A critique of “The Evilution Deception”
I found this little cartoon browsing around WordPress.com. Dumbfounded and amazed by the fallacious idiocy comparable only to Ray Comfort and his Way of the Master ministries, I really wanted to just leave it alone and let the video speak for itself. But as someone with an interest in the subject, I see people honestly believe this nonsense too often to spare it from the destructive power of critical examination.
There’s a lot said, but these appear to be the core arguments.
- Macro-evolution, or the scientific reality of common descent is an exaggeration of known science.
- If you believe in evolution, you also believe we all came from a rock. You believe these things because you don’t want to be held accountable for your actions.
- The missing link is still missing. All transitional fossils have been “proven false.”
- Scientists have found organic material on dinosaur fossils, hence falsifying the old earth model
- Christians believe in salvation through grace and faith, ain’t that special?
- You’re going to die, so why not open your mind, soften your heart, stop eating babies and accept Jesus as your lord and savior lest you make the “biggest mistake in your eternal existence!!!“
To begin with point one, our animated protagonist could not be more wrong. Creationists typically declare a damning difference between macro and micro evolution. They are mistaken. Scientists refer to micro-evolution as change within species. Over thousands of years a population of golden retrievers will adapt with its environment. Suppose, however, that the population gets separated. Half of the golden retrievers are stuck on one side of a mountain, and the other is similarly isolated. Years pass and both populations adapt to their respective environments until they are so different that they can no longer interbreed. They are now separate species, and macro-evolution (also known as speciation) has occurred.
Next, the video tract makes an amusing leap in logic. How believably precedented.
If you believe in evolution you also believe we came from a rock. It’s funny how you believe the most ridiculous concepts of creation just so long as you’re not accountable for your actions.
Whether or not we came from a rock is irrelevant to the libraries of evidence that confirm common ancestry. Evolution is a supported theory that begins with the first cell. It doesn’t pretend to know where that cell came from; that’s a different field of science. This caricature of abiogenesis exists only to distract.
Moving on, he claims there are missing links in the fossil record. Of course there are, and this only serves as evidence for evolution. Every time we find a transitional fossil (y) between species x and z, we fill one gap but wind up creating two new ones. Claiming all transitional fossils have been “proven false” demonstrates a willful ignorance that need not be addressed.
In addition to lying about transitional species, they argue for a young earth by referencing organic tissue found on a dinosaur bone. An impossibility, he claims, given the evolutionary timeline. I remember seeing this last year in a prolonged discussion. As it turns out, the bones were fossilized in sandstone, a material where the enzymes of decay and degeneration are “drained away.” Moreover, the Harvard researchers called this “a brilliant technical achievement, and it’s because we know that birds evolved from dinosaurs that it makes sense.”
Finished disproving “evolution,” our friend gets on his theological soapbox. In yet another leap of topic (where are the transitions?!) he’s asked, “what about Jews, Muslims and Buddhists? Aren’t they going to hell?” The answer is presumably yes, but he goes on to say unlike those other faiths, Christians believe we’re saved through faith, not works. Isn’t that wonderful? The omnipotent, all-loving creator of the universe judges us based on what we believe. Thought crimes are celestial no-nos when it comes to the afterlife. Eternal consequences for thinking the wrong thing – regardless of worldly action! God wants us to have faith. A faith that is demonstrably irrational.
Tearing this pathetic apologetic to shreds was a cheap shot. However, the people that made this video were inspired by the same type of faith we see in the rest of religion. Built on a foundation of dogma blind to contradiction, “faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”
Hi,
Pure science is beautiful, and is a tiny window into God’s amazing and infinite Creation. Christians probably shouldn’t debate against scientific findings; it doesn’t seem wise.
There is, however, something called “science, falsely so-called”. This is due to the fact that scientists are human beings; therefore, fallible, biased, etc.
An increasing number of scientists have a seeming “agenda” to disprove intelligent design. This reeks of bias, and is a detriment to the credibility of true science.
If you read more scripture, you will find that “faith without works is dead”. It’s another way of saying that Christians WILL have good works because of God’s grace that came through faith. A tree is known by the fruits it produces. A Christian who isn’t loving, forgiving, generous, etc, isn’t a Christian at all.
