou attitude
    You know, this is one the most rediculous, assinine arguments you folks present against Christians.

    As Christians, we recognize our sinful imperfection and ascribe holiness, perfection, righteousness and goodness only to God. We rate ourselves not on a scale of comparison to others.

    You folks, on the other hand, take the ultimatel arrogant, holier than thou position by placing your own values above those of God and declaring yourselves sinless based on you own ever shifting standards by which you justify any and all conduct in which you may participate. You always draw the line between good and evil just below your own personal standard, raising or lowering it to conform to your own conduct. As long as your conduct is better than that of another, you are better than him.

    You think of yourselves as having a greater understanding of the Bible than those who are learned scholars in the field, taking delight in repeating the misinformation of other non-scholars.

    The Bible is not FULL of inexplicable contradictions to me. There are a few things that I find bothersome such as verses which seem to imply that God changed his mind about something or that Abraham or Moses "argued" him out of doing something.

    In contrast, I would say that to me, the Theory of Evolution is full of unexplained contradictions or discrepancies which probably do not provide you with any degree of consternation.

    Arcane said:

    God is impartial, means he holds no bias. He judges all as equals, and treats all with no preconceived judgement.
    I honestly believe that is a reasonably accurate restatement of what I said. But you cannot compare the basis of the judgment with the result of the judgment which is what inow was attempting to do. No matter who you are in court, the law is supposedly applied equally. However, you do not expect the person found guilty to be treated just like the person found innocent. inow was attempting to show that God is not impartial because he does not treat the innocent and the guilty the same. The ultimate end of that argument is that either all should be condemned or none should be condemned. Were I an atheist, I would certainly hope that were the case.

    The rest of Arcane's post is the typical double standard prejudice in which inow is excused for his mistakes while the one who points them out is condemned. I merely held inow to the same standard of scutiny to which he holds the Bible. Strangely, I am still not certain as to which spelling (inow or iNow) he prefers nor do I have any idea how many discrepancies he really thinks Bible detractors have fleshed out.

    (edits not made)
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68 Re: Ways to disprove Christianity? 
    Forum Junior JennLonhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Under the Sun, Moon and Stars
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by djakobsen
    I need a not too exceedingly complicated way to logically disprove Christianity.
    How about virgin Mary? There is absolutely no biological way thats possible
    "Be the change you want to see in the world"
    Mahatma Gandhi

    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace"
    Jimmy Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    JenniLonhon said:
    How about virgin Mary? There is absolutely no biological way thats possible
    Well, if he used that argument, he better hope to hell, they do not know any more about parthenogenesis than you do.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    There was no double standard in my post. I didn't excuse inow, I attacked you. I restated what you said in a way that illustrated what inow meant. you agree with me but not him. You attacked someone for their mistakes when you make many of the same type of mistakes you called him on. Is that not a double standard bias? He claimed the bible has mistakes. you highlighted his 2 mistakes and concluded he should be discredited for them. Should you not as well be discredited, by your logic with him? If not, how is this not a double standard?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    The ultimate disproof of all theities and deities is that these supposed elemental fellows who have a system of mind that can think, plan and create all cannot possibly be fundamental, for there would have to have been something before, such as its constituents, and so it was not First, creating all else. Not by a long shot, especially for the ultimate complexity with ultimate power, etc.

    Look to the future and the more complex for higher minds, not to the past and the simpler.

    This self-contradiction method is all that can be used to disprove the invisible Being.

    I can grant a smart alien or machines that perhaps could do some terra forming, but that would not be God.

    Another disproof is that either matter or its basis had to be eternal, thus no creation and no Creator. It is even that it could be nothing, as there is literally nothing to make the original stuff of, but we need not count that one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    questor said:

    The ultimate disproof of all theities and deities is that these supposed elemental fellows who have a system of mind that can think, plan and create all cannot possibly be fundamental, for there would have to have been something before, such as its constituents, and so it was not First, creating all else. Not by a long shot, especially for the ultimate complexity with ultimate power, etc.
    Any system of attempting to explain the beginning of a finite world has exactly the same problem. Where did the stuff the cosmos is made from come from?

    You are touching on the cosmological discussion with this comment whereas we previously have been more focused on the teleological discussion.

