DISCLAIMER PLEASE READ:
This is NOT meant to start a heated debate, although I have no control over what comes of this. I am going to post a conversation I've been having with someone and I want your take on my responses from both an analytical view and that of which you believe I am answering in a rational manner. I want to know if I am adressing the subject matter properly and if I am making sense and possibly where I could improve. This thread isnt meant to be a self improvement thing, hence it is afterall Intellectual Discussion, but I want to know for once in my life If I am actually coming from a point of rationality in both the eyes of the intellects of TFF and belivers in god (as god and evolution are not mutually exclusive).
Another reason for me posting this is that I need some help on learning how to deal with this because I see this person regularly and I dont want to even talk about this but its pissing me off because he looks down on me with this arrogance which is totally unwarranted and its anoyying, id rather not talk about it at all but he insists. And yes, you win Alpha, I can totally relate to my past behaviour in poking and prodding people about their beliefs, some things are just better left unsaid because I seriously cannot give two shits anymore.
Let me know how I handled this or how I should have handled this.
Mr.j: Atheists will try and make fun of the bible because they just dont believe anything it says , but that belief comes from miseducation not proof, theyl tell u things like the earth was flat according to the bible.. when infact that is a lie the hebrew clearly says the word 'sphere' . See its easy to disprove the bible to an uneducated atheist because the uneducated atheist will never read the bible so he himself has to go off what other people say. So majority of atheists believe in evolution because its what is taught in public schools .. and to the general public its sounds rational because there are no uneducated atheists that study wether the theory is just theory or wether its proven fact... and I will agree with you 100% that u cannot prove a miracle , but u cannot prove the evolution of the world over millions of years either . Both sides have the same evidences like in a court of law . But one is theory against the possibility' of evolution and the other has actual historic proof and theory based on observational science.
Me: In the pursuit of knowledge and truth Im open to ideas but as I said, I'll treat them as such and make up my own mind just as you have. You must understand that it's hard for me to accept information that would contradict that of someone whom I look Upto with great respect, especially when they are an expert in their field. I was just trying to get my point across that what Lawrence Krause works towards is something beyond our comprehension because I could not possibly foresee how something could come from nothing, but he really does and is close to actually proving it, which will be amazing to see and a possible game changer to the world of physics.
Mr.J:Being close to proving anything is not proof and string theory is just another theory with no explanation other than assupmtions.. if u ask me if there is a God I will tell u yes under my assumption which I cant prove, krause gives great compeling assumptions too but until proven it remains theory just like god does, fact is im not trying to prove wether there is a god or not im using scientific data to see how old the earth is how the layers for . How we have not yet reached equilibrium as far as c14 (carbon analysis) wich scince equation studying it like as a matter of present day events has to be withing 30000 years and it gets younger the more we understand radiometric dating. my good friend this is wat im trying to share to the world .. that there are vicious lies being taught about science evolution and religion to keep us subservient and make us believe we can achieve god like beings in the far future..
Eg . Catholic church=evil doctrine Christian church =peaceful doctrine Macro evolution =lies Microevolution=truth Etc etc
He then linked me to a video of a man named Kent Hovind, which I regrettably spent time watching.
Me: Hey Mr.J, I finished watchign a few of those videos and the whole time I was thinking, "i WISH this guy was putting these propositions toward someone like Richard Dawkins"
as for the quality of these propositions put fourth by kent hovind, I can only speculate because I dont understand the subject matter to have a valid opinion, especially when the responses arnt typically in a fasion I understand either.
interesting, nevertheless
Kent hovind is a conspiracy theorist though, is he not? I dont buy into a lot of that stuff man, contrart to what you might believe..
