The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
there is genetic proof. there are fossils. there is logic. you however think that if you don't witness it, you can't prove it. by that reasoning, black holes can't be proven because we can't see them, yet everyone knows for a fact they exist because we have observed their effect on other objects.




i am starting to become increasingly tired by these and that you made perfectly clear you will never accept? i believe it is pretty sad.

there is genetic proof. there are fossils. there is logic. you however think that if you don't witness it, you can't prove it. by that reasoning, black holes can't be proven because we can't see them, yet everyone knows for a fact they exist because we have observed their effect on other objects.

I think the fossil record proves only one thing: There use to be some animals that lived on the earth that apparently no longer live. I think we can assert that that is proved by the fossil record. I don't think anything more is proved by the fossils.

We can speculate.

i am starting to become increasingly tired by these talks. it is quite obvious you or rj will never ever understand and bring yourself to change your ways. and i get why.

I pick up some points here and there and rethink some things.

I don't take Genesis an exhaustive scientific discreption of HOW God created all thiings.

I do hold there being a FIRST man and a FIRST woman.

it's because you are old. years of brain washing and pastors telling you you will go to hell if you don't believe in noah or if you think for yourselves for a moment.

I haven't been under a pastoral system of clergy / laity in over 37 years.

For about 37 years I have met with more like a Quaker style meeting in which the whole congregation is expected to contribute speaking.

you can't risk that so you keep believing stupid stuff your grandfathers believed just so you can keep your ticket to heaven.

I never talk about tickets or going to heaven.

I have contributed hundreds of posts to this Forum. I bet you will not find ONE in which I argue about "going to heaven".

You're spouting off ignorance about me without knowing anything about me.

only your grandfathers are less to blame because they didn't have internets and access to information like you do. you are slaves to your ignorance by your own choice.

Stereotyping.

Just because you came to believe something your father or grandfather also one day came to believe does not make it simply a matter of untrue tradition.

I would not say Macro Evolution is not true simply because your grandfather believed it before you did.

You'er simply trying to reduce everything down to a comfortable stereotype for easy dismissal.

get this: jesus doesn't care if you believe in noah or evolution. he doesn't. as long as you are a decent person, why would the grand poobah of everything that is care whether you believe in a made up story given by god for the benefit of the ancient people so they grasp easier the points he was trying to make?

The first post in THIS discussion that I wrote was that, nowhere in the NT was the requirement to believe in Adam and Eve mandatory for salvation.

Go check it. Verify.

As for a "decent person" ? God does not want a decent person. He wants a person filled with God's own life and nature - a Godman rather than a goodman.

i don't even know why we are having these discussions. is it my need (or proper's, or twhite, or whover else) to prove myself superior to you? is it sad that i try to impart knowledge unto you, knowledge that you keep refusing and that you made perfectly clear you will never accept? i believe it is pretty sad.

The Internet has many anti-Christian Evos who like to get down into minute mechanical details on real low level and show everybody that they can score points on correctness. They like to come down to debates about some little amino acid, some little enzyme, some little bacteria part, and score little points.

And because of this apparent mastery of minute details the gullible might come away thinking "Boy, he sure knows more about Evolution than I do."

But I like to come back again to the big picture . I am not that impressed that the Atheist Evo can pull you down to some minute mechanical trivia and score little points, THEREFORE the big picture of Macro Evolution had to happen.

Do I think evolution can explain all the diversity of living things over billions of years of natural selection?

Emphatically NO. And I don't think the theory of random natural selection Evolution as an explanation of life as we see it today, will survive in tack into the 21rst century.

Now if I WAS a biological scientist, I would explore abrupt changes or something like punctuate equilibrium. Maybe there is something there. Maybe some kind of catastrophic alteration of gamuts or something occured.

Rather than gradualism, if anything is there with macro evolution, I would want to explore abrupt changes.

I don't have enough faith to believe gradualism brought us to the point we are today with life. I don't think there is enough time in the universe to account for that. And such a process without intelligence behind it is miraculous.

Some will take what I have written just now as proof that concede to some Evolutionist like Steven Gould, or whoever postulated Punctuated Equilibrium.
So be it in part. I think more study should be done in that area and less time wasted on trying to vindicate a miraculous gradualism.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think the fossil record proves only one thing: There use to be some animals that lived on the earth that apparently no longer live. I think we can assert that that is proved by the fossil record. I don't think anything more is proved by the fossils.

this is quiet wrong. the fossil evidence show a lot more than that. it shows that there has been at least 5 mass extinctions in the past where a large number of species died off, large number of new species evolved only to die off again in the next extinction event. the fossil record supports the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
this is quiet wrong. the fossil evidence show a lot more than that. it shows that there has been at least 5 mass extinctions in the past where a large number of species died off, large number of new species evolved only to die off again in the next extinction event. the fossil record supports the theory of evolution.

In your dreams.

Originally posted by jaywill

Fire away then.

Why not let a man "fire away" who authored about 30 books on Atheism? Anthony Flew changed his mind to some form of Deism lately because of the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.

Now Atheists tend to dismiss him as being old and senile of course, which I regard as a cheap excuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU&feature=related

And?!

This thread is about evolution. So what if Anthony Flew 'converted' to deism, he still accepts the evidence for evolution. I fail to see what this example is supposed to show?!

On a side note, have you ever read any books on evolution, by that i mean books written by evolutionary biologists?! I ask because in all my discussions on this forum with people who don't accept evolution none of them have ever read a book on the topic.

Originally posted by jaywill

there is genetic proof. there are fossils. there is logic. you however think that if you don't witness it, you can't prove it. by that reasoning, black holes can't be proven because we can't see them, yet everyone knows for a fact they exist because we have observed their effect on other objects.

I think the fossil record proves only on ...[text shortened]... and less time wasted on trying to vindicate a miraculous gradualism.

I do hold there being a FIRST man and a FIRST woman.

why is there a need to have been a first man and woman? why can't they be a metaphor? a symbol of the first humans that stopped being monkeys and picked up a rock and shape it in a tool? the first humans that made a spear, made fire? refused to run when a predator tried to eat one of their own and instead turned around to protect him/her?

in short, the first humans that got a taste of knowledge. who from that day they would have to work hard for a living because obviously just swinging from the trees would no longer satisfy them. even the "you will surely die if you eat from that tree line" can be interpreted as you will notice death and it will trouble you.


" For about 37 years I have met with more like a Quaker style meeting in which the whole congregation is expected to contribute speaking. "
more directed at rj than you but still. why is evolution anathema in your parish? what does evolution deny? not god. only a god that is so technological inept that he needs to intervene in the process of making life flourish in every single moment, else it breaks down. the god that evolution doesn't deny is awesome, he devised a chemical process that even if it might take billions of years, doesn't require him to constantly tweak the parameters. if you are going to ask about how the humans came to be, it is simply a matter of what you understand by "god made us in his image". do you think god is a bearded old man, caucasian and dressed in a white robe? or do you think he made us in his image means he gave us free will and reason?
he may have tweaked some conditions maybe here and there, like a big giant rock wiping out the t-rexes that would have made forming a civilization quite hard.


"I have contributed hundreds of posts to this Forum. I bet you will not find ONE in which I argue about "going to heaven".

You're spouting off ignorance about me without knowing anything about me."

only the first paragraph was directed at you. the second was a futile whine about all the fundies on this forum. fundies who aren't "convinced" about the merits of evolution, even if they haven't read anything on the subject. just because someone told them it would be a sin to think there wasn't an adam and eve.


"I would not say Macro Evolution is not true simply because your grandfather believed it before you did."
yes, but the question still stands, how did you come to the conclusion that evolution is not a valid scientfici theory? it takes years of evolutionists to gather all the data in support of their science. how long did it take you to form an opinion that it is bs? what did you read?


"The first post in THIS discussion that I wrote was that, nowhere in the NT was the requirement to believe in Adam and Eve mandatory for salvation."
again, i do not try to put you in the same pot with rj. there are several smaller pots in the bigger pot. this was directed at those that will crumble to pieces if at any point they have a moment of doubt about adam and eve or noahs flood. however, while we are on the subject, why DO you believe in adam and eve? it is a horrible story.


"The Internet has many anti-Christian Evos who like to get down into minute mechanical details on real low level and show everybody that they can score points on correctness. They like to come down to debates about some little amino acid, some little enzyme, some little bacteria part, and score little points"
that is all we can bloody do, because we are debating an opponent who has absolutely no research done, will most likely never reasearch it and all that opponent will ever do is hit you over the head with the bible. how would YOU debate an opponent like that?


"Do I think evolution can explain all the diversity of living things over billions of years of natural selection?"
I do. You can't. because you refuse to think for yourself.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already covered the subject of "black holes" and there is no
black holes out there.

Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22)

Woe to those who are wise in there own eyes, and clever in their own
sight! (Isaiah 5:21)

😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😲😲😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄


no black holes out there, is there? you keep getting funnier and funnier. now you are an astrophysicist too?

so tell me, you don't agree with the term? or you don't believe there are objects so dense out there that not even light can escape them?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
I do hold there being a FIRST man and a FIRST woman.

why is there a need to have been a first man and woman? why can't they be a metaphor? a symbol of the first humans that stopped being monkeys and picked up a rock and shape it in a tool? the first humans that made a spear, made fire? refused to run when a predator tried to eat one of their own and ins ection?"
I do. You can't. because you refuse to think for yourself.

why is there a need to have been a first man and woman? why can't they be a metaphor?