Please do read this polite, open letter to atheists: http://pauljub.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/pride-arrogance-intelligence-power-evidence-faith-and-freedom/
When people say this, I have to wonder: do they understand that this principle is, in fact, the very foundation of science, rather than a dirty secret. If humans were infallible and unbiased, then we wouldn’t need a scientific method in the first place. The whole point of the scientific method is a process specifically to root out the sort of error and bias we find in all other human endeavors.
Scientists are not seeking to “disprove” intelligent design. They are disputing claims that it’s proven or even good science in the first place. And they are right to do so.
True. So we agree that scientists are biased. So how can you say, “Scientists are not seeking to disprove intelligent design.” Just put “Some” in front of that sentence and I’ll agree with you.
True Christians do not make the claim that intelligent design is “proven” (scientifically). Where faith, then? “The very foundation” of Christianity!
After watching this video, I can believe that at least some of us did in fact evolve from a rock. The only thing that changed was the packaging…the level of intellect remained that of said rock.
Check out The Truth Project…
Be Blessed.
Umm, your arguments did little more than support his key points. But, when you are standing too close to the forest, it is hard to see through all those trees.
Of course, he exaggerated points like the “rock is dad” bit, but I think there was a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek here. I mean, look at the teacher. He looked like a lot of stereotypes that get tossed about.
Hey,
Haven’t watched the video yet (I’m at work, so I have no speakers), but you make good points against what I commonly hear as arguments against evolution.
One thing that I wanted to add is that I’ve always felt that the idea that we’ve evolved over millions of years makes us extremely accountable for our own actions. Millions of years have brought me to this point, and that gives me a tremendous responsibility to not screw it up, for the sake of everything that has come before me.
Nicely done. I’m currently working on a protracted project of addressing creation/ID arguments one-by-one on my blog, the frame problem. A good site for this (and my main source) is TalkOrigins (www.talkorigins.org).
Super Scary and Creepy to think that people believe those things. A bit Awkward too.
You should know that your “transitional forms” are only such if evolution is true. If it’s not it’s bunk.
I, for one, get pretty tired of hearing people say that, yes, we can see evolution happening today and then going off to name another variation within a kind as if it’s proven evolution. This sort of thinking betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwin’s theory. We CAN’T see evolution happening now. It is supposed to happen over a rediculously LOOONG period of time. This being the case, any claims that we are seeing evolution happening now is simply presumptuous.
And by the way, is it me or does this whole, “We KNOW dinosaurs evolved into birds, so it all makes sense now” explanation rest on the same presumption? How do we KNOW this? Did someone build a time machine while I was making a sandwich? Sounds a bit like “It weren’t nuttin but swamp gas refracted off’n the light of Venus, boys.” You guys will buy anything to keep your atheistic bed time stories, won’t you?
Here’s an idea. Try actual reason, for once.
–Sirius Knott
– Sirius
Judging by the tone of your comment, you’ve already rejected biology. I don’t suspect any amount of “actual reason” would convince you to examine your presuppositions. Nonetheless.
That’s not entirely correct. On a microscopic level, we can observe populations of organisms adapt. Why do you think the flu virus keeps coming back? Strands born with a mutation resistant to the vaccine survive and reproduce, and the others don’t. This is evolution in action.
How do we know dinosaurs evolved into birds? What we know about common origins is based on a number of things, time machines excluded. We examine anatomical, genetic and geographical similarities, and they beg time and again the same inference.
So here’s an idea for you. Go learn something about the scientific facts you carelessly dismiss as “atheistic bed time stories.”
Blind.
You observe organisms adapting. have they changed into different species? Adapatation does not prove evolution. It is impossible to prove evolution. The flu virus’ adaptations would only be “evolution in action” IF evolution is true. Creationism has a viable explanation for the same adaptation. We call it the conservation mechanism of nature; it is the mechanism God uses to sustain Creation against entropy and harmful mutation.
Both our camps have our weight of evidences. We view the same sets of facts through two different bias filters. I just happen to think there’s more evidence for the Creation model. For example, there are changes within each kind of creature [there are many variety of cats, for example], but each creature still only reproduces after its kind [cats are still cats, not dogs or improbable monsters].
You seem to be very sure that dinosaurs evolved into birds. You were there? You’ve seen this? Darwin’s “imperfect condition of the geological record” has been overcome then? You should keep in mind that Bakker’s brontosaur-to-bird theory is relatively new.
Both the Cambrian explosion and the irreducible complexity of flight structures make evolutionary theory a sham. Consider also this: evolution requires natural selection to work. the materialist has no explanation for either the existence of the cosmos [what caused it?], life itself [how did life spring from nonlife?] or the mechanism of natural selection itself [where did this mechanism come from?] You’ve make speculations based on time, energy and matter [sure hope that "God particle" works out for you, btw], but you cannot account for where the organizational information [laws, constants, physics] that celestial objects and even life itself structures itself by.
Oh, if only we had an eternity of time! With time and chance, ANYTHING is possible, right? That’s faith. I don’t have that much faith. Especially since you don’t have an eternity. The Big bang set a start date for the universe. You simply don’t have enough time for your model to work.
Are those enough scientific facts for you?
–Sirius Knott
I’ll try to keep this concise but that’s probably not going to happen.
Wrong. I addressed this exact claim in the original article too. Species adapt, separate and continue to adapt until they can no longer interbreed. Voila! Speciation, aka macro-evolution.
If we stipulate the theory of evolution as:
1. Organisms reproduce, offspring inherit modified DNA
2. If the inherited traits help the organism survive, it will be more likely to reproduce than organisms without the mutation
3. Organisms without mutation die off, mutated offspring further species
We can describe evolution as descent with modification. I cited the continued existence of the flu virus an example of this. Mutated offspring with a resistance to a vaccine survive, and the population follows. You responded:
And I just demonstrated how the flu virus’ evolution is an example of… evolution. This is evidence for descent with modification because, well, it IS descent with modification.
You go on to belittle this obvious example by offering another explanation.
And how exactly do you go about testing that? Can we see God sustaining entropy in a telescope? Have any peer-reviewed articles about God stepping in to pick out that nasty mutation? How are the experiments going? Oh, that’s right, there aren’t experiments because what you’re describing isn’t science. This is a wholly unevidenced faith-based non-answer.
The god you’re describing is hardly supernatural. You’re just giving a name to the environmental conditions that select favorable mutations. The god you’re describing is the droughts, tornadoes, volcanoes and predators that shape species. Your god is natural selection. And I thought it was us awful atheists that worship science?
This is irrelevant to the theory of descent with modification. We can have that debate if you’d like, but it has nothing to do with evolution. There would be enough reason to accept the theory of evolution even if we knew nothing about the origins of the cosmos or life itself, because it doesn’t depend on either paradigm. Evolution explains the complexity of life beginning with the first cell. This is the “gap” where your Intelligent Design friends have fled to.
Based on this statement, I question whether or not you know what natural selection is. Natural selection is the process in which certain mutations are “selected” out of the gene pool. For example, if a lady bug is born with a mutation that makes it wings green, it will have a better chance of survival if it needs to blend into the grass. More likely to survive, the ladybug will also be more likely to reproduce and pass on its mutated genes. That is natural selection. Are you asking me where the idea that “some live, some die” comes from?
I don’t recall doing any of that in this discussion, but feel free to correct me. The origins of the universe is irrelevant to the veracity of evolutionary theory.
These aren’t enough “scientific facts” for me. In all of that, you only cite ONE example as evidence for Creation. And it’s not even evidence for Creation. It’s an attempted stab at evolution. Dogs evolve but they’re still dogs. If I remember correctly, dogs were only domesticated about 5000 years ago. We have EVERY REASON to believe the “micro-evolution” that produces various characteristics leads to speciation because there can only be so many new adaptations tacked on before they can no longer interbreed.
One of the many problems with the “kind” label is that it is wholly vague and completely ambiguous. Since there is no clear definition of a “kind” you can broaden or narrow the scope of the label whenever it’s convenient. Try taxonomy next time.
You’ve attempted to poke holes at evolution as if you’re reading out of Ken Ham’s playbook. The objections you’ve presented were refuted over a hundred years ago and then again this evening. Evolution remains a unifying theory of biology, predicted and confirmed in genetics, modern medicine, archeology, etc. I’m willing to guess that either our education system has failed you, or that you’ve chosen to have this discussion to reaffirm your faith. I have no interest in the latter, but I’d be happy to point you in the direction of a biology textbook.
In the unlikely case you actually want to have a serious debate about origins, you can start by choosing what you’re arguing. Are you arguing against evolution or for Creation? Or is this about abiogenesis and the origins of the first cell? You jump all over the place in your comments, and it takes an awful long time to respond to everything. If you can zero in on a topic, perhaps we can actually make progress and reach a common understanding. Otherwise, this is just the typical, scripted creationism vs. science shtick.
I heartily disagree. The creationist camp’s case is built on misunderstandings of the relevant evidence, oft-repeated falsehoods, and ignorance of how science and evidence work in the first place. This is not a matter of mere subjective interpretation.
Take this:
For you to seriously provide criticism of evolution, you’d need to know what it actually is in the first place. Evolution does not predict or suggest that cats will give birth to dogs or vice-versa. In fact, a basic principle of evolutionary taxonomy is that the offspring of dogs will almost inevitably be more like dogs than any other creature… and hence still be all rightly classified as dogs, no matter however else they change from dogs of the present day. This is why humans are “still” mammals, “still” amniotes, “still” primates, “still” apes, and so on.
In a sense, the idea that things reproduce according to their “kind” IS in fact an evolutionary principle (though the concept of “kinds” being immutable forms instead of taxonomic categories is not).
As Stephen suggests, you really should at least try to learn the basics of evolutionary taxonomy before purporting to lecture anyone on what you believe to be its flaws.
This is will lead, at the very least, to fewer embarrassing mistakes.
Yes, yes, let’s pick at nits when we could be slaying dragons. Insufferable…
Bad, thank you for your oft-repeated tautology. Yes, we’re all inescapable idiots in the shadow of your professed brlliance. [The insult's in the mixed metaphor, brute.]
Now, since you’ve both proven evolutionary theory so brilliantly by your rhetoric, I suppose it only fitting that I refer to you as mere apes. Your rhetoric is certainly unworthy of the descriptor sapiens.
My satire aside, I am fully aware of taxonomical categorization. I was simply giving an illustration that shows how worthless darwins idea is. Dogs [canines] remain canines. And the various adaptions within the canine family show a remarkable diversity at the expense of adaptability. You could theoretically breed a teacup poodle froma wolf, but you could never breed a wolf from a teacup poodle. The adaptation we see today is a loss of information and adaptability, not a gain. How then are we to infer ascendancy of information in the past?
Stephen based on your critique of my question about where natural selection came from I wonder if you either did not comprehend what I’m asking or whether you don’t realize what natural selection is. How does natural selection know how to select? Where did this mechanism for structuring information [benevolent changes versus harmful adaptations] come from? How did the information for natural selection get coded into living beings? Ever think outside that little no-God of the gaps box of yours? Ever wonder why you can think rationally? Why you should trust that reason of yours at all if it came about by random processes? Why random processes are capable of structuring order by information they simply have for no reason we can fathom?
As for my other objection, concerning where natural selection came from: Why is there natural selection? It filters information [beneficial versus harmful adaptations]; where did it get the information to know how to do this? How did the natural selection mechanism get coded into biology? Where did the information it processes come from? Do you ever think outside of that no-God of the gaps box you live in?
[sigh] I’m not sure it’spossible to have an intelligent discussion with you. After all, you might not have evolved properly.
And you’re still using that old straw man: science versus creationism. Nice. For the record, it’s creation SCIENCE [which allows for both supernatural and natural explanations for the observable world] and evolution SCIENCE [which only allows for puerly natural explanations of the same]. It should be said that if the supernatural [God] exists that your assumptions about pure naturalism will lead you to the wrong conclusion.
–Sirius Knott
With all due respect, I’m having trouble deciding whether or not I should take you seriously. You continue to present elementary misunderstandings as evidence for a proposition you still haven’t defined. Read on for more 9th grade biology.
Removing the ad hominem jargon, your latest argument can be summarized in three bullet points.
-Mutations cannot produce new information, therefore large-scale evolution is impossible
-The origins of natural selection remain unexplained
-Creationism is science
That’s a lie. A mutation is either information being deleted, inverted OR inserted. New information is added into the genetic code all the time.
Nature selection doesn’t “know” anything because it’s not a sentient power. Organisms with favorable adaptations survive and reproduce while inept creatures die off. Natural selection is nothing but the name we give to this simple principle.
There are obvious evolutionary benefits of intelligence. Humans that learned how to light fires, build wheels and trap animals were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. The others were not.
The only way a supernature could be conclusively demonstrated would be with the tools of observation, repetition and peer-review – science. However, every time we try to study a psychic’s mind powers or the efficacy of prayer, it has failed gloriously.
Creationism is not, in any sense of the word, science. It is not testable, it is not repeatable and it is certainly not observable. Study has not led to any new avenues of learning and its methods betray everything science stands for. The scientific method has us follow evidence and make conclusions. Creationists desperately try to fit facts to their pre-existing conclusions, ignoring volumes of contradicting evidence. That is not science. Creationism is dogma plain and simple.
I’m not sure you’re using that word in any intelligible sense. You’re certainly not being specific enough about what you think is a tautology, and why. The fact remains that when you allege to present a shortcoming of evolution, and in your own presentation demonstrate an ignorance of the basics, you’re in rather no position to lecture anyone about anything until you admit and correct your error.
The problem appears to be that you still think the idea of calling humans “mere” apes means anything. Yes, humans are a type of ape (which is why none of our ancestors were ever “half-ape/half-human” as your camp often confusedly suggests).
Satire needs an element of truth to be a satire, not to simply be an obvious error.
Evolution doesn’t suggest anything different. The fact that you think it does is the core of your confusion here, I think. You don’t understand what a “canine” is: it’s a category, not a “kind.” All descendants of canines will be rightly classed as canines, just as canines are still rightly classed as carnivores, which are rightly classed as mammals.
That claim is simply inconsistent with reality. A loss of information would inevitably lead to uniformity in traits, not an increasing diversity of them.
Again, that you somehow think this statement is contra evolution demonstrates a real lack of knowledge about the subject. What you just stated (that evolutionary paths are not reversible) is essentially what’s known as Dolo’s law: though far from being about a loss of trait diversity, it’s a statistical principle about change in a huge trait space.
The answer is that you are simply wrong in the first place about adaptation being a loss of information. But I suppose your grasp of what “information” is, is as confused as your understanding of evolutionary taxonomy.
We see information increases going on all the time in gene pools, even for various different conceptions of what information we are talking about.
Asking such a question pretty much sounds like you not knowing what natural selection is.
Ah, yes. The genetic fallacy. You are indeed a rich source of logic no-nos.
Given that a “supernatural explanation” is pretty much an oxymoron, and “purely natural” is actually just another way of saying “sticking to what we can actually establish via evidence, rather than making it up as we go along and just deciding on a whim what ideas we like the sound of” I’m not sure that the term creation “science” makes much sense. You can’t basically reject the core principle of science (empiricism) and then also claim to be doing science.
I don’t entirely understand what the video is trying to prove, but I think it’s wrong about Christianity. We are saved because we accept Jesus as our saviour who died for our sins. That’s it. (People will always commit sins, but through Jesus we can be saved)
I am starting to think aetheists have FAITH that God doesn’t exist, and that they deny God because they do not want to follow the rigorous way Christians are ’supposed’ to be taking. Of course, not all Christians are doing that, but at least, they know that they are more than an animal. I personally think don’t think that humans are the same as monkeys, for example. They act by their instinct only, while humans have this blessed thing called reasoning.
Stephen,
The very concept of the scientific method came from a theistic worldview that presumes that because God created an ordered world that we ought to be able to discover how it operates. Yes, I just stated that the scientific method was a product of Christendom and, by and large, or Creationism. Your assumptions of man’s ability to be able to discover how the universe operates and that the universe operates in an orderly and discoverable manner at all are, frankly, borrowed. Absconded. Stolen with little thought as to their origins.
You’ve stated that I’ve lied and then made the preposterous claim that information is being added all the time. Where’s your evidence? Sweeping generalization.
bad, your existence makes me suspect that evolution might be true for you are surely still an ape. perhaps a gibbon. or a bonobo. please shut up and let folks who make sense speak.
Now you guys may not have noticed, but I’m not really taking you guys seriously. Mostly because you’re not really using that blessed thing called reason, to borrow a well-turned phrase.
Bystander is right. It does come down to God.
You’ve stated that origins is irrelevant to a discussion of evolution but you couldn’t be more wrong! Our assumptions about the origins of the universe determine whether we believe the supernatural exists or only the natural exists.
Bystander is also correct to state that atheists have faith that God doesn’t exist. You see, reason nor evidence can compell anyone to accept the conclusions of those evidences or arguments. I can choose to disbelieve the evidence. I can decide to reject it if only because I think the conclusions are based on insufficient evidence or that someday I will be justified in my beliefs.
Evolutionists accuse creationists of willful ignorance. Allow me to turn the accusation on its head.
The evidence for God’s existence is there. For those who are willing to receive it. The visible things of His creation reveal the invisible things of God, including his eternal power and Godhead so that the world is without excuse. He can clearly be seen in the origin and order of the universe, in the existence of matter, energy, time, information, life, consciousness, reason and morality. Too many reject God without an honest investigation. They parrot ad populum dictums. Those who do say they are open-minded usually prove critical.
So the question is: How did you come to your atheistic conclusions? Reason cannot compell acceptance of its conclusions, though it may influence the decision to do so. It is in the end a volitional act of will.
– Sirius Knott
Sirius, your arrogance surpasses the strength of your argument.
So what? Bad and I explained how empiricism and the scientific method (the only reliable ways of understanding reality) refute Creationism. You responded, yet again, by changing the subject.
Well, this website seems to offer a fair explanation.
Like I said earlier, a mutation either removes, inverts, replaces or adds genetic code. Take a quick look at the Berkley website where they illustrates how one of these copying errors adds additional “chemical letters” (aka chromosomes) to the genome.
That’s possible, but the origins of the universe will (if at all for that matter) be detected using empiricism and the scientific method. Whether or not the universe was created is an objective dichotomy that will be confirmed or falsified objectively. Our assumptions are irrelevant to when or how this happens.
How, how, how, how, how, how, how, how, how and what does this have to do with whether or not all life shares a common ancestry?
No, that’s not the question. You started this conversation by saying we can’t know evolution is happening and that evolution within “kinds” isn’t really evolution. I corrected these possibly deliberate misunderstandings, and you continued to change the subject, making this thread of comments Sloppy Apologetics 101.
Despite that, I came to my “atheistic conclusions” because apologists like yourself cannot support your own conclusions. In the interest of believing as many true things as possible, these claims must be dismissed.
Why should we trust reason? I’m frightened that this isn’t obvious to you, but… It’s the only consistently reliable means of understanding the world around us. Reason is empirical… ideas can be communicated on an even ground without invoking subjectivity or faith – two equally demonstrable negative ways of looking at reality.
Sirius, I ask again, what is your purpose in having this conversation? Are you looking for a constructive dialogue about the scientific facts of evolutionary theory, or are you merely looking to reaffirm your faith in Creation by recycling hundred year old arguments, abandoning them after being wholly torn apart?
Continuing this game of defending objections with other objections will result in everyone’s time being wasted.
Hello, bystander, feel free to quit bystanding and jump in
Faith is belief without justification. I do not believe without justification that God doesn’t exist. I recognize theists have not justified belief in their god, and accept the label “atheist,” meaning I reject the unevidenced bulk of theism.
I’ve gone on before about how this is a fundamentally immoral doctrine. Supposing the Bible is an accurate description of God’s will, an all-loving god would never sentence his creation to an eternity of punishment for a life of temporal, finite sins. Additionally, how can Jesus’ suffering possibly make up for our sins? If I committed a murder and my Grandma said, “no I will suffer for him, send me to jail instead,” the judge would laugh her out of court.
Futher STILL, why is going through Jesus even necessary? If the only thing separating me from an infinity of bliss and an infinity of suffering, torture or even complete annihilation is BELIEF, God is a maniacal monster that punishes thought crimes and values a simple belief over a life of charity.
And don’t even get me started on original sin and the supposed need for this salvation. It’s when I consider disgusting dogma like this that I’m relieved Christianity is unjustified myth.
well, I guess that’s where faith comes into play, because the fundamental idea in Chrisitianity is that Jesus died for our sins, and if anyone has problem with that simple idea, then so be it, be whoever you want to be… how can we understand everything?(OK,,,? how can Jesus and your Grandma be compared….?)
and how can Christianity be a myth? Don’t get ME started on how nothing is true in the Bible and it’s unaccurate, etc. For example, can anybody PROVE that you exist? how? by the people you know and your records, right? the same goes for Jesus. It is true that the Bible is written by humans and is indeed inaccurate. but the words of Jesus are recorded by his disciples and has been distributed to almost everywhere in the world.
OK, have you ever seen a monkey that prays? or any animal that performs rituals? Humans naturally have the ability to recognize a power that is greater than us, thus the concept of religion. Take this phrase, Oh my God… why is God a part of that phrase? Take any phrase that is used in a similar fashion as ‘oh my God’ in any language, and you will see how the word ‘God’ is in every single one of them.
People, no matter how superior they think they are, always have longed for God at the end. Have you ever wished something to happen? Maybe pray that your highschool basketball team wins the final, for example?
God has created us so that we are different from animals who act only based on instinct, as mentioned earlier, we have a concept of God, whoever this may be.
hmm… I might continue this debate, but I don’t think there is any good trying to argue a point which the opposite side strongly disagrees… this kind of ‘fight’ will never end, and ultimately, you stick with your own opinion…
It was nice hearing other people’s idea about this topic.
Oh, and sorry for my inadequate English, I am not a native speaker ^^
So? None of the actual principles that underly the scientific method require those beliefs. They simply happened to be shared by some of the people who historically developed the idea of scientific testing. Trying to demand special treatment for theism just because it existed historically with the development of science is known as the genetic fallacy (i.e. the validity of some argument or idea depends on or is answerable to the nature of who first made it or where it came from).
And really, bringing this up makes your argument weaker, not stronger, in any case. Yes, almost all early scientists were creationists… but then the evidence convinced them that things like a young earth were wrong.
Nonsense. None of these assumptions rest on theism, and theism has no capacity to provide special justification for them in any case. They just happened to be part of the reason some of the early thinkers assumed them.
The problem is that I doubt you even know what you mean by information. There isn’t a single definition of information, nor a single idea of what the “information” of biology is. For instance, for Shannon’s definition of information, the information content of a gene pool increases even just with a single random point mutation, no matter what it does, good or ill or nothing. For other definitions, its trivially easy to demonstrate that information, at the very least information about environmental pressures, will and is being added to gene pools all the time by selection. And so on. This is really a pretty complex topic, since there are so many different ways to cover it. Suffice to say that examples wherein “information” is observably added to organisms are not even of much notice these days in biology, so uncontroversial and obvious is the matter.
The fact that you don’t think I make sense is a real problem, because what I am explaining is a pretty key point. If you don’t understand how evolutionary taxonomy works, you are going to be REALLY lost in trying to understand it.
Accusations like this are just sort of pointless. So you can claim we aren’t using reason. Well, anyone can run on and on making such accusations. So, while we’re at it, let me supply another possibility: you aren’t taking this seriously because you can’t. You don’t know about this subject to actually discuss it seriously. You are simply displaying the nervous bravado of an amateur who has nothing left to do BUT call people names.
You are confusing the difference between what we can SHOW exists, and what you ASSUME exists. We are not assuming that the supernatural doesn’t exist. There just isn’t any evidence to demonstrate that it does the way there is in the case of the natural.
And, no, we’re still quite right about life’s origins. Again, if you knew anything about this subject, you’d know that the evolution of species (the origin of species, that is, diversity) is not the same thing as abiogenesis, the origin of life. They aren’t the same subjects, and likely do not overlap in the same processes.
Objectivity, observation, peer-review, etc. Reason is a demonstrably positive way of understanding things. Faith however… not so much.
I challenge you to provide one contemporary extra-biblical source acknowledging Jesus’ existence, let alone the resurrection, walking on water, raising of Lazarus, sermon on the mount, miracles, etc.
Yes, but there is no reason to believe they are accurate accounts of what actually happened. In fact, the first Christian writing by St. Paul (who never met Jesus) wasn’t written until about 20 years after his supposed resurrection. Given the urban environment and notoriety of oral tradition, this is more than enough time for stories to be exaggerated. There is plenty of reasonable doubt here.
You’ve stumbled upon an interesting question though. Why do we believe silly things? This is an interesting question, and I just may write an article about said topic now.
Briefly, my opinion is that in the infancy of our species, we were overwhelmed by the world around us. Unable to comprehend things, those of us who satisfied our curiosity by inventing a supernatural non-answer were more likely to survive. Others were not.
I know how you feel. A lot of times these debates don’t go anywhere and we all leave bitter. I hope if you do stay, even if no one changes there mind, that we gain a better understanding of each other and critically examine what we believe and why. I find myself doing this often because even more than I oppose religion, I abhor blind faith and unquestionable dogma.