-23

IF the evolutionary theory is true and still occurring, AND time plus chance really can in fact equal a Universe and life, THEN it is just a matter of time before pigs are flying, unicorns are roaming the Earth, and cows are jumping over the moon! Amirite?

I went on a website today called www.sciencelearn.org.nz and here is just one quote I found: "Science is based on and derived from observations of the world around us from which interpretations are made. Scientists depend on empirical evidence to produce scientific knowledge."
If you look up the definition for EMPIRICAL you will find that it is concerning things that are verifiable by observation, experience, or experiment. It is supposed to be both verifiable and provable. The whole concept of empirical data is to rule out theory. The observing is to be either with the naked eye OR the use of instruments.
This is CLEARLY not being done regarding the Evolutionary model or the Big Bang. Neither are observable by any human being living today. The definitions do NOT stipulate that millions or billions of years must be allowed to occur before or while observations are being made. If either can not be observed TODAY by living human beings who call themselves scientists, then what is being taught and practiced simply is NOT science!
You young teenagers need to STOP telling me your science proves everything you believe in.

29%Yeah You Are71%No Way
freespeechfreelancers avatar Education
Share
0 91
The voters have decided that freespeechfreelancer is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

While I will not say it's impossible for those things to happen, evolution follows the "survival of the fittest" route, and that does not necessarily mean pigs will fly, or horses will develop horns. The likelihood of that is very slim, because the pigs would most likely have to change their entire body structure (and not be pigs any more). Why would pigs even need to fly anyways? Or why would horses need to develop horns?

Nice way of passive-aggressively saying evolution's stupid, OP.

Science is based on and derived from observations of the world around us from which interpretations are made. **I observe fossils and interpret evolution.** That is science, yes.

...concerning things that are verifiable by observation, experience..."god" does not fall into this category.

@VicZinc //Science is based on and derived from observations of the world around us from which interpretations are made...

A Bible and Savior are every bit as observable and verifiable as a few scattered bones that are not showing any evolutionary process in action or occurrence.

@freespeechfreelancer A Bible and Savior are every bit as observable and verifiable as a few scattered bones that are not showing any...

Do think scientists carry out their tasks like they have blindfolds on and are playing pin the tail on the donkey?

First of all fossils are can be dated from the sediments they have been deposited in through Uranium dating which can date all the way back to 4.5 billion years (among other ways, but this one's the most refined).

Law of superposition, look it up.

If we go up a sequence of rock layers we can see more simpler organisms at the older layers, and as we go up organisms become more complex. This is observed all over the world.

Here a good e.g. http://news.softpedia.com/news/...nd-21028.shtml

@VicZinc um, no, there are not.

That is the difference of believing in God and taking Him at His Word versus believing in a bunch of atheists who deny God's existence and want to rewrite His story of how it all happened.

@freespeechfreelancer That is the difference of believing in God and taking Him at His Word versus believing in a bunch of atheists who...

Agreed. One uses faith as a method of accepting "knowledge" and the other relies on evidence and actual observation of the real world to accept knowledge. Faith is not evidence, the bible is not evidence, the Savior is not observable, measurable or in any way confirmable phenomena - it is simple conjecture and is outside the realm of science.

@VicZinc Agreed. One uses faith as a method of accepting "knowledge" and the other relies on evidence and actual...

Millions and billions of years IS faith no matter how you state it or gloss it over. You just refuse to admit that your system requires just as much faith (I say even more) as mine. Biblical faith IS evidence and the Bible IS evidence. Both are based on human witnesses and experience. That is why there are people who can testify of a changed life and a complete turn around from one thing to another.
The Savior was observable by those alive when He walked the Earth. They recorded many of their dealings with Him in Scripture. If you refuse to acknowledge or accept that, that is your loss.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1962760

Heh, I think there's a recurring misunderstanding on this post about what exactly evidence is.

The problem is that there definitely is a one in infinity chance of evolution being wrong- perhaps fossils aligned by accident- perhaps God put them there to trick us- perhaps the Romans did.

The thing is, the likelihood is so small that it is considered negligible by almost anybody who has an in-depth understanding of science. And I think it is too.

But when people find another solution whose credibility they are convinced of from an early age, it becomes very easy to subscribe to it- especially with the right personality. And so their subjective opinions align perfectly against science and they take as much issue as possible with the potential flaws in experimentation, they exaggerate the presumptuousness of assumptions made, while their own flawless explanation of God having created the universe starts to seem better and better.

Scientists instinctively pursue what they can see. Theists subscribe to notions that seem right intuitively.

So technically it's instinct against instinct, but it's more like instinct versus observation. But I really like your example about self-confirming evidence.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1962818

Yeah, true. There's a disagreement on what's negligible.

What I don't get is how science can be so easily dismissed, and it seems like Freespeechfreelancer just doesn't know a whole lot about science, and rejects it, preferring to stick to his assumptions that it's crazy by refusing to learn about it.