Mr.J: Kent hovind is not a conspiracy theorist although claims have been made on public domains such as Wikipedia .. which I think thats where ur conclusion comes from. And he wouldv debated richard dorkins but richard refused the debate.. along with many other scientists. . Kent hovind is a paleontologist, and also devoted his life to science along with countless other creation scientists. And im glad u havent drawn a coclusion based on wikipedia .. u have my respect for that , however I have studied the subject matter and I do understand his scientific evidence .. ill send u another link on other top atheist scientists that covert to creationist origins (not through belief obvioulsy theyre atheist ) throught the study of science and evolution.. so in other word u tell me that u dont understand the subject matter of the proof but u do understand the subject matter on the theory based on the conjuction of the same subject matter? One being radiometric dating , fossils etc etc And its cool if u dont buy it... but how can u buy' something just as theoretical.... im not trying to make u believe in God . I cant do that maybe never could.. what I am pointing out is that evolution is not scientific. . It is not science and it is only a theory.. once u can begin to understand the conceptuality of that then my point would be met. Did u not say that if it wasnt for evolution there would be no such subjects as paleontology? Biochemistry? Molecular biology ? There are many fields in science that dont rely on the theory of evolution tonnes and if evolution was never thought of all these fields would still be apparent..
Me: Yeah sure I accept there are many forms of science that do not rely on evolution or that have stemmed from other avenues, but my point is that if evolution is such a lie, then huge fields such as biology are worth nothing, in your words because such a science relies on the theory of evolution, which is as observable and evident as gravity (which is to say that its testable, observable and repeatable) the three main methods of scientific testing which are based on data which is recognized as fact. For every atheist turned creationist, I can account for with other videos and documentation of creationist turned atheist, both in the field of sciences and without. So we will get nowhere comparing conversions because those kind of conversions actually favor creationists turning to atheism. And just so we are clear, and I am VERY certain of this, atheism is the 'lack' of belief in a god, which can also be phrased as the rejection based on lack of evidence. Agnosticism is just a fence sitting term created to confuse people's idealogy. As I have said before and you also agreed with, unless you beleive in a god with absolute conviction (100% certainty), you are an atheist. So an atheist job not to prove it doesnt exist, but to remain on the side that is confident it does not, because of a lack of evidence. You know why I dont like to use the term, because people are often confused by it, and rightfully so, because its been linked with the term heretic, which is essentially the same thing, one who lacks belief in a god. The problem I have with some of these sceintists, is that amoung all sceientsits who are currently still working within their field, these are recognized as frauds. The fact that hovind was convicted of fraud (whether its true or not, is another debate) furthar goes to show more about his character and im inclined to believe that purely based on the fact that there is absolutley no logical reason not too that doesn't fall u nder the catagory of conspiracy, which as I've mentioned to you, I dont buy into. If you were to compare someone like hovind to Dawkins of whom I hold in very high regard due to his achievments in his field, I was immediately take the side of dawkins based on his contributions and devotion to the field over the course of his entire life. How can you argue that? How could you argue that science proves a science wrong, when someone like dawkins would simply contradict you? I know drop his name a lot, but its because I dont know many evolutionary biologists, but I know that his contribtions are recognized all over the world. Comparatively speaking, you could sugguest to me that there is a scientist who disagrees with him, but unless I actually could test these sciences for myself with the aid of tools and the like that are used by such biologists, I couldnt even then be able to tell you what I was seeing, i would still need someone who is qualified to explain it to me, therefor the argument that science explains why evolution is bullshit is completely lost on me, and I can only go to me best source, which is the work of Dawkins. I actually have a few of his books which are really informative to someone like me who is not a scientist, but is a written in a way I can understand. If you would like I could reccomend these books to you, because if you have read them perhaps you would come to the same conclusion I have...
