i am a evangelical christian

General discussions
Adonai88
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:45 pm

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by Adonai88 » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:04 pm

Hemingway wrote:
Hi Angelo.

It would appear you have been watching some creationist science videos/dvds..... BEWARE!

These people have an agenda and attempt to use snippets of science to back up their claims about the existence of god. I would recommend you watch some of AronRa0s videos on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
sorry, i was unable to see the video. it seems, some technical problems.

He examines some of the "scientific" claims made by creationists and exposes them for what they are. These people have an agenda. Scientists are more often than not in pursuit of the truth no matter where the evidence leads them. This is not the case with creationist "scientists". They are attempting to use science to prove the existence of a supernatural being.
So you want to assert that secular scientists are unbiased, completely open for whatever the outcome of any research might be ?
True science doesn’t comment on the supernatural as it is un-testable by its very nature.
Is Darwins theory testable ?
You MUST make reference to why you think this is the case (scientific peer reviewed papers, articles in scientific journal etc). I would contest your argument with great vigor as I am of the opinion that to think the universe was designed is almost unbelievable.
here we go :

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
I cannot fathom how people actually think this, knowing what we now know through scientific research and discoveries made over the last 100 years or so.

Yet people still claim the universe was designed..... Why?
I gave you alread good reasons. Why do you ignore them ?

What in our human make up makes us want to ignore the pursuit of truth in favour of supernatural explanations?
it looks almost as there is unquestionable proof the universe has NO supernatural origin ?....
Is there any ?
Hemingway
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by Hemingway » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:50 pm

Adonai88 wrote: sorry, i was unable to see the video. it seems, some technical problems.
Its a link to his home page..... not a video. The videos are contained on this homepage
Adonai88 wrote:So you want to assert that secular scientists are unbiased, completely open for whatever the outcome of any research might be ?
I do not claim to speak for all secular scientists in the world. I’m sure some may have an agenda regarding research grants etc, but this is mere speculation on your part and a BLATANT attempt to muddy the waters regarding the point at hand.

I am talking about SCIENCE per se and its goals as opposed to scientists or people who attempt to use science to achieve their own selfish goals. Science follows the evidence wherever it leads.

If a scientist can prove their is a god we here at Atheist Ireland will all believe in him tomorrow. That is a fact. But the supernatural is un-testable. Science therefore does not comment on the supernatural.
Adonai88 wrote:Is Darwin’s theory testable ?
Darwin’s theory of evolution does not comment on the origins of life. It merely examines the way in which species evolved over time. Not only is this testable, anthropologists examining the fossil record are overwhelmed with solid evidence supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution to the point where they are finding it hard to distinguish one stage of the evolution of a species from another.

Once again AronRa's videos on YouTube deal with this in greater detail. PLEASE watch these videos and try to have a clear mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8
Adonai88 wrote: here we go :

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Ahhhh... the discovery Institute. I cant believe you are using them as a source as they have been discredited so many times. Please don’t swallow their crap. They have an AGENDA to teach creationist "science" in American schools. You actually think that report was peer reviewed? Have you looked at the credentials of the "peers"?

They are one of the most notorious groups in America for spreading this propaganda and have been soundly defeated in court because their "science" and "peer reviewed" papers were bogus, unreliable and reviewed by other members of the institute. Please look at how they fared in the following court case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

The Discovery Institute's main thrust has been to promote intelligent design politically to the public. Science need not contradict religious faith, although its findings have sometimes exposed superstitions such as the geocentric theory and a world-wide catastrophic flood. The real irony in all of this is that the Discovery Institute's well-laid plans are doomed to failure from the outset.

Even if they succeeded in their goal of manufacturing the consent needed to replace science with theism, it would only be a matter of time before we began to question the world around us and to turn once again to science as a constructive means for finding answers to our questions
Adonai88 wrote:I gave you alread good reasons. Why do you ignore them ?
I must have missed those reasons. Really, really, really believing something does not make it so my friend.

I will not ignore any GOOD evidence that will forward your case. Please present some first though.............
Adonai88 wrote:it looks almost as there is unquestionable proof the universe has NO supernatural origin ?....
Is there any ?
I am not claiming that there is no creator. That is not my position and I do not claim that at all. I also wish to state that I cannot prove there is no creator but it goes back to the god of the gaps arguement that Nozz posted on here a few weeks back:

Child 1: "Where do babies come from?
Child 2: "The stork brings them"
Child1: "I do not believe that is true"
Child 2: "Well where do you think babies come from then"
Child 1: "I do not know"
Child 2:" See.... the stork brings them!

