CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
So... a spider and wasp from hundreds of millions of years ago looks like... spiders and wasps of toay. So... spiders and wasps didn't change in hundreds of millions of years. Hmm... no Darwinism there.
This is why debating Liberals is like deabting children. No matter what evidence you give to make their theory less believable, they simply change their reasoning on how evolution worked with spiders versus humans.
They say wellllllll, uhhhhhh, spiders were so perfectly evolved millions of years ago they did not evolve past their perfect stage, while humans evolved far beyond earlier humans.
But of course with humans, we see no similar types of primitive man living today as we see with spiders. I guess mankind needed to randomly mutate and evolve into our most complex DNA, and for some reason we have no other similar humans from millions of years ago.
Just like they tell us how a Cheeta evolved speed to catch their prey, but Leapords evolved stealth to catch their prey.
Lions evolved team work to catch their prey while wild dogs evolved stamina to catch their prey. I GET IT! IT'S AS CLEAR AS MUD!
Why did animals not just evolve the very best traits to catch prey and that would have been the most often evolved traits.
Now for some reason only Giraffes evolved long necks to reach those higher branches and survive but other animals did not need long necks to survive.
I GET IT! IT'S AS CLEAR AS COMMON CORE MATH!
GO FIGURE! Just ignore these things that make no sense and we will continue indoctrinating our children with only the Left's theories.
This is why evolution is not a science because it is based on no beginning, and theories that make no sense.
Their only come back is always the same, uhhhhhhhhhhhhh, duhhhhh, Christianity also has no proof of the beginning of God.
NEWS FLASH, WE DON'T TEACH CHRISTIANITY AS FACT IN SCIENCE CLASSES!
Just because they look the same doesnt mean they are the same. If a creature dominates its respective food chain and that food chain remains largely unchanged for a long time then theres not much of a driving force behind natural selection. If you cant do a job any better then theres nothing to drive change.
Nope. I've seen wasps and spiders just like that today and so have you. They didn't change in hundreds of millions of years. Is your dogma being broken down Cartman, or are your confirmation biases kicking at full speed because of your childhood indoctrination? Has Atheism now become anti-science? You can call those former creatures whatever you want, but their children look exactly like that, and you know it's true. Your liberal, Atheist teachers, and possibly your parents, indoctrinated you towards Atheism.
Yep. Arachnid, pertaining to that spider is a class that still exists. Isn't that a daisy? That exact looking animal never changed. Now tell me you that you aren't indoctrinated. No amount of evidence means anything to a brainwashed lemming hack. Is your argument seriously that, that spider species died off (unprovable), and yet its cousin never changed and looks just like it? And that isn't religion how?Bwahahahahaha.... ahem.
You are arguing that if the species looks the same as another species it must be the same species. You should stop laughing because that's the dumbest thing you could believe.
You have looked at many things and have seen something that wasn't actually there. This is just another one of those cases. It is a shame that you are too indoctrinated to see that.
There is no intermediaries issue.You have no intermediaries. You have hyenas that used magic to become whales in two steps, when it would take billions to go from snout to blowhole, fur to blubber, hooves to flippers, 50 pounds to 80,000 pounds. Completely different inner systems, differemt birthing capabilities, eyes from front to top of head, small tail to whale fluke. My god man. Are you mad? You make those claims you need the same "proof" you say creationists need. So go ahead. Show us any dam thing. Otherwise you are a religious nut per your own definition.
2)To show they claim it's hundreds of millions of years old.
3)To show you how inconsistent and illogical and dogmatic atheism is.
4)Wasps and spiders that look like that are extinct? Ummmmm.... I saw one the other day. (See that's how Atheist "science" works. (It's like theistic "science" in the Dark ages. It comes to a forgone conclusion at all costs.) Any confirmation biases it takes to come to a forgone conclusion. It's a cult. They can't possibly prove those species are extinct.)
4) you can't tell anything about a spider or wasp just by looking at it. That's not scientific at all
Ummmmm.... I saw one the other day.
But, you didn't. You saw a completely different spider species.
(It's like theistic "science" in the Dark ages. It comes to a forgone conclusion at all costs.
Are you fucking kidding me? You say the picture looks like a spider, so at all costs you will claim it is the same exact thing.
Any confirmation biases
You are looking at a picture to confirm your bias against evolution.
They can't possibly prove those species are extinct.)
You on the other hand have a very easy task of matching them up to current living species and you would find if you are actually scientific is that they are different.
You actually don't get it do you? Even if that exact wasp was "extinct", it's cousin wasps were not extinct, otherwise we wouldn't have wasps that look just like that today. It's proof that wasps, no matter what species, made no visible change. None, notta, nothing.
The time scale of millions of years already is counter to the creationism story in the Bible. Plus the persistence of the form of some living things is a compliment to how well they had evolved to survive in their nitch, not a rejection of the process of evolution itself.
"The time scale of millions of years already is counter to the creationism story in the Bible."
Only if you assume one "day" from God's perspective to be equal to one day from Man's perspective, a baseless assumption.
"Plus the persistence of the form of some living things is a compliment to how well they had evolved to survive in their nitch, not a rejection of the process of evolution itself."
According to Darwinian Evolution, any species that stagnated for 100 million years would find itself grossly outmatched by its competitors, assuming it could even exist that way for so long. Even if it managed to do so, the only way that could come about would be by that species dominating its ecosystem, which it hasn't.
Only if you assume one "day" from God's perspective to be equal to one day from Man's perspective, a baseless assumption.
God is a fiction, and a day is a day. A day is a day because we know a day is a day: we have proof. What we do not have proof of, is any instance where a day cannot be a day. Nor do we have proof of a God. So as far as "baseless assumptions" go, yours ranks up there with the worst of them.
According to Darwinian Evolution, any species that stagnated for 100 million years would find itself grossly outmatched by its competitors
This isn't necessarily true. To generalize so broadly shows you have no idea what you're saying. At any rate, even if it were true, it would validate evolutionary selection, not disprove it.
assuming it could even exist that way for so long. Even if it managed to do so, the only way that could come about would be by that species dominating its ecosystem, which it hasn't.
Clearly it has found an evolutionary niche, and clearly it fits into its ecosystem. There's no part of evolutionary theory that says for a species to thrive it has to "dominate its ecosystem". It only has to be good at living within its ecosystem. Giraffes don't "dominate their ecosystem", yet here they are.
More importantly though: you believe in fairy tales and have a very warped concept of reality, as well as practically no understanding of evolutionary theory, which makes you about as authoritative on this topic as a platypus is on seventeenth century French architecture.