Mr j: Evolution is not science. ... look at the termenology of science.. creation is not science either.. amd I dont claim that but biology has nothing to do with macro evolution, thats silly. There are tons of creationist scientist who study biology .. but biology does not need the theory of evolution to be apparent .. Dawkins is famous because he pushed darwenism that is it . All these other scientists have given their life to their fields fame does not strengthen credability ... fact is you dont want to believe that there is another possibility , because in your head u are 100 percent certain in your head that evolution is real, congratulations u have just fallen into the catagory of a religion which u have faith' in ..Wikipedia is owned by darwenist corporations.. this is why you cant rely of this type of domain for accurately scientific evidence.. if u look up the term evolution. It is a theory base on biological analysis it doesnt mean that biochemistry would be obsolete without evolution.. quite the contrary without biology and biochemistry the evolution theory cannot be studied.. but looking for terms like evolution on a darwenist site will tell u that evolution is fact it never states that its a theory.. and that is wrong. Its not true and its a vicious lie. Evolution is not science get it through your head bro.. its a theory studied with the tools of science. How do u explain trees found upside down and also trees upright going through strata supposedly millions of years .. tell me . How are fossils formed? Well one way they cannot form is being exposed to oxygen.. thats a fact. . They are either impressions on clay (foot prints ) or bones found in rock.. alot of which have remains of skin and organs .. meaning quick deaths by landslide or mud. When evolutionists say an asteroid wiped them out usually telling is that tidal waves or water caused their fall. Because near impact zones ther is no evidence as any living thing wouldv been disintegrated. Which leave the question of the different ages of when certain dinosaurs lived .. one being that large carnivorous dinosaurs didnt live at the same time as large long necks that we knew from what layers of strata they had been found .. but new discoveries show that mamoths have been found in the same layers as the t rex .. witch tell us that they lived at the same time... hope im not losing u... and the mamoth we kno that it lived at the time of humans.. that is fact we have evidence of this as humans have been found in alaska in the same layers and the mamoths have been found with spears in them.. so suddenly we have a dicrepency in evolution of millions of years . Stating that certain dinosaurs without a doubt have lived with humans or at the same time. Different civilisations have wall carvings of dinosaurs including american indians to the temples of angkor wat with I myself have visited and seen ..all civilisations have stories and artifacts talking about dinosaurs or dragons. Including alexander the great , marco polo (which they mention in their books with great detail to be alive in their time) and hundrends more , many of which have been respected historians with such credentials they are used as a part of science history.. all of which mention dinosaurs before any dinosaur skeleton was ever found by modern archeologists.. how can we explain that... Wev been lied to believe there are races higher than others.. and was widely published around the time of slavery.. u can continue to believe a theory that is constantly renewing itself and has lied to u thats fine I really dont care... u have been conditioned and brought up to a certain belief and agenda. This is why natives are wiped out because they contain facts and secrets that wouldv shattered darwenist conquerors. . This is the same reason religion is rediculed because they want to impose this new way of thinkin the new world 'order' . They want the whole world to hang off their every word and I believe that alot of good scientists have themselves been misled to keep the theory alive .. because when people sart forgetting its just theory it becomes fact in people head... I think u have to do alot more reasearch in both fields and history to start to bteak away from traditional engrainment and start seeing the bigger picture of truth... evidential truth.
Me Sorry Mr.J but if you believe natives were wiped out because they hold secrets to the past then I can't convince you otherwise. Thats conspiracy theory talk. I don't mean offence it's just I disagree with you. You keep telling me the facts are there but you don't give them to me, you link me to frauds and non respected scientist and then continue to tell me that I'm the one that's brainwashed. Is it really unreasonable and unexpected that I would take the word of a respected scientist over a scientist who believes in supernatural occurrences and government conspiracies? I don't think that im making an irrational choice all things considered... Unless you can prove to me gravity is a lie, I have no reason to assume evolution is. Because neither theory can be proven to certainty, yet here were are... Not floating ibto space..
mr.J Richard dawkins is respected by darwenists because they fund him... There is no conspiracy here. The only conspiracy is people thinking that there are race is theworld lesser than ours in the human race when in fact that was proven wrong by evolutionist which he said there is only 1 race that is the human race.All the facts that i have told you you take for lies or fraudulent information. . That Is your faith getting in the way of scientific reason and logic . The end of the day i am not interested converting you because you sir are the 1 that has been brainwashed. Myth legend n history 3 different things i think you should study more history. Im done debating a rock with theory based faith.
If you made it here then I thank you and await your feedback, but at this point if the topic ever emerges with him again, then I will just refuse to discuss it as I believe im talking to someone who has literally lost their mind. What I really want to know is, during this entire subject, Were any points made? Theres certain people I'm really hoping to chime in on this one
Last edited by Rowan; 06-03-2014 at 09:11 PM.