In the absence of knowledge the second child pulls an explanation out of the air and expects the first child to believe it without evidence.

However, I am not making the claim that there is a creator. YOU are making that claim that there IS a creator not me.

Its up to you the prove your case. I am not here to prove it for you.

All I would say on the matter is that it seems very unlikely to me.

Go ahead.... convince me there is!!!! Please source credible material that has not been discredited or thrown out of court (see above court case) if you can source it.
Dont try to fix me, I'm not broken
Adonai88
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:45 pm

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by Adonai88 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:43 am

If a scientist can prove their is a god we here at Atheist Ireland will all believe in him tomorrow. That is a fact. But the supernatural is un-testable. Science therefore does not comment on the supernatural.
Since the existence of the supernatural cannot be proven, wheter it exists, or not, a right position should be initial neutrality in this regard.
Adonai88 wrote:Is Darwin’s theory testable ?
Darwin’s theory of evolution does not comment on the origins of life. It merely examines the way in which species evolved over time.
agree on that.
Not only is this testable, anthropologists examining the fossil record are overwhelmed with solid evidence supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution to the point where they are finding it hard to distinguish one stage of the evolution of a species from another.
Sorry, i don't agree .

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

Therefore, I accept microevolution as a scientifically reliable theory, which describes the intelligent design with which organisms were endowed by their Designer. However, in contrast to the reliability of microevolutionary theory, macroevolution is not supported by the record of nature or current scientific research. Even evolutionists admit these major problems in the scientific journals (although you are unlikely to find these admissions in textbooks or popular books on evolution)

"Major transitions in evolution - such as the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language, to name but a few - could not be farther from an equilibrium. Also, they cannot be described satisfactorily by established models of microevolution."1

Dr. Fagerstrom


The struggle to find the " missing linc " is a indication of that......
Once again AronRa's videos on YouTube deal with this in greater detail. PLEASE watch these videos and try to have a clear mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8
the link does not work.
Ahhhh... the discovery Institute. I cant believe you are using them as a source as they have been discredited so many times.
Who discredited them, and why ? do the onces, that tried to discredit the discovery institute, not have a agenda ?
Please don’t swallow their crap. They have an AGENDA to teach creationist "science" in American schools. You actually think that report was peer reviewed? Have you looked at the credentials of the "peers"?
Before you call their teachings a crap, have YOU by yourself read and studied, what they have to say, or do you base yourself on mere pre-conceptions ? Can you mention ONE text you read from them ?


Adonai88 wrote:I gave you alread good reasons. Why do you ignore them ?
I must have missed those reasons. Really, really, really believing something does not make it so my friend.

I will not ignore any GOOD evidence that will forward your case. Please present some first though.............
First one : From nothing, nothing derives. Since the Universe had a beginning, it had a beginner. Thats logic.

Second one, which i did not present you yet :

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.


On August 30, 2005, a member of the infidels online forum (screen name “wdog”) posted the following on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board at http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=1

The discussion continued for more than 4 months and 300 posts. At the end, nearly all participants dropped out, having failed to topple my proof or produce any new objections that had not already been addressed. In the course of a very detailed and vigorous discussion my argument did not suffer the slightest injury.

Adonai88 wrote:it looks almost as there is unquestionable proof the universe has NO supernatural origin ?....
Is there any ?
I am not claiming that there is no creator. That is not my position and I do not claim that at all. I also wish to state that I cannot prove there is no creator but it goes back to the god of the gaps arguement that Nozz posted on here a few weeks back:

Child 1: "Where do babies come from?
Child 2: "The stork brings them"
Child1: "I do not believe that is true"
Child 2: "Well where do you think babies come from then"
Child 1: "I do not know"
Child 2:" See.... the stork brings them!
i have answered already on this, see my post above.

However, I am not making the claim that there is a creator. YOU are making that claim that there IS a creator not me.

Its up to you the prove your case. I am not here to prove it for you.

All I would say on the matter is that it seems very unlikely to me.