"God is a fiction, and a day is a day. A day is a day because we know a day is a day: we have proof. What we do not have proof of, is any instance where a day cannot be a day. Nor do we have proof of a God. So as far as "baseless assumptions" go, yours ranks up there with the worst of them."
First of all, your claim about God's existence is irrelevant to my point.
"This isn't necessarily true. To generalize so broadly shows you have no idea what you're saying."
In what manner am I generalizing? Obviously these species lived in an environment with competitors, therefore they must, according to Darwinian Evolution, significantly alter themselves to increase survivability, lest they be outmatched by said competitors and cease to exist.
"At any rate, even if it were true, it would validate evolutionary selection, not disprove it."
In what way does two species remaining largely unchanged for what is claimed to be 100 million years validate Darwinian Evolution?
"Clearly it has found an evolutionary niche, and clearly it fits into its ecosystem. There's no part of evolutionary theory that says for a species to thrive it has to "dominate its ecosystem". It only has to be good at living within its ecosystem. Giraffes don't "dominate their ecosystem", yet here they are."
I never claimed that a species must dominate its ecosystem (I.E. remove all competitors) to thrive. I stated that, in order to survive for so long while stagnating it must do so, as competition necessitates adaptation.
"More importantly though: you believe in fairy tales and have a very warped concept of reality, as well as practically no understanding of evolutionary theory, which makes you about as authoritative on this topic as a platypus is on seventeenth century French architecture."
Well, I'm glad you have no issue with mocking beliefs you baselessly assume I hold. In doing so, you have shown a clear disinterest in civil, rational discussion. I commend your candor.
First of all, your claim about God's existence is irrelevant to my point
No, it isn't. If B relies on the existence of A, the existence of A must be established. If I argue that the spaghetti monster breeds cattle, I need first prove there is such thing as a spaghetti monster, otherwise the entire thing is meaningless drivel.
In what manner am I generalizing? Obviously these species lived in an environment with competitors, therefore they must, according to Darwinian Evolution, significantly alter themselves to increase survivability, lest they be outmatched by said competitors and cease to exist.
In this manner right here. Lawl.
In what way does two species remaining largely unchanged for what is claimed to be 100 million years validate Darwinian Evolution?
They have been selected for.
I never claimed that a species must dominate its ecosystem (I.E. remove all competitors) to thrive. I stated that, in order to survive for so long while stagnating it must do so, as competition necessitates adaptation.
I wouldn't call a species finding a satisfactory niche in an ecosystem and thriving in it, as "stagnation". Before humans, many ecosystems remained stable and unchanged for far longer periods than millions of years.
Well, I'm glad you have no issue with mocking beliefs you baselessly assume I hold. In doing so, you have shown a clear disinterest in civil, rational discussion. I commend your candor.
And I commend your disingenuousness. You quite clearly believe in God. It is rather stupid of you to think that I am stupid enough to believe you're doing nothing but playing devil's advocate, particularly since I've seen you on this site on several occasions defending Jeebus and Gawd.
Nonsense deserves mockery, so that eventually you might be so ashamed to express it that you cease to.
"No, it isn't. If B relies on the existence of A, the existence of A must be established. If I argue that the spaghetti monster breeds cattle, I need first prove there is such thing as a spaghetti monster, otherwise the entire thing is meaningless drivel."
The original argument I was responding to was that the current time scale of millions of years is contrary to the Bible. My point was that it isn't, unless you take a baselessly literal approach to Genesis. To that point in particular, God's relative existence is irrelevant; the argument was about the time scale contradicting the Bible, not whether God exists.
"In this manner right here. Lawl."
I appreciate your specificity.
"I wouldn't call a species finding a satisfactory niche in an ecosystem and thriving in it, as "stagnation"."
But no organism is without competition, external or internal. According to Darwinian Evolution, surely this species must have changed at least somewhat over the millions of years it's been present?
"Before humans, many ecosystems remained stable and unchanged for far longer periods than millions of years."
Your basis for this claim being...?
"You quite clearly believe in God. It is rather stupid of you to think that I am stupid enough to believe you're doing nothing but playing devil's advocate, particularly since I've seen you on this site on several occasions defending Jeebus and Gawd.
Nonsense deserves mockery, so that eventually you might be so ashamed to express it that you cease to."
Ah, but you claimed I "believe in fairy tales". Creationism does not imply belief in fairy tales, therefore your argument is a strawman (and a pretty common one at that), therefore fallacious.
Since you're so confident that God doesn't exist, why not prove it? If it's so obvious as to be laughable to believe otherwise, where's your staggering proof?
The original argument I was responding to was that the current time scale of millions of years is contrary to the Bible. My point was that it isn't, unless you take a baselessly literal approach to Genesis. To that point in particular, God's relative existence is irrelevant; the argument was about the time scale contradicting the Bible, not whether God exists
If God doesn't exist, then this entire thread is moot. If God doesn't exist, then anything the bible says is moot. If God does not exist, then your religion is moot. If you believe God exists and the bible is his dictated word, and you wish to make arguments indirectly concerning the translation of the bible in light of objective factual observations that contradict earlier renditions of it, all for the purpose of ultimately supporting the idea that God is real and the bible conforms with scientific fact, then you must prove it. The burden of proof lies with you. If you can not prove that God is real, then you cannot prove that the bible is relevant to anything at all, especially not scientific observations and established facts.
But no organism is without competition, external or internal. According to Darwinian Evolution, surely this species must have changed at least somewhat over the millions of years it's been present?
What's to say it hasn't? Competition does not always demand radical change. Competition in this animal's ecosystem may not have been sufficient to warrant any great necessity for the selection of a radical mutation, hence why it hasn't changed all that much.
Your basis for this claim being...?
The fact that we see evidence of fairly stable ecosystems in the geological record, and in the exploration of sparsely populated landmasses.
Ah, but you claimed I "believe in fairy tales". Creationism does not imply belief in fairy tales,
Yes, it does.
therefore your argument is a strawman (and a pretty common one at that), therefore fallacious.
No, it isn't. I can substantiate my claims with evidence. You can't substantiate yours with evidence, because they are abstracted from reality itself.
Since you're so confident that God doesn't exist, why not prove it?
The burden of proof does not rest with me.
If it's so obvious as to be laughable to believe otherwise, where's your staggering proof?
"If God doesn't exist, then this entire thread is moot. If God doesn't exist, then anything the bible says is moot. If God does not exist, then your religion is moot."
I agree; all I was saying was that that specific point of the post I originally responded to is not exclusive.
