Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Why don't you start new threads if you want to debate the Resurrection and the Shroud of Turin? We can include the matching Sudarium of Oviedo if you like.

http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

 

I wouldnt know. I said some people.

It is not, tho, unusual to find instances of the great minds of the past getting
things laughably wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

I didnt see a question there, I saw something else entirely, namely uncalled for and false personal remarks.

 

Why when the point is moot. Radiocarbon dating "These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval."

Nothing to be gained from a debate of obfuscation.

 

I agree with most of your post. I also I support most of the claims of evolution, and do not feel evolution is diametrically opposed to my spiritual beliefs. In fact they are sometimes compatible and lend credence to one another. However I do not think there was enough time for earthly evolution alone to produce the number of species that exists today. One rather shocking claim and one that I happen to agree with is that over 95% of species that once existed are now extinct. Of course one of the reasons I like it is because it agrees with the time issues facing evolution of the species by yada yada~. The comet theory (emergence of life via depositing carbon based i.e. organics etc on the early earth) helps science a bit as does some alternate theories and tweaks of Darwin’s original theory. That said the time issue as well as gaps and other discrepancies in the fossil record and other problems that evolution becomes insurmountable with anything but faith, and its by faith and wishful thinking that the seculars pin their hopes of evolution being a law. ~ Scientific Faith.... that is ironic isn’t it?



reva

 

Not in the least bit true. Atheists on here regularly acknowledge that science can get it wrong. The great thing about science is when that is determined it is acknowledged and the former belief rejected. It strives to find truth, not cling to discredited beliefs.

 

The point being that hoaxes regarding things like Noah's Ark, or miracles, or indeed any such thing are considerably more common than any true scientific hoaxes.

There is nothing embarrassing about what he had to say. Not a single thing about it paints the theory of evolution in a negative light. Yeah, science has a materialist component. Because we have literally no way to assess anything outside of materialism. There is no mechanism to evaluate truth claims that are not materialist in nature, and and such evaluation will naturally lead to a materialist answer. We can't "let a divine foot in the door" because the moment we do, we stop looking for answers, as literally every question can be answered with "God did it", and scientific endeavor ceases to hold meaning.

 

You do not feel that a few hundred million years is enough time?
You feel it is "shocking" that most species are extinct? And that "agrees with" the "time issue"?

That is just vague nonsense!

As for comet, well, comet schmadommit. The origin of life has nothing to do with ToE.


Your statement about "gaps" to big to bridge with "faith' is just vapour. You cannot give an example, and "bridge with faith" is just a nonsense phrase.

Discussion of the merits of ToE without any facts / data ever brought to bear is pointless.
Please present a fact that is contrary to ToE or just accept that your distaste fof
ToE is just based on how you feel.

 

You share one thing with an unhinged atheist on here, FreedomSeeker.
When confronted with arguments you can't handle you ignore them, just pretend they never happened.
You do this regularly with me.
You've done it again.

 

Hypersensitive much? Where was the insult in the post you quoted? Are you going to claim it's insulting to point out that you're being hypersensitive?

 

Does it with me too.

 

Oh, there is no insult from me, and its not hypersensitive either.

We see this, people who cry "insult" at the least of excuse or in this case, no excuse at all.
No post content at all, just pulling out rhetorical plays, the "thanks for proving" and the fake insult.

The purpose of the "insult" claim is to
- put the other person on the defensive if possible
-insult them by claiming they resorting to insult
and
-claim the moral high ground

I noted earlier that P7 was running thru the list of cheap rhetorical stunts, but he's not to the end of it yet.

 

You consider making a false accusation, that atheists say science is infallible, is "questioning" and not "smearing"?
I consider it dishonest. Is it an insult to point out when you are simply declaring untruths?

 

Anything to avoid admitting being wrong. This is the same guy who looked at crime rising between the 60s and the 90s, then dropping off hard after that, and determined that there's a clean correlation between crime and religiosity in the USA. And nothing said past that point could convince him otherwise. Paul, you are completely unreasonable and absolutely incapable of admitting that you are wrong, regardless of how wrong you are.

 

We have never yet seen a fundamentalist / creationist who will ever admit to being wrong.

I wonder what is behind that correlation.

 

Pretty simple I think.
Secularists seek the truth wherever they find it, and adjust their understanding with the further introduction of data.
Or at least they should.
Fundamentalists can not afford to alter their understanding. New information can threaten the very underpinnings of their worldview, so some pretty incredible rejections of premises, distortions of logic and declarations of absurdities follow. New information is the enemy, whereas for the secularist it represents an opportunity to shimmy just a bit closer to the "truth".

 

If do not accept evolution you are either:

a. Lieing about it
b. Do not understand it

So what about the platypus?

 

I am saying that empirical approaches break down in this one regard and that math and science -- the atheist's morphine and heroine -- don't apply as debunking tools. Conversely no 'true believer' can use mere faith to convince an atheist that God exists.

As for the juvenile approach of 'Do you also then believe in leprechauns,' that is as meaningless because a localized belief in the wee creatures has never spread across the globe and altered the fate of empires. So in that regard it is a matter of both scale and intensity. So far as history can state nobody has ever faced down a self-righteous mob and then talked them down via faith in leprechauns. Nor for that matter willingly gone to his or her gruesome death in defense of a belief in leprechauns.

So you are simply approaching the verification or refutation scheme with the wrong methodology at hand.

 

What you mean, perhaps, is how does one justify the leap of faith necessary to be a believer when there is no irrefutable proof of any divinity anywhere at any point in time in the history of humanity? You would have me describe sight to a fellow born blind in any manner that would have real meaning?

On the other hand I could point out that being an atheist is a matter of absolute faith that there is no God, no Eightfold Path, no Tao, no Karma, no Dharma, no nothing but electrons dancing around neutrons and protons working randomly to produce thinking and emoting intelligence.

 

Nice try...but you know, as well as I do, there is just as much evidence for the existence of Leprechauns as there is god. SO....do you believe in Leprechauns exist?...Yes or not, it's very simple. If not, why not...and why doesn't that same logic or line of reasoning apply to a belief in god.

No, you're simply afraid to show how intellectually dishonest you are.

 

Okay then let's try it this way. I am not saying that it's impossible to arrive at a logical refutation of the existence of God [that's fairly easy to do, in fact]; all I am saying is that it still remains impossible to take logical argument that one final step into irrefutable proof that God does not exist.

 

Or indeed much evidence of its existence whatsoever.

I don't know why you'd reach for that analogy. Why do you believe in god?

You've mangled the definition of "atheist" - atheists can but usually do not hold any affirmative belief that a god does not exist. Rather, most atheists simply lack belief. They see no reason to believe in any god or gods, so they don't. I don't believe in any God because I have not found any good reason to believe it, and I'm not willing to suspend my critical thinking for the claim. I'm not willing to suspend my critical thinking for any claim. As Matt Dillahunty once said:

Another great quote from him:

 

With you until the last bit about your definition of atheist.
It is a lack of belief in any of those things, not absolute faith they don't exist. That would be a declaration of faith. Atheist say they don't think so. There are very few absolutes regarding atheism.

 

I know that belief is a sore point with atheists and yet usually one goes from informal believer [part of a faith system but not all that serious about it] to agnostic [unsure whether or not there is a God] to atheist [I KNOW that there is no God]; and that last step is usually an act of both defiance and relief, and both that defiance and relief is based on a core of faith that there is no God.

There is no omnipotent and omniscient being who's going to judge this belief object called a soul and there is no hell and eternal torment and no heaven and an eternity of love and belonging. There is only death and an end to sentience, and end to awareness and self-awareness. There is only a shocking instant of relief as the heart finally stops beating and then there isn't even relief remaining. There is nothing but dark and silence and then even no awareness of those . . . .

But -- if you were even a semi-involved Christian or Buddhist, Hindi or even Taoist first -- then there's the whole other stuff to work through first while you travel toward the path to atheism. Yes, if you follow that particular path then there is at least some belief involved before, during, and after. It just mutates into different forms of belief along the way. The only way to avoid this should be never to have been involved in any meaningful way in any of the world's religions in the first place.

 

We may be confusing definitions as traditionally agnostics lack belief -- as in I don't know if there really is a God -- whereas atheists firmly declare that there is no God. To declare something so adamantly then you have to KNOW. To know something that can neither be proved or disproved via math or science requires faith.

 

I'd say that also screws with the etymology of agnostic (the root word being the Greek "Gnosis", denoting knowledge). The way most modern atheists explain it is that theism/atheism is a binary component - you either believe in a god or you do not - whereas agnostic/gnostic is a gradient component - you either know or you do not know, or alternatively you think you can know, or you think you can't know. It's a big fat mess, but which terms are used is ultimately unimportant. What's important is that you understand that most modern, self-identifying atheists (more to the point of this discussion: myself included), regardless of what you want to call them, do not affirmatively believe that there is no god. Rather, they reject the idea that there is a god. A small but very crucial difference. It's the difference between saying "I believe you when you say there's a pink fluffy unicorn over that hill" and "It is impossible that there's a pink fluffy unicorn over that hill."

(Also, it may be dancing on rainbows.)

But back to my question... Why do you believe? What makes you believe in a god? What convinced you to believe in your conception of god?