Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proof ...Definition
08-06-2011, 04:02 PM
Post: #21
RE: Proof ...Definition
(08-06-2011 12:58 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  
Corky Wrote:That one link to creationist claims should have kept you busy for a while but you didn't bother to read any of those articles, did you?

Corky Wrote:I directed you to the Talk Origins website because it's the best and easiest to read and understand without having to buy a bunch of expensive books. However, if you insist on not even reading about evolution, there's nothing to discuss and you can go ahead and just make up stuff like the creationist websites do and remain in ignorance and denial, or do some reading, it's totally up to you.

Corky Wrote:oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that you never studied biology in high school...

It seems that this is a general method of yours. Again i will repeat - You know nothing of my education, what i have read or studied or what i am reading or studying at present!!

I have given you much information to chew on and read and rebut if you will. I have talked about Science, current scientific thinking, The Bible and Science and how it links together. Design in nature etc. You have come back with nothing but insults and a few web sites to look at. I have looked at these, yet you accuse me of not reading them even though you have not commented on most of the information i have provided!!
You have not provided any information, only arguments from incredulity copy/pasted from other creationist who also don't understand evolution. I saw some strawman arguments on things that evolution doesn't even say that keeps being repeated but have been debunked decades ago.

Corky Wrote:You should know that evolution is both fact and theory. That evolution happened is a scientific fact, the exact mechanisms of how it happened is theory - real theories, based on real facts and not just wild guesses.

(08-06-2011 12:58 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  The fact of evolution. How many times have i heard this, well pretty much all the time with atheists since this is their whole belief. I can understand why you would defend this to the bitter end. Well from my point of view:

1/ There is no fact in evolution to account for the great number of species on our planet. There is only the theory that accounts for the diversity of species that we see and how they adapt to their environment.
2/ Evolution does not account for life itself as mentioned
3/ Evolution does not account for the origin of the Universe

I have read nothing in Evolution to answer any of these important questions above!
(1) Evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet very nicely. When you say it doesn't, you show your ignorance of the study of evolutionary biology.
(2) Evolution is the study of biological evolution, of how lifeforms have changed over time on this planet, not the study of how life itself began. That's an entirely different science called "abiogenesis" and has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology. Your statement is a strawman and a red herring and demonstrates an ignorance of what evolutionary biology actually is.
(3) Same as #2, a strawman and a red herring. The science of evolutionary biology has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of the universe - that's a science called "cosmology" and goes hand in hand with another science called "physics" and yet another called "astronomy".

Corky Wrote:Do you at least understand why there was no worldwide flood 4200 years ago? Do you understand the difference between Judaism and Zionism? That there are more Jews in New York City than in the state of Israel? Do you know why Jews refuse to return to Palestine and prefer to remain in "gentile" countries?

(08-06-2011 12:58 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  You have brought up these questions/accusations so hit me with it. I would like to actually hear something from you instead of a continuation of Insults.
Evidently, you don't understand the difference between asking questions and making an insult. I suggest you consult a dictionary.

(08-06-2011 12:58 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  I cannot think that you were a true Christian that studied his Bible and which loved his maker and had the love of Jesus in his life. Either something bad has happened that is private to you, or the cares of this world took a strangle hold on you so much you felt you had to make it your mission to ridicule anyone with a belief in Bible study. (You should well know that is what the Christadelphians are about - The love of Christ and continually studying and learning from the Bible and willing to spread the gospel message and help people understand it whenever they are able)

Without sounding disrespectful or rude i honestly thought you were perhaps in your twenties, early thirties with a serious attitude. Now that you've added your picture it reinforces my thinking that you seem bitter about something that happened in your so called Christian life.
I was just as much a believer as you are - fanatically so, as some people would tell you. What happened was that when my house, car and everything else was destroyed by fire, the ecclesia ignored it and I had to accept help from the local Baptist and Methodist churches. I never went back and no one ever contacted me or asked about my family and me. I'm not bitter about it, I'm glad they turned their backs on my family and me like that - it woke me up and I began to really study the bible, history and evolution. The only thing that I really felt bad about at the time was that my best friend and CD "brother" also ignored my plight. I look at it like live and learn - friends come and friends go - no big loss.

I don't intend to sound insulting, though to you I might sound that way, I'm just not very patient with people too lazy to study evolution enough to understand what it says and what it doesn't say, so I get a little sarcastic at times.

(08-06-2011 12:58 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  If time allows i intended to contact John Bedson. I wanted to make my point to you that what he said did not disagree with the prophecy of the state of Israel and so couldn't understand why you bothered to add it.

Corky Wrote:Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.

You have faith but just like any atheist, you won't admit it. You have faith in evolution to account for all the species on our planet, you have faith in either a multi verse, dark energy, gravity, M-theory etc. You have faith that an Intelligent designer did not create the things of our universe even though they appear to be designed. You have faith in yourself even though according to your theory, you are nothing more than a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. You have faith that Jesus will not return to this Earth to set up God's Kingdom. You have faith in certain scientists yet you don't have faith in others. You have faith that your mind is logical when some are not.

So the believers’ position is no less than the atheists' in an attempt to grapple with the facts, to make sense of the data, to illuminate rationally the world we live in. Faith is not a substitute for reason; faith only kicks in when reason comes to an end.

Ultimately everybody requires faith!
You are wrong about the faith thing there. It takes no "faith" to believe in scientific facts and evidence. It takes no more faith to accept the evidence of evolutionary biology than it did for me to accept the facts in my high school algebra book. What takes faith is believing in an ethereal being who zapped everything into existence only 6,000 years ago - well, faith and a lot of gullibility. That a man was resurrected from the dead and didn't see corruption on the third day takes faith and more gullibility because death is corruption and if one sees no corruption one is not truly dead but only unconscious. Jesus, if he even existed, is not coming back. His own prediction (supposedly) was that it would come to pass in that generation of the believers of 1,980 years ago and it didn't. "The end of all things is at hand" - claimed someone pretending to be the apostle Peter 1900 years ago. It wasn't "at hand" though, was it? And, it's not "at hand" now either. If you read the law of Moses, and I'm sure you do, prophecies have a time limit and must come to pass within the lifetime of the hearers. Otherwise, the hearers would never know if someone is a false prophet and be able to punish them for making false prophecies.

I asked if you knew why there was no worldwide flood 2400 years ago, you didn't answer. I'll go ahead and tell you why.
(1) No geological evidence. Christian geologists proved, over 200 years ago, that there was no evidence of a worldwide flood in the history of the planet's geological column. Noah's flood is over being true.
(2) There is no genetic 'bottleneck' for humans or animals for that time period. In other words, there was no extinction occurring anywhere near that time.
(3) There were whole civilizations existing before the time of Noah's flood that still existed after the time of Noah's flood.

Maybe, when you went to university you should have taken some courses in science and history. What did you do during that time, party?

Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2011, 02:00 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2011 03:10 AM by Garrett Fogerlie.)
Post: #22
RE: Proof ...Definition
(07-29-2011 09:08 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  I would like to know when the atheist is going to provide evidence for no God and in their own belief.

While I don't have a actual date to give, I would think that this will happen when there is some fundamental change in logic and perhaps the rules of the universe that would result in people having to provide evidence to the non-existent. This will be a very hard and strange time, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but I can't imagine very many situations where absence could have evidence.

Sorry, I had to make a joke, you can call me a sarcastic American again, let me just point out that atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity. For example, I would venture to say that you don't believe in the trinity of Anu, Enlil, and Enki. And I would bet that your reason for not believing in them is because the evidence for them has not met your level of proof. My point is that you don't have to come up with evidence against the almighty Anu, you only have to judge the evidence for this great God.

This is why atheist don't need to (can't, shan't, and won't) provide evidence for no God, we (every individual) just judges the evidence for a god and if they think it is lacking they don't accept it.

My guess would be that this is your stance on all gods except the one you believe has met you level of proof, and if you could lay out and show us the proof that you have, we will consider it. But using a book that says this 'book is true', and then says 'there is a god' is not proof to us. It's just circular reasoning. And if you took your 'proof scale' and really studied another religion, you would may believe that one too, because your proof scale may be a bit low.

Atheists can provide evidence/reasoning to why they don't believe your god exists, and how the idea of the god could have come into existence, etc.

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2011, 02:59 AM
Post: #23
RE: Proof ...Definition
(07-31-2011 08:09 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Welcome back! Wondered where you disappeared to!

Thanks, I've been busy, and thanks for posting your reasoning behind your beliefs. Needless to say, I disagree. I'm not going to go too into it now, I just wanted to make a few points and ask some questions. But first, I pointed this out in another post, it is hard to tell tone and it is easy to thing someone is being blatantly rude, since this is just text. I don't think Corky was being angry or anything, although it does get tiring repeating the same things over and over again, for everyone.

First, there are many beliefs that say there was nothing, then... Much of the ideas in the bible come from the combinations of other religions.

The bible is vague enough that you can relate it to many things, like the big bang (an idea, like most good scientific ideas, oppressed by the church), or multi-dimensional space, etc. And like you said, you don't believe in eternal suffering for non-believers, (perhaps not hell?) people make the bible fit anything they want and they pick and omit parts for their own benefits.

In much the same way that you may think my beliefs are extreme or unlikely, I find it very unlikely that there is a super complex (possibly infinitely complex) life form that just exists, and has no or next to no entropy. It is far more fathomable that less complex things led to more complex (and since I brought up entropy, will inevitably lead to no complexity.)

Your point about DNA and information, isn't impressive. There is more information in a grain of sand than in a pin tip of DNA.

Abiogenesis is a very good model (while not complete, but very close) of how life may have started. And now that mankind has created life that reproduces, it shows that creating life is not something reserved for the 'gods'.

(07-31-2011 08:09 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Richard Dawkins knows it’s preposterous and therefore when asked how did we get life originally he says well maybe aliens brought it from another planet. It’s ridiculous but the best explanation he could come up with other than intelligent design.

This is just wrong, I know you pick on Dawkins a lot, but this is not what he believe and was just a small part of what he was explaining. He was listing different ideas (and he pointed out before that he doesn't believe this one, but never the less) he went on to say that if there were Aliens, they must have come from a process of evolution.

Structure doesn't require design, and design doesn't require consciousness or life. Crystal formations, molecules, proteins, waves, dunes, stars, solar systems, planetary rings. These are all complex (low entropy) things that are created without consciousness or life.

It is more unlikely that super high complexity pops into existence, than something simple popping in. And that is my stance on God, saying that he created us, is similar to saying aliens created us, it doesn't advance understanding at all. Not to mention something capable of creating something complex should by definitions be as complex if not more than the thing it is creating, so how did this complex being (God) come to exists. And saying he always has, is a cop out.

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Share/Bookmark (Show All)
Facebook Linkedin Technorati Twitter Digg MySpace Delicious

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)