"If you believe God exists and the bible is his dictated word,"
Who says I do? There are many theories on that.
"...in light of objective factual observations that contradict earlier renditions of it..."
Such as?
"...and the bible conforms with scientific fact..."
Call me a nitpicker, but the term "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. Science, in of itself, is incapable of determining absolute truth, and to claim it to be is to have unreasonable faith in it.
"The burden of proof lies with you."
Only if your position is neutral. If you claim that God doesn't exist, you share the burden of proof.
"What's to say it hasn't? Competition does not always demand radical change. Competition in this animal's ecosystem may not have been sufficient to warrant any great necessity for the selection of a radical mutation, hence why it hasn't changed all that much."
Define "radical mutation".
"The fact that we see evidence of fairly stable ecosystems in the geological record, and in the exploration of sparsely populated landmasses."
Would you be willing to provide some examples?
"No, it isn't. I can substantiate my claims with evidence. You can't substantiate yours with evidence, because they are abstracted from reality itself."
Feel free to prove how the belief in a "first cause" is equivalent to believing in fairy tails, if you believe you can. I can certainly substantiate my claims, both with observational, circumstantial evidence and logical extrapolation.
"The burden of proof does not rest with me."
Claiming God to definitely not exist (rather than claiming to hold no belief in that regard) is a definite claim, and therefore holds the burden of proof.
You can't win by making semantic pretzels and hedging your bets. Absence of evidence, in physical terms, is most definitely evidence of absence. There is no evidence whatsoever for God's existence. You are the one who asserts that God is real. I simply assert that there is no evidence for this whatsoever.
The logical conclusion from this is that god is at best, irrelevant. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it.
Again, with the burden of proof: you are the one asserting that there are irreconcilable holes in evolutionary theory, and that these fossils show evolution to be unlikely or outright false. You are going against a stockpile of dense scientific literature spanning over a hundred years, collated loosely in what is collectively the single largest body of scientific evidence regarding any theory, ever. The burden of proof in this regard most definitely is yours.
Aside, I don't need material proof to assert that God doesn't exist. God is a metaphysical literary concept, by definition unfalsifiable and untestable, not subject to the confines of material investigation, ergo, irrelevant to science. All I need assert is this: no scientific evidence of your god exists.
If Exodus had occurred, we would expect archeological evidence of it. There is none.
If the great flood had occurred, we would expect geological evidence of it: there is none.
If life had begun with a man named Adam and woman named Eve, only enough generations ago to equal 6,000 years of humanity on Earth, then why have we found evidence of humanity far beyond that timescale?
Conclusion, various bible stories are clearly fictional.
It is not radical to question the factual quality of the bible on this basis alone. But take the historical context and it gets much worse: the Roman political syncretism of local pagan mythology and the Nazarene creed as an attempt to bridge cultural schisms; the disputed authenticity of authorship of the books of the bible; the Nicene council and the arbitrary selection of the canonical texts of the bible; the fracture of the Orthodox into the Roman Catholic tradition and the further into the European reformation by the Lutherans; the subsequent manifestation of thousands of interpretations of a book proven by scriptural analysis and cross-reference to contain numerous forged insertions; a book which was then subject to a radical re-arrangement in the Jacobian literary style by decree of a King well renowned for torturing women in his custody; a book then propagated around the world and now most vehemently utilized by a brand of Republican capitalists entirely opposed to the altruistic and ascetic vialues of the man whose teachings are ostensibly the central authority of the text. Add this all together and you have one hell of an impossible job trying to assert that any arbitrary translation you subscribe to (which of course all translations are) can have any meaning or significance whatsoever. And at the same time, you have the gall to question a heavily validated, thoroughly referenced, broad, well-established and cemented area of current scientific study in the most technologically and intellectually advanced age our species have ever known?
"There is no evidence whatsoever for God's existence."
Here's a formal logical proof of God's existence, copy/pasted from another argument for the sake of simplicity:
"Before I can argue in favor of Creationism, the belief in God or gods, I must first define a couple terms, specifically for purposes of my arguments:
1. "God": "The omnipotent, intelligent, supernatural creator of the universe"
2. "Universe": "The entirety of physical existence"
Further, for purposes of this specific argument, I must clarify several terms, as their meaning is not known by many:
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics: This physical law states that "energy can be neither created nor destroyed". This also applies to matter, as the two are interchangeable, as proven by Einstein's famous equation (E = MC^2),
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: This physical law states, in essence, that the entropy of an isolated system can only increase. For the purposes of this argument, I'll only point out that, A. a consequence of this law is that the temperature of all matter in the Universe is slowly reaching equilibrium (at which point, all thermal reactions will cease, as they require temperature difference to achieve), and B. that all thermodynamic reactions (any reactions involving the exchange of heat) increase entropy (the aforementioned equilibrium).
With that out of the way, I can begin:
First, I will prove that the Universe was created by something:
The Universe has always existed, or it began at some point. That statement, by its structure ("P v ~P" in symbolic form), is true. Further, if one half of it can be proven to have definite truth value (true or false), the other must have an opposite truth value.
A consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, to reiterate, is that the temperature of all matter in the Universe is slowly reaching equilibrium. If the Universe has existed forever, then it follows that all matter in the Universe would be of equal temperature (due to having an infinite amount of time to reach said temperature), therefore life would be impossible. This is obviously not the case, therefore I can confidently say that the Universe has not existed forever, therefore the Universe had a definite beginning.
Since the Universe began, it follows that something created it, due to both "cause and effect" and its inherent complexity (more on that later). For the sake of simplicity, I'll refer to this "something" as a force.
Second, I will prove that God created the Universe:
Keeping the above information in mind (particularly the First Law of Thermodynamics), I will form a formal logical syllogism, first in propositional form, then in plain English:
Propositional:
All Universe-creating forces are physical law-violators,
No physical forces are physical law-violators,
Therefore no Universe-creating forces are physical forces.
Plain English:
The "force" that created the Universe performed actions that conflict with the laws of physics (matter and energy were created with the Universe, violating the First Law of Thermodynamics), and no physical forces are capable of conflicting with the laws of physics (physical forces must follow physical laws), therefore the "force" that created the Universe is non-physical, or supernatural.
This syllogism is valid due to its structure (All U is V, no P is V, therefore no U is P), and, as previously demonstrated, has true premises, therefore the syllogism is sound and the conclusion (that a supernatural "force" created the Universe) is true.