Go ahead.... convince me there is!!!! Please source credible material that has not been discredited or thrown out of court (see above court case) if you can source it.
Sorry, i have not asserted there is a God. I have just said I BELIEVE , God exists, based on solid evidence, which i am presenting here. Therefore, i have anything to proove. I am here, just to testify my faith.
Hobbesian World View
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by Hobbesian World View » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:09 am

BTW did you know that 90% of "born again" people, stop attending church after the initial euphoria has worn off*. After a while, they start to feel theyve been conned, cheated and lied to. Isnt it obvious that most evangelical churches are just businesses looking to grow in size. Wake up, Adonai. Dont believe everything the leaders tell you. Think for yourself.

* Source - Every Nation Christian Church Marketing Strategy Document
JH
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by JH » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:25 am

Adonai88 wrote:I have just said I BELIEVE , God exists, based on solid evidence, which i am presenting here.
Go on then.

Incidentally, 'solid evidence' does not include stuff you've imagined.
Hemingway
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by Hemingway » Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:50 am

Adonai88 wrote: Since the existence of the supernatural cannot be proven, wheter it exists, or not, a right position should be initial neutrality in this regard.
If the existence of something cannot be proven well than the logical conclusion is that IT CANNOT BE PROVEN.... nothing more.

10 foot yellow monkey people may live on Pluto and eat cabbage and spuds on Wednesdays, but we cannot prove that. Therefore if a person comes forward and states that "10 foot yellow monkey people may live on Pluto and they eat cabbage and spuds on Wednesdays" they MAY be right and we cannot prove them wrong, but it is up to them to prove their case if they want to be taken seriously.

It is also our duty to treat them with the height of skepticism until they prove their position. The more outlandish the claim the more we can be expected to treat them with skepticism.

But if the person making the claim states that they really, really believe that these monkeys exist, and they cannot imagine life without the monkeys well what do you say to that?

I accept some people believe in strange things that are unverifiable and unprovable and that is their choice. Good luck to em. I, however, need evidence. Filling the gaps in our current knowledge of the origins of the universe with supernatural explainations seems illogical and unscientific to me.
Adonai88 wrote: Sorry, i don't agree .

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

Therefore, I accept microevolution as a scientifically reliable theory, which describes the intelligent design with which organisms were endowed by their Designer. However, in contrast to the reliability of microevolutionary theory, macroevolution is not supported by the record of nature or current scientific research. Even evolutionists admit these major problems in the scientific journals (although you are unlikely to find these admissions in textbooks or popular books on evolution)

"Major transitions in evolution - such as the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language, to name but a few - could not be farther from an equilibrium. Also, they cannot be described satisfactorily by established models of microevolution."1

Dr. Fagerstrom


The struggle to find the " missing linc " is a indication of that.....
.
Before you source more questionable material, please note that godandscience.org was started up by Richard L. Deem who is an Apologist and an evangelical Christian, who is ministering to reach scientists and is also a creationist.... AGENDA ALERT. Although he is a scientist he is one of the very few that promotes in creationism and his name always crops up when creationists attempt to make a case for the creator. This is called "an argument from authority".

In other words you pick someone who has good qualifications in a sphere of research and take the position that if this well qualified person says its true, well then it must be true. This is a logical fallacy.

Your quote above stating "Major transitions in evolution - such as the origin of life..." is once again being tagged onto the theory of evolution. Another mistake. Origin of life and evolution are two different things. Creationists always seem to mix the two separate subjects up.

On this issue of micro V marcro evolution, no biologist has ever said that a fish ever evolved into a cat but most biologists would agree that modern day fish and modern day cats evolved from a common ancestor. That is not the same as a fish turning into a cat. So you won't find any half fish half cat fossils, and the theory of evolution does not propose that you should.

Neither Darwin, nor any evolutionist since has believed that humans are descended from monkeys. The theory of evolution proposes that all primates, humans monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees etc are all descended from the same common ancestor. It is therefore impossible for us to be descended from monkeys.

To call Evolution "science", Evolutionists must produce empirical findings to support their theories. They've been publishing such peer reviewed research and evidence since 1859.

To call Creationism "science", Creationists must produce empirical findings to support their theories. But no creationist has ever provided a single scrap of empirical peer reviewed evidence to support the theory that every single species that ever has lived and still lives was created all at once on the same day about 6,000 years ago.