@1962760

So you KNOW of an eyewitness to evolution, the Big Bang, or any other scientific theory that weighs in on the topic? You must be one hell of a scientist to make such a claim. Something NOT observed or that is unobservable TODAY is taken by faith - in spite of your arrogance against Creationism or Christians.
Yes, it is just you.

@freespeechfreelancer So you KNOW of an eyewitness to evolution, the Big Bang, or any other scientific theory that weighs in on the...

I cannot help but smile at this series of comments.

One argues that they believe xyz because it seems more believable to them - then the other argues that abc seems more believable to them.

I argue that none of it is believable and suggest believing in nothing at all. People seem to view my position as utter nonsense yet it seems to me to be the perfect blending of both positions. Science is wrong (as it is taught in schools) and religion is wrong (as it is taught in churches).

That does not mean we should stop teaching - it means we should start teaching skepticism. Take your lesson with a grain of salt. No "thing" can proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is always reason to doubt. Good students should always doubt.

@VicZinc I cannot help but smile at this series of comments. One argues that they believe xyz because it seems more...

I know what you don't believe - and that would bring a smile to anyone - I guess.
The last time we dialogued you called God the devil. That will never leave my brain. I have been alive for 55 years, and NEVER heard such an utterance. Please re-read the entire book of John, and no matter how I interpret it, you will not come away saying Jesus' Father was anyone other than GOD the Father! He calls God His Father - so if Jesus was real, did speak, and walked the Earth, then the God issue IS and has been settled.
Smile and have fun with it.

@freespeechfreelancer I know what you don't believe - and that would bring a smile to anyone - I guess. The last time we dialogued you...

Up for the challenge and it has been a few months so give me a day or two. and for the record I did not call "god" the devil I said the "father" in the bible is a devil not a god. Subtle but important distinction. But I will re-read John as you suggest looking for clues as to the "goodness" of this deity.

@VicZinc Up for the challenge and it has been a few months so give me a day or two. and for the record I did not call "god"...

The Father IS God! I don't know why you don't get that. Pay close attention to how many times Jesus calls the Father God.

@freespeechfreelancer The Father IS God! I don't know why you don't get that. Pay close attention to how many times Jesus calls the...

Ok sorry it took so long.

I agree that in KJ the word father and son appear many times.

The greek is a bit more telling. I did not find “πατρος” once.

Now in English we have words like fatherly and fatherhood more to the point we have Anglicized Greek words like paternal patron paternalistic . Also many Greek words have been latinized to be translatable but not recognizable like ancestor and leader and founder

I found many uses of the words “πατηρ” or “πατρι” more closely translated as former leader or ancestor.

Also Jesus refers to himself repeatedly as
“υιος ανθρωπου” which is much closer to "son of man" than to son of god.

Also the use of πνευματι (ghost or spirit) seems to indicate that the “Theos” (θεος) Jesus speaks of is what some would call the “holy spirit” the third of the trinity not the first (or so called father).

So I see what you mean. If KJ is the actual word of god then one would be lead to think Jesus was his son. If the original manuscripts are consulted the question is still open.

Too many people today are willing to take the English transcription of the Bible as the word of god - I personally doubt that it is.

@freespeechfreelancer Millions and billions of years IS faith no matter how you state it or gloss it over. You just refuse to admit that...

Fair enough. My understanding is that none of the four accepted gospels was written by any person alive while Jesus walked the Earth. I may be mistaken.

I have read the Gospel of Judas which was debunked by the early church but which was potential written by a person who actually lived contemporaneously with Jesus.

Also enjoyed reading the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and Philip which do not appear to be contemporaneous but which give interesting insights into the various interpretations of the four "main" gospels.

@VicZinc Fair enough. My understanding is that none of the four accepted gospels was written by any person alive while...

I do want to remain friends with you, and this format is probably not the best suited for holding Bible lessons. We are probably violating someone's rights, freedoms, or offending them.
I would highly recommend (if you have a real interest in such matters) that you find a copy of "More Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. If nothing else, it is a great intellectual read. Another very excellent read is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Lewis can not be ignored and was no academic slouch.
And I mean no ill will towards you or anyone. If at times I come across as arrogant or belligerent, it is only because I refuse to accept the conventional "wisdom" of fallible human thinking.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1962757

That is your erroneous opinion. I will take the words of God or Jesus over anyone else all day long.

@freespeechfreelancer That is your erroneous opinion. I will take the words of God or Jesus over anyone else all day long.

Most of its words are not true because they are metaphorical of things that are true.

The same way, its explanation of the world's creation may simply be a metaphor that is misunderstood-

Perhaps you may think that the Bible can't be wrong, but certainly you can be in your interpretation.

@Watchful_questioneer Most of its words are not true because they are metaphorical of things that are true. The same way, its...

Are you and Sobriquet one and the same? I thought you said you were not going to do this any more - jump in and defend someone else above and over my comments to them. You just knocked the hell out of me saying I am ignorant of science and refuse to learn. You are becoming a real jackass!

@freespeechfreelancer Are you and Sobriquet one and the same? I thought you said you were not going to do this any more - jump in and...

