Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[olavisjo]

.

I said our technology isn't there yet but will be relatively soon. I said to expect this to change with quantum computing, but of course, you edit this part out, so you can focus on this one sentence and make it easier misrepresent my argument.

Quantum computing at this point is just science fiction. But you can change my mind by just having Scotty beam me up and crank up the warp drives with some fresh dilithium crystals.

[Peter]

Behold digital evolution!

[Danmark]

.

You claim that Darwinian evolution was debunked by Francis Crick in either 1953 or 1958. You should be able to show where and how Crick did this.

I don't think that Crick understood the implications of his discovery of DNA but I think that Darwin would have understood given that he said...

• If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.

With the discovery of the digital nature of DNA, practically every protein was exactly such a case that Darwin was unaware of.

You've got that exactly wrong. And I don't understand how you could be so far off.
Darwin is saying that every case he looked at was "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." And that is the case. The DNA discovery by Watson, Crick, et al. provided the mechanism for these 'numerous, successive, slight modifications.'

[Danmark]

I am sure that Crick held Darwin in high esteem (I have no reason to dispute that).
Crick did discover how genetic information was passed and it was like nothing that Darwin had ever imagined.

That is correct. Neither Darwin nor anyone else could have imagined the exact mechanism. Both Mendel and Darwin observed the results and made appropriate conclusions. They simply didn't know and couldn't gave guessed the exact mechanism because they didn't have the technical tools to do so. I don't understand why you insist that this is 'digital' nor do I understand why you insist it 'refutes' evolution. Other than your own conclusions, can you cite any expert who has done comparable analysis and in detail shows how DNA/RNA replication refutes evolution?

[Danmark]

Olav, let me ask one more question on this topic. Certainly you understand that dogs, for example, have been bred for different characteristics; that we have tremendous variation with in the species, from dachshunds to German Shepherds. I assume you have no dispute that DNA/RNA provides the molecular basis for the variation. If I am correct in my assumptions to this point, why do you reject this mechanism for greater variation, including variation sufficient enough to constitute new or different species?

Or do you suggest an alternative? Perhaps God, by celestial magic, simply decrees that there will be a new species of beetles. Then another, and another until we get to half a million or more species of beetles. Do you really think that that is how it works? That by divine magic, god waves his cosmological wand and POOF! a new species? If god is making these changes by magic, what need does he have of DNA?

If god is working his creation by his divine, supernatural means, there would be no need for gestation, DNA, or anything else that science has discovered. God could simply cause the birth of new children by divine fiat. We wouldn't even need to bother with childhood, let alone gestation. God could create new species and new individuals the way he created Adam and Eve in the Genesis myth, by simply decreeing it so.

The point is that once you embark on the 'God just did it' explanation of life, there is no limit to what god can do. There is no need for DNA or any mechanism of reproduction. On the other hand science has provided actual mechanisms and descriptions for what actually happens. No divine magic required.

[Sir Hamilton]

You must not be aware that these so-called experts are nothing more than humans. Finite imperfect humans who are capable of honest mistakes and deliberate misinterpretation of data. Data that can be interpreted differently by other humans who are experts in the fields of cosmology, geology, physics, biology, etc. I think i will go with the experts that interpret the data in a way pleasing to my mind and you can go with the "experts" who interpret the data in a way pleasing to your mind. Like i am saying and i am going to keep on saying it....you appeal to authority and i appeal to authority. You don't know anymore about the origin of the universe, life, or humans than i do based on science. I have the added truth of divine revelation as well.

This is an excellent demonstration of your oft repeated position that the facts simply don't matter to you; that you will not seek truth, but rather facts that are "pleasing to your mind." In the 14 or 15 months I've been on this forum I don't think I have previously seen such clear admission that a debater will simply choose to believe whatever he wants and pretend those are correct facts. Thank you for your candor.

Alas....if only others could be so candid. You speak of "facts" that you only know of because you have simply believed what others have told you or what you have read in a book. It would be a very big step in your advancement towards true wisdom if you would just admit that....

[Sir Hamilton]

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

I really don't know what you think you are talking about, but it might enhance your education if you looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

Among other things if you peruse this site you might learn that it is meaningless to make conclusions about 'truth' based on percentages of who believes what. You should be able to learn that people's religious beliefs are strongly correlated with the culture in which they are raised, rather than on some notion of truth.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):

China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64–88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46–82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%–81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54–61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43–64%[109] (53.5%)

Now, I'm no sort of a mathematician. However, I fail to see how these numbers, the majority of which reflect less than 75% of their separate populations, can add up to 75% of the world population, even considering the population of China.

Now, that's just me being picky, I realize.

That was not my point and I did not use the figure of 75% nor did I make the claim the percentages added up to 75%. The point is that 'Sir Hamilton' absurdly claimed:

It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

He was not simply wrong on his facts, his argument was flawed since it was an appeal to popularity. The other charts on that site point out convincingly that one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) correlate with the culture the individual is raised in, further damaging the appeal to popularity he attempted.

Wow, talk about taking my posts out of context....that was cute danmark. I was only using the popularity thing because star was using the popularity thing.

[Sir Hamilton]

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

I really don't know what you think you are talking about, but it might enhance your education if you looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

Among other things if you peruse this site you might learn that it is meaningless to make conclusions about 'truth' based on percentages of who believes what. You should be able to learn that people's religious beliefs are strongly correlated with the culture in which they are raised, rather than on some notion of truth.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):

China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64–88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46–82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%–81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54–61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43–64%[109] (53.5%)

What you should be able to learn from this is that your idea about proving some 'truth' based on the percentage of who believes what is absurd.

But the most revealing part of what you wrote is this:

"...you will have to show me the data on that one and i [sic] still won't believe it."

This statement from you that "you still won't believe it" regardless of what facts are presented is the most revealing of all. Since you confess that facts are not relevant to you, there is no point in debating you or in listening to anything you have to say. You have plainly announced that you believe what you believe and no one should try to argue with you with mere facts.

I am really not sure you know what you are talking about either. I was referring to atheists. There is a difference between someone who is without religion and an atheist. Do you understand?

[Sir Hamilton]

re Danmark Post2817-- You should be able to learn that people's religious beliefs are strongly correlated with the culture in which they are raised, rather than on some notion of truth.
Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):
China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64–88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46–82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%–81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54–61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43–64%[109] (53.5%)
What you should be able to learn from this is that your idea about proving some 'truth' based on the percentage of who believes what is absurd.

How could you learn this from that?

Sir Hamilton's original argument was not one of those ad_populum things that we watch for. His point was that if you use data and percentages for items on a list of scientists then you must be prepared to have the fact back at you that most people choose religious belief.

Exactly! Finally someone who got it.

[Danmark]

I am really not sure you know what you are talking about either. I was referring to atheists. There is a difference between someone who is without religion and an atheist. Do you understand?

It does not matter what the subject is. The point is that you have claimed you will choose your 'experts' based on whether they soothe your 'mind' rather than whether they speak the truth or can factually back up their arguments. Whether someone is an atheist or is simply without religion is irrelevant to the issue. You claimed you didn't care what the facts were, what the data was, you would simply choose to believe whomever is "pleasing to your mind."

This proclamation of yours demonstrates you have no interest whatsoever in learning or in analysis of facts. You simply will agree with whatever is 'pleasing to your mind.'
It is hard to think of a clearer way for you to state you don't care what the facts are, or what the truth is. You simply will endorse whatever silliness or absurdity "pleases your mind." These are your words not mine. Do you wish to retract them?