This Should Silence Atheists Who Believe In Blind Evolution

[sandorski]

I took 6th grade science. I know what a scientific theory is based on. Just because scientific theories are based on observations does not make them proven facts or they would be called fact.

lol. Did you fail?

 

[Ninjahedge]

WG, the one thing that comes to mind is that it is possible to prove a positive, but impossible to prove an absolute negative.

You can say there is Evolution by looking at the evidence, but you cannot say there are no Gods until you find a way to explore a realm that most state cannot be explored.

Like trying to say that the color blue is not spicy. Since we can't taste it, we cannot prove or disprove it....

Anyway, the one thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between Faith and Blind Faith (other than a naked 16 year old on the cover...). Faith means you believe there is something out there, but it will not stop you from asking, and learning more. If everyone out there was simply satisfied with "because God made it so" we would never be where we are now.....posting on an online BBS attached to a techie website when we should be working/studying....

Blind Faith just means you will walk into fire with no real proof. It is what we all hope is there. It is what religious texts and mythical legends are made of, but what it all comes down to is basic human insecurity.

We want to think that there is a human like being up there that knows everything and does everything for a reason. That somehow we have control, through being the decendants of this creature, to Life the Universe and Everything. We feel safer.

Now I am not saying there ISN'T something out there. But I would rather believe that God IS the universe rather than an old white guy that likes playing with his planetary spheres.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I took 6th grade science. I know what a scientific theory is based on. Just because scientific theories are based on observations does not make them proven facts or they would be called fact.

Great, I took modern physics. I know what Science is.

And again you are sidestepping. The fact is we have fossils that show a delineation. The fact is, since we did not directly observe it, and we cannot bring back pre-historic critters and re-create the event, it cannot be declared fact.

Odd, however, that the "theory" of relativity has so many things that correlate with it even before they were known to man.


Also, look around. Many scientific "facts" are, by definition and to the general knowledge of the scientific community, defined as "Theories".

It is only pop culture and the media that has deliberately muddiedthe correlation between theory and idle postulation.

Creationist "theory" is not a theory. It is only named that by people who want to compare it as if it was directly equivalent to Evolutionary theory.

As soon as you start getting all this strait you MIGHT start seeing what this is all about, otherwise you will simply restate the same thing over and over again.

 

[shortylickens]

I didnt think trolling was allowed in HT.

 

[Fallen Kell]

My friend you could blow up a billion bombs every minute for 1 billion years besides a pile of paper and a jug of ink and none of them would be able to produce an Encyclopedia Britannica with all its entires and definitions in alphabetical order. Your math is good, the only thing is that the circumstances to be just right for the right combination are not going to wait a billion years for your formula to produce results.

Again, you don't understand evolution. The point being, you don't magically need to have the final outcome generated all at once. All you need to have had happen was that "b" mixed with "r" which later mixed with "i", which at some point then mixed with "t" and so on and so forth until "britanica" was built, followed which later found "encyclopaedia" and which formed "encyclopaedia britanica"..... And this still occurs every second of every day, even now. People are born all the time with some bad combination of genes, things like downs-syndromn for instance. Those same people typically don't get a chance to have children. Since they don't propogate their genes, they don't continue the error of that combination. Other things like height, weight, eye color, skin color, etc., etc., etc., are all "selected" uppon when they are able to have children and raise those children to have children of their own, and so on, and so forth.

The idea is that you DON'T need to get it absolutely 100% perfect that first time. All you need to do is get it more perfect than the last generation did. It is something that is "evolving" over time. And there has been some experiments which are starting to show how certain combinations first started which lead to ever increasing complexity of combinations (as well as memory of failed combinations). Over time, as mutations developed that helped the individuals who had that mutation better survive and reproduce, that mutation quickly became a larger part of the gene pool to get a higher percentage chance that it would continue to be used, because it allowed the organisms which had it to live and thrive better than the ones that didn't have it (they were quicker, stronger, faster, lived off less food, could use different food/energy sources, etc)....

Again, you don't understand the MEANING of evolution. It means you DON'T need to create the encyclopedia britanica or the complete works of Shakespere by letting a bomb blow up next to paper in ink. You just need to make part of it. Just like how we wouldn't have Metal without Led Zeppelin, or Rock and Roll without the Blues, cell phones without the telephone.... You don't need to have the final result immediately.

 

[litttlechica]

I didnt think trolling was allowed in HT.

That's an interesting point.. how DID this post get into HT?

 

[ImpulsE69]

My friend you could blow up a billion bombs
And even if your formula worked and really produced that first living, splitting cell how do you explain it forming and organizing to produce the birds of the sky, evey genre of fish and mammals? No I don't think so, we were created by an intelligent, superior being, also all evidence shows that we humans just spontaneously "appeared" somewhere in the not too distant past. Nobody has webbed feet or wings to suggest that evolution exists in a way that can completely alter us, also if we evolved from apes there would be half-ape men, something between the mutation, or apes would not exist at all.

Let me hear you atheists and evolutionists try to explain that one.

The overall flaw with saying we were created by a superior being is that they always stop at that superior being. If it's not possible we came from nothing, how is it possible that a "superior being" came from nothing? One would think God had a God. You can't just say "this one guy existed" and that's it. Is it possible? Maybe, but then if that's possible, so is evolution. Truth is we just don't know. If everyone could accept that and quit arguing about it, there'd be alot more love in the world.

And yes..there are people with webbed feet.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Not at all. You can't touch my faith because it isnt blind.. it's based on FACTS. I don't believe in creation because someone told me to and I have no doubts.

I knew you would fall for it ^_^.

Can you state your facts please ?
I am interested, i will not attack you with low arguments. I will just use cold logic.

I didn't find it worth it because you are making assumptions. You talk like as if God is weak because he didn't create matter to self-replicate into a universe. That wouldn't make God weak... if there really is a God who is so powerful he created everything, he would be able to make a CHOICE as to what he wants to do with that power and reasons. Just because He didn't do something doesn't mean he COULDN'T have.

This i find interesting. Why is your god a he ?
Do you not realize that god does not need a gender if all powerful ?
The point is, a lot of lifeforms exist in nature that are both male and female at the same time. To be honest, there are even female lifeforms that can clone themselves. While there exist none male forms that clone themselves.
There are even lifeforms in the sea (certain fish) where males turn into females if needed for reproduction.


You see, your way of thinking is a programming based on mass psychology. That is one of the reasons why the original message of many different religions (by the people who meant actually well before they died or got murdered) was no idol worshipping. Because he(or she) who holds the idol has the power. To idolize is to separate. Because then automatically people turn from us together into them and us. You understand ? And to divide people and keep them divided is the second tool.

Here are a few tools :

"
Tool 1: Idolizing, use rituals as to shape their way of thinking to your own use.
Tool 2: Create friction among people, divide them. Keep their minds focused on a virtual enemy as they shall not think clearly.
Tool 3: To create fear as they shall not think clearly.
Tool 4: Destroy knowledge that will make them doubt you, make sure you are the sole educator.
Tool 5: Use reoccurring disasters as proof that the god is not pleased.
Tool 6: Those that confront you, turn them into beings that are out for harm , despair and pain.
Tool 7: Use a concept that cannot be proven or dis-proven to use the doubt and the strong desire for a goal or hope in you advantage.

Then you will have them at your bidding.
"


You might have noticed i didn't attack you. I am not even attacking your faith. I am attacking your "programming". If you want to believe in god, that is fine with me. But please do it in the right way with an open mind and an open heart, compassion and knowledge. True honest science with a healthy moderate dose of scepticism is your path to what you seek.

 

[PsiStar]

Back to the OP, it is just an opinion and without any supporting evidence or source references. It is a classic logical fallacy common with creationists.

This starts with the typical unnamed expert. Is quoted about a statement in a difficult if not impossible to find obscure 10 year old magazine. A magazine published (by a tightly controlled religious sect) with the intent of promoting the doctrines of and biblical prophesies.

Although the analogy of a bomb going off next to a box of paper is intriguing. I with a little poetic license of the analogy ... agree! Considering all of the suns that have come & gone which are countless. That this is a perfectly good analogy if one must have an analogy. And, that would be for just this universe. So I would also add that the 22 volumes are therefore likely incomplete because those are the only ones that we *know* of.

You can't argue with the random minded who believe that their thoughts alone are correct because they thought of it.

 

[litttlechica]

A magazine published (by a tightly controlled religious sect)

Not to start any sort of debate.. I just want to clarify as fact that JWs are not a sect.

Definitions of sect from Webster:
1
a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination

2
archaic : sex 1 <so is all her sect — Shakespeare>

3
a : a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader

JWs don't follow a human leader and they are not schismtaic at all - there isn't dissension within the religion.

Your opinion about whether or not they are a strict religion or you like them or dislike them or agree/disagree with them is up to you.

 

[William Gaatjes]

WG, the one thing that comes to mind is that it is possible to prove a positive, but impossible to prove an absolute negative.

You can say there is Evolution by looking at the evidence, but you cannot say there are no Gods until you find a way to explore a realm that most state cannot be explored.

Like trying to say that the color blue is not spicy. Since we can't taste it, we cannot prove or disprove it....

Anyway, the one thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between Faith and Blind Faith (other than a naked 16 year old on the cover...). Faith means you believe there is something out there, but it will not stop you from asking, and learning more. If everyone out there was simply satisfied with "because God made it so" we would never be where we are now.....posting on an online BBS attached to a techie website when we should be working/studying....

Blind Faith just means you will walk into fire with no real proof. It is what we all hope is there. It is what religious texts and mythical legends are made of, but what it all comes down to is basic human insecurity.

We want to think that there is a human like being up there that knows everything and does everything for a reason. That somehow we have control, through being the decendants of this creature, to Life the Universe and Everything. We feel safer.

Now I am not saying there ISN'T something out there. But I would rather believe that God IS the universe rather than an old white guy that likes playing with his planetary spheres.

Well, the point is you never know for sure until you cannot share it with others. It is as this concept based on a famous feline from a famous physicist :

You have a cat in a box. The box is of a material that does not transfer any form of energy or information. The cat may be alive, or may be dead. But the only thing you know for sure is that when you open the box, the inside will be completely disintegrated into random em energy only, no more atoms. no distinct em radiation. just white noise em radiation. How do you know the cat is dead or alive ? When you want to know for sure you can open the box. But what will you find ? Not an alive cat. Just more questions added upon that single question : "Is the cat alive or not ?". This is an example how to create out of a single unknown variable, multiple unknown variables. Which all come down to that same single question or unknown variable... I should add the box makes sure the cat does not requires sustenance to stay alive if alive.

 

[Anteaus]

There is actually evidence AGAINST evolution like the fossil record which isn't just an "outlyer" that can be dismissed. When people look at it with a scientific approach, they can't dismiss things like that just because they want evolution to be the answer since they won't look at evidence of a creator and they have no other ideas.

God may not be fixing the world right now but no one seems to care to find out why but that's a whole different discussion which isn't scientific at all.

As a geologist, I'm very curious about what about the fossil record works against evolution. I'd like you to back that up with some scholarly sources. The last religious person I spoke to about this actually thought dinosaurs and humans inhabited the earth at the same time.

 

[PsiStar]

Not to start any sort of debate.. I just want to clarify as fact that JWs are not a sect.

Definitions of sect from Webster:
1
a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination

2
archaic : sex 1 <so is all her sect — Shakespeare>

3
a : a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader

JWs don't follow a human leader and they are not schismtaic at all - there isn't dissension within the religion.

Your opinion about whether or not they are a strict religion or you like them or dislike them or agree/disagree with them is up to you.

I will not bother to cite the references, because they are abundant, about *any* sort of dissension, but yes there is and there has been.

Are you completely stupid? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sect

Are you "JW"? I indicated no like/dislike of the sect.

 

[Howard]

Not to start any sort of debate.. I just want to clarify as fact that JWs are not a sect.

Definitions of sect from Webster:
1
a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination

2
archaic : sex 1 <so is all her sect — Shakespeare>

3
a : a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader

JWs don't follow a human leader and they are not schismtaic at all - there isn't dissension within the religion.

Your opinion about whether or not they are a strict religion or you like them or dislike them or agree/disagree with them is up to you.

That which differentiates a JW from any other person of faith is definitely distinctive, so why does definition 3a) not apply? Conveniently you refute the latter part of the definition but not the former.

 

[CycloWizard]

If you get technical about it, evolution just means change and yes, things change. But, using the "process of evolution" to explain the creation of living organisms is definitely an unproven theory since, as you said, the processes that evolutionists say created life are invalid as factual arguments.

It's really as far-fetched as the initial post states. Things don't come from nothing and none of us would agree that a watch or anything else complicated came into being without a designer and that it was just chance that all the complex pieces fell into place. We still don't understand our own bodies since we can't cure so many diseases etc and people say something as complicated as us just happened from evolution?

If you want to get technical about it, the "process of evolution" says absolutely nothing about the origins of life. Evolution is the adaptation of life to the environment. One theory which describes the mechanism of this adaptation is called natural selection.

 

[Weenoman]

My friend you could blow up a billion bombs every minute for 1 billion years besides a pile of paper and a jug of ink and none of them would be able to produce an Encyclopedia Britannica with all its entires and definitions in alphabetical order. Your math is good, the only thing is that the circumstances to be just right for the right combination are not going to wait a billion years for your formula to produce results. Just 1 or 5 degrees change in temperature will render your entire 3.34x10^16 x 365 x 5000(years) x 3785 cc/gal x 10,000,000 gallons (a small portion of the soup worldwide) = 2.31x10^33 useless in a matter of 24 hours.

And even if your formula worked and really produced that first living, splitting cell how do you explain it forming and organizing to produce the birds of the sky, evey genre of fish and mammals? No I don't think so, we were created by an intelligent, superior being, also all evidence shows that we humans just spontaneously "appeared" somewhere in the not too distant past. Nobody has webbed feet or wings to suggest that evolution exists in a way that can completely alter us, also if we evolved from apes there would be half-ape men, something between the mutation, or apes would not exist at all.

Let me hear you atheists and evolutionists try to explain that one.

Cliche troll.

A scientist said that? Wow! it has to be true!

 

[Anteaus]

"And even if your formula worked and really produced that first living, splitting cell how do you explain it forming and organizing to produce the birds of the sky, evey genre of fish and mammals? No I don't think so, we were created by an intelligent, superior being, also all evidence shows that we humans just spontaneously "appeared" somewhere in the not too distant past. Nobody has webbed feet or wings to suggest that evolution exists in a way that can completely alter us, also if we evolved from apes there would be half-ape men, something between the mutation, or apes would not exist at all."

First of all, Homo Sapien (you and I) did not just "show up". There is a fossil record going back at least 1.2 million years providing evidence of the genus Homo at various stages of evolution. Visit a natural history museum sometime.

Second, humans did not come from apes. Present day apes and present day humans share a common ancestor in which they branched off. Also, there were originally multiple lineages of genus Homo, some of which went extinct.

This is the last I'm going to post on this topic because if the creationists aren't even going to learn enough about what they are talking about to at least be minimally competent then I can't waste any more time on it. Spouting out incomplete and sometimes blatantly incorrect facts is paramount to incompetency. This is as bad as priests saying that the fossil record was put there by the devil to confuse us all.

Do me a favor? Take a class that isn't taught by the local clergy and develop a working knowledge of anthropology and biodiversity, then come back with some actual facts that support your argument and we'll talk.

 

[uclabachelor]

This is the same troll that said we've reached the limits of technology a few weeks back.

 

[fail]

One atheist biology scientist said something in a 1990's copy of the Watchtower Magazine that should silence the most ardent and fanatical evolutionist. This is what he said;

Kink, what is the month and year of the publication?

 

[Howard]

Jesus Christ where the hell are the goddamn mods here?

 

[PsiStar]

Crap like this seem to be the norm for Highly "Technical". Feels more like a subforum for pretentious punks who think they know everything.

I agree ... this forum should be renamed to "The Ludicrous".

 

[fail]

OP Quote:

The notion that amino acids and the building blocks of life combined in perfect sequence, in perfect chemistry, in perfect temperature to create life and the sorroundings that abated it to have been just perfect, is akin to placing a bomb besides a box of blank paper and a gallon of ink and the subsequent explosion creating the unabridged version of the Encyclopedia Britannica with its 22 volumes and every single word in the english language written with its perfect definition and not a single misspelled letter on it, that's the mathematical coincidence that would been relatively neccessary for life to been created blindly by mere chance.

 

[llee]

Kink, I hate to burst your bubble, but you need to realize that all you have learned and seen only reinforces your preconceived notion of life and its beginnings. Instead of trying to start a useless rage thread, maybe you should open your eyes to both positions of the issue?

Or am I just too optimistic?

 

[PowerEngineer]

Not at all. You can't touch my faith because it isnt blind.. it's based on FACTS. I don't believe in creation because someone told me to and I have no doubts.

I didn't find it worth it because you are making assumptions. You talk like as if God is weak because he didn't create matter to self-replicate into a universe. That wouldn't make God weak... if there really is a God who is so powerful he created everything, he would be able to make a CHOICE as to what he wants to do with that power and reasons. Just because He didn't do something doesn't mean he COULDN'T have.

I think I see your problem... :whiste:

Belief beyond any doubt is a hallmark of religion not science.

I also do so enjoy these kinds of twisted arguments that have "God" making decisions to intentionally confuse his poor creations (supposedly to weed out those without sufficient faith in his existence). After all, he gave us a brain (and a universe that conforms to various scientific theories that our brains can conjur), but to look for evidence of his existence using these gifts is somehow falling into the devil's trap and puts us on the road to hell. Don't think; just believe! D:

And no matter how unlikely you would like to make the life-producing chemical combinations, they're much more likely than the process you'd have to posite to create your "intelligent designer".

 

[Veramocor]

One atheist biology scientist said something in a 1990's copy of the Watchtower Magazine that should silence the most ardent and fanatical evolutionist. This is what he said;

Watchtower magazine, isn't that the magazine that Jehovahs witnesses give out? Where and who did they get the quote from. What is the context of the quote?