Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... But I've had tons of these discussions over my 36 years of being a Christian, so that's fine. ...
To believe that everything around us (our ecosystems, our bodies, our geography, our climates, our solar systems, etc., etc., etc.) came into existence by explosions and chance takes much more faith than anything than any any Christian believes.Evolution is like believing that one single work of Shakespeare randomly fell from the sky from a random explosion, onto a table, every page fell into place, in perfect order, ink fell perfectly to form every word without flaw, and everything was bound in a perfect collection. ... The book had to have a creator to exist. ...
...
A TRUE Atheist will not care one way or the other what anyone else believes.Personally, if someone wants to worship a chair, a stick, or anything else, they can do so without any hassle from me. What do I care? It has no bearing on me one way or another, no matter how silly I might think it is.So, why do you fight against something that, you claim, doesn’t exist? Why do you take the belief that someone else has as a personal affront to you? It’s actually a psychotic disorder to hate or fight things that don’t exist. There are only 4 possibilities: 1. You’re mentally ill. 2. You believe, but you feel threatened somehow. 3. You feel drawn to God, but this is your way of resisting Him. 4. You have been spiritually wounded by someone, they let you down, you still believe, but this is your way to get back at “God”. It HAS to be one of those 4. Just look at you: Look at your screen name. Look at the disdain and hostility in your post. ...You came on a CHRISTIAN page and dissed on it.But it’s Christians who are shoving things down other people throats, right? LOL. By the demeanor of your post, it is abundantly clear that you’ve more than likely never attempted to have a rational conversation with a Christian. ...I have talked to tons of Atheists over the years. ...Joe Rogan (a popular Atheist) has said, though he’s an Atheist, it would be super arrogant of him to say that there is absolutely, positively no God. ... Unless you were willing to shift your general demeanor, it’s a waste of time reasoning with you. ...It’s a manipulation game that a lot of people play in life. I’m willing to discuss to a point, but not waste my time when there’s no end point I know this is chum in the water to a pseudo Atheist, but there it is, lol…...So, that’s my 2 cents worth!
I'm glad that you honestly assessed a value of 2 cents to your post.
1. Really. You've had tons of such discussions in your life as a Christian? That's rather remarkable. Exactly what situations were you involved in that led to so many such discussions...unless you were proselytizing, which is an abomination. (And BTW, just out of curiousity, how do you weigh discussions)?
2. Actually, such geologic, biologic, and atmospheric events aren't that amazing at all that they require a creator. Let's say that there is a god, just for the sake of discussion. Are you telling me that every hurricane is created by god? Every tornado? Every earthquake? Every disease? Every heart attack? Every stroke? Every cancer case? Every volcanic eruption? Every flood? Well gee, thanks a lot for sending us all those gifts god! No. Those things just develop naturally, every day, every hour. When I was walking into the store today a gust of wind struck me. Gee, god creates every gust of wind. Every flake of snow. Every drop of rain. I don't think so. And if he were wasting time creating all those situations, then I would say to him, "Would you please concentrate on things that are actually important to the people that you supposedly love?"
3. No, you clearly don't understand evolution (gee, am I surprised?). Evolution is not "perfect". In fact, evolution occurs when something goes wrong. In particular, it occurs when there is a genetic mutation. Some of these mutations are positive, others lead to extinction.
4. Yes. The book (as in the Bible) did have a creator. Man. But if you're going to tell me that god created the Bible...fine...show me that Bible.
5. A true atheist DOES care what someone else believes when that belief is used in attempts to violate his or her own beliefs. A true atheist DOES care when a beliefer (intentional spelling) tries to push those beliefs into government, which could then potentially take away other people's freedoms.
6. It's amazing that in your tons of discussions on this topic that you found people who worshipped chairs and sticks. (Another part of the 2 cents).
7. I don't care what you believe or worship in the privacy of your own home. I don't care what you believe or worship in your church. I don't care what religious conversations you have at your dinner table. Heck, I don't even care if when you go to Chik-Fil-a if your family holds hand and says grace before eating. I do care when you proselytize to others. I do care when you knock on my door. I do care when you elect Donald Trump. I do care when you insert your religion into my government and public institutions. I do care when you tell people with other beliefs that they are going to hell.
8. You are not the world's psychologist.
9. Specifically, which atheists here have pushed their beliefs on people in "real life" (as opposed to "internet life")? Did you notice in this forum that there is a sub-forum just for Christians, and that pretty much the atheists stay out of that sub-forum? But you're not in that sub-forum. You're in a sub-forum about religion and spirituality in general. Anyone can post here: Buddhists (like me), atheists (like me), Hindus, Sikhs, whatever. It's as if you're a little kid who is entertained by the grumpy neighbor, so you go over and walk in his flower bed on purpose. If you don't want to hear what atheists are saying, don't go where atheists hang out. This part of the sub-forum is not "a Christian page"; it is open to all.
10. Most of us atheists have not only had discussions with Christians, we were former Christians.
11. Again, you seem to be really into weighing people. You've talked to tons of atheists. How many tons? How did you weigh them? And if you're not trying to push your opinions on atheists, why were you talking to tons of them?
12. Few atheists say there is absolutely no god. What most do say is that there is no credible evidence of a god. That there is just faith in a god. People like you often don't know the difference.
13. If it's a waste of time having a discussion with someone, why are you having a discussion with that someone?
How do you get that; when to believe in evolution would actually destroy established scientific facts?
It is an established scientific fact that life can only comes from life.
This has been observed, tested and retested.
Thus to believe that life came from anything other than life flies in the face of science.
So how can that which flies or denies science be said to be on the side of science?
In other words in order for me to believe in evolution I have to give up on established scientific facts.
This alone should show you guys the primordial mud hypothesis is unattainable as it flies in the face of the science you guys say you so love and follow.
So the irony here is for one to believe in evolution from the primordial mud, one has to give up or disagree with science.
Simple test question.
Does science show life comes from life? If your answer is yes then the primordial mud hypothesis just came off of the table.
If the answer is no, than you just proved science is not what you follow but rather it is your worldview that leads you.
You might want to look up the work of Stanley Miller.
Evolution is like believing that one single work of Shakespeare randomly fell from the sky from a random explosion, onto a table, every page fell into place, in perfect order, ink fell perfectly to form every word without flaw, and everything was bound in a perfect collection. This is just ONE of his works. That is microscopically small compared to everything I mentioned about our Earth and Solar Systems. The book had to have a creator to exist. As wonderfully made as it is, there’s no other answer. So with the millions of intricacies that make up everything in biology, geology, and astronomy, and how all of this works so perfectly together, taking that with the Shakespeare analogy, there HAS to be a creator.
...
By your logic, a creator cannot fall into place either. The creator HAS to have a creator.
I believe I said that right up front. "Physics is the study of how energy/matter interacts with itself." Energy/matter interacts with itself according to the principles of quantum mechanics. Any event that abrogated or superseded the principles of quantum mechanics would be supernatural in nature.
Any event that violated quantum mechanics would be natural and would result in a revision of quantum mechanics. ANYTHING that is observable IS natural. There is NOTHING that is supernatural that we could possibly observe, experience or detect. If it can be observed, experienced, or detected, then it is natural. That's the point I'm trying to convey; the supernatural is a useless and illogical concept.
This is deep and can go in sooooo many directions. But I've had tons of these discussions over my 36 years of being a Christian, so that's fine. I'll try my best to keep it as short as possible (but it'll be difficult, lol). My response will be 2 fold: 1. My answer to your question. 2. The preoccupation of those like you who are obsessed with what OTHERS choose to believe.
To believe that everything around us (our ecosystems, our bodies, our geography, our climates, our solar systems, etc., etc., etc.) came into existence by explosions and chance takes much more faith than anything than any any Christian believes. Evolution is like believing that one single work of Shakespeare randomly fell from the sky from a random explosion, onto a table, every page fell into place, in perfect order, ink fell perfectly to form every word without flaw, and everything was bound in a perfect collection. This is just ONE of his works. That is microscopically small compared to everything I mentioned about our Earth and Solar Systems. The book had to have a creator to exist. As wonderfully made as it is, there’s no other answer. So with the millions of intricacies that make up everything in biology, geology, and astronomy, and how all of this works so perfectly together, taking that with the Shakespeare analogy, there HAS to be a creator. That has to be established before any rational discussion can take place. If you’re so closed-minded and bend on not even trying to go into that direction, we will be wasting each other’s time going any farther. If we can agree to that point, we can go on with further proof and discussion of various things concerning the Bible from a historical standpoint and, later doctrinal standpoint.
I do agree most Christians do a horrible job at explaining and defending their faith. It has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. It has to do with most Christians poorly preparing themselves, studying the different aspects of their faith, and presenting it in an intelligent manner. Most don’t even know that science and the Bible are not in conflict with each other.
Now, about Atheists in general: A TRUE Atheist will not care one way or the other what anyone else believes. Personally, if someone wants to worship a chair, a stick, or anything else, they can do so without any hassle from me. What do I care? It has no bearing on me one way or another, no matter how silly I might think it is. So, why do you fight against something that, you claim, doesn’t exist? Why do you take the belief that someone else has as a personal affront to you? It’s actually a psychotic disorder to hate or fight things that don’t exist. There are only 4 possibilities: 1. You’re mentally ill. 2. You believe, but you feel threatened somehow. 3. You feel drawn to God, but this is your way of resisting Him. 4. You have been spiritually wounded by someone, they let you down, you still believe, but this is your way to get back at “God”. It HAS to be one of those 4. Just look at you: Look at your screen name. Look at the disdain and hostility in your post. The claims you made about Christians throughout your post (THEY are hostile; THEY are losers; THEY are silly, etc., etc., etc.). Calling the kettle black. You came on a CHRISTIAN page and dissed on it. But it’s Christians who are shoving things down other people throats, right? LOL. By the demeanor of your post, it is abundantly clear that you’ve more than likely never attempted to have a rational conversation with a Christian. Your point was to push buttons, bait, and when it was clear of your closed mindedness and that you had no intention in having any sort of respectful, intelligent discussion, they disengaged. Then you label the disengagement as admitting loss rather than having a foolish and endless back and forth with someone who has no interest in understanding or examining any point counter to theirs. I have talked to tons of Atheists over the years. Many will listen, but respectfully disagree. Most are angry and full of hate…..and over something they say doesn’t exist. Joe Rogan (a popular Atheist) has said, though he’s an Atheist, it would be super arrogant of him to say that there is absolutely, positively no God. Each time he has had a believer on his program, he’s always been very respectful. You don’t fall into that category. Unless you were willing to shift your general demeanor, it’s a waste of time reasoning with you. You’re childishly interpreting the “disconnect” when someone sees the game you’re playing as “admitting defeat” proves my point. It’s a manipulation game that a lot of people play in life. I’m willing to discuss to a point, but not waste my time when there’s no end point I know this is chum in the water to a pseudo Atheist, but there it is, lol…...So, that’s my 2 cents worth!
Thanks. And the answers are very simple
(1)atheism does not need faith to say 'we don't know' how it all started. It takes faith for the religious to say 'It was probably God'. And even more faith to say it absolutely was.
It does not take Faith - but evidence - to look at the universe and say 'it is pretty amazing, and even more amazing that we are here..but it really doesn't look designed for Life, let alone us
And it doesn't take faith to understand that several extinctions were needed or we wouldn't here.
It takes not only Faith (when this is explained) ro insist there must be a god behind it, but it takes denial.
This was actually 2 - but belongs to 1. I won't explain here the particular reference to Biblegod and the caveat 'so far as the evidence shows' behind 'There is not God', but Let's say we accepted the point and said "Coo, you're right. We can't say for certain there is not god. We'd better change that to 'we don't know whether there is a god or not, so we will not believe in it untill we do" which is actually the atheist position. And you would be no better off.
Understand this: that argument is not a case against atheism but a way of bashing atheism.
2. We do not care at all what a person believes. We do care - and indeed a lot of Theists care - about the deleterious effects of organized religion of society. I am not going to argue about the 'Full of hate' accusation. I have seen it played hered here by those who show that they are ones full of loasing, bitterness and venom, not us.
So we are going to carry on doing what we do, we will probably get through to a lot of Theists (maybe even Christian ones) who also see how organized religion must be rolled back to where it can believe what it wants by itself, but it will not intrude into the classroom, Law or politics. And we are not going to fall into the trap for a second of Christian apologist advising us on how we should behave. We know what they want - for us to shut up and go away. That has been their agenda from the start of the whole "New Atheists' nonsense.
How do you get that; when to believe in evolution would actually destroy established scientific facts?
It is an established scientific fact that life can only comes from life.
This has been observed, tested and retested.
Thus to believe that life came from anything other than life flies in the face of science.
So how can that which flies or denies science be said to be on the side of science?
In other words in order for me to believe in evolution I have to give up on established scientific facts.
This alone should show you guys the primordial mud hypothesis is unattainable as it flies in the face of the science you guys say you so love and follow.
So the irony here is for one to believe in evolution from the primordial mud, one has to give up or disagree with science.
Simple test question.
Does science show life comes from life? If your answer is yes then the primordial mud hypothesis just came off of the table.
If the answer is no, than you just proved science is not what you follow but rather it is your worldview that leads you.
Oh Gawd
Quit apart from life having to come from non -life whichever way it hapened, if a scientific principle has to be amended in particular citcumstances (lets say the spped of light must be exceeded relatively is two maximum lightspeed rays are heading twards each other, thus each will be doing twice the speed of light relatibve to each other) then the principle holds strong but the re are (or were) particular exceptions. Which is Newton still works, even though we discovered Quantum.
I'm not even sure that this is really a Principle of science' at all. I seem to recall that it was shown to be more what Creationist thought took to be a principle, foisted it on science, and then said that evolution was against science. There seems old mate, to be a familar element of ignoring all the responses to the arguments you posted and fishing around for something else you think will debunk evolution. Even though it wouldn't even it Jofe could only come from non - life with the assistance of a living being.
This (if you can get through the David Hockney introi is a good talk on the subject.
There is (is anyone want it) another one Pops up 'abiogenesis is not just unlikely but impossible' which is frankly rubbish. A collation of exaggurated (if not false ) claims including the statistical ones. It is in fact creationist Garbage (1), but as is usually the case with creationist propaganda material, the Evolutionary side are never given the chance to rebut it.
I recall just now of a video talk I watched on chemical evolution - how non living materials can evolve in compleity, driven by thermo 2, and closes the gap between non -living evolutionary processes and living ones.
What does Creationism have other than trying to debunk a subject it either doesn't understand or does, but lies about it? "Poof Goddunnit!"
(1) we already showed the Statistical improbality argument is total bosh, never mind Statistical impossibility.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-05-2018 at 06:37 PM..
How do you get that; when to believe in evolution would actually destroy established scientific facts?
It is an established scientific fact that life can only comes from life.
You keep ignoring the fact that evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life. Evolution takes us from the first bit of primitive life to the present.
How that primitive life got there is not known, but that does not discredit evolution.
Secondly, science is a process that seeks to discover and understand facts and processes. To say that something is a “scientific fact” is weird phrasing. Facts are simply facts. There is nothing particularly scientific about them. Science tries to take those facts and construct a model of the world. If a model is constructed, incorporates facts, has predictive power, and is falsifiable, that is called a Theory. Evolution is a Theory, in that it can be prevented wrong, but it hasn’t.
Third, life does come from non-life. We don’t know how, but it is evident that it does because we know two facts. Several billion years ago there was no life on earth. Now there is. At some point life came from non-life. AFTER that point evolution starts.
Quote:
This has been observed,
Actually, I believe I just described how the exact opposite has been observed.
Quote:
tested and retested.
Thus to believe that life came from anything other than life flies in the face of science.
Other posters have pointed out that if what you say is true, life is eternal. That certainly hasn’t been proven.
Quote:
So how can that which flies or denies science be said to be on the side of science?
In other words in order for me to believe in evolution I have to give up on established scientific facts.
Only because you are misinterpreting what evolution states, and you are assuming an obviously erroneous fact.
You're quite right but I do seem to se the eternal disconnect - the 'atheist' side only refers evolution as the evidence that Genesis is wrong. It doesn't matter whether a god made life in the first place - it didn't evolve the way Genesis says.
Pneuma's side here is trying to make not only a gap for god (science can't prove abiogenesis, so it could be God) but a case for God (abiogenesis is not just unlikely but imnpossible, so it MUST be God). This of course doesn't get them any further than origins of the universe, but they think it does because of course the assume that the only Creator possible is the one they believe in.
I won't go into the circular arguments used to show that any Creator must be Biblegod, but I'll point up an interesting slip that was picked up when Creationism (Post Dover) tried to pretend that ID was science and not religion (1). ID proved a Creator (just as the First cause and Abiogenesis isn't possible' arguments are supposed to) but it doesn't have to be the God of the Bible, therefore ID is not religion.
In fact they do believe this god is and must be the god of the Bible and Christianity.
That's actually ok, since Atheists very often do believe that no gods exist, and certainly not the god of the Bible, and 'we don't know for sure' is more a logical position of atheist rationale. It's for the courts to determine whether the belief of the ID bods makes their 'science' a religion or not, but unless the effort to redefine science as 'anything religion says it is' gets through (and with the Chump in charge, anything could happen) ID may escape being 'Religion' but it can never be valid science.
No life cannot come from non life, your promoting a hypothesis as scientific fact and a hypothesis is not a scientific fact.
However even the non scientist among us can observe life comes from life, thus your hypothesis is not science it speaks against science.
It is most certainly ***NOT*** a mere hypothesis. It is a fundamental law which unifies and creates our foundations for our true understanding of the workings of the natural order (the cosmos). EVERYTHING of physical nature (yes, everything, Pneuma . . . no exceptions) started from the basic elements I mentioned . . . which are NOT "life" themselves but just basic chemical elements (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, helium, and nitrogen -- though helium is not an integral part of living things but integral to a host of other non-living things) and, sometime down the line, some conglomerations of those elements came to exemplify the characteristics of what constitutes what we call "life" (some are non-sentient life such as plants and trees and some are sentient life).
So YES YES YES, life did originally come from non-life. Shall we go together to the mass of unversities in the world to have physical and biological scientists lay it out for us in-depth and give demonstrations to you to back up their assertions? In offering up your ideas and notions in contrast to what they can explain, lay out, and even demonstrate for you, they will make you look positively foolish and perhaps even mentally deficient to not be able to acknowledge this FACTUAL reality. Even if they don't have ALL the pieces of the big puzzle in place (will humanity EVER reach a point in which everything is 100% understood and demonstrable???), it is scientifically undeniable that not only did non-life come from non-life but also LIFE itself came from non-life as well. Throughout our examinations and testings of the physical universe in the history of science, it is shown throughout, in all circumstances, that ALL PHYSICAL THINGS (non-living and living) had their origins (their beginning genesis and construction) in the basic elements of which stars are made. Note that we are talking about the origins of this thing called "life" itself from its very start . . . not how you or I or individual members of other animal species or even plant forms can presently come into being (for certainly, WE humans and other present-day life forms such as dogs, cats, snakes, amoebas, et al can only get our start when other life forms of our type combine together to produce us). That is NOT what is being spoken of here (or at least not by me); we (or at least myself) are talking about how life as we know it (which is only, thus far, known about on our planet Earth) had its origin at its very beginning for the entire life form or species being spoken of . It undeniably started for ALL life forms as well as non-life physical things from the basic elements which have been scientifically verified over-and-over-and-over to be hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen . . . and then helium as well for varied non-living physical things.
Your offered apolegetic is simply a sham. If it isn't, then demonstrate to all of us that your postulation is correct . . . in the same ways that scientists can definitvely show you how we (all living things) are all made of the stuff of stars.
My goodness, so many of you religionists want to cling, at all costs, so very desperately to your narrative . . . yet the things you claim regarding these matters we speak of here (i.e., the origins of life itself at its very beginning) are not in any way, shape, or form investigatable, nor manifesting in any ways which can be perceived by us as humans, nor demonstrable or testable. The same cannot validly be said for the scientific view regarding these matters.
It's very easy to get polarized about this, and point accusingly at the midset of the Other side. But really that's irrelevant. What it comes down to is the evidence. Where it is persuasive. And evolution has all the evidence and Pneuma's coming back with effectively: "Well, I looked and there wasn't any evidence for creation, but let's do the net best thing and try to debunk it, hoping that will remove all opposition to the Creation creed". That's what he came back with. As I said, beaten before he even started.
The refutations of the creationist misrepresentations, indeed showing up the lying and cheating, was somply Extras. The Creationist case never got off the ground.
Creationism had One Shot as validating itself - Behe's I/D. It failed to make it's case as a hypothesis. (in Creationist terminology, 'It wasn't even a Theory") quite apart from it being used not to put theistic evolution (God had to be there to make it work) on a scientific bases, but Behe and the others seem to have misused the 'theory' to say evolution never happened - with God or without.
They slipped off the science pedestal pretty quick and showing them up as a bunch of Genesis literalist apologists at Dover, was a legal inevitability, if not a political one (indeed Creationism thought that Dubhya would oblige the judge to find for Dover, and they were furious when he didn't (1). That indeed has been it's only shot at scientific validity and even if it's objections were sound, they would simply be about evolution 's detail and unanswered questions. They are in no way unseating the fact, though they claim they are. But that is simply wishful thinking self - delusion on their part. Case in point - some article I read about Genome proteins and questions and debate about it, presented as 'Bad news for Evolution'. Jesus, you might as well point to a paper on the mechanism of the formation of snowflakes and claim that snowflake theory was in disarray. But the objections are almost always not valid, because whether or not they even understand the subject, their arguments sound as though they don't, and they don't even want to.
(1) I recall some you tube clip with cartooney pictures of the Judge and schoolboyish farting noises...which got traced back to one of the witnesses for ID.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-05-2018 at 08:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