But that, in of itself, doesn't prove much. It fulfills one of the criteria for "God" (supernatural), but that's it. So let's do a bit of extrapolation:
The remaining criteria for this "force" to be "God" are are that it must be both omnipotent and intelligent. The former can be easily proven, as the "force" created quite literally all of our existence, the latter being indicated by the complexity and deliberate orderliness present within the Universe (the regularity of the physical laws, actual celestial bodies, etc.).
In conclusion, I have proven the existence of God using proven physical principles (the first two Laws of Thermodynamics) and formal logic."
Enjoy.
"You are going against a stockpile of dense scientific literature spanning over a hundred years, collated loosely in what is collectively the single largest body of scientific evidence regarding any theory, ever."
Just because you claim the existence of a massive quantity of evidence for a theory doesn't mean said evidence exists. You've yet to present any actual evidence.
"Aside, I don't need material proof to assert that God doesn't exist. God is a metaphysical literary concept, by definition unfalsifiable and untestable, not subject to the confines of material investigation, ergo, irrelevant to science. All I need assert is this: no scientific evidence of your god exists."
You absolutely can falsify the existence of God: if the bulk of observational evidence pointed to the Universe having no creator, clearly God would be likely to not exist (note: I say "likely", as science can never determine irrefutable truth). Your statement appears to assume that God's relative existence is not claimed to have any observable effect; clearly it does.
"If Exodus had occurred, we would expect archeological evidence of it. There is none."
"Those archaeologists’ claims that the Exodus never happened are not based on evidence, but largely on its absence. They assert that we’ve combed the Sinai and not found any evidence of the mass of millions of people whom the Bible says were there for 40 years. That assertion is just not true. There have not been many major excavations in the Sinai, and we most certainly have not combed it. Moreover, uncovering objects buried 3,200 years ago is a daunting endeavor. An Israeli colleague laughingly told me that a vehicle that had been lost in the 1973 Yom Kippur War was recently uncovered under 16 meters—that’s 52 feet—of sand. Fifty-two feet in 40 years!" -http://www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction
"If life had begun with a man named Adam and woman named Eve, only enough generations ago to equal 6,000 years of humanity on Earth, then why have we found evidence of humanity far beyond that timescale?"
Do you remember, in my original post, my point about many Creationists taking an allegorical approach to Genesis, or were you too busy mocking me?
"It is not radical to question the factual quality of the bible on this basis alone. But take the historical context and it gets much worse: the Roman political syncretism of local pagan mythology and the Nazarene creed as an attempt to bridge cultural schisms; the disputed authenticity of authorship of the books of the bible; the Nicene council and the arbitrary selection of the canonical texts of the bible; the fracture of the Orthodox into the Roman Catholic tradition and the further into the European reformation by the Lutherans; the subsequent manifestation of thousands of interpretations of a book proven by scriptural analysis and cross-reference to contain numerous forged insertions; a book which was then subject to a radical re-arrangement in the Jacobian literary style by decree of a King well renowned for torturing women in his custody; a book then propagated around the world and now most vehemently utilized by a brand of Republican capitalists entirely opposed to the altruistic and ascetic vialues of the man whose teachings are ostensibly the central authority of the text. Add this all together and you have one hell of an impossible job trying to assert that any arbitrary translation you subscribe to (which of course all translations are) can have any meaning or significance whatsoever."
To begin with, you've provided no evidence whatsoever about your extraordinary claims of "arbitrary selection of canonical texts", "scriptural analysis and cross-reference to contain numerous forged insertions", etc.
Further, several of your points are completely irrelevant to the Bible's accuracy, particularly your mention of the creation of denominations (as it says nothing about the book itself, but of the people reading it).
"And at the same time, you have the gall to question a heavily validated, thoroughly referenced, broad, well-established and cemented area of current scientific study in the most technologically and intellectually advanced age our species have ever known?"
To reiterate, you have provided no evidence whatsoever of this "heavily validated, thoroughly referenced, broad, well-established and cemented area of current scientific study". If it exists, as I have previously pointed out, why not present it?
First of all, you're using the laws of thermodynamics to assert that the universe must have "begun", but you've no idea what that implies or how much of a misnomer that view is. If the universe tends toward entropy then in the precursory state to the big bang it logically would have no entropy. No entropy means no motion, no space, no discernable form, which means no time, which means no meaningful concept of before or after, which means the idea of "beginning" becomes absolutely meaningless. (What would the universe be if it wasn't?)
Second, the second law of thermodynamic applies to the total entropy of the universe. A closed system can decrease in entropy as long as that decrease is offset somehwere else.
Third, the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, which means the maximum entropy limit of the universe is exponentially increasing.
Fourth, the demand for "creation" because "it began" is absurd: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.
Fifth, the "universe" is a space-time continuum, with matter and energy. A state of total entropy means a state of unique macrocosm, an infinitely dense state: that is simply energy in a different form.
There is no need for a creator.
Just because you claim the existence of a massive quantity of evidence for a theory doesn't mean said evidence exists. You've yet to present any actual evidence
Wow. No evidence for evolution exists? Really?
The rest of this is pure nonsense, the kind of drivel I would expect from an idiot. AnswersInGenesis? Clearly you have no solid understanding of science, whatsoever.
Here is a list of every single claim made by creationists regarding any scientific theory or topic that you can think them to have challenged, with references and links to published materials in the refutations contained within every answer.
"First of all, you're using the laws of thermodynamics to assert that the universe must have "begun", but you've no idea what that implies or how much of a misnomer that view is. If the universe tends toward entropy then in the precursory state to the big bang it logically would have no entropy. No entropy means no motion, no space, no discernable form, which means no time, which means no meaningful concept of before or after, which means the idea of "beginning" becomes absolutely meaningless. (What would the universe be if it wasn't?)"
In what way does that contradict my point? I never claimed that the Universe at one point had no entropy; obviously, being composed of matter and energy, it had some entropy to begin with.
"Second, the second law of thermodynamic applies to the total entropy of the universe. A closed system can decrease in entropy as long as that decrease is offset somehwere else."
Again, what does that have to do with my point? I'm not talking about a specific region of space, I'm talking about the entirety of physical existence.
"Third, the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, which means the maximum entropy limit of the universe is exponentially increasing."
Your basis for this being? Just because the contents of the Universe are spreading out doesn't mean they're increasing in quantity.
Further, even if your claim is true, the contents of the Universe, being of finite quantity, are only capable of spreading a finite distance, after which point expansion will still be impossible. As the climax of that event will be a finite point in time away, it follows that if the Universe had existed forever, it would have already happened by now.
"Fourth, the demand for "creation" because "it began" is absurd: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form."