The guy's not worth debating. The big giveaway is "it's not science it's only a theory". Well, duh. Very little in science is known with certainty. Science is composed of competing theories with adherents and detractors, over time leading to consensus. Consensus can rise and fall. Consensus is clearly that evolution occurs, climate change is occurring, the continents drift, etc. Unless you are supremely well-informed, contesting such strong scientific consensus is just daft.
Your friend has absolutely no idea what science even IS based on this. Science is not a body of knowledge. Science is a process of induction, construction of theories is primary goal. The scientific method is as follows.
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
Darwin asked a question. Incidentally, the question he asked was not "How do I disprove religion?", it was "How do I prove creation?" Might want to ask your buddy who he thinks funded Darwin. He might be surprised to learn it was the church. A man who was raised religious, and set out to prove religious teachings is the one who came up with the theory that has stood in opposition to creationism to this day. He spent years doing background research. He constructed a hypothesis. The experiment has been running since he came up with the idea and we started watching. The evidence thus far has been rather insurmountable. Data was analyzed and re-analyzed over the course of 150 years, conclusions were drawn, and thus was communicated, the theory of evolution. You can't get a whole lot more scientific than evolution. Trying to call it unscientific because it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is absolutely ridiculous. Given that requirement, science does not exist. Does the theory of evolution have some gaps? Sure. There's missing information. Creationism is nothing BUT a gap. Trying to drag evolution down to the level of creation is nothing more than a sad attempt at building credibility. Him going from neither can be proven 100% to both have equal evidence is simply absurd. In addition to having no understanding of what science is, he also has no understanding of what inductive reasoning is. He is not equipped with even the most basic tools required to have a rational argument, I would recommend wasting no further time or energy on this individual.
As for dealing with the arrogance of idiots, I recommend looking into the Dunning Kruger effect. Arrogance just makes me laugh now, as I can reasonably consider it evidence of idiocy. The more confident somebody obviously full of shit is, the less intelligent they likely are. Also just not giving a shit about people helps.
There's a good reason for respectable scientists refusing to debate that imbecile too.He isn't worth their time, he wouldn't listen to reason anyways, and the only thing they'd be doing is giving him an outlet to evangelize his stupidity. I for one, am glad that respectable scientists don't waste time on morons.
So, he cites blatantly stupid sources, yet attempts to criticize you for sources he can only assume you even use? He's using fallacies to support fallacies to support fallacies. This clown is so far gone into his own little world, there is no redeeming him. If he ever gets his by a bus or something, let me know, I'll put in a nomination for a Darwin award.
As for critiquing your own conduct... You seem to be relying a little heavily on credibility rather than data, but that's sometimes required, especially in debates with stupid people, because sticking titles to opinions and calling it an argument is sometimes the only thing they can actually understand. So I guess it really depends on whether you yourself actually believe in a particular argument just because somebody considered an expert does.
I still don't think you quite grasp the difference between agnosticism and atheism. I've actually been out flexing my philosophy muscles over the past several months, so my own position on this has adapted since the last time we had this discussion as well. The simplest distinction is that atheism is a metaphysical position on the existence (or in this case, nonexistence) of a deity. Agnosticism is an epistemological position on the nature of absolute knowledge, particularly with regards to the existence or nonexistence of a deity. Dawkins himself doesn't use a binary understanding of Atheism. We have the Dawkins' scale, on which Dawkins himself is a 6. The Dawkin's scale also has two degrees of uncertain theists. So he himself would disagree that anyone without 100% conviction is atheist. Attempting to use that in your argument comes dangerously close to turning into a No True Scotsman fallacy. Technically you could claim everyone from 4-7 on the Dawkin's scale as an atheist, and still be within the limitations of the term's definition. The question you have to ask is, do you really want to? That would be lumping people who have never even given a thought to the origin of reality into the same metaphysical stance as yourself or Richard Dawkins. Not using the distinction of the related epistemological stances merely devalues your own metaphysical stance. I should think one would be eager, more than just willing, to seperate themselves from apatheists, ignostics, and morons who don't even have the intelligence to pose the question when defining themselves as a member of an ideology. But I digress.
Outside of that, I find no error in your conduct.