    There is nothing in the naturalist explanations of the cosmos which explain where the stuff of the Universe came from. Big Bang cosmology is that first there was nothing and then there was everything.

    questor added:


    Another disproof is that either matter or its basis had to be eternal, thus no creation and no Creator. It is even that it could be nothing, as there is literally nothing to make the original stuff of, but we need not count that one.
    I absolutely fail to see in the first sentence of this quote why the one follows the other. If you wish to set up some sort of logical formula, it must be A and B, therefore C. What you have is A, therefore C which is not a valid logical formula. So how does the premise that matter or it's basis had to be eternal preclude the existence of a creator who dwells in eternity? If either matter or its basis had to be eternal, how does that prove nothing else is eternal? How does that show something else in eternity did not alter the basis of matter into the fact of matter? The second sentence makes no sense other than that it contradicts the premise of the first sentence.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Arcane said:

    He claimed the bible has mistakes. you highlighted his 2 mistakes and concluded he should be discredited for them.
    No. What I did was show what would happen if iNow's own writing were held up to the same standards he was applying to the Bible. (My recollection is that in a list of Bible errors, a large percentage of them can be attributed to the same scrivening errors iNow himself had.) I showed what would be his credibility if it were judged on the same standard he judges the credibility of the Bible.

    I had no trouble actually decyphering, clarifying and understand what iNow was trying to convey nor do I have a problem with decyphering, clarifying and understanding similar occurances in the Bible.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The Genesis story could potential depict God engineering a special humanoid or it could also be an allegorical story with Adam and Eve representing the emergence of humans' awareness of their own personal mortality (an awareness which other animals do not seem to share) and the emergence of a moral consideration toward their extended group that goes beyond parental and survival instincts. But I would certainly disagree with any claim that humans evolved "from" apes.
    Just a point of order here. Humans ARE apes. I'm not sure you knew that, so felt it important to point out.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am not inclined to agree that all of life can be shown to be linked to a single one celled organism or that life began as the result of spontaneous undirected random chemical activity. The process of a crystal forming in nature is a far cry from the process of developing amino acids, let alone the spontaneous development of the polypeptides from which amino acids are made. Spontaneous life is but one of several competing conjectures as to how life began on Earth, none of which have any strong evidence to support them as vastly superior to the others.
    Actually, no. You're now referring to abiogenesis, not evolution. It's like you're faulting evolution for not explaining gravity.



    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    First of all, I have no idea which evolution theory you mean.
    I don't understand your point. There are not different theories. There is one theory of evolution with many different components, but not different theories. I will ask you to elaborate since you're making a suggestion akin to there being different theories of economics, and AFAIK that's not at all the case in biology.

    Further, there are people who accept evolution as valid and those who do not. However, those who do not accept evolution as valid do not have supportable alternative theories which have not been debunked, discredited, or shown to be philosophy (no testable predictions).


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I would agree that most biologists believe in, at least, micro-evolution, but that the support of macro evolution would be considerably less, though I have no statistical data on a percentage.
    As I pointed out to you earlier, you are making a false distinction. There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, and even if there were, macro would be little more than a collection of those micro events.



    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    What I did was show what would happen if iNow's own writing were held up to the same standards he was applying to the Bible. (My recollection is that in a list of Bible errors, a large percentage of them can be attributed to the same scrivening errors iNow himself had.)
    I made an error with the capitalization of a letter, and by not using a precise number since the number itself was arbitrary. It is not the same as the direct content contradictions my sources referenced about your bible, and it's intellectually dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The Bible is not FULL of inexplicable contradictions to me.
    <...>
    In contrast, I would say that to me, the Theory of Evolution is full of unexplained contradictions or discrepancies
    Such as?



    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I am still not certain as to which spelling (inow or iNow) he prefers nor do I have any idea how many discrepancies he really thinks Bible detractors have fleshed out.
    The exact number itself is, frankly, irrelevant. The point is that there are a metric shit ton of inconsistencies and internal contradictions within a book which people claim to be the infallible word of god.