And the First Law of Thermodynamics is a physical law; the only "force" it wouldn't apply to, by definition, would be a non-physical force. Since matter and energy were created, it follows that the creator of said mass and energy was non-physical in nature.
"No evidence for evolution exists? Really?"
I didn't claim that; I merely pointed out that you haven't yet provided any of what you claim to be the massive amount of evidence for it.
"AnswersInGenesis? Clearly you have no solid understanding of science, whatsoever."
Ah, so because I use a source you disagree with (and I never said I agree with them, either, it's just evidence), I have no understanding of science? This coming from the person who used the term "scientific fact" with what I assume to be a straight face.
"Here is a list of every single claim made by creationists regarding any scientific theory or topic that you can think them to have challenged, with references and links to published materials in the refutations contained within every answer."
Quite interesting. Obviously, I can't refute every single claim made in this list, but here are a few noteworthy ones:
1. Their rebuttal to "Evolution promotes racism":
The only reference to support their positive claims (those that actually support the idea that Darwinian Evolution does not promote racism, rather than accusing Creationists of racism) is a single article which provides no relevance to their claims other than a vague reference to "typographical thinking", which they claim supports racism. There's one "well researched, thoroughly referenced" claim out of the way.
2. Their rebuttal to "Inherit the Wind is propaganda":
Their only substantial arguments in this regard are that the movie is fictional and has dramatic license. Having seen the movie myself, I can confidently say that its obviously manipulative nature is by no means justified by its fictional nature, nor its dramatic license. It was clearly designed to portray Creationists as bigoted, paranoid, and moronic, and Darwinists as reasonable, with no real backing.
3. Their rebuttal to Darwin's mention of the eye being unexplainable by Evolution:
They point out that Darwin continues on, conjecturing that a simple eye could become a complex one with many changes, each somehow useful to the creature possessing it. He even goes so far as to claim this actually happens. However, he neither provides any evidence for such changes (or the possibility of such changes) occurring, nor how said changes could feasibly benefit the creature on their own. In short, a lot of wishful thinking.
These are just a few. Refuting every single argument would take more time than I feel this argument (particularly with your atrocious lack of civility) is worth.
1) People of science in Darwin's day used the term "races" to refer to different types of species. Using it in this context is hardly racist.
2) A fictional film is of ultimately no consequence to the validity of evolutionary theory.
3) Darwin never claimed the eye was unexplainable by evolution. He said (and I paraphrase) that the notion seems frankly absurd, yet it is true all the same.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly depends on us [humans] more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected are capable of perceiving light, it is possible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
In short: just because we have trouble accepting that the eye was a product of evolution (as Darwin most certainly did; his entire focus on his journey being to prove creation, yet he ended up stumbling upon evolution) does not mean that the eye was not a product of evolution.
That we have trouble accepting something, in no way stops it from being true.
As for the astronomical arguments you put forward: nobody in astrophysics has proven the universe to be finite. Even if it is finite, there's no basis for saying that the contents are insufficient to have existed as long as they do without encountering heat death. We really don't know how much the universe contains in terms of space and matter. We know for sure that it's at least a hundred billion lightyears across, beyond that might simply be beyond our horizon of vision.
If the universe is infinite, it could have happened several times over. The universe exists in a state of exact proton-electron balance, and when we do encounter the disintegration of protons and the de-Sitter spacetime, all energy that exists, will STILL exist, simply in a different form: one of compete entropy (which in macrophysical terms might very well produce the same results as a universe with zero entropy, since no entropy can happen).. Its entirely possible, theoretically, for that degraded energy to begin to shrink back on itself due to shared gravitational potential, essentially leading to a second "big bang".
As for "a non-physical force", physical laws are the basis of all astronomy. If you want to talk about things that exist outside what exists, switch to metaphysical philosophy. We know of no force, entity, construct or form of stuff that isn't physical and that doesn't obey the laws of physics. The very nature of knowable existence makes knowing any force that does not abide by it impossible through the means available to us, which makes the study thereof entirely and utterly meaningless.
You've not proven God at all: you've just proven the concept's complete irrelevance.
"1) People of science in Darwin's day used the term "races" to refer to different types of species. Using it in this context is hardly racist."
And what, exactly, does that have to do with my point?
"2) A fictional film is of ultimately no consequence to the validity of evolutionary theory."
Oh, but it is. The deliberate use of propaganda implies the idea being presented cannot support itself, and therefore requires a less-than-honest means to be accepted.
"3) Darwin never claimed the eye was unexplainable by evolution. He said (and I paraphrase) that the notion seems frankly absurd, yet it is true all the same."
I never said he did, I merely referenced the site's rebuttal.
"In short: just because we have trouble accepting that the eye was a product of evolution (as Darwin most certainly did; his entire focus on his journey being to prove creation, yet he ended up stumbling upon evolution) does not mean that the eye was not a product of evolution."
Isn't the fact that no evidence whatsoever suggests the possibility, much less the actual occurrence, of gradual mutation being able to develop a complex eye in of itself a refutation of Darwinian Evolution? All a Scientific Theory is is an explanation of observable phenomena; if a hypothesis doesn't explain a significant observable phenomenon (in this case, the existence of "irreducibly complex" structures), it's not a Scientific Theory.
Ironically, starting with your conclusion and attempting to justify it is what many Atheists accuse Creationists of doing.
"There's nothing rational about someone who cites a disreputable source and then tries to pretend they don't agree with what it says."
Well, first of all, to claim a person to be entirely irrational based off of a single action of theirs is absurd.
Second, I never once claimed to agree with the source I presented; it was merely a rebuttal to your implying that no geological evidence exists which could be construed to support the Biblical Flood.
"If you're going to argue a point, make clear your point."
I had assumed, given my quoting you before my rebuttal of said quote, my point (necessarily being counter to yours) in any particular statement would be clear. I could, I think, be more explicit as to my point, if you'd prefer, though I doubt that's your meaning.
And what, exactly, does that have to do with my point?
Are you seriously saying that the terminology used in Darwin's day -- races to talk about species -- ha no relevance to whether or not Darwinian evolution promotes the ideas of racism, when the topic (does Darwinian evolution promote racism) was entirely what your first "rebuttal" was concerning?
Oh, but it (a fictional film) is (of consequence to the validity of evolutionary theory). The deliberate use of propaganda implies the idea being presented cannot support itself, and therefore requires a less-than-honest means to be accepted.
Inherit the Wind is a sixty year old fictional play with a movie adaptation, that I personally had never even heard of prior to this debate, written by a playwright with a bachelor of the Arts degree. Hardly an authority on science. In any case, the content of a fictional play has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory. What part of that is difficult for you?