For Our Lord Sheogorath, without Whom all Thought would be linear and all Feeling would be fleeting. Blessed are the Madmen, for they hold the keys to secret knowledge. Blessed are the Phobic, always wary of that which would do them harm. Blessed are the Obsessed, for their courses are clear. Blessed are the Addicts, may they quench the thirst that never ebbs. Blessed are the Murderous, for they have found beauty in the grotesque. Blessed are the Firelovers, for their hearts are always warm. Blessed are the Artists, for in their hands the impossible is made real. Blessed are the Musicians, for in their ears they hear the music of the soul. Blessed are the Sleepless, as they bask in wakeful dreaming. Blessed are the Paranoid, ever-watchful for our enemies. Blessed are the Visionaries, for their eyes see what might be. Blessed are the Painlovers, for in their suffering, we grow stronger. Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.
I can understand your point that If someone hasnt really given thought to the origins of man/reality, you couldnt lump them into a catagory of belief... at least not until they research it to their satisfaction and form an opinion. The reason I delve so much into the credibilty of scientists is becuase I dont think he respects me or what I've learned at all in order to listen to what I have to say. This is why I say to him that If it came down to picking and choosing a sugguestion from either himself, or dawkins on the topic of evolution, there is no doubt in my mind that without having any formal education in the field, I would go with the expert who has devoted his life to it. That is the rational thing to do, IF I had to choose.
Its just so frustrating to try and communicate simple things to this person and been told that im brainwashed and that evolution is a lie etc. I tried to explain that gravity is also a theory which can be tested by anyone at anytime and that the fact that something will fall if it is dropped, is the greatest evidence for the theory. Tests and information exist which are observable and available to anyone about evolution which rival that of gravity in a comparative sense, in that you have access to information and can observe.
Ill take your advice and I will not waste anymore time trying to make him understand, but dealing with it when its being brought up again is going to be absolutely mind numbing.
He can't respect you, if e did, he would also have to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that stands against him. It's just a matter of a small mind trying to defend itself against ideas it doesn't like. Take the lack of a rational argument as a compliment, it means he has effectively already acknowledged defeat, and then by necessity deluded himself into thinking he's still winning.
For Our Lord Sheogorath, without Whom all Thought would be linear and all Feeling would be fleeting. Blessed are the Madmen, for they hold the keys to secret knowledge. Blessed are the Phobic, always wary of that which would do them harm. Blessed are the Obsessed, for their courses are clear. Blessed are the Addicts, may they quench the thirst that never ebbs. Blessed are the Murderous, for they have found beauty in the grotesque. Blessed are the Firelovers, for their hearts are always warm. Blessed are the Artists, for in their hands the impossible is made real. Blessed are the Musicians, for in their ears they hear the music of the soul. Blessed are the Sleepless, as they bask in wakeful dreaming. Blessed are the Paranoid, ever-watchful for our enemies. Blessed are the Visionaries, for their eyes see what might be. Blessed are the Painlovers, for in their suffering, we grow stronger. Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.
Rowan, you should check out Stephen Meyer's stuff, he has videos, books, and dvds that go in depth about different topics. I watched a series with a group last year related to this creation vs evolution topic and it was really in depth and provided really interesting concepts. It would be worth your and the other person's while.
Currently Playing:
Stephen Meyer is a peddler of ignorance and scientific illiteracy to those who only wish to reinforce what they've been taught by their pastors. I'm more than happy to delve into the significant flaws to his reasoning as well as the institutions he is a part of, even though it's been done to death.
Rowan, first and foremost I'm shocked I managed to get through most of that. This Mr. J character, like Meyer, is a product of his upbringing and dogma; it's entirely a case of putting the cart before the horse. They deduce their conclusion and then carry along an unwavering path of convincing themselves and others through misrepresentation of science and "evidence" until they achieve their goal. It's best not to go down that road to begin with.
Yeah, another unavoidably heated argument occured on facebook again, but this time some of his friends jumped in and gave me a few likes on some of my responses, I dont think he liked that because it was only then the critisisms started coming out. This is the comment that won me the day:
"I dont need jesus or religion to be a good person. To judge someone based on that, is small minded and really offensive. Is that what jesus teaches? Also the majority of Earths population actually believes in god; which makes no sense toward your claims. And even most religious organisations adopt evolution because it is as solid a theory as gravity, these days. If it was otherwise, then science is the kind of practice that would welcome the challenge. Unlike religion, science only cares about DATA and what is likely to be true. I know you dont like hearing it Mt.J, but I only care about whats likely to be true. You cannot disprove that I have an invisible pink penguin, but that doesnt mean you should believe it. Demand the same standard of evidence and show me examples and I will take on that info, but dont show me biased videos made by fundementalist creationists. So far nothing you've posted has come from a skeptical point of view, its always been "ANOTHER athiest DESTROYED AGAIN in debate" or "Evolution proved WRONG AGAIN".
To put it simpler Mr.J, I dont trust ANYONE who claims to have found truth.
In response to your second comment, you are not wrong. Evolution is a theory. So is gravity. Just think about that for a moment, yeah? Because whilst gravity is a theory, it is most certainly represented by facts (dropping something supports the theory of gravity). Your argument to this has always been that science disproves evolution. What I am saying is that if science did DISPROVE evolution (science never sets out to disprove anything btw), you would need to convince me by citing a legitimate source. But something as outrageous as evolution being a "lie" and being "proved wrong by science" is something we would certainly know about since science is always the first to admit its wrong. I believe that not because I am brainwashed, but because of years of amazing awe inspiring sceintific progress. I am astonished that one could be so critical of the progress science has made, and yet even more critical of pehaps the most greatest of sciences which has been only possible due to the theory of evolution."
After the envital 70 comments that followed, we all agreed to drop it. I think I'll take your advice and just ignore it next time. As I still couldn't get through to him.
Nobody is perfect and I'm sure there may be stuff that might not be accurate, but he does pull out plenty of evidence to back up his ideas using different quotes from Darwin and other known scientists. The thing about theories in a nutshell, you have to have an open mind for them otherwise it's just a waste of time.Originally Posted by OnOneRyder
Currently Playing:
Bear with me here, I do not mean this an insult but you're the exact type of individual he prey's upon. The only thing that matters in the discussion of intelligent design is evidence and whether or not it stands up to scrutiny by professionals in their fields, ID does not. In fact it fails miserably, repeatedly selling the same snake oil to a new crowd of believers under the guise of legitimate science despite being shot down time and time again by legitimate science.
As for theories, an open mind is required yes...but so is an informed and educated mind. Simply claiming one needs to have an open mind reeks of simplicity and a complete lack of understanding of what any theory contesting evolution must bring to the table.
I find that citing fallacies is usually the best way to respond to such stupid arguments. They generally aren't worth the effort of an actual counterargument.
For Our Lord Sheogorath, without Whom all Thought would be linear and all Feeling would be fleeting. Blessed are the Madmen, for they hold the keys to secret knowledge. Blessed are the Phobic, always wary of that which would do them harm. Blessed are the Obsessed, for their courses are clear. Blessed are the Addicts, may they quench the thirst that never ebbs. Blessed are the Murderous, for they have found beauty in the grotesque. Blessed are the Firelovers, for their hearts are always warm. Blessed are the Artists, for in their hands the impossible is made real. Blessed are the Musicians, for in their ears they hear the music of the soul. Blessed are the Sleepless, as they bask in wakeful dreaming. Blessed are the Paranoid, ever-watchful for our enemies. Blessed are the Visionaries, for their eyes see what might be. Blessed are the Painlovers, for in their suffering, we grow stronger. Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.
Fool. Another creationist reveals their narrow religious motivations by attacking evolution as what they believe to be "atheistic."
Speaking as an atheist, I don't think many do make fun of the Bible. Not many people have even read the Bible to make any worth while judgement call. And it's not the Bible that declared the Earth as flat - it was believed to be flat without the Bible ever existing; and it's believed that the Greeks worked out the Earth has a spherical shape up to two and a half thousand years ago, after noticing that ships "sink" into the horizon - hundreds of years before the Bible was even written.Mr.j: Atheists will try and make fun of the bible because they just dont believe anything it says , but that belief comes from miseducation not proof, theyl tell u things like the earth was flat according to the bible.. when infact that is a lie the hebrew clearly says the word 'sphere' . See its easy to disprove the bible to an uneducated atheist because the uneducated atheist will never read the bible so he himself has to go off what other people say. So majority of atheists believe in evolution because its what is taught in public schools .. and to the general public its sounds rational because there are no uneducated atheists that study wether the theory is just theory or wether its proven fact... and I will agree with you 100% that u cannot prove a miracle , but u cannot prove the evolution of the world over millions of years either . Both sides have the same evidences like in a court of law . But one is theory against the possibility' of evolution and the other has actual historic proof and theory based on observational science.
As an atheist, I don't believe in evolution because it was taught to me - I was raised as a Christian, and I was taught to believe that God created the world in seven days and us in his own image. I support evolution because it poses a better argument to "and that was that, and it was done, and we've lived". I find it hard to believe we just "popped" out of nowhere because some entity or higher power deemed it necessary. Why were we created and are we necessary? Are we just a project led by a spiteful being to question "faith", or are we the result of hundreds of thousands of years worth of genetics, chemistry and biology?
I wouldn't ever call anything scientific a "vicious" lie - it insinuates that science is being deliberately cruel to religion, and that's not the case. Science isn't about becoming a God-like creature either - it's to help us understand where we've come from so that we can ourselves better, to make our future easier. Or pre-emptive evolutionary tactics, as I like to call it. Becoming cured of cancer or never again having to suffer from a terrible virus or disease doesn't make us God-like - we all still have one life, and once it's gone, it's gone. Even if someone could live forever, or have supperially advanced genetics before natural evolution has given it to us isn't a bad thing - it's called survival. Does God have a plan for us when our Earth dies? Is it up to us to evolve and reach the speeds of light and beyond to find another "Earth" he's created. According to the Bible, there isn't much on what else is out there. The Bible teaches that the only things God created with intelligence are the angels, man, and animals, and while science has never confirmed or denied other life in the universe, it does understand the basics of what is needed for life to be possible and sustained.Mr.J:Being close to proving anything is not proof and string theory is just another theory with no explanation other than assupmtions.. if u ask me if there is a God I will tell u yes under my assumption which I cant prove, krause gives great compeling assumptions too but until proven it remains theory just like god does, fact is im not trying to prove wether there is a god or not im using scientific data to see how old the earth is how the layers for . How we have not yet reached equilibrium as far as c14 (carbon analysis) wich scince equation studying it like as a matter of present day events has to be withing 30000 years and it gets younger the more we understand radiometric dating. my good friend this is wat im trying to share to the world .. that there are vicious lies being taught about science evolution and religion to keep us subservient and make us believe we can achieve god like beings in the far future..
People buy into religion if it's taught too. How can you buy into something that's not consistent (has he even read the Bible? It contradicts itself over and over and over), and has to rely on the work of "miracles" and having faith in them?And its cool if u dont buy it... but how can u buy' something just as theoretical.... im not trying to make u believe in God . I cant do that maybe never could.. what I am pointing out is that evolution is not scientific. . It is not science and it is only a theory.. once u can begin to understand the conceptuality of that then my point would be met. Did u not say that if it wasnt for evolution there would be no such subjects as paleontology? Biochemistry? Molecular biology ? There are many fields in science that dont rely on the theory of evolution tonnes and if evolution was never thought of all these fields would still be apparent..
I didn't read the next part because damn, it hurt to read. But one final quote from a quick skim:
How can he believe what he believes? Science and evolution will always develop and renew itself, and will one day get it right - creationism will always be the same, but not always right.u can continue to believe a theory that is constantly renewing itself and has lied to u thats fine I really dont care...
I get what you mean with evolution, Rowan. If it wasn't for evolution, then many a science wouldn't exist. Science is a giant puzzle, but the pieces fit; religion is a box of pieces from loads of other puzzles that rarely meet the same piece of cardboard, let alone a connecting piece.