    Finally... You can call me inow or iNow or Inow or INow or INOW or any other permutation you want. Were I to type it properly, I'd type iNow, but it's also of zero relevance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Daytonturner wrote:
    Well, if he used that argument, he better hope to hell, they do not know any more about parthenogenesis than you do.
    According to the link Daytonturner has provided, parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some invertebrate species. So if Virgin Mary story is true, she must have been an invertebrate. Jesus also must have been an invertebrate too, and a female at that (no Y chromosome).

    More likely is that the story is not true. I have read it somewhere that there was a mistake in translation of the bible from one language to another. The original word is intended to mean fair or beautiful, but it may mean virgin too. So the mistranslation.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Daytonturner wrote:
    I do not preclude the possibility of humanoids having experienced some evolution particularly in view of fossil remains of early humanoids.
    Ah..a limited evolution within humanoid groups.
    Adam and Eve representing the emergence of humans' awareness of their own personal mortality (an awareness which other animals do not seem to share)
    Do you mean you think that, say, a very old, fragile, hungry tiger does not think it is going to die soon?
    Also, why limit the starting point to one single organism? Why not 10 original one-celled organisms or 100 or 1,000? This, of course, would eliminate the whole idea that all of life has one common ancestor which, strangely, seems to be an unnecessary cornerstone of Darwinism.
    My point is not about single organism, but about micro-organism, evolving from single cell to multi-cell to ever more complex organism. And as someone points out, Darwinism is not about the origin of life.
    I am not trying to be ambivalent. It seems equally within the ability of a designer to have set a course which evolution inevitably followed or that a designer could enjoy a more hands-on involvement. I think the non-naturalistic, design postion would be that the designer chose the more hands on approach.
    You are ambivalent.
    In fact, I find it incredulous that any reasonable well educated person, biologist or not, could disagree with micro-evolution for which we have many examples
    So you believe micro-evolution is true. May be you can elaborate more about the difference between micro- and macro- evolution.
    5. First of all, I have no idea which evolution theory you mean.
    I hope you are wiser than that.
    The discussion, as I have tried to point out, is part of a more broader question surrounding naturalism and whether naturalistic causation can explain every phemonenon and observation we have been able to insert into our knowledge base.
    If not every phenomenon, still at the very least it does explain a lot of phenomenon that cannot be better explained by any other theories.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    iNow said:

    Humans ARE apes.
    Oh, OK, but which one do you think homo sapiens evolved "from?"

    iNow said:

    You're now referring to abiogenesis, not evolution.
    As is your way, you ignore the actual points of the paragraph which was to question why we should limit the "original cell" to one. Whether the source of the "original one cell" is abiogenisis, pan-spermia, God, alien transplant or whatever, why must we assume that there was only one? I was using abiogenisis as an example because it is the most popular speculation as the the source of the "original one cell." A one-celled start seems highly unlikely if any of these starting points is taken.

    iNow said:

    There is one theory of evolution with many different components . . . I will ask you to elaborate
    This would be true in the same sense that there is one Christianity. Your implication is that all the "components" are in agreement. I doubt that you would get Dawinists, neo-Darwinists or non-Darwinists to agree on any other than the basic premise. Throw in a little punctuated equilibrium, concepts of micro and macro evolution; discussions over the most significant change mechanisms as well as survival mechanisms and you have the same basis for "denominalization" that we find in Christianity. Asking "which theory" you subscribe to is pretty much like asking a Christian what kind of Christianity he believes in.

    iNow said:

    There is no differenceg between "micro" and "macro" evolution,
    This is sort of like suggesting there is no difference between Aminianism and Calvinism. For someone who believes strongly about the differences between micro and macro evolution, there is a huge difference. There are denominations in Christianity which would downplay the distinctions between Arminianism and Calvinism, but that would still not make the same to those who find these distinctions important to their belief.

    iNow said:

    the direct content contradictions my sources referenced
    Well, of the six specific ones you pointed out, the apparent conflicts are not caused by scrivener's error. But when you claim there are some 700 such errors, you kind of misrepresent the overall picture. Bible scholars do not claim the Bible lacks any errors. However, a very high percentage of whatever long list you could compile would contain a high percentage of errors which can easily be explained by scrivener errors. There are not, as you imply, 700 errors of content that effect the meaning any more than your approximation of 700 errors or the accidental misspelling of your name. You would be far better to challenge the 15-20 apparent and difficult to explain discrepancies which are perhaps content problems than to shotgun with meaningless, easily explained mechanical errors as though they somehow destroy the message.

    The very thing that you were complaining about God, that he does not judge different people by the same standard, is the very thing you are guilty of when judging the Bible. You use far stricter scrutiny in assessing the Bible than you do in viewing any other piece of historic literature. If you viewed Caesar's Gallic Wars with the same fine tooth comb, you would reject it as total fabrication.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    questor said:

    The ultimate disproof of all theities and deities is that these supposed elemental fellows who have a system of mind that can think, plan and create all cannot possibly be fundamental, for there would have to have been something before, such as its constituents, and so it was not First, creating all else. Not by a long shot, especially for the ultimate complexity with ultimate power, etc.
    Any system of attempting to explain the beginning of a finite world has exactly the same problem. Where did the stuff the cosmos is made from come from?
    It couldn't come from other stuff; therefore it must be a positive/negative distribution of nothing. Thus, movement, such as the QM fluctuations, is natural, not stillness. No other choice, however unintuitive it may seem.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    You are touching on the cosmological discussion with this comment whereas we previously have been more focused on the teleological discussion.
    Yes, they are the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    prasit said:

    parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some invertebrate species
    Reptiles are invertebrates? Seems like I also read someplace some time ago about some bird laying fertile eggs without the presense of a male counterpart.

    My point was NOT that Jesus was the result of parthenogenesis but merely that a blanket statement that this is "impossible" is something of an overstatement. My point was that if you are an evolutionist and you observe a process in one set of animals, there is no reason to preclude that process as being possible in another set of animals.

    prasit said:

    More likely is that the story is not true. I have read it somewhere that there was a mistake in translation of the bible from one language to another. The original word is intended to mean fair or beautiful, but it may mean virgin too. So the mistranslation.
    I tend to agree with this assessment of the story other than the idea that the story is totally untrue. Something different happened surrounding the birth of Jesus that made it possible to link it back to the Old Testament. My understanding is that the Hebrew word translated virgin (meaning a chaste young woman) can also mean, generically, a young woman. Certainly, the description of Mary fits that generic definition. Tradition insists on the "chaste" definition but I don't think we can pinpoint exactly how 1st Century people viewed these terms.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    There is one theory of evolution with many different components . . . I will ask you to elaborate
    This would be true in the same sense that there is one Christianity. Your implication is that all the "components" are in agreement. I doubt that you would get Dawinists, neo-Darwinists or non-Darwinists to agree on any other than the basic premise. Throw in a little punctuated equilibrium, concepts of micro and macro evolution; discussions over the most significant change mechanisms as well as survival mechanisms and you have the same basis for "denominalization" that we find in Christianity. Asking "which theory" you subscribe to is pretty much like asking a Christian what kind of Christianity he believes in.
    People don't "believe in" evolution. They accept it as valid, much like they accept gravity and the germ theory of illness as valid. And sorry, no. There are not different denominations of people who have different versions of evolution in the same way that there are different denominations of christianity. That's a VERY false equivalency to put forth.

    I am open to considering your point more fully, however, you have yet to describe the "different denominations" of evolution. You've merely been repeating yourself that they exist without every showing where, how, or in what ways they differ... So, let's start there.



    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution,
    This is sort of like suggesting there is no difference between Aminianism and Calvinism. For someone who believes strongly about the differences between micro and macro evolution, there is a huge difference.
    Please name some of those differences. You could fix this disagreement by educating all of us on what differences you see. You're the one making the assertion that there is some sort of important difference between these arbitrary sets "micro" and "macro" evolution, so it's up to you to support that assertion.

    It will also help educate people on your point. Many of us have expressed that this is a false distinction. Please explain your reasons for holding it as valid, and provide clarity on what those distinctions entail.