I never said he did, I merely referenced the site's rebuttal.
If you're going to use a rebuttal via a reference, I will assume you to take the viewpoint of the reference you are presenting. That's how debate works. In any case, you say further in this response (regarding the evolution of the eye): Isn't the fact that no evidence whatsoever suggests the possibility, much less the actual occurrence, of gradual mutation being able to develop a complex eye in of itself a refutation of Darwinian Evolution?
The AnswersInGenesis nonsense contains assertions and questions to this same effect. Thus, I conclude, logically, that you are of the view that the evolution of the eye is not possible, and that Darwin himself admitted this (as the reference you gave asserts). Enough of this moseying around the point.
Darwin expressly concluded that the human eye -- while difficult to imagine as a product of evolution -- must have occured through the evolutionary progression of photoreceptors. Thus to say that Darwin considered the evolution of the eye impossible, is the argument from incredulity. Darwin follows his observation that the eye seems difficult to comprehend as an evolutionary adaptation, with a near 1,000 word exposition on the intermediary stages of its evolution.
All of these steps can be seen in animals throughout the world, as shown by studies carried out by Nilssen and Pelger, among many other biologists.
A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve Biological Sciences, Vol. 256, No 1345, April 1994, The Royal Society
All a Scientific Theory is is an explanation of observable phenomena; if a hypothesis doesn't explain a significant observable phenomenon (in this case, the existence of "irreducibly complex" structures), it's not a Scientific Theory.
Plenty of theories explain this.
Deletion of parts (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000)
Addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
Change of function
Addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
Gradual modification of parts
See also: Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996,
And even if irreducible complexity couldn't have evolved, that does not preclude design.
But really, most of the arguments in the same vein of yours exist out of a misunderstanding of what irreducible complexity is. For a biochemist, the only thing that is "irreducibly complex" in terms of chemistry is an atom.
Aharoni, A., L. Gaidukov, O. Khersonsky, S. McQ. Gould, C. Roodveldt and D. S. Tawfik. 2004. The 'evolvability' of promiscuous protein functions. Nature Genetics
Bridgham, Jamie T., Sean M. Carroll and Joseph W. Thornton. 2006. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312: 97-101.
Dujon, B. et al. 2004. Genome evolution in yeasts. Nature 430: 35-44.
Hooper, S. D. and O. G. Berg. 2003. On the nature of gene innovation: Duplication patterns in microbial genomes. Molecular Biololgy and Evolution 20(6)
Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery. 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
Meléndez-Hevia, Enrique, Thomas G. Waddell and Marta Cascante. 1996. The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43(3)
Muller, Hermann J. 1918. Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors. Genetics 3
Muller, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14: 261-280.
Pennisi, Elizabeth. 2001. Genome duplications: The stuff of evolution? Science 294: 2458-2460.
Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45
Well, first of all, to claim a person to be entirely irrational based off of a single action of theirs is absurd.
I didn't claim you to be entirely irrational. I claimed that citing a disreputable source and then trying to pretend you don't agree with it (for the sake of making unclear arguments for the purpose of ambiguity in debate) is not rational. And you happen to be the person who decried a lack of rationality in this discussion. Irony isn't above you.
Second, I never once claimed to agree with the source I presented; it was merely a rebuttal to your implying that no geological evidence exists which could be construed to support the Biblical Flood.
Again, if you don't agree with the source, if you don't intend for that source to be considered tantamount to your views, if you don't believe what the source says, if you don't wish to use the source to present your point: then don't use it. Present your point clearly and succinctly, use sources that back it up. Enough of dancing around your point.
"Are you seriously saying that the terminology used in Darwin's day -- races to talk about species -- ha no relevance to whether or not Darwinian evolution promotes the ideas of racism, when the topic (does Darwinian evolution promote racism) was entirely what your first "rebuttal" was concerning?"
What the term "race" was generally referred to back in the day is irrelevant to the original claim (and thus my rebuttal), as the website never claimed it to hold relevance. All I'm doing is pointing out flaws in the website, not arguing to the contrary; in other words, I'm not interested in the issue itself with this specific point, but the site's claims about it.
"Inherit the Wind is a sixty year old fictional"
What does its relative age have to do with anything?
"that I personally had never even heard of prior to this debate"
And, what, you're an expert on such matters? What does your personal foreknowledge (or lack thereof) have to do with this?
"written by a playwright with a bachelor of the Arts degree."
And? Are playwrights with Arts degrees incapable of producing propaganda for what is claimed to be a Scientific Theory?
"In any case, the content of a fictional play has no bearing on the validity of a scientific theory."
To reiterate, with these specific points, I'm not interested in the issues themselves, but the websites claims about them. If this is so irrelevant, blame the site, not me.
"If you're going to use a rebuttal via a reference, I will assume you to take the viewpoint of the reference you are presenting. That's how debate works."
In its entirety? That's absurd! Perhaps I should have been somewhat more clear.
"The AnswersInGenesis nonsense contains assertions and questions to this same effect. "
Elsewhere on their website, I assume, because those claims certainly weren't in the articles I linked to.
Further, you have yet to rebut their claims with anything other than "oh, they're disreputable", completely disregarding the evidence they present (also, interestingly, the Smithsonian article I linked to below them).
"Thus, I conclude, logically, that you are of the view that the evolution of the eye is not possible, and that Darwin himself admitted this (as the reference you gave asserts). "
Assuming that because I use a source for an issue, and because it presents a single argument that you assume to be consistent with my arguments, that I agree with it in its entirety, is, as previously stated, absurd. If you command logic as well as your condescending language implies, how can you possibly fail to avoid using such an obvious hasty conclusion?
"Darwin expressly concluded that the human eye -- while difficult to imagine as a product of evolution -- must have occured through the evolutionary progression of photoreceptors. Thus to say that Darwin considered the evolution of the eye impossible, is the argument from incredulity. Darwin follows his observation that the eye seems difficult to comprehend as an evolutionary adaptation, with a near 1,000 word exposition on the intermediary stages of its evolution."
As previously stated (and previously ignored), I never claimed Darwin to have claimed the eye's Evolutionary impossibility; I was simply referencing the site's rebuttal.
"Plenty of theories explain this.
Deletion of parts (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000)
Addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
Change of function
Addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
Gradual modification of parts
See also: Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996,"
Rather than tossing theories at me, could you, seeing as this is a debate, kindly explain how they support your claim?
"And even if irreducible complexity couldn't have evolved, that does not preclude design."
Of course it does: if irreducibly complex structures could not have come about through Evolution, yet they exists, clearly there must be some other explanation for their existence than simply Evolution.
"But really, most of the arguments in the same vein of yours exist out of a misunderstanding of what irreducible complexity is. For a biochemist, the only thing that is "irreducibly complex" in terms of chemistry is an atom."
As previously stated, "irreducibly complex structures" are structures whose components are all essential to their basic function. If you can prove that an eye, for example, would still reasonably function if any given component were removed, it wouldn't be irreducibly complex.
" I claimed that citing a disreputable source and then trying to pretend you don't agree with it (for the sake of making unclear arguments for the purpose of ambiguity in debate) is not rational."
To reiterate, perhaps I should have been more clear: I was referring to the source as a whole, not specifically the article(s) used as evidence, or, at least, the relevant information contained therein. In this particular instance, just because I used an article from AiG doesn't mean I agree with everything they claim as an organization; simply the evidence presented in the articles I linked to.
"And you happen to be the person who decried a lack of rationality in this discussion."
The magical nothing that manifested everything is fiction. Prove that it exists. I can prove ours exists. You can't because yours makes absolutely no sense. Want a trophy for last place?
Ask me anything, and I'll answer you, with references. Ask me any scientific question you can't get your head around, and I'll do my utmost to answer it as plainly as I can. It's quite impossible to explain evolution to an acceptable standard in one response without any targeted questions.
So feel free, please. I'd be happy to explain anything you have questions about.
1)Okay. Why do wasps and spiders trapped in amber that are "hundreds of millions of years old" look like wasps and spiders today, and show us how that proves evolution.
2)How did male and female evolve at the exact same time to breed with each other in the first place, and why would this happen when it's inferior to asexuality in reproducing offspring in mass?
3)Why doesn't the fossil record or the Cambrian explosion or blood vessels in dinosaur bones support Darwinism?
1)Okay. Why do wasps and spiders trapped in amber that are "hundreds of millions of years old" look like wasps and spiders today, and show us how that proves evolution.
There could be any number of reasons. There are 16,000 species of bees currently known and more varieties of wasps. Bees are mass pollinators and wasps are mass predators, and they both have few natural predators, and are spread across virtually the entire globe. They are both essential for current ecosystems, and form such an integral part of those systems that it is probable they have been essential for many millions of years. The bees/wasps in those amber specimens are probably not the same kinds of bees/wasps we have nowadays (there will almost certainly be differences in their shape or size, colouring, stingers etc), but they do show us clear evidence that bees/wasps have existed on this Earth for a very long time, in one form or another. It doesn't by itself prove evolution, but when you take into account the number of bee/wasp species that exist today, it certainly adds weight to the overall argument about a species being successful in evolutionary terms, especially when you consider how many bee/wasp species have went extinct because they weren't successful.
2)How did male and female evolve at the exact same time to breed with each other in the first place, and why would this happen when it's inferior to asexuality in reproducing offspring in mass?
Hmm. This one is a bit more complex. A very good question though. So, there is a species of fish called poeciliopsis monacha or topminnows that can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Scientists tested these species in the following manner:
They put a single fish in a tank by itself, and then put a group of fishes in another tank. The single fish reproduced by itself, and the fish in the other tank reproduced sexually. What they found was that the fish that spawned from the single fish soon began to die off due to infections, whereas the fish that produced sexually remained healthy. It was discovered then that producing sexually allows for a continually changing gene pool, which makes life harder for pathogens attempting to mutate to fit a host.
In short, reproducing sexually offers better immunity in offspring.
Think about it. If we were to clone a human being, again and again and again, the clone would eventually succumb to the pathogens that have been inhabiting its cells, because eventually these pathogens will overcome the host if given enough time to mutate sufficiently. Whereas if we constantly shake the gene-mixture up through sex, the pathogens have a harder time keeping up. This is the same reason why Irish people (who have a relatively small gene pool) are prone to hemochromatosis, while sub-Saharan African people are not.
When you breed in a small gene pool (the smallest of which is a gene pool consisting of only one individual) you pass on the same genetic defects and vulnerabilities again and again, without any significant change.
As for why/how sexuality evolved in the first place, it evolved in single celled organisms as an outgrowth of parasitism. A eukaryote had a mutation that enabled it to attach to its progenitor and reproduce sexually, and the reason that this became advantageous, and therefore successful, is because it offers heightened immunity and larger genetic variability, plus the intrinsic potential of the mutated offspring to "attach" themselves to their ancestors (like parasites) and produce more sexually endowed offspring. Cascade evolution.
3)Why doesn't the fossil record or the Cambrian explosion or blood vessels in dinosaur bones support Darwinism?
I don't agree that it doesn't. Explain to me how you think these don't support "evolution"? (it isn't called Darwinism: it's been refined beyond that point now).
Did apes breed to produce you Progressives ? Is it males evolved into females or females evolved into males ? Can you Progressives make up your mind in the State of Confusion you live in !
You're the only one who is confused. The fact that you are confused by material beyond your limits of comprehension, does not mean that I am confused. You being too dumb to understand this, does not mean that I am too dumb to understand this.
Being dumb is okay, I fully support your right to be dumb. In fact, as a socialist, I would fully support your right to force me to financially and socially support your dumb ass.
Nope. That looks like any normal wasp to me, and if its "extinct cousin" looks just like wasps of today, well... there ya go. This isn't rocket science. If wasps look identical to their 150 million year old "cousin", then we shouldn't expect a billion inetermediary changes from molecule to human.
Humans are not bees. Comparing the evolutionary rates of humans and bees, and using the differences in their evolutionary rates to say that evolution doesn't happen, is like comparing the growth rate of a piece of coral and the growth of a banzai tree, noticing that both grow at different rates, and then concluding that growth doesn't exist.
Even if there were an argument for bees being more complex than humans (which I don't think there is), bees being more "complex" than humans has no bearing on whether or not evolution is a valid theory.
There is absolutely no way that you have a degree in anything, other than maybe some faith based nonsense. You can't form a coherent argument.
You cede point 2, because you have no answer. Males and females can't evolve at the same exact rate over hundreds of millions of years, then pop an offspring into existence. The amount of changes in both is astronomical. Asexuality was working very well, according to Darwinists, thus 2 sexes has absolutely no logical reason to pop into existence, per atheist's own logic.
Because God programmed them too. Those things do not simply pop into existence, and something never comes from nothing. Why does a car respond to a voice activation system? Because the Atheist nothing monster told it to? Wrong.
