U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 03-05-2010, 02:07 PM
Location: Richland, Washington
4,069 posts, read 4,964,260 times
Reputation: 2477


Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
has science through it testing proved the origin of man?
You don't seem to understand the fact that we don't currently know the origins of man. Not knowing doesn't equal faith. On the contrary, it is logical and humble to accept the fact that you don't know something when there isn't an empirically verified explanation. On the otherhand, inserting god in as an explanation requires faith because there is no evidence to support such a belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 03-05-2010, 02:13 PM
310 posts, read 488,105 times
Reputation: 259
The original poster has several problems that prevent him from understanding how foolish he appears while he digs himself deeper into his misunderstanding. The first is that he doesn't understand the scientific method and how it is radically different than religious faith. Secondly he has absolutely no grasp of the facts of evolution. Thirdly, he repeatedly confuses abiogenesis with evolution and/or the big bang theory. Not only that, but he doesn't understand the difference in a scientific theory as opposed to a layman's theory -- two very different meanings of the word.

Problem is, he insists on trying to define non-religious people using religious definitions and that just doesn't work. And finally, as he is continually bested by other people here, he moves the goalposts and futilely tries again to convince hself he's right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-05-2010, 04:16 PM
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,837 posts, read 9,645,205 times
Reputation: 2391
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
Actually if science proves man evolved from prior ancestor then my question woudl be prove where that ancestor come from.
Of course that would be your next question! And when we give you the answer to that question you would say '.....but where did that ancestor come from'? And when we give you the answer to that question you would say '.....but where did that ancestor come from'? And when we give you the answer to that question you would say '.....but where did that ancestor come from'? And when we give you the answer to that question you would say '.....but where did that ancestor come from'? ....on and on until we could no longer give you an answer to your 'but where did that ancestor come from' questions. Then of course you would jump up and down clapping your hands and squeal 'See, the only answer must be that MY god did it'.

We've heard it all before fella.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-05-2010, 07:12 PM
2,893 posts, read 5,165,166 times
Reputation: 1973
Every apple must fall before he believes gravity exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-06-2010, 04:11 AM
Location: Florida
18,290 posts, read 18,527,133 times
Reputation: 20965
Since the OP is relying on his dictionary definition of faith.....
"Faith is the ability to believe in that which you can not prove"

Maybe this will end it.

Theists have faith because they ,indeed, cannot prove.
Atheists do not have faith because what we do not know can be ...it just hasn't yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-06-2010, 09:09 PM
3,614 posts, read 2,950,599 times
Reputation: 909
Ovacatto, I have to disagree with you regarding the Big Bang and the TOE.

As Hamizq(?) stated, we can understand the bread rising without knowing why yeast is here. Likewise, we can understand the the diversification of the species without actually knowing why life is here in the first place, or for that matter, why terra-firma is even here.

Evolution as you know only takes place after life begins to exist. (However we want to define early life). Although our "worldview" incorporates modern scientific theories about the origins of the universe and the origins of life, we don't necessarily have to accept both to accept one. The idea is that "life got here somehow," but life was basic. Complex life, like humans, took a long time to develop. If people want to believe God started life, well they can. To deny evolution is just pure willful ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-06-2010, 10:00 PM
3,614 posts, read 2,950,599 times
Reputation: 909
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
I have never seen proof that man evolved from ape.

Open a biology text book. Go to the chapter on evolution.

I have seen theory i have seen what people think.
A theory is not a wild-ass guess. It's a model that explains all available evidence and observations and makes predictions. The Theory of Evolution has done that many times over.

I have never seen proof of the "missing link" which would be the link that proved TOE
No it wouldn't by your own admission. You claimed that even if we did find the "missing link" ancestor, it wouldn't be good enough and you'd move the goal-posts some more, asking where the other missing link was. Of course, the "missing link" doesn't exist. Evolution is not something that happened,it is something that happens. Every species is a transitional species.

I have not tried to discredit any science so please do not put words in my mouth. I have stated what the dictionary defines as faith and Since TOE or Big bang are all a theory , if you believe in the facts that go into that theory you have faith in that theory. your attempt to be condescending is not needed

I have spoken, discussed, and debated many creationists. This is just a thinly veiled ploy to discredit science by bringing it down to the same level as religion and creationism: beliefs without evidence--faith. Science nor the TOE are based on faith.

Your definition of faith, as is evident, is that if we don't directly observe something, we can only have faith that it happened. If this is the case, as you seem to insist it is (we don't know the sun will rise until we see it, we only have faith), I have some bad news. Our perception, our senses, lie to us. Worse yet, we have to let every single criminal go that was tried on evidence. After all, if we can't proved they did it, we take it on faith that they did, and as you very well claim, faith means we believe something even though we can't prove it. If we can't prove someone raped and killed three people, he has to be let go.

Your are not clever to think that by claiming the TOE is faith based, it makes Creationism a legitimate answer to the origin of humans.

Never said it did not. But the origin of man has not been proved by the scientific method
Again, open a book and read. The evidence for evolution and the descent of man is well documented. Perhaps the greatest piece of evidence is Chromosome 2. Maybe even ERVs are excellent. Perhaps the vast number of fossils we have. Perhaps the field of genetics, which alone prove the TOE without a doubt. The only people who reject evolution are those willfully ignorant of it.

From this point on, I'm going to count the discredited creationist claims.

Facts areDarwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.

1.Cells are irreducibly complex
CB200: Irreducible complexity

Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world
A refutation of Denton's book. In all fairness, Denton is no longer a fellow of the Discovery Institute. Lo-and-behold, Denton is slowly realizing the folly of creationism.
A Critique of Michael Denton's _Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

So all the facts do not prove the origin of the species If you believe in In Darwin's TOE then you have the choice to believe the facts that leads to the theory. believing in the facts that lead to the theory in no proves the theory . So since you can not prove the theory you have to have faith that the facts lead to your conclusion

2. Evolution requires faith.
CA612: Evolution requiring faith

the fact is one day it will not. That is a fact. So to believe that the sun will come up is a belief in the expectancy based on the past. However that belief is based on faith because you can not prove the sun will come up until it does
Yes, the sun will one day expand to a red-giant and supernova, wiping out all life as we know it on Spaceship Earth. We know that. It's not going to happen for several billion years. I don't have to have faith that the sun will not rise tomorrow because several billion years will not pass by while I sleep. I do not need faith to know the sun will rise tomorrow. There is no reason to suspect it will not. It would require faith to believe that the sun will supernova tonight before it has a chance to rise.

[/quote]The fact you believe it will happen based on evidence is faith unless it is a proven fact[/quote]

NO. Faith is believing in something without evidence. There is absolutely no reason to suspect the sun will not rise tomorrow. It would require a folly of faith to believe it won't. Your inanity is thin.

If we believe something will happen and there is not proof it
According to you, proof is only available when you see something happen. This is a ridiculous position to hold because it does not allow us to gain any knowledge what so ever. You hold an absurd definition of proof, and everything is meaningless because of it.

You do not know it was a wolf do you, you can not prove it was wolf. Could have been a lion, could have died a natural causes and the buzzard ate it. So your belief it was a wolf is based on faith because you can not prove it was a wolf
Read what I said. Otherwise, we have to release every criminal we ever sent to prison.

trying to marginlize me with insults proves my point.
We all have faith, it does not have to be religiously based.
I had faith you would not grasp or understand that and that faith is now proven by your insults.

You're ignorant. That isn't an insult, you're genuinely ignorant. You know absolutely nothing about the Theory of Evolution.

Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
People did not evolve from apes. This is not the belief of creationists
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
or evolutionists. Claims that people evolved from apes comes from a common misconception and oversimplification of the theories of human origins developed from the fossil record. Men and apes are in different evolutionary paths that diverged from each other millions of years before either men or apes existed as we know them today so apes are a little more like cousins rather than parents.


According to the evolutionary theory man is descended from an ape-like creature. This creature supposedly would have appeared very much like an ape although it has now supposedly died out..

According to the Bible man was created by God in the beginning and apes etc were created separately.

The actual evidence for the evolution of man is scanty

3. Evolution hasn't been observed. Substituting for the fallacy "no evidence."
CB901: No Macroevolution

(usable bones could apparently fit into a coffin)
4. We need a bigger graveyard.
CC030: Human fossils on a table

I'm under the impression coffin is used here because it offers a "Adam was buried" explanation for a (false) lack of fossils.

and inconclusive. It is also contradictory and constantly changing due to supposed new evidence which overturns previous ideas.
5. Science in action, genius. This doesn't make evolution wrong.
CA250: Scientific findings always changing

The supposed missing links
6. There aren't any crocoducks here.
CC200: Transitional fossils
http://www.fabulouslyjinxed.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/crocoduck.jpg (broken link)

which are desperately sought after and are needed to prove the theory, often turn out to be either true apes or real human forms similar to variants of homo sapiens.
7. This just in, black and white are defined as the only colors. Also, the egg came first.
CC050: Hominid transition

This is all in the public domain and admitted by evolutionists themselves.
CC040: What anthropologists say
Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In relation to Genesis creation, scientists on the basis of their work on Mitochondria are talking about 'Mitochondrial Eve'.
8a. Just some history of Eve
CB621.1: Young mitochondrial Eve
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This does not mean that they believe in a literal Eve but that the evidence points towards the human race being descended from a single individual female.
8b. And the science. Eve is the latest known common ancestor, not the only and not the oldest.
What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?

It also does not imply that they are referring to a literal Eve as in the Genesis account. They still hold to the descent from an ape-like ancestor before this. Creationists would interpret this research somewhat differently.

Calculations of the rate of Mitochondial mutations point to this being much more recent than previously thought. This, together with other scientific evidence supporting a young earth,
undermines the whole evolutionary view, including the idea of descent from an ape-like ancestor.

Evidence like "the bible is true" and "science is evil and supports hitler." You know, incontrovertible stuff like that.

9. Evidence supports Creation. There are literally too many refuted claims of creationist "evidence" to post here. I'll just give the link to the category.
An Index to Creationist Claims

In short, it has not been proven that man has descended from an ape-like creature.

I'll save you the trouble of actually finding the research yourself.
Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion — PNAS

However, as many people's presuppositions require it to be so they will accept it regardless of the ongoing problems, gaps etc.
10. I'm just going to take this as we're blind to "the truth" that is not supported by any evidence.
CI402: Willingness to see design.

Some Christians will seek to incorporate science into their faith and so accept it as well even though it flatly contradicts the Bible account. Evolutionists, would of course reverse this and say that some Christians accept the Bible creation account despite the evidence against it.

Evidence trumps anecdotes any day.

This is one area where it is important for each person to make up his own mind. It is also important to know what the evidence actually is so that an informed choice can be made.

I agree. Now if creationists would stop misinforming their adherents, the majority of people wouldn't be thinking that man was created from dirt.

Once again stating simply both sides use faith

Not by a long shot. You're own ignorance of evolution doesn't make it false. Your pithy arguments of semantics are not fooling anyone. And, of course, if you ever feel like giving a definition and examples of what you considering "proof," we'd be more than happy to fulfill that. Of course, since you already claimed that you have no intention of keeping the goal posts in one spot, I don't think you'd care to provide the definition or examples that don't hold absurd positions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-07-2010, 04:40 AM
Location: Moving through this etheria
430 posts, read 500,564 times
Reputation: 186
Someone here on City-Data recently rather cynically defined "objectivity" as "whatever process you use to confirm your own beliefs. No truth or rational examination required."

What a display of this definition by the OP. What classical and sustained ignorance on the subject at hand. It does tell atheists what they are up against though; institutionalized, purposeful and sustained mass ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-07-2010, 06:39 AM
Location: Jacksonville,Florida
3,772 posts, read 9,357,165 times
Reputation: 1979
The OP needs to look up the meaning of faith,because that is a lousy one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-07-2010, 07:55 AM
Location: The land where cats rule
10,946 posts, read 7,975,174 times
Reputation: 3602
Originally Posted by noland123 View Post
The OP needs to look up the meaning of faith,because that is a lousy one.
Or perhaps you should expand your definition to encompass more than your narrow beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top