I promised to stop trying to tell you to be more polite, not to always be on your side.

I'm just sharing what I see. I've tried, on this very post, to explain biology as a whole to you. But you don't like to hear it. You haven't displayed the depth of knowledge of biology necessary to even form an opinion on this, I think. Maybe I don't know enough about creationism, but at least I'm not trying to refute it in spite of that.

You don't know so much about science, and if I knew as much as you and thought that that's all there was to it, I wouldn't believe in evolution either. It seems spectacular and astronomical for something as crazy as a human being to come about through random chance. But when I learn what humans are, what we're made of, what factors into that chance, what simpler animals are made of, what patterns there are to life, and what plays into nature as a whole, it makes sense.

You're not seeing it on the same scale as a scientist, yet you claim to have all the knowledge. And that bugs me, to be honest. If it makes me a jackass to be frustrated at you for rejecting everything I say and refusing to learn this at the molecular level, then we're playing different games and you're not meeting me halfway.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1962871

Are you not familiar with Messianic Prophecies? The Old Testament is loaded with references of a coming Messiah, Savior, King - who would save His people from their sins. Here are several:
Genesis 3:15
Genesis 49:10
Deuteronomy 18:15
Psalm 68:18
Psalm 69:21
Psalm 118:22
Isaiah 7:14
Isaiah 9:6,7
Isaiah 53:2,3
Jeremiah 23:5
Micah 5:2
Zechariah 9:9
There are many many more, but these can be read and easily understood by anyone with an open mind. There is no way the multiple Old Testament authors could have foretold exact events regarding Christ without divine inspiration and knowledge. If you have a true interest to know the things you are asking about, I would point you in the direction of Biblical Prophecy in general, and Archaeological finds that confirm many cities, bodies of water, and other locations mentioned throughout the Bible. Other prophecies that have proven true: The captivity of the Jews, the destruction of Babylon, the destruction of Jerusalem, the conversion of the Gentiles, the spreading of the Gospel message, the return of the Jews to their homeland. The Bible's recording is also historical fact. Everything within its pages occurred during people's lifetimes - making it historical and factual. The stories and events are not make believe or fairytale - they actually took place. Anyone denying such, really has no business commenting about history in general.
The Bible is divinely inspired and you can read these verses to see what it says about itself.
Acts 1:16
2 Timothy 3:16
Hebrews 1:1
2 Peter 1:21
If you call all of these "self fulfilling," then the Bible is of no use to you. If the Bible is such an easy book to duplicate in content and message, I would ask for you to show me another book that comes even close in content and fulfillment. Many books may carry a similar message, but the Bible presents the only Messiah and Savior of the world. Jesus Himself said He was the living bread, water, light, and life to the world. He was not one of many Saviors - He was THE Savior for all who believe and trust in Him.

@freespeechfreelancer Are you not familiar with Messianic Prophecies? The Old Testament is loaded with references of a coming Messiah...

Ah yes, the modern prophets too...

Arthur Clarke predicted space tourism, video phones and Artificial Intelligence. He must have been divinely inspired.

Harry Harrison predicted climate change and food shortages. He must have been divinely inspired.

Robert Heinlein predicted man would land and on the moon, and would send spaceships to the outer planets. He must have been divinely inspired.

Jules Vern predicted rocketships and submarines - he must have been divinely inspired.

HG Wells predicted extra terrestrial bacteria. He must have been divinely inspired.

Gene Roddenberry predicted cell phones - he must have been divinely inspired.

Karel Apek predicted artificial people he called "robots" he must have been divinely inspired.

Aldous Huxley predicted test-tube babies. He must have been divinely inspired.

George Orwell predicted big-brother and therefore was divinely inspired.

I could come up with a few hundred more if you want.

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19...ion-in-action/

Also the fossil record provides substantial proof of evolution, and there's very very strong genetic evidence.

Scientist have found fossils that are 3.4 billions years old, isn't that amazing!
http://www.australiangeographic...-australia.htm

Well, you're not entirely wrong. With the amount of planets in the universe, as small as the odds may be, there could be as many as a billion other planets exactly like earth, if that few.

So yes, there are probably planets out there with a version of flying pigs, and perhaps, unicorns.

@speckleasme Well, you're not entirely wrong. With the amount of planets in the universe, as small as the odds may be, there...

Scroll up several comments and find the one that begins with:
At least we are talking rationally...........
That is the one I said refute.

I agree with my post ONLY because of the IF in the beginning of the statement. I don't believe the evolutionary model is correct, true, or even valid science. If it is, then the latter part of the quote is just as likely as anything that has already occurred up to this point. Given enough time, ANYTHING is possible and likely. And that IS the key element required to make the evolutionary model plausible and believable.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1946401

Since all scientists are so gung ho about "seeing" everything to believe it, witnessing any species actually changing in to another one would be a great starting point. They would need to show me where the time and matter came from that they use to work backwards from to form their theoretical concepts with. Both evolution and a big bang require something already in existence to start with. Matter did not come out of thin air, and thin air came from somewhere. But we both know they don't have these answers, even though they pretend to have it all figured out.
The same sight I referred to above states that ALL observations require interpretation and inference by scientists. "To do this, scientists require imagination and creativity to make inferential statements about what they see."
I have the ability of doing that just as easily as they do. I also have the ability of seeing through the deceptions, flaws, and missing elements to make their theories work. You say that a thinking person believes in science and I say a truly thinking person challenges science on its own merits, and finds that it does not even live up to its own standards or definitions.