2) No evidence exists of an exterior cosmic consciousness
3) No evidence exists that biological life requires programming: biochemistry naturally forms complex molecules. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here to comment on how biochemistry exists and life is composed of chemicals
4) Nobody is saying that something "popped" into existence. Evolution is a painfully slow process. Any scientist will tell you this.
5) A car is a human invention. It is mechanical, not biological. And it does not suit as a comparison to life.
3)Even biologists admit that they don't know how a molecule could self replicate, much less manifest your claims. I've watched about every video and read every article on the topic known to man. If you study the claims of actual biologists and look at their findings, you find Atheism less compelling, not more.
4)Scientists claim it took 3 million years for humans to appear. The Cambrian was 300 million years ago. 300 million divided by 3 million is 100, meaning? You would only have 100 intermediary changes from simple organism to human. Convince yourself that we got billions of changes in 100 intermediaries. Then convince yourself it was a "slow process". Then look at the Cambrian explosion and tell us how that represents "slow".
5)A car is an invention. So is the much more complex human body, consciousness and all, including senses, emotions, love, hate, philosophy, mathematics, DNA, RNA, the human brain, and the billions of other mechanical systems that consist within the human body.
The point? No. We did not buy into the Atheist fundamentalist dogma that was brainwashed into our youth by the new militant atheism of today.
Actually, Bronto, it was the stupidity of religion that was brainwashed into me. I had to attend bible classes at school, have a religious assembly every morning and afternoon where we sang chorales and prayed and played musical odes to Jeebus and God; I was forced to take religion classes based around Protestantism (which was not to be contradicted) and was heavily indoctrinated to believe in hell, in an afterlife, and that a magical entity called "God the Father" watched my every move, every day.
And the only thing that saved me from that life of utter uselessness and self-debasement and self-torment, was the solace of fact, of science and of reason.
I probably know the bible better than you do, Bronto.
I wasn't indoctrinated to be an atheist. I became one when I discovered explanations for the universe that did not contradict my intrinsic sense of reason nor stifle my natural curiosity nor forbid my inherent skepticism.
Science does not demand to be respected and called sacred: it stands on the merits of evidence and fact, and it is falsified or validated not by faithful decree, but by unshakeable reason. Simple and honest.
As for your points, it's just more of the same.
2) None of that is proof
3) Molecules self-replicate all the time. Just because we don't entirely understand how (we are close), doesn't mean "god"
4) 3 million years from what? And who said "intermediary species" need exactly 3 million years to appear? Lol this is just nonsense and drivel at this point.
5) There is no evidence that the human body is an invention
Not actually. They are finding blood vessels in "dinosaur bones" which killed the "millions of years" theory.
Nevertheless, Adam only means "mankind" in Hebrew. The story is an alegory, and his son Cain found a wife in Nod, which kills your claim either way. Nice try though. And 6,000 years is never mentioned in the Bible. You've just created a strawman. The reference section is your friend, and the atheist apologetics sites are the enemy of truth and free thought. Trust me. I figured this out as an Atheist. I've seen them all. They lie, quote mine, and take out context on purpose. Study the Bible for yourself, and you'll reaize you've given into Atheist fundamentalist dogma.
As you can guess, I'm not going to bother with the link. The title of the debate is flawed. Even if evolution by natural selection was shown to be completely false, that doesn't get you any closer to proving God. "not A doesn't mean it must be B"
Aaaahhh. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. The Atheism of the Gaps is a logical fallacy. See how that crap works? You are barking up the wrong tree. Don't try to face an ex-atheist with the stupid atheist apologetics. Those of us who actually study know it's all crap. Don't sell me a pinto as if it's a lamborgini. I'll push your bs car out of my yard and slam the door in your face every time. Your clan needs some facts. The old crap doesn't work anymore. People can smell a lie like a dead fish. The burden of proof is on you to prove the magical nothing that manifested everything exists. So go ahead. Show it to us, otherwise you are lying and are a full fledged faithful fundamentalist. We'll wait. This should be good.
You can puff yourself up as much as you want, we all know once you get stumped you just disappear from the argument. Atheism of the gaps doesn't make any sense. "We don't know, therefore atheism?" When has that ever happened?
I got better on debate.org. Nevertheless, yes, you fit atheism into every unknown part of science. That is the twin of God of the gaps. Don't try and bs an ex Atheist. I've already been on your side. Your side is dead, and me and my tribe will be the one that kills it. Tell us where Atheism is while you are dying on your death bed. I'll tell you. It evacuates the scene and leaves you to die cackling all the way. Go ahead. You're its next victim. Just like Christopher Hitchens. (Who got saved in the end according to his own brother) God isn't great right? Yeah? Well, be sure and tell him that with a fire suit on. Who can blame Him really? You guys don't want Him? Well...
yes, you fit atheism into every unknown part of science.
Who does and how? Atheism and science are not necessarily related. In fact the views I had prior to becoming an atheist are largely the same as they are now, I simply don't attribute some form of God being the first mover.
Your side is dead, and me and my tribe will be the one that kills it
I'm seriously having a hard time trying to stop laughing at this claim.
Tell us where Atheism is while you are fying.
Frying what? Bacon? Chips?
-
You're also not addressing my question (a common tactic of yours), how would disproving evolution prove God? Disproving A does not necessarily prove B.
Disproving Darwinism would help prove God because it would leave Atheism with no central ideology. Many articles have been written stating that Darwinism is the core concept driving Atheism today. Take it away, Atheism dies.
We still have God whether Darwinism is true or not. If not, we stand alone. If true, it only shows the system that God created to make us. Nevertheless, studying Darwinism convinced me and many others that it was a joke and not even a valid theory. it took a lot of biases and lies to get the Atheist version of Darwinism, which actually doesn't even exist in the scientific community.
Disproving Darwinism would help prove God because it would leave Atheism with no central ideology.
Seriously, I can't stop laughing at that...
My lack of belief is because God has never been demonstrated to be real. Getting rid of evolution doesn't do that. Even when I was a Christian I believed in evolution, so what difference does that make? Get rid evolution, you still have no proof of God.
Really, trying that on again? Didn't work so well for you the first time. If I don't know something, that just means I don't know something. You should really be embarrassed by your arguments.
Oh right --------- Two bugs get entombed in tree sap, a hundred million years ago and OMG 😱, they look like bugs, so of course there is a magic guy in the sky. NOT
They aren't bugs. That's a wasp that looks like a wasp of today. The point? Not that it proves "there's a man in the sky", but that it, the Cambrian explosion, and lack of intermediaries, kills Darwinian theory, which is the core concept that causes Atheists to even be Atheists in the first place, according to polling.
fnord .. .. lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum
