Evolution vs Religion

[Freethinker]

Man, all this fan mail! I am pages behind right now!

Originally posted by: ScienceGuy
It seems to me that you do not discuss possible scientific views in your posts, but rather how to contradict what everyone says.

I only WISH I could be having scientifically valid discussions here. I would love to explore valid substantiated assertions and concepts. And when I see them, I respond in like fashion.

However most of whaat is posted is argument fallacies and unsupported assertions. It's useless to try and respond in a logical manner when your responding to an illogical post. So the best we can do is try and show the poster WHY their stuff was not a logically constructed argument. And then hope they learn from it and stick to logical discourse going forward.

Instead I spend lots of time reposting info on ad hominems, Straw Man and Shifting the Burden of Proof.

I am giving you a possible solution to how the Biblical creation story could make sense given the scientific findings that we have today. They may be changed or proven wrong in the future. This explanation I have given seems more logical (to me) than a six consecutive day creation week or the evolution of every living organism by chance alone. Granted, this is my view, you don't have to believe it. I would consider any alternative you will give me based on science.

Well, I don't see it presented here, so I will check your earlier post

One more thing, God is the gaps, He is here for everything.

So he is NOT everywhere, just places that other things aren't! Interesting.

Calling the plagues and creation fairytales is based on what?

History. Often a good thing to base the past on. There is nothing in any local contemporary written history from the time to support the biblical claims.

Did you research the plagues?

Are you kidding? I read EVERY SINGLE CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESS text from the time that mentions it. Here is the list:

1)

:-)

Give me science to refute science, not just opinion of God or no God.

Give me PROOF and we can use SCIENCE on it together.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: ScienceGuy
I have never posted anything in my life, but I couldn't pass this up. I have read some of the material presented in this topic. Some of the material is not worth anything, but everyone has there own views. Now I present a radical view, Everyone (almost) is right in some way. Is there a way that science (evolution) and God could coexist on the same level? Yes!

I already did respond to this.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj
i think that we did evolve but one can say that that natural selection as a driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with one another) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within its basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more.

I'm not sure what other game you may want to throw in here, but I will approach this directly and see. I will be busy correcting the misrepresentations.

I believe this is the thread in which I posted an entire list of PROVEN speciations. So it is obvious this person should already KNOW they are WRONG. That in fact speciation is a PROVEN FACT at this point.

So what we have here is misrepresentation. It's a Straw Man (I think I just said that was one that keeps me busy!). Ya, as long as we keep all those dogs on the same block, they will never change species! That's for sure! Case closed!

OK, that's out of the way. Now let's talk about EVOLUTION, instead of whatever it was the other post was pretending to talk about.

Evolution is based on genetic drift over relatively long period of time with a geographic seperation. With a geographically commonality, there will always be interbreeding, so the drift will aways be re-integrated into the gene pool.

However when you add geographical seperation to genetic drift, the two paths will eventually drift far enough apart to have resulted in seperate genetic lines that if they should cross paths again, will not develop progeny.

This is another part of the original misrepresentation. Evolution is NEVER about something "turning into" something else.

but a dog can never become anything other than a dog.

True, just like a primate can never become anything other than a primate. But one path the primate may take after an extended period of time is to the great apes of today. Another path may become a chimp. Another may become homo sapien sapien. Evolution NEVER claims that an ape turns into a man. It SHOWS that humans and apes have a common ancestry. Two very DIFFERENT things, one animal turning into another and Evolution. Let's stick to discussing Evolution on this thread. If you want to talk about magic, one animal turning into another, you can start another thread.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj
Admitting this, evolutionists

This ought to be interesting.

Please provide some valid verifyable names of "evolutionists" (we assume you mean evolutionary biologists?) that have admitted that this is how evolution works, first of all.

Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code.

Also provide a list of verifyable Evolutionary Biologists that agree that ALL "alterations to the genetic cod" are "harmful alterations".

I realize that Evolution is much harder to argue against if you stick with what Evolution ACTUALLY IS. But it is the only way we can have a valid discussion.

Natural selection also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics which states that, left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop,

Ah we are getting closer to current science, FINALLY!

The 2nd law was adopted in the mid 1800's, around the time if the US civil war. It is based on studying the interaction of various gasses in GLASS JARS. That is why all of the laws of thermodynamics are only valid when used in a "closed" system. e.g. the Law of Entropy (the 2nd law) would say that a seed can;t grow into a plant. After all, a 100 ft tree is a lot more organized (has less entropy) than the original seed it came from. But the earth is NOT a "closed system". It get's energy from outside of it. This allows an increase complexity, decrease in entropy.

Unless you are able to prove that the universe is a closed system, you can not apply the 2nd law to it. And we KNOW the earth is NOT a closed system. Or we'd lose all of our shade trees!

so evolution has to be taken by faith just like a god, unless you have something that show it to be true freethinker.