I don't believe a metaphor has to mean Adam and Eve are not historical. Sure, there is much symbolism and metaphor in the account of Adam and Eve.

In the the Bible concludes with a marriage in which the Wife is taken out of the Husband, without doubt the Genesis account of the first husband and his wife is metaphorical.

But also the flow of history from these two people is seamless. So there can be metaphor with history.

a symbol of the first humans that stopped being monkeys and picked up a rock and shape it in a tool? the first humans that made a spear, made fire? refused to run when a predator tried to eat one of their own and instead turned around to protect him/her?

I am skeptical of part animal / part human history.

I did once believe it. I think the accumulated effect of imaginative artists on the young mind can be very convincing.

in short, the first humans that got a taste of knowledge. who from that day they would have to work hard for a living because obviously just swinging from the trees would no longer satisfy them. even the "you will surely die if you eat from that tree line" can be interpreted as you will notice death and it will trouble you.

What do you think was the meaning of "the knowledge of good and evil" ? I mean it did not stop at "the tree of knowledge".

You're at least thinking on the text, so I'd be interested to hear what you think was meant by "the tree of the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL"

more directed at rj than you but still. why is evolution anathema in your parish?

Okay.

But if there was no First man Adam as a Head of the old mankind to plunge man into the Fall into Sin then there is no need for a Second Man - the last Adam to be a Head of a new humanity to immerse His constituents into redemption and salvation.

The evaporation of Adam as the first man, weakens Pauline bases for redemption.

You have in the Bible essentially only TWO men - Adam and Christ. And the rest of us are either IN one man or IN the other.

These scheme is under attack if we fail to appreciate the First Man Adam and the Second Man Jesus Christ.

Now, granted the non-Christian might say, "So what we can do without the Second Man Christ and His redemption anyway."

Imagine me saying "What need is there for a Queen on the chess board. We can do the whole game without the Queen." Chess wouldn't be chess without the Queen. And the New Testament kind of collapses if there is no Second Man to do right what the First Man damaged between God and man.

The analogy is not perfect, as few are.

what does evolution deny? not god.

I agree that evolution does not necessarily deny God. There are theistic evolutinists. I claim some of the new atheists would have us make a choice between God and Evolution so that they are mutually exclusive.

But evolution is either intelligently designed or is miraculous, if it is true.
I think some of the modern atheists realize the problem of a low probability of something like evolution having taken place to this degree.

So the answer for some of them is to encrease the time and space by proposing multiple universes. I mean if ONE universe makes Evolution unlikely to this degree pile on a billion other universes in a "multiverse".

Then we just happened to be in the lucky one.

only a god that is so technological inept that he needs to intervene in the process of making life flourish in every single moment, else it breaks down.

I think any modern arrogance suggesting that the Creator does not or did not know what He was doing is so stupid it is hard to comment.

Comments like "I could have made a better eyeball" and petty little men thinking they can demonstrate the incompentence of the Almighty is so ridiculous it boggles my mind.

He is WAY, WAY ahead of man. And the little bit of stuff we think we know and are so proud of is only a whisper of the design capabilities of God.

To argue with God is to argue with the One who gave you the ability to argue at all.

An animation of how we send a probe to mars, land there, roll around and take pictures and samples and send them back to earth, is impressive. It is a monument to human technological knowledge. And I highly regard it.

But compared to the reproduction system, its child's play. I can highly regard man's knowhow. But I can also in comparison realize that it does not compare to what the Creator has done.

Modern man is a pompous little arrogant dude. Excuse me, time for some bible quoting:

Job 26:14 - "Indeed, these are but the fringes of His ways; And how small a whisper do we hear of Him! But as for the thundering of His mightiness, who can comprehend it?"

The One who inhabits eternity has millions of gems of knowledge out there in space and even at the bottom of the sea, that we have not yet discovered. Maybe our children's children will marvel at them in the future.

How can man be so pompous ? My reaction to God is love and worship and not competition and resentment, let alone a drive to hold that God does not exist.

Psalm 94:9 - "He who planted the ear, does He not hear ?

And He who formed the eye, does He not see ?"

The technology we derive OUT of the creation reflects the intelligence that a Mind has put INTO the creation.

He is way ahead of us. There are thousands of marvels YET to be discovered. God is happy to let generations go without them until they catch up.