@freespeechfreelancer Since all scientists are so gung ho about "seeing" everything to believe it, witnessing any species actually...

You are wrong. Thinking people do challenge science and science, unlike most religions, welcomes these challenges. If someone could provide evidence that these theories are incorrect, then they would fall by the wayside. This has happened many times before with other theories.

@freespeechfreelancer So you have personally witnessed one species changing in to another? Please do tell.

No, just as I have never personally witnessed an ice age, or plate tectonics, or glacial erosion.

The real issue, however, is not that there is insufficient evidence for evolution. Rather, it's that there is no amount of evidence that is going to convince some people of anything that contradicts their holy book.

@PhilboydStudge No, just as I have never personally witnessed an ice age, or plate tectonics, or glacial erosion. The real issue...

But the point is - you have no problem accepting other people's accounts of so called events that have occurred as long as it comes from scientists. But put events, places, history, and eye witnesses in a holy book, and now all of a sudden it is fairytale, mythical, preposterous, and lunacy.
I find that completely disingenuous. No matter how often I say it, you or others like you, simply refuse to believe that a person can be both educated AND a believer. You seem to think that it is science or nothing. That is a fallacy. Some of the greatest scientists and people in the medical community were/are Bible believing, God believing, Creationists. They went to the same prestigious schools as atheists and hold the same degrees that non believers hold. BUT, and only because, they believe in something that can't be seen, you feel completely justified in attacking their credibility and knowledge base - proving intolerance and narrow mindedness. That is the REAL issue.

@freespeechfreelancer But the point is - you have no problem accepting other people's accounts of so called events that have occurred as...

You might be surprised that I had a friend who A) graduated from Cornell, and B) believed in Creationism. The guy was one of the smartest people I've known. I never understood this believe he had, but at that time I felt it taboo to challenge him.

When Darwin first came up with the theory of evolution, many scientists did not believe it. I'm guessing these other scientists "attacked" Darwin and his theory. It was only after many corroborating observations that now an overwhelming number of scientists believe it is true. It passed the test, and it continues to do so. I'll put my faith in knowledge gained this way over any that relies on the suspension of the laws of physics (aka. the supernatural).

I find it disconcerting that educated people can still believe in Creationism, but that is their choice. I am, however, intolerant of people suggesting Creationism is science. I don't believe you have done this... I'm just saying.

Just out of curiosity, how tolerant and open-minded are you towards other religions' creation myths? If you do not believe in them, why not?

@PhilboydStudge You might be surprised that I had a friend who A) graduated from Cornell, and B) believed in Creationism. The guy...

At least we are talking rationally now and finding some common ground. Your friend example can be multiplied by thousands upon thousands throughout history. And just because there is a surge in trying to eradicate the teachings of Creationism does not mean it is invalid or has lost its merits. It simply means that more may be choosing to go with Evolution over Creation.
It is interesting that you find it "disconcerting" that educated people can still believe in Creationism, and I find just the opposite. When all is said and done it really comes down to 2 simple choices: either matter always existed and was eternal OR God always existed and was eternal.
Something or someone had to be before everything to get the whole thing started. When a person keeps going backwards and asking "where did that come from?" - all of us has to admit that something or someone had no beginning and was just there.
Personally, I have chosen to believe the Biblical account by looking at all the options available and actually believing it makes the most sense. As this post points out, the evolutionary theory relies mostly on the element of unlimited time periods to make it work. Given enough time, chance, randomness, and very smart molecules, ANYTHING is possible and likely.
I find that to require more blind faith than the faith I exercise by believing that an eternal Being - God, created everything from nothing as stated in the Bible. Everything that humans have ever invented or designed had/has an author or creator - someone who had the idea first and then made it happen. That is completely consistent throughout all of our study about humanity. So if that is the pattern and process we observe all of our time while on this planet, logically and sensibly, it would lead a person to think that Someone was responsible for our beginning. The study of science should cause a person to realize that there are too many "perfect" systems and operations throughout the Universe for it all to be some big cosmic accident. Accidents are normally mistakes that lead to trouble or mishap. Design is on purpose and requires planning, detail, and much thought.
The distances of planets from the sun and Earth just happening to be perfectly placed so we are not burned up or frozen. The orbits of the planets, the atmosphere and weather cycle, the human body and its design, the food chain, the oceans and life therein - all and each amazingly designed with specific purposes and functions. There is a harmony and unity in our world and our Universe, and a Big Bang or Primordial Soup just don't add up or compute in my brain. And even if I was to accept either of these options, science still has no answer for where the basic stuff of the bang or soup came from. So again, even though someone like yourself may suggest I believe in magic or invisible men to make it all connect, you do as well. You know for a fact that no human witnessed creation, and that can not be disputed. Therefore, science can not provide a satisfactory answer to our beginnings because science requires observation and experimentation. A valid experiment requires replicability or reproducibility. This is one of the main cardinal methods employed by real and true science, and can not be demonstrated when talking about creation. Splitting atoms in a laboratory with lasers is NOT duplicating creation. And the scientists engaged in such already HAVE the atoms to work with. They are not creating the atoms they work with or split.
This is why I take so many "pot shots" at science and their community.
And just as you are intolerant towards people who claim Creationism is science, I am intolerant towards people who are "100% certain" that science can and has answered the questions of creation and how we got here. There simply is no such thing. I would just like to hear them admit it for a change and keep it real and genuine.
As for other religions and their creation models, that is up to each individual to decide. All of us get one shot at this thing called life. Each person has the same information available to them. I believe our time on this Earth is to be spent finding out why we were put here and what we are supposed to do while here. Most religions believe in an after life, and that seems to be as (if not more) important than our time here. The Mayans and Egyptians so strongly believed in the after life that they made special preparations for it. If the after life is eternal (which would be consistent with an eternal Being), then making preparations for such does seem to be extremely important. Our days on this planet are numbered and few in light of eternity.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1946859