The entire edifice of creationism rests on attempts to debunk evolution, which is simply one long string of Affirming the Consequent errors in logic after another. Disproving evolution does not imply creation by default.

The evidence of evolution, and even the event of evolution itself, –the proof of it- are both directly observed, and testable, and demonstrably factual. But religious beliefs are none of the above and never have been; they’re assumed on faith. Whether or not these beliefs turn out to be correct, they are asserted as true without justification in the form of evidence.

As regards the "missing link" demanding an “ape-man” is actually just as silly as asking to see a mammal-man, or a half-human, half-vertebrate. One may as well insist on seeing a town half way between Los Angeles and California. Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included.

Adonai88 wrote:the link does not work.
The link works on my PC. You may have a problem with your firewall or PC......
Adonai88 wrote:Who discredited them, and why ? do the onces, that tried to discredit the discovery institute, not have a agenda ?
How about a court of law in the United States?

Please look at the link to the court case above. In case it doesn’t work for you, here is a piece from wikipedia:
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Adonai88 wrote:Before you call their teachings a crap, have YOU by yourself read and studied, what they have to say, or do you base yourself on mere pre-conceptions ? Can you mention ONE text you read from them
Yes. You will find that many people on here read these things to research their arguments.

I have read "Darwin on Trial", "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" and "Survival of the Fakest" all endorsed by the institute. And on a point of order, one does not have to read every single publication by them to know what they are about when they have been openly exposed for what they are by the Dover trail (above).
Adonai88 wrote: First one : From nothing, nothing derives. Since the Universe had a beginning, it had a beginner. Thats logic.

Second one, which i did not present you yet :

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.


On August 30, 2005, a member of the infidels online forum (screen name “wdog”) posted the following on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board at http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=1

The discussion continued for more than 4 months and 300 posts. At the end, nearly all participants dropped out, having failed to topple my proof or produce any new objections that had not already been addressed. In the course of a very detailed and vigorous discussion my argument did not suffer the slightest injury.
You seem to have lifted this straight from a creationist website. Your statement "From nothing, nothing derives. Since the Universe had a beginning, it had a beginner. Thats logic." is NOT logical. In fact its illogical and you are invoking the god of the gaps even though you say you are not. That is dishonest and total blinkered vision on your part.

Man made things are designed (a car, a building) but biological beings evolve over time. I cannot state how we initially came to be nor how the universe got here, but I certainly wouldn’t claim we were created WITHOUT PROOF.

And if you do prove your case, you then must prove who created the creator etc etc etc....

Once someone proves it, I'll believe it.
Adonai88 wrote:i have answered already on this, see my post above.
You cant explain it so you state you believe it because of faith. Well faith is just another term for stating that you dont have to prove something. But if you want to convince us that your position is correct, you will need more than your faith. You will have to prove to us that your case is sound.

If you are not here to convince us, well then why are you here?
Adonai88 wrote:Sorry, i have not asserted there is a God. I have just said I BELIEVE , God exists, based on solid evidence, which i am presenting here. Therefore, i have anything to proove. I am here, just to testify my faith.
You can believe whatever you like. As long as you admit that it is a belief, you don’t have to defend it. But if you assert your belief as a statement of fact, then you do have to defend it! Stating anything as definitely true when there is insufficient evidence to back it –is dishonest.
Dont try to fix me, I'm not broken
Neil
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:27 am
Location: Dublin

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by Neil » Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:35 pm

Angelo, I highly recommend you read Darwin's Origin of Species. It's not at all difficult to understand, and it's freely available on the internet. Once you realise that "Evolutionism" does not intend to explain anything other than the means by which species evolve (and it does so with such startling simplicity and elegance), you will find it alot less threatening to your beliefs, and won't attack it unnecessarily.

Here's some links to the text and some audio versions (I've checked them, and they're all working):

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228 - Plain text

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22764/22 ... 2764-h.htm - HTML

http://librivox.org/the-origin-of-speci ... es-darwin/ - Links to .mp3 or .ogg files of individual chapters, and .zip files of the whole book

http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2008/ ... arwin.html - My personal favourite. Edited and read by Richard Dawkins. Links to .rar files of the book.

Apologies for the fact that all of these are in English, although your English seems good enough for this not to be much of a problem. If you search, I'm sure you'll find translations.
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it."
- Terry Pratchett
Adonai88
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:45 pm

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by Adonai88 » Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:47 pm

Hemingway wrote: 10 foot yellow monkey people may live on Pluto and eat cabbage and spuds on Wednesdays, but we cannot prove that. Therefore if a person comes forward and states that "10 foot yellow monkey people may live on Pluto and they eat cabbage and spuds on Wednesdays" they MAY be right and we cannot prove them wrong, but it is up to them to prove their case if they want to be taken seriously.
Again : i am not here to prove anything, but to testify my faith.
It is also our duty to treat them with the height of skepticism until they prove their position. The more outlandish the claim the more we can be expected to treat them with skepticism.
Again : i am not here, to prove something.
I accept some people believe in strange things that are unverifiable and unprovable and that is their choice. Good luck to em. I, however, need evidence. Filling the gaps in our current knowledge of the origins of the universe with supernatural explainations seems illogical and unscientific to me.
Why do you insist in this argument , if i have given you the answer of my standpoint in this regard already ? It seems you are not interested to examine impartially my arguments, but just to defend your already taken pre conceptions.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... _gaps.html
.
Before you source more questionable material, please note that godandscience.org was started up by Richard L. Deem who is an Apologist and an evangelical Christian, who is ministering to reach scientists and is also a creationist.... AGENDA ALERT. Although he is a scientist he is one of the very few that promotes in creationism and his name always crops up when creationists attempt to make a case for the creator. This is called "an argument from authority".In other words you pick someone who has good qualifications in a sphere of research and take the position that if this well qualified person says its true, well then it must be true. This is a logical fallacy.
Maiby you note as well, that i have not mentioned who actually is behind the cited homepage,
and have not committed a fallacious appeal to authority.

But , lets give a consideration to this argument.

Does the fact that many of the brightest philosophers believe in God give us a reason to join atheist apologists in dismissing theism as delusional ? Why ?
If many extremely brilliant people have thought about God carefully, subjected God to rigorous logical analysis, and have come to believe in God, should this not give us reason to refrain from lazily dismissing God as childish or delusional ? A more indepth investigation would be reasonable, don't you think ?

If interested, you might give a look at this homepage, where some of the brightest philosophers are mentioned, which are theists :

http://rationalperspective.wordpress.co ... losophers/
On this issue of micro V marcro evolution, no biologist has ever said that a fish ever evolved into a cat but most biologists would agree that modern day fish and modern day cats evolved from a common ancestor.
They agree on that , based on what ?? There does not exist ANY hard evidence to support this claim, and can be described at best as philosophical belief, not scientific in essence.

New cellular evolution theory rejects single cell beginning

http://news.illinois.edu/scitips/02/0617evoltion.html

Bushes in the Tree of Life

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser ... 40352&ct=1

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

An analysis of the tree of life at its most basic level (kingdoms) indicates that organisms do not share common descent (38). A few dozen microbial genomes have been fully sequenced and the results indicate that there is no clear pattern of descent. Certain species of Archea ("ancient bacteria that are best known for living in extreme environments) are more closely related to species of eubacteria ("common" bacteria) than they are to members of their own kingdom. In fact, many microbial species share genes found in eukaryotes (non-microbial organisms characterized by the presence of a nucleus in the cell).

That is not the same as a fish turning into a cat. So you won't find any half fish half cat fossils, and the theory of evolution does not propose that you should.
But the assertion of macroevolution ( supported by evolutionists ) claims exactly that.


To call Evolution "science", Evolutionists must produce empirical findings to support their theories.
To call Creationism "science", Creationists must produce empirical findings to support their theories. But no creationist has ever provided a single scrap of empirical peer reviewed evidence to support the theory that every single species that ever has lived and still lives was created all at once on the same day about 6,000 years ago.
http://www.rae.org/empirical.html

Kevin Padian, professor of integrative biology and curator in the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California at Berkeley and co-editor of The Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, reviewed a book on evolution in the February 2000 issue of Scientific American. The book was In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life by evolutionist Dr. Henry Gee, an editor and senior writer at the prestigious scientific journal Nature. Dr. Gee is also a paleontologist with experience in the field.

Prof. Padian’s review, entitled “What the Media Don’t Tell You about Evolution,” contained some astonishing admissions. For example, Padian stated:

“Gee shows that many traditional explanations of major evolutionary transitions are not testable and therefore have no scientific content….[For example,] ideas about how flight must have evolved, he says, rely on faith in the particular workings of natural selection or other evolutionary processes” (Padian 2000: 103).
The entire edifice of creationism rests on attempts to debunk evolution, which is simply one long string of Affirming the Consequent errors in logic after another. Disproving evolution does not imply creation by default.
these are emply assertions.
The evidence of evolution, and even the event of evolution itself, –the proof of it- are both directly observed, and testable, and demonstrably factual.
We agree on microevolution - not on macroevolution.
But religious beliefs are none of the above and never have been; they’re assumed on faith.
The Evolution Theory is also - basically , based on faith.
Whether or not these beliefs turn out to be correct, they are asserted as true without justification in the form of evidence.
The same can be said about the Evolution Theory. :wink:

Man made things are designed (a car, a building) but biological beings evolve over time. I cannot state how we initially came to be nor how the universe got here, but I certainly wouldn’t claim we were created WITHOUT PROOF.
despite many attacks and attempts, Behes Irreducible Complexity has not been debunked , therefore it makes much more sense, to believe, all biological beings have initially beeing designed. Molecular biology ( DNA ) and abiogenesis also are hurdles , which evolutionits are unable to overcome.

And if you do prove your case, you then must prove who created the creator etc etc etc....

Once someone proves it, I'll believe it.
have you given a read on the homepage, i linked to, that gives the answer ?

If God Created Everything, Who Created God?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... d_god.html

Adonai88 wrote: You can believe whatever you like. As long as you admit that it is a belief, you don’t have to defend it. But if you assert your belief as a statement of fact, then you do have to defend it! Stating anything as definitely true when there is insufficient evidence to back it –is dishonest.
Conclusive Proof , and evidence, are two different things in my understanding. Nobody has proofs either side. But i have rocksolid evidence to make my point, and to justify my faith.
You are free to think about it, whatever you want.
Last edited by Adonai88 on Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Neil
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:27 am
Location: Dublin

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by Neil » Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:19 pm

Angelo, hi.

Your claim that the theory of evolution is based on faith is only true insofar as you'll accept that the theory of gravity is also based on faith. I have a feeling you're willing to accept that gravity exists, without necessarily knowing the intricacies of how it works. Evolution is generally accepted as fact, just as gravity is.

Also, I'd like you to explain what exactly you think the differences between micro- and macro-evolution are. I have a feeling you've been fed some propaganda by some creationists.

This is worth reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolu ... oevolution
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually brandished by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1]

These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.[3][4] The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[5][6]

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Macroevolution, by the definition commonly used by creationist critics, cannot be attained. They describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it."
- Terry Pratchett
nozzferrahhtoo
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Post by nozzferrahhtoo » Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:41 pm

Adonai,

You keep claiming you are not here to prove anything.

First, considering you have trotted out all the previously debunked cliché arguments for same I really don’t believe that claim. You are here to prove it when you can and you say you are not when you fail. However this is not the point I want to make.

The point I wasn’t to make is this. If you are NOT here to prove anything then I am afraid I for one have no interest in what you have to say.

Let me explain.

If could say “I will drive you to the shop in my car”. Before you would be interested in this you would have to know that:

a) I have a car
b) I can drive said car
c) There is a shop
d) There is a useable driving pathway between our location and said shop

Until you believe these things (first level premises) you cannot believe that I will drive you to the shop in said vehicle (second level premise).

If you are here to just testify to your faith, or espouse your ideas or positions based on it, then you are presenting to us a “Second level premise”. The basis of this is that there is a god (first level premise).

Until you show the first level premise to be true, I for one, have no interest in any second level premise you chose to present. I would wager most people here feel similar. Therefore you will achieve nothing more than wasting your own time.

So really, I have no interest in your faith, what it does for you, what you want it to do for others or how good it feels… until such time as you show the first level premise of your faith to be true, anything you build on top of this is worthless to me.

So far you have presented NO evidence for the base premise. You have merely claimed that it is currently not provable and we should be open to it. Fine. We are open. Incredibly open. But being open doesn’t mean accepting it is true. Being open is accepting the evidence when it is presented. Evidence you have not bothered to provide.

Too many people think that “being open” to something means “Just accepting it”.

I have asked for evidence from many people, both better and worse than yourself, and no one has yet provided me with any. If you have any, I am as always AGOG to hear it.
Post Reply