Can't you see it ? You might say He's "playing" with us. We can never catch up to One who has eternal power and infinite knowledge. My reaction is not resentment. My reaction is one of love and worship for our "Heavenly Father" .

I have to go now.

Originally posted by jaywill
But evolution is either intelligently designed or is miraculous, if it is true.
I think some of the modern atheists realize the problem of a low probability of something like evolution having taken place to this degree.

So the answer for some of them is to encrease the time and space by proposing multiple universes. I mean if ONE universe makes Evolution unlikely to this degree pile on a billion other universes in a "multiverse".

And I think you are practising mind reading and have never actually hear anyone make any such claim. I think you have heard arguments similar to that regarding the origin of life, and didn't understand them.

But evolution is either intelligently designed or is miraculous, if it is true.
And you are welcome to have that opinion. But do not confuse opinion with proof or even evidence. You do not have any actual statistics or probability claims to back up that opinion. You don't actually know enough to reliably form such an opinion. It is more of a 'hunch' really.

Scientists on the other hand have a lot more than opinion. They have lots of evidence that it happened, and if something happened then it is, within the realm of probability.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I think you are practising mind reading and have never actually hear anyone make any such claim. I think you have heard arguments similar to that regarding the origin of life, and didn't understand them.

[b] But evolution is either intelligently designed or is miraculous, if it is true.
And you are welcome to have that opinion. But do not conf nce that it happened, and if something happened then it is, within the realm of probability.[/b]

Yea, yea. I mind read the whole opinion into existence.
Look about 4.00 minutes into the video.


Multiuniverses Ensure Survival of Humanity

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I think you are practising mind reading and have never actually hear anyone make any such claim. I think you have heard arguments similar to that regarding the origin of life, and didn't understand them.

[b] But evolution is either intelligently designed or is miraculous, if it is true.
And you are welcome to have that opinion. But do not conf nce that it happened, and if something happened then it is, within the realm of probability.[/b]

me:

But evolution is either intelligently designed or is miraculous, if it is true.

Look about 1.30 minutes into the video.

Craig comments on the book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle".

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by jaywill
Yea, yea. I mind read the whole opinion into existence.
Look about 4.00 minutes into the video.

I have looked from 4:00 to 5:20 and so far it doesn't support your claim in the slightest. Was it supposed to, or are you playing the old 'sidetrack' game?

Originally posted by jaywill
Look about 1.30 minutes into the video.

Craig comments on the book [b]"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle". [/b]

The previous one did not support your claim. Is this one going to? I will only bother watching it if you reply in the affirmative. If you do, and I watch it and it does not support your claim, I will accuse you of lying. Choose wisely.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😲😲😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄


no black holes out there, is there? you keep getting funnier and funnier. now you are an astrophysicist too?

so tell me, you don't agree with the term? or you don't believe there are objects so dense out there that not even light can escape them?

As I said I have already discussed this on previous threads, if you really want
to know my opinion you can look them up.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The previous one did not support your claim. Is this one going to? I will only bother watching it if you reply in the affirmative. If you do, and I watch it and it does not support your claim, I will accuse you of lying. Choose wisely.

I don't need to make up explanations I have heard, explanations to defend Evolution. There are those who put plenty of those ideas out there.

Finding exactly the one I heard may be something I will not take the time to track down again. But the previous video is a variant of the same idea. And what idea is it ?

Basically, that multiple universes is an answer to statistically improbable biological events .

In the video I submitted for evidence of the concept the speaker argues for what one might call a "lucky" universe in which humanity has developed. And if there is a PROBLEM we just have to find a way to jump to ANOTHER "lucky" universe where things will have turned out well for any obstacles in THIS universe.

I think you have a knitpicky way of looking for exact phrases I use as an excuse to protest that the discussion did not support my charge. The vocabulary may be the speaker's own. The basic concept is the same.

You fail to show that "I mind read" the concept of a "lucky" universe in a world assembly of universes in the "multiverse" is suggested to offer some hope in statistical problems facing the Evolutionary process.

ie. "IF we run into survival issues we will have to JUMP to one of these other universes where things luckily turned out the way we NEED them to."

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't need to make up explanations I have heard, explanations to defend Evolution. There are those who put plenty of those ideas out there.

Finding exactly the one I heard may be something I will not take the time to track down again. But the previous video is a variant of the same idea. And what idea is it ?

Basically, that multiple universes is ...[text shortened]... of these other universes where things luckily turned out the way we NEED them to."

I'm guessing you missed my question, i'll post it again -

On a side note, have you ever read any books on evolution, by that i mean books written by evolutionary biologists?! I ask because in all my discussions on this forum with people who don't accept evolution none of them have ever read a book on the topic.