By now, you know.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
Freethinker, personal attacks are not necessary.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Instead you LIE. You LIE first by saying you admit you COULD be wrong, as proven by the 2nd lie. You lied by saying you never said such. <hr></blockquote>
What is this??? What is my first lie? "saying you admit you COULD be wrong" ??? Huh? How exactly is admitting that I could be wrong about something a lie? And your word games have lost me on the second lie as well. Where did I say that i never said such? truly, you like to twist things! It's almost laughable, if it weren't so very sad.

OK, try to follow.

In an earlier post you posted

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
I'll always believe in God, and Jesus, and everything that I believe now.

OK, this can be accepted as an honest assertion of your personal POV. You are saying that changing your mind on this is NOT an OPTION. You have closed your mind to even the possibility that you could be wrong. That you will "always believe in God, and Jesus, and everything that I believe now." I see no room for interpretation, It is very clear and straight forward.

But then you next post:

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
I have admitted not knowing everything, and not always being right in my reasoning or beliefs

these two obviously contradict each other. They can't both be TRUE, So one HAS to be a lie. Since you stated perfect knowledge of beliefs first, the 2nd one is assumed to be the lie.

Or is the first one the lie?

Regardless one of the two has to be.

Thus all I was doing was making an accurate assesment.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
instead of strengthening your case when asked to provide proof of evolution, you instead resort to your safe zone of crying "not fair, you can't ask me questions, I don't have to answer, I only have to sit here and make fun of you for believing in God".

That's quite a statement from the person that claimed to not know of ANY examples of speciation and has yet to disprove a single one of the long list I PROVIDED WHEN ASKED! While YOU are the person that has refused to provide any answers to MANY questions. The best you ever do is "no I can't prove god". WOW!

Where's tha math formula that you claimed was so overwhelming?

JNo, I have not provided a single positive proof of God. Neither have you explained the origin of human life.

EVOLUTION.

There now your turn

Prove god.

Yet you were very quick to attack someone that questioned you, resorting to taunts and word games (hence the beginning of the speciation/abiogenesis line).

Word games? Such as for getting people to use the RIGHT WORDS for the RIGHT SCIENCE. Sorry if I was trying to get people to use the ACTUAL NAMES of the fields of study under discussion. I did not know that establishing a base of reality was going to be a problem for you.

OK, yes I did.

According to you, you read every single post by me, correct?

Every post for that date on that thread is what I stated.

So tell me, which lie will YOU claim - either you didn't read every post as you claimed, or I did provide at LEAST a single quote.
You pick?

I pick door three. OK, I won;t bother going back and checking which messages were on which threads, I will assume I missed your post. If I did, I lied about it. Sorry.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
<i> You must get used to being wrong eventually. The REALITY is that I HAVE had impact on other's views...In fact, in doing a search to find his site, I found his post at Amazon for a book I provided for someone (had the author, a friend of mine, get him a signed copy) after he and I were in a similar discussion years ago. He had been raised and was a fundy. He started to question and I kept providing more details and as here, problems with Christianity and the bible, ... </i>

It took me a little bit to make sense of this thought pattern, but I think I understand what you are saying. You are asserting that you will prove me wrong,

Ah, next time, if it takes you that long and you still aren't able to come to a correct understanding, perhaps you should ask someone else to help? I am not asserting that I "will" prove you wrong. I asserted that I DID prove you wrong. You asserted that such discussion posts will never change anyone's views. That is WRONG and I supplied info RE someone that my posts were personally responsible for pushing them into changing their mind. Interestingly, I used many of the same passages and posts as used here. However, unlike you self admitted close minded people that flatly state you will never change your mind, when he started to examine what I posted, he reviewed the info with an OPEN mind and DID change his mind.

and your reality is that you have converted a 'fundy' to atheism, and you use a book review from amazon.com as your illustration. Is that the gist of this? So then, is that balanced by my reality of the people in my church that have been invited by me, and later made a profession of faith? I mean, if I list their websites so you can read their testimonies, does this mean that my earlier statement "I know there isn't a single person that reads this that will change their mind about their beliefs" is incorrect?

If someone that you suckered into your church did so because of something they read in a similar posting, then YES. That is EXACTLY what is under discussion. Why do you find this confusing?

Come on!! Beyond the realm of this forum, you have the opportunity to influence many lives against God, just as I have the opportunity to influence many lives for God. My intention in making that statement was that this forum will not sway people towards or away from God. I generalized, as obviously someone can read these words, then change their beliefs 10 years from now. My point was that noone will read the dialogue between "Freethinker" and "IrishEyes" and decide on the spot, "by Jove (lol!), how wrong I've always been, I must convert to that way of thinking right this second".

Your appraoch to this mirrors your approach to biblical passages you get trapped by. You want to add all kinds of additional conditions when your claim is shown to be false. Again we see the difference between a Freethinkers mindset and a Christians. When it was shown that my statement about grass being red was incorrect, I did not argue about it. I did not try to come up with all sorts of convolutions to try and pretend I was still correct no matter how wrong I was. I just flat admitted I was wrong and went on with life.

While you are incapable of acknowledging error no matter how complete wrong you are shown to be. You will twist and squirm until you finally just start ignoring the discussion rather than EVER admit you were not correct.

This is one of the big reason that religion is a harmful mindset. The world is full of massive problems because someone could not admit they were wrong and correct the error rather than CYA!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
<i> Ah yes, the PAGAN celebration of the goddess Ostara, or Ester. Where (snake) eggs celebrate fertility. Which Christians HIJACKED to celebrate the myth of Crusifiction and Resurrection along with almost a dozen other god myths that came BEFORE Christianity that also have some torture/ crucifiction/ death/ resurrection fairytale. </i>
I TOTALLY agree with you here, except to say that most of these PAGAN celebrations were incorporated into Christianity by Roman Catholicism, not the early Christian church.

1) pagan rituals and traditions are the BASIS for Christianity. Virgin birth from a god, birth among animals, visits by "wise men", working miracles, death by torture, crucifiction, resurrection, ... these are ALL from earlier pagan god and goddess worship. There are any number of god myths that predateed the Jesus myth that are built on these.

2) RC WAS the early church. Iraneous, Polycarp, Eusibus, ... were all part of the early church which evolved into what is today the RC.

Catholocism brought many pagan rituals and celebrations into "Christianity"

WRONG, they were there from the start. Yes more was added alter. But the entire Christian dogma is based on earlier Pagan concepts. There is nothing new or unique to the Christian mythology that does not appear in much older Pagan tradition.

Christians like to delude themselves into thinking they have something special, unique. But it is nothing but the same yada yada mind numbing ramblings that have been going on for thousands of years before. Abraham Lincoln said he included the religious mumbo jumbo because "it pleases the fools". (Abraham Lincoln, to Judge James M. Nelson) Einstien said a similar thing "I cannot imagine a God ... although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

We both reject all of those other thousand plus god(desses) and for the same reasons. I merely add one more myth to the same list for the same reasons.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
<

<i> GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.
JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.
LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.</i>
Here you use both OT and NT examples as a way to confuse people.

I see, *I* confuse people by using the BIBLE! I see!

Once again we see that the attempt is based on intentionally rejecting ACTUAL BIBLICAL PASSAGES for one reason or other. Yes I can see how you can remove contradictions by tearing out the passages you don't like!

I will go through them all if you wish, ... If you have more, ... I will have fun searching through my Bible and identifying the error in your logic regarding supposed contradictions as often as you want to post them.

Let's make it easy. I could paste pages upon pages of errors and contradictions. But you would just keep throwing away passages you didn't like and claim they didn't matter, or didn't say what they ACTUALLY SAID. I get tired of wasting time trying to get Christians to stick with what is ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE when discussing the bible.

So let's bring it down to one passage that is self contradictory. That way it isn't OT against NT, or some claimed translation error or other convoluted ramblings. It is based on a math error in the bible. So to make sure we are all on the same page, a short math lesson.

Geometry is a branch of mathematics that deals with the measurement, properties, and relationships of points, lines, angles, surfaces, and solids WWWebster.

One of it's formulas allows one to find a 3rd number when two others are known. Sometimes one of those numbers is a mathematical constant. A number that does not change. One of those numbers is pi. Pi is a number that represents the ratio between a circular objects radius/ diameter (distance ACROSS the circle) and it's circumference (distance AROUND the circle). Pi is a transcendental number. IT is a non-repeating number that goes on "forever". It is most often shown as pi=3.14. Even grade school kids are taught this.

The formula is C(ircumference)= D(iameter)*pi

Thus, if we KNOW the Diameter of a circle, we can KNOW the Circumference.

Let's say a circle is 10 inches in Diameter, then C=D*pi becomes

C=10*3.14

or

C=31.4

Now that isn't too hard is it?

Thus when the bible wrongly states:

1 Kings 7:23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

we see that the bible REQUIRES pi to be equal to 3.0, because it STATES D=10 and C=30

Thus C=D*pi or

30=10*pi

or

pi=3.0

Now the question becomes

1) will you PROVE that in fact pi DOES equal 3.0?

2) Which of the many convoluted attempts will you try to pass off?

I can't wait to see which one you pick!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: rileyj
God claims lack ANY substance. Even here, the only "proof" that is ever offered is "well I can't provide ANY proof, but I KNOW it's true!".

do you love your mother?
if so prove it?

"Love" is an emotion, a PHYSICAL state of mind. A such, it would be simple to hook up any number of scientific equipment that measures FACTUAL interactions in the brain, heart, pulse, ...

Further, I can supply an extensive list of people that can factually verify my love. Including those in the hospice that were there with me while my mother was dying.

So YES, LOVE can be PROVEN objectively and Scientifically.

Now show us one for god!