OK, we will let the readers decide. You act as if evolution is an entity independent and fully functional apart from any other working system. And that my friend, is irrational. Evolution could not occur or have started if you don't go the step backwards BEFORE evolution. So yes, my statements have everything to do with evolution and its process.

@freespeechfreelancer OK, we will let the readers decide. You act as if evolution is an entity independent and fully functional apart...

Sorry, I disagree with this last statement. Evolution is a process. Like decay. Yes you need something to decay but where it comes from is irrelevant to the question "will it decay". Same with evolution: where life comes from is irrelevant to the question "will life evolve."

@VicZinc Sorry, I disagree with this last statement. Evolution is a process. Like decay. Yes you need something to decay...

I hear and understand what you are saying, but if we can't answer the WHERE, the HOW does not matter.

@freespeechfreelancer At least we are talking rationally now and finding some common ground. Your friend example can be multiplied by...

Thanks for the well thought out reply. I love how you put it: All of us get one shot at this thing called life... Indeed.

It seems like your biggest objection to the big bang theory is that there must have been something that created everything. Yes, I agree that when you follow time backwards, we eventually are left with space and time being created from nothing. This makes no sense to me either. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas, no mental slouch himself, had similar objections.

Still, I believe in the big bang because we observe things - galaxies speeding away from each other and background radiation - that support the theory. I hope science will someday be able to explain more of the mysteries of the universe, but perhaps with our limited minds it will never be possible.

And if I understand you correctly, your objection to evolution is similar. How could life start from nothing? Evolution relies on unimaginable time scales to work, but again, there is enough evidence (for me to believe) which supports this theory.

Perhaps it seems like there is one unstated, underlying assumption made by "science": there is no God. I think this assumption is made by science, but only because it is trying to uncover the underlying laws to nature without the use of "revealed knowledge"... which of course cannot be verified through experiment.

Like you said, we only have one shot at this. I choose to throw in with the scientific method. I will hopefully never believe that science is always correct, or that it's inevitable that science will uncover everything... and I openly concede that I may be wrong.

@PhilboydStudge Thanks for the well thought out reply. I love how you put it: All of us get one shot at this thing called life...

Thank you for at least being honest and forthright. I can live with anyone's views, beliefs, or positions as long as they do not come across as a know it all with everything figured out. And I would hope that every person would treat my views and beliefs the exact same way. We all want to be treated with dignity, and everyone is looking and searching for the best way. If each of us has made the best choices according to everything available to us, then that is all that should matter. But each and every group for some reason wants to pounce on and condemn the "other" group because their views are "different" or not exactly like theirs. And that is what I retaliate against as much as anything.
My bottom line is simple - NOBODY knows for sure, so it is futile to claim otherwise.

@freespeechfreelancer Thank you for at least being honest and forthright. I can live with anyone's views, beliefs, or positions as long...

If nobody knows for sure (which I agree with) then how can you say that I am wrong when I make assumptions?

@speckleasme If nobody knows for sure (which I agree with) then how can you say that I am wrong when I make assumptions?

If you recall, you were the one who came on here all bad ass and dropping bombs on me and my statements. You said you knew everything and had all the answers. I took offense to it, and clearly showed otherwise. Now you are flipping the whole thing back on me. Great job.

@speckleasme Can you quote me on that? Because I never said that I knew everything, I said that you were wrong.

Gladly. I went back to the original thread that you came in on and started your superior pouncing and knowing everything. It was the post (not mine) "For every group that doesn't believe in him atheists sure like to talk about god a lot."
I had made several comments in that thread, and you jumped in with "i laugh at anyone who uses the bible as a reputable source of evidence."
Here are other statements in that same thread that you made:
"God doesn't exist."
"Let's think about this, believers, justify your cause."
"Religion is the fear based assumption that a higher power watches over everything."
"There is not much intelligence in the religious world to insult anyway..."
"...there is no evidence FOR god's existence that I can falsify."
"...the debate would be over. Actually it should be, and it would if not for people like you who refuse to see the truth because they are afraid of being wrong."

After that last comment of yours, I challenged you to scroll up to a final comment I had just posted and refute it. Your next comment did not address mine, so I again replied and gave you the beginning words of the comment so you could find it. You went silent from that point and never did refute it. You then resurfaced in this thread.
All of your comments that I just quoted you on made it clear to me that you thought you knew everything, and certainly far more than any God believing religious person. I challenged each and every comment you made, and never once backed away from your arrogance or ignorance. You did not like the fact that I insulted you, but you insulted my belief system and said things that are purely unprovable or unverifiable. I would never just come on to a thread and attack someone's belief system or comments. If I challenge anyone's comments, I am ready to run it through to the end, wherever that may take us. What people believe and value as their opinion and world view is no laughing matter - even if it involves religion, God, or a Bible.

@freespeechfreelancer Gladly. I went back to the original thread that you came in on and started your superior pouncing and knowing...

Don't say that my arguments are unverifiable if your entire belief system is meant to be taken on one's self without an iota of logic or evidence.

My comments do not imply that I know everything or that I think I know everything. They are merely stating my inferences and opinions on this topic.

Also, you never did answer my original question after all of this:

Religion has been the reason for more murders than maybe anything on the planet. Yet billions of people still consider themselves religious. With that much on its conscience, religion better have some justification for its continuing existence. Since you are taking the burden of defending religion on yourself, I will pose this question to you. Why should religion continue after all that it has done? You may claim that it has helped people be righteous, but religion has killed far more people than it has "saved". So why?

@speckleasme Don't say that my arguments are unverifiable if your entire belief system is meant to be taken on one's self...

I have not taken the burden of defending religion on myself. I don't claim to be all wise, all knowing, or all powerful. Your question should be directed to the One you claim does not exist.

@freespeechfreelancer I have not taken the burden of defending religion on myself. I don't claim to be all wise, all knowing, or all...

Your God is not the one who controls whether religion will continue. That decision is left to the people who actually practice religion. Since you are one of those people, I am perfectly justified in posing the question to you.

And you are definitely defending religion, so don't claim otherwise.

So answer my question now and stop avoiding it.

@speckleasme Your God is not the one who controls whether religion will continue. That decision is left to the people who...

Quite frankly, I am done discussing with you. I don't take kindly to your attitude. I do not live to answer your questions or be your little sporting punching bag. You did not answer or refute my last lengthy comment, so I have nothing else to say to you.
Oh, and it is not because I couldn't provide many answers - it is because I am choosing not to.

@freespeechfreelancer Quite frankly, I am done discussing with you. I don't take kindly to your attitude. I do not live to answer your...

By backing down now you look weak. It doesn't matter whether you know the answers or not, it matters whether you give them.

If there's one thing I've learned about you it's that you don't like to lose. You'd only back off here if you had no other option.

I really just want to know how you would justify religion. Go ahead, give me a reason that religion should continue.

@speckleasme By backing down now you look weak. It doesn't matter whether you know the answers or not, it matters whether you...

Thank you. I figured you would say something like that. You know nothing about me - only what I have shared of myself. And I don't like to lose? I did not know I was playing a game or trying to win anything. You better go read more of my posts and comments.
And I already advised you to consult the One you claim does not exist.

@freespeechfreelancer Thank you. I figured you would say something like that. You know nothing about me - only what I have shared of...

If I claim he does not exist, how can I talk to him? Even if he does exist, I would have to be some kind of prophet to be able to speak to him.

Winning and losing are not terms that are only applied to games. In this case, we are having a debate. Debates are things that are won and lost without being games. If you walk away from this now, you could say you lost by rule of forfeit.

So why back off now? usually when people get pissed off about something they care about, it makes their desire to argue greater.

I'm asking for an answer to a pretty simple question. One that a religious person should be able to answer without any trouble. That is... if there is a valid answer at all. I'm not sure if there is. I want to find out.

@speckleasme If I claim he does not exist, how can I talk to him? Even if he does exist, I would have to be some kind of prophet...

You proved to me you have all the answers that you want and need. Call it whatever you like. And you did not rebuke that long comment I posted, even though I tried my best to get you to. You walked away first, so if your debate analysis is correct, then you lost.
You are the kind of person that regardless of what answers were given you, you would know better and have a come back.
One of my favorite Bible quotes is "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." Since you say and fully believe He can not or does not exist, then according to His book (which I respect and revere more than the words of any person I could ever meet), you fit the verse well.
I am confident you will find all the answers you are asking without my help. You did just fine before you jumped in laughing at Bible believers, and you will continue doing the same as you go forward. I simply won't satisfy your surly antics.

@freespeechfreelancer You proved to me you have all the answers that you want and need. Call it whatever you like. And you did not rebuke...

Answer to all paragraphs in order:

Incorrect, I did not walk away, i simply tried debating a different angle. And I did reply to your comment, just not in the way you were expecting and you were therefore not prepared for my response. This threw you off your stride. I'll reply to your comment in a conventional manner if you like, after you answer my question. I'm not arguing with you to convince you or to get convinced myself. I'm doing it for the audience, any people who are unsure and are reading this thread either for fun or for answers.

Incorrect again, I think it is probably true that god does not exist, but I never said it was certain. I said that either god does not exist, or he does. But if he does, you must ask yourself why hasn't he done anything about the horrible things happening all over the world today and why didn't he help in the past? And why doesn't he prove himself existent to all who doubt him? Also, you respect the bible more than you could respect the words of men? you do realize that the bible was written by dozens if not hundreds or maybe even thousands of men, right? God did not write that thing.

I'm sure I will find my answers, or lack thereof, at some point. But that would require waiting. You could give me a lot of what I need to know right now. Why won't you satisfy my antics? You seemed happy enough to answer and refute my questions in the past. Why the hesitation now?

I'd appreciate it if you responded to all of my points here, instead of just choosing one that you have a response to and ignoring the others, like you usually do.

@freespeechfreelancer At least we are talking rationally now and finding some common ground. Your friend example can be multiplied by...

BTW...
I had the best typo of all time. I originally typed "big bang theorgy". Shows you were my mind is at. biggrin smilie

@PhilboydStudge BTW... I had the best typo of all time. I originally typed "big bang theorgy". Shows you were my mind is at...

Did you want me to see only the second part of the word OR break it in to 2 separate words? I think you were trying to slip me a subliminal message to distract from the heated discussion!

@freespeechfreelancer At least we are talking rationally now and finding some common ground. Your friend example can be multiplied by...

I agree with most of what you just said (I haven't really been looking at many posts recently, just commenting).

However, I think that the two options for the origin of life is that it either all happened by probability and accident over time and that it happened a certain coincidental way, or that God made those circumstances and made the coincidence alike: coincidence is the cause and life is the effect, or God is the cause and life and the appearance of life is the effect. God filled in the blanks that probability fills for evolutionists, but I don't necessarily see either view as contradicting of science, meaning science isn't inherently pinned against religion.

What it all comes down to is subjectivity. There is nothing more false than 100% certainty about either belief, and that should give us enough doubt about our own ideas to leave that of others alone except in direct conflict, which we sometimes misperceive.

However, most of what you said in the post isn't really true, because none of those adaptations would be useful to those species anyways, and therefore those displaying them would likely not survive any longer than a normal animal. In addition, human influence sort or ceased evolution in animals we eat due to herding and selective breeding. Selective breeding is sort of proof that controlled genetic variation and selection can cause genetic change over even short periods of time. That, I feel, isn't too crazy. Why do you not believe it?

Sorry to make you reiterate, but I'm pressed for time and don't really want to read through and see, plus your exact view may be different from what I get in a specific comment, perhaps written about only part of the reason.

@Watchful_questioneer I agree with most of what you just said (I haven't really been looking at many posts recently, just...

Your 3rd paragraph is exactly where I have been all along. You have not. Nobody can prove beyond any reasonable doubt to everyone's satisfaction. Therefore, for the scientific community to assume and teach their view as completely correct or even factually true, IS misleading and disingenuous. ALL I have been battling for is that everyone be open and honest about whatever they believe. And science IS the only option given in the government schools. That is not education. Presenting ONE SIDE of any issue is called propaganda. Education is exposing people to all possibilities and allowing them to decide and choose for themselves. When you don't teach or allow for any other possibility but one, then you are slamming the door on all other ideas, and saying "we are right" and nothing else matters.
I strongly beg to differ and will continue doing so.

@freespeechfreelancer Your 3rd paragraph is exactly where I have been all along. You have not. Nobody can prove beyond any reasonable...

I agree that we can never be 100% certain of any theory. Heck, the theory of gravity might someday be found to be wrong.

Then though you seem to suggest that both creationism and evolution are on equal footing. I believe my sentiments towards this suggestion could be done justice by a quote from Pulp Fiction:

Ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport.

There is no controversy. Creationism simply is not science. If creationism is to be taught in public schools, it would belong in a mythology class.

@PhilboydStudge I agree that we can never be 100% certain of any theory. Heck, the theory of gravity might someday be found to be...

Bravo, bravo - you win the asswipe comment of the year award! If you are going to start acting and talking stupid, then there is no need to entertain such nonsense.

@freespeechfreelancer Your 3rd paragraph is exactly where I have been all along. You have not. Nobody can prove beyond any reasonable...

I really wanted you to address one thing and I just noticed you didn't, but what do you make of selective breeding? It's an example of us physically seeing evolution before our eyes, so how would you refute it?

@Watchful_questioneer I really wanted you to address one thing and I just noticed you didn't, but what do you make of selective breeding?...

This guy is much more qualified to answer that than I. Essentially, there is no species changing from one to another. It is not, and has not been observed.

http://designed-dna.org/blog-2/...Evolution.html

@freespeechfreelancer This guy is much more qualified to answer that than I. Essentially, there is no species changing from one to...

That's a very interesting point he brings up, and I think it's basically a fancy way of saying "because nobody has recreated the evolution of a species from a single-celled organism, evolution is not proven".

The article is completely fixated on distinguishing horizontal variation from macro-scale evolution, when really it's a piece of a whole. Sure, dogs of a different color aren't a new species, but what if after that, we changed their shape, build, and so on. It's just changing genes, just cumulative. After one change, another can still happen and in nature there's never a shortage of advantages and disadvantages. I couldn't tell if the article was even postulating that macro-scale evolution is possible in theory, but I'll assume it did and merely rejected the likelihood of its actual occurrence.

My response, then, is a fancy "why not?". I can see several things that you might see wrong with evolution, so I'll address each.

1. Lack of variation: In nature, the vast majority of organisms produce vast numbers of offspring, all of whom compete. Naturally, it's only the best that can survive, or the luckiest. But the way reproduction works, it's designed to produce a bell curve of variation on every trait (or just several versions if it's like color or something).
2. Luck and chance: As luck runs out, a breed that coasts on it dies too, so that hardly gets in the way. There's some errors with luck, which is why some species go extinct or get stupid adaptations that don't actually help them, like peacocks.
3. Lack of circumstances to give certain traits an advantage: This seems like the big one. The hardest aspect of evolution is comprehending the nature of nature itself. When a cheetah is running, it's also competing with the lion for its food. So they both scour constantly and whenever one finds food, the successful pack thrives. And the slow pack dies. And so when that pack reproduces, its bell curve for speed will be slightly higher.
Then, there's energy storage, strength, camouflage, and fighting skill. All these things will make one animal survive and a lesser one die. But it's a really small difference because of the magnitude of variation, and slow because randomness gets in the way.

If there's any single one you challenge, please specify why.

This user has deactivated their account.
@1962756

Read the thread. I believe I am allowed the same silly liberty to hypothesize, theorize, or fantasize as are the over educated numbskulls.

@freespeechfreelancer Read the thread. I believe I am allowed the same silly liberty to hypothesize, theorize, or fantasize as are the...

How can someone be over educated?
& if you are educated, how can you be a numbskull? Numbskull refers to someone who is stupid.

What would have to happen is that pigs with hollower bones were given an environmental advantage slowly, then ones that could jump farther, then ones with more aerodynamic bodies, then with more bird-like bodies, then whose front legs grew skin attached to the torso to flap, then with legs higher up, then who could balance on hind legs (perhaps wider, less bulky hooves), and eventually flight. A lot of these would have to occur simultaneously, like the front legs becoming like arms. With pigs it's a real stretch, but with other adaptations it's not.

The reason stuff like this doesn't usually happen is because animals don't usually face such drastic change in what helps them survive. But when they do, mutations that help them are the ones that get passed on.

There was an instance of when in forests, white moths and black moths coexisted. But there was a big fire and afterwards, only the black moths had camouflage and all the white moths died out. Now, all the moths in that forest are black. Evolution is like that, but more slow with tons of mutations being present at the same time.

I thought (I could be wrong) that evolution occurs only when an organism or something needs to adapt to its environment in order to survive and eventually when enough changes occur it turns into another species.
So those examples you gave like pigs flying are ridiculous.

That isn't how evolution works.

Did you happen to watch the debate on this subject between Ken Ham and Bill Nye?

@freespeechfreelancer No - I was working. Would love to find it and watch still.

Here you go- I thought you'd find it interesting. I don't know if your opinion is exactly that of Ken Ham's, but he did a great job. I still completely agree with Bill Nye, but Ken really knows how to make a case for himself. I didn't watch the whole thing, but what I watched was good.
YouTube video thumbnail

You seem to be under the impression that scientists are claiming that evolution is some sort of instantaneous process where an animal magically poofs into a new form. That's not how it is and that's not what they're claiming.

Could God have created the Big Bang and played puppet master to evolution? Sure. But creationism in the sense that He blew some dust and man was formed and then created a woman out of a rib.... no. Never.

Anonymous 0Reply

Because the changes that would be mutated would have to be beneficial to the survival of the mutated gene, like a gene that allowed the female of a species to reproduce much faster, or camouflage, or the ability to run faster, etc... Pigs would benefit none from having the introduction of wings, let alone the ability to fly. Horses wouldn't benefit much from having a horn, and if a cow were able to jump into space, it would die, and therefore not pass on its genes.

@Maelthus Because the changes that would be mutated would have to be beneficial to the survival of the mutated gene, like a...

Now, I understand you were making a joke, hopefully, but I've heard arguments like this way too many times. Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind are too good at making straw men arguments like that, such as the Crocoduck.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.