To be honest, I think you handled it well. You didn't become heated, which I sort of expected. It was him who got a little frosty near the end, and so he definitely isn't worth debating with. He asks you to go in with an open mind, but his is pretty closed and locked with conspiracy theories and what the Bible has taught him - that's not a debate to me. You can't even hope to get through to people like that. But hey, I think this is a difficult topic to go into with an open mind - by the time you're old enough to understand the topic, you've already been raised or decided on what you believe.
TELL ME LEONARD, HOW DO WE RAISE THE CHILDREN?!
"I used to be active here like you, then I took an arrow in the knee."
>>>------------->
Suddenly... clutter.:
Warning free for over eight years. Feels good.
I've read the bible from cover to cover, three times. I was brought up a Christian, and remained so for over twenty years. I believed so devoutly in the Lord and his Creationism.
However through a series of incidents a few years ago, that all changed and my eyes opened.
I would say that a lot of Christians are coming round to the idea that without at least a degree of Evolution, Creation doesn't work. I think it's a powerful account of what people back in the past might have thought had or was happening, but all religions can't possibly be right.
It's a more feasible assumption to make that they are all accounts of something big happening across the world, all around the same time. Some people think that could be aliens, others think humans from the future and still others think even more abstract ideas and links. But I would argue that it could just be humanity trying to account for its increasingly evolved state both mentally and physically, and rationalise what was happening in a way that they could understand and accept.
The problem now is that people still put 100% stock in it and believe it as fact. It's like believing all swans are white because that's what was originally thought, even though it's now been proven that there are obviously black swans. Or still believing the world is flat.
Reading this gives me hope for humanity. seriously. Congratulations. Its not easy to look at the world differently especially after 20 years of devout belief and Indoctrination.
Thank you. I hope, like you I think, that all humanity, all religions can one day wake up and just realise "wait a minute, we're all people, religion is all metaphorical advice on how we should live our lives, and we're awakened, we don't need a higher purpose to have hope and happiness. We're not different from each other we've just grown up differently."
Unfortunately, I've had to accept that that's just a dream for the foreseeable future. Unfortunate that's just not the case in too many different sections of society across the world.
Dont fret. The most recent demographics indicate that more people are choosing not to believe in a diety. Its not just that though, a lot of people who claim to believe in a god also dont reconcile with that which is taught in said religion or respective holy books. Those that are unable to bridge the gap eventually identify as atheist or a non-theist. The word atheism is becoming poisoned, but the damage is not beyond redemption.
I agree with your message and I think its important people understand that "we dont need a higher purpose to have hope and happiness". The promise of a light at the end of the tunnel is a shallow one and that of which most religions try to sell people.
I believe that god created us and gave us freedom to find our happiness and purpose without the need to worship and acknowledge him. Evolution also was something of a gift to make us adapt and change. Basically I believe in both.
I hope you're right. I think religions have a lot to teach about morality and how to treat other humans, and some of it is genuinely applicable to modern life and should, to an extent, not be completely lost.
But people need to realise that they are, at best, metaphorical, an insight into the minds of our ancestors and nothing more. As soon as we accept that worldwide, we can start working on bettering humanity and the planet as a unit.
It's only from coming together and pulling efforts that humanity has ever strived and discovered. And religion only serves to hinder that. The dark ages are proof enough of that!
I believe that if there is a creator of sorts out there, then he or she is never going to look down on human religion and smile. It's not conducive to any sort of society.
I don't really have much to contribute on this topic, but here goes:
I'm an atheist that practices Wicca. I believe that belief is a tool and that there is a difference, a big one, between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The placebo effect goes a long way, I find.
Now, that doesn't really speak to the topic at hand, but I think it's the same as making a topic called "Alchemy VS Chemistry". The same scientific method that put planes in the sky is the same that indicated that evolution via natural selection is true. 2 and 2 equal 4.
~Red Mage~
~Knight Looking For Sorceress!~
~Member Of The Evil Bad Guys~
TFF Family: None yet! PM me if you'd like to join!
TFF RP Status: The Tipsy-Ram Tavern --- Strange Tides (Looking for RPs and Battle-RPs! Rewriting "Council of Mages")
Currently Playing: - Final Fantasy 1 (All Red Mage Run) - Final Fantasy: Record Keeper - Clicker Heroes -
I Use TFF Dark!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks