Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[keithprosser3]

I have a belief and I have faith that God is necessary for evolution to take place.

I have no doubt that you do.

The problem is that you seem unable - or unwilling - to give a reason why I should have the same belief and faith.

You say how I can have that belief and faith - simply by adopting that belief and faith. But that is how not why. Is there a why?"

[Sonofason]

I have a belief and I have faith that God is necessary for evolution to take place.

I have no doubt that you do.

The problem is that you seem unable - or unwilling - to give a reason why I should have the same belief and faith.

You say how I can have that belief and faith - simply by adopting that belief and faith. But that is how not why. Is there a why?"

Well, yes. You will be blessed by God. You will experience a love that you have never felt in your life. It is the love of God, that He will not withhold from those who earnestly seek Him.

[Star]

Prove we're not trapped in a virtual universe like the Matrix.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

AND BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE !

Why would I try to prove such a thing? It actually sounds quite reasonable to me.

If you have to ask that, then you still don't understand. They were rhetorical questions demonstrating your fallacious logic.

You're shifting the burden on us to provide negative evidence, and based on our inability to do so, you draw conclusions with the expectation we can't refute them. We can refute them. You're the claimant, you bear the burden. If you have no evidence, it's entirely reasonable of us to call you out.

All I can do is explain how evolution by selection works, which doesn't include god. All I can do is tell you there's no evidence supporting god's involvement in the universe, or even his existence.

But to be clear, the lack of evidence for intelligent design is entirely your problem, not ours. It takes a lot of gall to flip it around to become the skeptics' problem. It's obviously fallacious, we've seen it many times before, and it's no way to debate.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 163 by JohnA]

Sonofason wrote:

I believe that God is necessary for evolution to take place.

JohnA wrote:

Given this, do you believe that your god is necessary for evolution to take place based on faith, or based on belief?Am hoping you understand the difference between faith and belief - you offered definitions and then proceeded to create your own - hu?
If you say faith (meaning there is no evidence), why do you think a faith based belief is rational? How can you pontificate there may be evidence?
If you say a belief (meaning that there could be evidence), why do you reject the central tenant of your religious dogma (faith)? Which god relies on a faithless belief, how can you even claim a god exists (all of them are based on a faith based belief)?

No John, you haven't got it right. I have already shown that I both have faith and belief in God. It's not really my problem if you can't accept that. And it's not really my problem if you can't comprehend what I have said. I gave valid definitions for the words, faith and belief, that show that my usage of these two words is consistent with most of the definitions that I provided. I noted that there are definitions that suit your notion of the meanings of these two words as well. Words often have more than one meaning, and sometimes those meanings can be conflicting. Well, that's too bad, but it's a reality you ought to face.

If you'd like, I grant you permission to put forth a request to narrow down the meanings of these two words for the sake of future clarity in our conversations, but I get the impression that I will not accept your request. The Bible is filled with usages of the words faith and belief. As well, the Bible contains the word believe, a particular variant of the word belief, and I just don't think I'm willing to allow you to change the authors intent of meaning simply because you don't accept that they used the word correctly. You see, as a reader, I am the one who gets to determine the intent and meaning of the words that I read. You're particular insights may be helpful, but in the end, it is my choice. It is my decision. If you you can't accept this, our discussions are pointless. Don't get me wrong, I believe that our discussions have already shown to be rather pointless, but I am drawn to them simply for purposes of amusement.

Quote:
that it is a belief especially when it is based on examination of evidence.

Jesus said, "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11:26)

Do you suppose that those who believe they will never die believe what they believe based on evidence? Because the word used in this verse is believe. It is quite apparent to me that in this particular verse the words (to have faith) and (to believe) could be used interchangeably.

John said, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

JohnA wrote:

That contradicts:
faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof
faith (Oxford dictionary) - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof
faith - Heb 11:1 KJV Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Belief - (Oxford) nan acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. To believe is to accept as true, an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof (does not mean there is no proof /evidence).
The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

No, it is not a contradiction. The fact is you are failing to acknowledge other meanings of the words in question. I will use words according to the definitions that I deem appropriate. If you fail to recognize my intent of meaning for the words I use, then your understanding will remain obscure. It's a choice John.

JohnA wrote:

It seems to me that you do not even understand your own Religious Dogma.
Not only that, you seem to not understand what is evidence either.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. (see Wikipedia)
Personal experience can not support your assertion (your god exists), when your belief is based on faith.
Person experience (hearing voices, seeing images, that can not be falsified) can support hallucinations/delusions/dishonesty.

Things aren't always what they seem to be John. I suggest putting your faith in God. Then, perhaps, you will have the wisdom to understand.

JohnA wrote:

Now, please answer my question without employing obscurantism. REMEMBER, you have already admitted that you have NO EVIDENCE for you god.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 982#608982
At least try to be truthful to your own writing & admission, Son.

Given your definitions, the one's you provided, I have a belief and I have faith that God is necessary for evolution to take place.

I have already shown that I both have faith and belief in God.

All you have done is admitted (previously) is that you have no evidence for your god.
You tried, unsuccessfully, to change the definition of Belief.
You now tried, unsuccessfully, to say you can have both a belief (not knowing if there is evidence) and faith (knowing there is no evidence). That not only contradicts your faulty definition of belief, but your own admission and epistemology (accepted literature).
Furthermore, it contracts your own scripture as it clearly says your belief is based on FAITH.

Therefore, it is clear that you are not being coherent. Based on this incoherency and inconsistency, I do not wish to debate with you anymore. You have rendered your claim to be a pure misguided opinion. Am not even convinced you understand your own claim. This should be quite embarrassing for you:
not understanding dictionaries
not understanding basic epistemology
not understanding your own scripture / dogma (faith)
contradicting your previous admission.

I can't help but feel sorry for you. This is what happens to theists when they have not clear understanding what they are pontificating, it results in arguing in circles due to a faulty reason filter and an elevated working biased.


All the best, Sonofason.

[otseng]

This should be quite embarrassing for you

I can't help but feel sorry for you.

Moderator Comment

Such statements would not be considered to be civil.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Sonofason]

Prove we're not trapped in a virtual universe like the Matrix.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

AND BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE !

Why would I try to prove such a thing? It actually sounds quite reasonable to me.

If you have to ask that, then you still don't understand. They were rhetorical questions demonstrating your fallacious logic.

You're shifting the burden on us to provide negative evidence, and based on our inability to do so, you draw conclusions with the expectation we can't refute them. We can refute them. You're the claimant, you bear the burden. If you have no evidence, it's entirely reasonable of us to call you out.

All I can do is explain how evolution by selection works, which doesn't include god. All I can do is tell you there's no evidence supporting god's involvement in the universe, or even his existence.

But to be clear, the lack of evidence for intelligent design is entirely your problem, not ours. It takes a lot of gall to flip it around to become the skeptics' problem. It's obviously fallacious, we've seen it many times before, and it's no way to debate.

I think it would be wise to stay on point and follow the developing conversation.

Star wrote:

Prove we're not trapped in a virtual universe like the Matrix.

I responded:
Why would I try to prove such a thing? It actually sounds quite reasonable to me.

And then you (Star) wrote:

If you have to ask that, then you still don't understand. They were rhetorical questions demonstrating your fallacious logic.

I must ask, what are you talking about? You did not ask a question here. Do you not recognize your own comment?
You said, "Prove we're not trapped in a virtual universe like the Matrix."

I asked why I would try to prove such a thing. It sounds rather reasonable. Are you referring to something else? If you are, then I suggest you quote the appropriate conversation. Many questions are raised on this forum. Am I supposed to be guessing which ones you are referring to? Do you think I'm psychic?

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 172 by JohnA]

Sonofason previously wrote:

I have already shown that I both have faith and belief in God.

JohnA writes:

All you have done is admitted (previously) is that you have no evidence for your god.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Do you suppose it adds something to your lack of an argument? I assure you, it doesn't. I said I didn't have evidence because I don't have the sort of evidence that can possibly convince you. I do however have evidence that can convince reasonable persons who have open minds, and who have faith in others. Ad that's just not something I can bestow upon you. It is what it is.

But I have decided not to cower to your particular demands, nor to comply with your particular definition of evidence. I will call evidence what I think is evidence. If you don't believe that the evidence I provide is evidence. Then so be it. What you think evidence is means nothing to me. What I think is evidence means everything to me. I am not trying to convince you. I already know that convincing you of the existence of God is an impossibility. I can't convince you. You don't want to be convinced. End of story.

JohnA writes:

You tried, unsuccessfully, to change the definition of Belief.

I provided dictionary definitions for the word belief. I'd do it again, but it would be a waste of my time. You are not looking for truth. All you are trying to do is undermine my sound arguments by attempting to undermine me. It won't work. I'm on to your scam. And I must say, it is not an honorable means of debate. As for the rest of your comments, they infuriate me, and I am not inclined to comment any further. If truth is not what you are seeking, if winning is your sole priority, then, please take it. You win.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 172 by JohnA]

Sonofason previously wrote:

I have already shown that I both have faith and belief in God.

JohnA writes:

All you have done is admitted (previously) is that you have no evidence for your god.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Do you suppose it adds something to your lack of an argument? I assure you, it doesn't. I said I didn't have evidence because I don't have the sort of evidence that can possibly convince you. I do however have evidence that can convince reasonable persons who have open minds, and who have faith in others. Ad that's just not something I can bestow upon you. It is what it is.

But I have decided not to cower to your particular demands, nor to comply with your particular definition of evidence. I will call evidence what I think is evidence. If you don't believe that the evidence I provide is evidence. Then so be it. What you think evidence is means nothing to me. What I think is evidence means everything to me. I am not trying to convince you. I already know that convincing you of the existence of God is an impossibility. I can't convince you. You don't want to be convinced. End of story.

JohnA writes:

You tried, unsuccessfully, to change the definition of Belief.

I provided dictionary definitions for the word belief. I'd do it again, but it would be a waste of my time. You are not looking for truth. All you are trying to do is undermine my sound arguments by attempting to undermine me. It won't work. I'm on to your scam. And I must say, it is not an honorable means of debate. As for the rest of your comments, they infuriate me, and I am not inclined to comment any further. If truth is not what you are seeking, if winning is your sole priority, then, please take it. You win.

I am not going against my own writing that I would not respond to you on this topic anymore, because you offered no new argument here. I need to do this because you keep on contradicting yourself and literature.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Do you suppose it adds something to your lack of an argument? I assure you, it doesn't. I said I didn't have evidence because I don't have the sort of evidence that can possibly convince you.

You admitted to user 'no evidence no belief', not to me that you have NO evidence.
I bring this up to show that you are not being truthful to your own admission. Therefore I can not trust anything you write.

I do however have evidence that can convince reasonable persons who have open minds, and who have faith in others. Ad that's just not something I can bestow upon you. It is what it is.

Your evidence has not convinced Science or Religion either. In fact, science rejects information/facts/data that can not be shown false, is not testable/observable. But science would accept your information/facts/data as evidence for hallucinations/delusions/dishonesty. Your religious dogma (faith) says clearly you have no evidence. You are merely wanting to go against your own faith based belief to reject your religious dogma. How is that logical? All you are doing is arguing that your religion is wrong; that your god is not the bible god. You are trying to invent your own new god here that has 'evidence'.
And you are still using FAITH incorrectly.
I trust people because I have previous evidence that they can be trusted. This trust is not faith based, it is based on knowledge.
If you trust someone with a secret and if you have no previous evidence evidence that they are trustworthy, then your trust is faith based. I would not trust anyone if I have no previous experience (evidence) that they are trust worthy.

What you think evidence is means nothing to me.

Is this an admission from you that you reject falsification, dictionaries, and espistomology? And that you prefer to make up your new definition to contradict your own religious dogma?
I am merely going with accepted literature here, I did not author it, you are not the author either. Yet you want to be the author, claim you are the author. How is that logical?

I am not trying to convince you. I already know that convincing you of the existence of [strike]God[/strike][my new god] is an impossibility. I can't convince you. You don't want to be convinced. End of story.

I think it is better to write god with no capital g. Putting a capital implies that this god is some egotistical maniac that demands worship - but then again, that is how he is portrayed in the bible. I this another admission from you, YOUR new god is also an egotistical maniac that demands worship? (Notice, I am asking, not claiming or stating).

I am merely just accepting science, dictionaries, epistemology, and your religious dogma (faith). I did not author it. You seem to want to author it (or think you are the author) to justify some biased (your god exists, not the bible god). How is that logical? At least it seems both these god are egotistical maniacs that demand worship. Some consistency from you at last.

I provided dictionary definitions for the word belief.

Correct, but I question your interpretation of it. And you have not complied to epistemology when you interpreted it.

Previously you wrote:

The modifier "especially" is not an indication that a belief is always based on the examination of evidence, but that it is a belief especially when it is based on examination of evidence.

Here we have an example where you are wanting to "modify" the definition of belief to suit your biased. A belief is merely holding something as true, regardless if there is evidence or not. I means you have NOT examined the evidence as yet, as you do not even know if there is evidence for the truth claim of that belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. If there is no evidence for the belief, then it is called faith - a belief based on faith (admitting there is no evidence).

You are not looking for truth. All you are trying to do is undermine my sound arguments by attempting to undermine me. It won't work. I'm on to your scam. And I must say, it is not an honorable means of debate. As for the rest of your comments, they infuriate me, and I am not inclined to comment any further. If truth is not what you are seeking, if winning is your sole priority, then, please take it. You win.

Correct, I am not after claims that declare truth based on faith. I find that irrational and illogical.
I'm after what is not false based on falsifiable evidence for an assertion. You have not lived up to this at all. And I would never say anything is 100% certain to be true, not even a scientific fact.

This is what happens to theists when they have not clear understanding what they are pontificating, it results in arguing in circles due to a faulty reason filter and an elevated working biased. I sincerely hope you are not one of these theists.

[arian]

Or how about this one, .. If single celled bacteria left in muddy stale water for millions of years can create something as complex as humans, then how can you Believers believe that a Creator God can exist? Checkmate Believers.

Straw man. Humans weren't created by stale muddy water.

Hello Star.

Well according to Evolution, single celled bacteria don't change into humans, monkeys don't change into humans, .. so it must be single celled humans that evolved into humans, .. right?

It was also in the order of billions of years, not millions. Oldest fossils date to more than 3.4-billion-years BP, and are of single-cell organisms that metabolized sulfur.

Well, either millions or billions of years, does it really matter? I mean there was no scientists to observe and record any of this, so my millions is as legitimate as your billions, .. wouldn't you say?

Earth was still a hot, violent place at this time, with volcanic activity dominating the early Earth. The sky was cloudy and grey, keeping the heat in despite the sun being weaker than today. The water temperature of the oceans was much higher at 40-50 degrees -- the temperature of a hot bath -- and circulating currents were very strong. Any land masses were small, or about the size of Caribbean islands, and the tidal range was huge.

Significantly, there was very little oxygen present as there were no plants or algae yet to photosynthesise and produce oxygen. The new evidence points to early life being sulfur-based, living off and metabolizing compounds containing sulfur rather than oxygen for energy and growth.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205241.htm

I just don't know, .. how can anyone reading this call the stories in the Bible old tribal myths?

Scientists observe the world around us, so which scientist claims that they observed the earth when there were no plants or algae? I would love to read their reports.

[arian]

I see a car. Did someone create this car? Or is man twiddling his fingers in this, making every bolt, every panel, every electronic circuit, wiring, displays and constantly tuning it to get it to run?

Oh yes, .. that's a car. Someone had to build a car, .. besides, what is a car compared to the genetic/atomic make up of a, .. oh let's say; a lily of the field? Right? How about a man, his brain and his mind?
So what is the answer, ..that the car is easy, so we man had to build it it, it's not like it evolved over billions of years or something, Right?

...

Can you prove to us that the cars didn't evolve? I mean rocks and dirt evolved through billions of years of gasses reacting with each other, from which water and the primordial soup evolved and created single celled bacterium, which in turn over a long time inadvertently evolved ape man, right? So why didn't evolution create some simple things like cars and planes?

I mean fine, I grew up in Detroit so I know we man make cars, .. but I have seen cars that I don't remember making, .. could these have evolved over the billions of years along with rocks and the ores we have in rocks? If not, .. why not?

Wow, are you for real?

There's a big difference between metal machines we design and build, and biological organic life which evolves by natural selection. Cars aren't alive. They don't reproduce. They're not made of the same thing. So they don't evolve. We have to build them the way we want them. Do you understand?

Of course I'm for real, .. just as real as you are.

But I do understand, we are made of dust which is non-biological life that was meticulously designed and built from dirt taken from the earth, and built the way the Creator want us.

Now the question is; "Do you understand?"