    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    However, a very high percentage of whatever long list you could compile would contain a high percentage of errors which can easily be explained by scrivener errors. There are not, as you imply, 700 errors of content that effect the meaning.
    I have shared my sources again for your reference below.
    Please be specific about within each... of those listed... which are "scrivener" errors and which are not.
    Once I understand your position better we can go from there.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...Bible#Examples
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...istencies.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...y_of_the_Bible
    http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bib...sistencies.pdf
    http://www.evilbible.com/
    http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...s_in_the_Bible




    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    You use far stricter scrutiny in assessing the Bible than you do in viewing any other piece of historic literature.
    How can you make this assertion with any degree of integrity? I have not been here discussing any other piece of historic literature, so you have zero information to support this bald assertion. You're making things up.

    How do you know I am differentially applying my standards and levels of scrutiny? Oh wait... That's right... You don't, because I haven't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    iNow said:

    Humans ARE apes.
    Oh, OK, but which one do you think homo sapiens evolved "from?"
    I assume you'd like the name of an ancient species with which is a common ancestor of humans and Chimps? It's been suggested that Chimpanzees, Bonobos. and Humans are directly decended from A. kadabba, and that that species is the last common ancestor for the three species mentioned.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Here's a fun way of showing some biblical contradictions (or, what dayton likes to dismiss as "scrivener" errors):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Well, there are numerous sites with answers to Bible misconstructions, too.

    www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...adictions.html
    www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html
    www.bcbsr.com/topics/ans5.html
    http://www.allabouttruth.org/answers...ctions-faq.htm
    www.apologeticsindex.org/b08.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h0AIN_tAYs

    iNow said:

    How can you make this assertion with any degree of integrity? I have not been here discussing any other piece of historic literature, so you have zero information to support this bald assertion. You're making things up.
    Actually, you are absolutely right. I realize I actually had a Pavlovian reaction and jumped ahead. These conversations relating to Bible accuracy usually move to me pointing out that the Bible is the most validated of all ancient literature for accuracy of the text and historicity and then cite the poor record of other ancient literature such as Caesar's Gallic wars and some famous Greek literature after which whoever is arguing your side comes back and defends them as major paragons of literary accuracy in ancient literature.

    I've been through this same discussion many times before on various threads and I never cease to be amazed at the ignorance that can be display by Bible detractors. I do not see iNow as being any more enlightened or effective than any of his predecessors.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I've been through this same discussion many times before on various threads and I never cease to be amazed at the ignorance that can be display by Bible detractors. I do not see iNow as being any more enlightened or effective than any of his predecessors.
    Super. Can you please now address some of the questions I've asked of you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    daytonturner wrote
    Reptiles are invertebrates? Seems like I also read someplace some time ago about some bird laying fertile eggs without the presense of a male counterpart.
    Then provide the literature. I mentioned invertebrates based on the link provided by you.
    My point was that if you are an evolutionist and you observe a process in one set of animals, there is no reason to preclude that process as being possible in another set of animals.
    Bad logic. Do you think human may be able to reproduce by splitting in half? Amoeba does that.
    When JennLonhon says that Virgin Mary is biologically impossible, certainly she is very specific. She does not mean any other kind of creatures. She means a woman who was alive two thousand years ago could not get pregnant naturally without first getting a sperm into her ovary. You cannot say hey, some birds can, you know?
    Certainly, the description of Mary fits that generic definition. Tradition insists on the "chaste" definition but I don't think we can pinpoint exactly how 1st Century people viewed these terms.
    And you still insist that the story must be untrue.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    daytonturner wrote
    Reptiles are invertebrates? Seems like I also read someplace some time ago about some bird laying fertile eggs without the presense of a male counterpart.
    Then provide the literature..
    http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/ans-tparth/index.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    iNow asked:

    Can you please now address some of the questions I've asked of you?
    Not likely. If I thought you were actually seeking answers to your insincere, insidious and invidious questions, I would put forth some effort to address them. However, my perception of you is that you already know all the answers you seek and you have no intention of even considering anything other than your already derived, contrived solutions. As such, why should I waste time. I have determined that I should heed the admonition of Prov. 26:4.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    As such, why should I waste time. I have determined that I should heed the admonition of Prov. 26:4.
    Because this is a public forum and there are many who would be interested in your answer. For a start what do you believe are the principal differences between micro evolution and macro evolution? Perhaps you would be better to follow Exodus 18:20.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    A Google search on this topic turns up nearly a quarter of a million articles. I have no idea why I should be held responsible to do some lazy ass's research for him.

    If someone is really interested in this topic, there is no reason they cannot read all of the nearly 250,000 article found by Google, then go to other search engines to see if they find other articles.

    However, two articles which seem to defend this differentiation are:

    http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th...acro-evolution

    I note there are also numerous vids on You Tube which also address this topic.

    My feeling is that if anyone is really interested in this topic, they have already looked at both approaches. I am inclined to agree with the position that macro evolution is merely a whole bunch of micro evolution is untenable.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    iNow said:

    Humans ARE apes.
    Oh, OK, but which one do you think homo sapiens evolved "from?"
    I assume you'd like the name of an ancient species with which is a common ancestor of humans and Chimps? It's been suggested that Chimpanzees, Bonobos. and Humans are directly decended from A. kadabba, and that that species is the last common ancestor for the three species mentioned.
    I notice there was no response from you on this point dayton. left speechless?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    iNow asked:

    Can you please now address some of the questions I've asked of you?
    Not likely. If I thought you were actually seeking answers to your insincere, insidious and invidious questions, I would put forth some effort to address them. However, my perception of you is that you already know all the answers you seek and you have no intention of even considering anything other than your already derived, contrived solutions. As such, why should I waste time.
    You have just proven yet again that you are little more than a deceitful, intellectually dishonest coward.

    I really am genuinely requesting that you take a different tack.

    Will you please address the questions I've posed to you? I'm even willing to pull them together and post them again if that would be helpful to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Arcane commented:
    I notice there was no response from you on this point dayton. left speechless?
    I earlier replied:

    Oh, OK, but which one do you think homo sapiens evolved "from?"
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    iNow asked:

    Will you please address the questions I've posed to you?
    I think I will stick with my earlier decision to follow the admonition of Prov. 26:4.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Arcane commented:
    I notice there was no response from you on this point dayton. left speechless?
    I earlier replied:

    Oh, OK, but which one do you think homo sapiens evolved "from?"
    Did you even read my post?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Daytonturner has misused the term microevolution.

    From Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microev...se_of_the_term

    The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference)...

    The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[48] Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions/
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Quote Originally Posted by iNow
    Will you please address the questions I've posed to you?
    I think I will stick with my earlier decision to follow the admonition of Prov. 26:4.
    Okay. Then not only are you a coward, but you're a ridiculous waste of people's time and an asshole.




    Proverb 26:4:
    Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
    Interestingly, there's also Proverb 26:5:
    Answer a fool. If you don't, he will think himself wise.

    I stand by my assertion. You are little more than an intellectually dishonest coward.






    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious

    <...>

    The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.
    QFT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Arcane asked:

    Did you even read my post?
    Well, yes but I did not see any reason to reply. The taxonomy chart I was looking at did not include kadabba as an ape, but a pre-ape. You said humans are apes. I have no technical argument with that. The response was based on the evolution position that apes evolved from non-apes but that no ape evolved directly from another ape.

    But the salient aspect of your post was found in this sentence

    It's been suggested that Chimpanzees, Bonobos. and Humans are directly decended from A. kadabba (emphasis mine.)
    Assuming that such a suggestion has been made, it is not the same as a conclusion. I think it is safe to say that someone has suggested that the A. in A. kadabba stands for Abbra. Perhaps he was 1,157 generations removed from his namesake, Abraham.

    I lack the time to respond to every statement anyone makes here. That one did not particularly move me to comment.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    iNow: I felt you had already attained the status of wiseness in your own eyes and did not need the assistance of me to answer you according to your folly in an effort to help you get to that point. That is why I felt only Prov. 26:4 applied.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    You're a coward, dayton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    iNow said:

    You're a coward, dayton.
    What! Because I refuse to lower myself to your level of abusive, denegrating, disparaging demeanor. You are a bully and I refuse to crawl into your gutter. You are not able to conduct a civil discussion without resorting to name calling when your antagonist will not yield to your "superior than thou" self image. I have noticed in several threads that when you enter the conversation, it usually disentegrates into a name calling personal attack against the person with whom you disagree that has nothing to do with the conversation.

    It is like there is always a hired gun here. You are the current jeremy or (Q).
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •