The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if you don't agree with me while ignoring my reasonable arguments and presenting illogical unproven "arguments" to support your stance, then indeed you are not thinking for yourself, you are merely presenting another's stance

if you don't agree with me while ignoring my reasonable arguments and presenting illogical unproven "arguments" to support your stance, then indeed you are not thinking for yourself, you are merely presenting another's stance

Truth is the goal.

If I arrive at truth and say "Look at me everybody. I can think something original!" That's good.

If I can arrive at truth and say "Look, so and so said this is how I should think about it, and I am persuaded" that's OK too.

As it stands, I think quite about for myself. MAYBE someday I share with you problems I have with my understanding of the Bible. But not yet.

Now, would you refer me back to some arguments that you think I did not consider from you above, specifically ?

Which one do you think I completely ignored ?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I really and sincerely don't believe in any kind of god, god's deity, or the supernatural.
I am not just saying this to annoy you.

I can't understand people who do believe and likewise think that they have a 'mental problem'
as you put it.

The problem being they believe in something truly, spectacularly unbelievable without any kind of proof
or the chances that your god exists are unquantifiable, but hover around the zero mark.

I really and sincerely don't believe in any kind of god, god's deity, or the supernatural.

Okay.

I am not just saying this to annoy you.

I TAKE EVERYTHING PERSONALLY DUDE !!! lol.

I can't understand people who do believe and likewise think that they have a 'mental problem' as you put it.

I don't mean that they need to see a psychiatrist.
I don't mean they should be professionally diagnosed with a mental illness.

And I do not mean they are not intelligent. It is not a matter of an intelligent mind.
It is more a matter of conscience. It is a mental problem exacerbated with a spiritual problem and a problem of conscience.

The problem being they believe in something truly, spectacularly unbelievable without any kind of proof or evidence. And then get upset and confused when I don't join in this belief with them.

Maybe, the God you don't believe in, is not the God I believe in.
I have this problem with Christopher Hitchens.

The 'god of the bible' or the god of Christianity is an unbelievably powerful being.

True. But isn't there also the DOVE as a symbol of the Holy Spirit ? You know a dove is a shy animal and easily chased away.

So I try to embrace the full revelation of God's attributes in the Scripture. At one time He is depicted as an EAGLE. At another time He is depicted as a DOVE.

You see LIFE is very vast, all-inclusive. The span and scope of eternal life is very wide. By looking at the lives that have come from this creative Mind, I can see that life is varied, manyfaceted.

So God is almighy and all powerful. But He also will not usurp the human will. Like a very gentle dove, quietly seeking to woo and win your heart.

How easy it is to chase a dove away. But the shy little dove comes back and tries again. He will not coerce you or usurp the sovereignty of your created human will.


In this sense, you will, your deciding will, is even more powerful that God, in one sense.

In fact it is the ultimately powerful being, as in its not possible to be more powerful.

To me one of the greatest miracles in the Bible is that God became a man, and for 30 years He lived in a town among his peers and neighbors. He made no particlar stir. He made no particular great commotion. He made no particlar noisy sensation - for 30 years. He just blended in with everyone else pretty much.

This was God become a man, living such a normal life among men and women for 30 years, a carpenter's son (alledgedly).

Then at the age of 30 He came forth to begin His ministry. And He opened His mouth and performed deeds. Human history has since been shattered by the impact of that little man's three year ministry.

So you say, God is POWERFUL. And I agree. Yet He was a gentle and lowly man, making no particular stir in Nazareth for three decades. That was a RESTRAINT of power.

I am sorry. But I have to love such a One.

There is nothing this being can't do and no law of physics they have to obey.

Yet as a man, Jesus Christ, He was tired, He was tearful, He wept. He stumbled under a heavy wooden cross that He needed help to carry to His own execution.

He marveled. Sometimes He was surprised. He also foretold the future. Yet sometimes He Himself was surprised. He acted in complete obedience to His Father. He did the right thing, in the right way, at the right time, as to what was called for. A miracle if a miracle was called for. A simple human reaction when a simple human reaction was called for.

He could have requested 12 legions of angels to defend Him at His arrest. Instead He stepped forward voluntarily and said "Whom do you seek?"

Don't get hung up on just ONE aspect of God. Go around and see the other aspects of God.

There is absolutely no evidence in the world around us that beings with anything like that kind
of power exist.

That's pretty far out. I mean, the evidence which is the most impressive to me is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Basically the god you believe in is the least plausible being you could possibly devise and yet despite no evidence whatsoever that there is anything that indicates the existence of such a being or anything coming remotely close you find it odd that anyone would not believe in him.

Well, I actually think if someone or a committee someones were to concoct a God, they would not evey dream up a Triune God of Father - Son - and Holy Spirit.

That has caused a lot of theological problems. I don't think a concocted God from the human imagination would have such strange and unimaginable characteristics to Him.

And I don't think some fishermen from Galilee dreamed up a person Jesus Christ and put words into His mouth and went about propogating their hoax. Which only won for them death sentences.

The reason I think there is something wrong with the way your thinking is that you have completely
abandoned all logic and reason and rational thinking in order to believe in this being with no proof.

It is logical for me to accept forgiveness of my sins so that God no longer remembers them.

It is logical for me to love One who so loved me. And though I cannot comprehend it, the gift of "eternal life" which starts the moment I receive Christ, is above all that I could ask or think.

No googlefudge. I think Jesus Christ is too wonderful to not be real.
And I have met NO ONE who denies the existence of God who has a clue about why they are here or what human life in the universe is all about.

I can't understand how it is that you do that, or why on earth you would ever want to.

Science and reason are much more useful, in fact I can find no utility at all in religion.

I like science very much. I am trying to get away from religion. I find that you can leave religion but it does not leave you as easily.

Christ and God are a living Person. God is not a religion to me. He is a living Person.

Religion has nothing that can't be done better by something else and there are many things religion

Religion can be worse than that. Religion opposed Christ and was responsible for sentencing Him to be crucified.

But God is a living Person to me and not a religion.

And I believe that the Bible is God's revelation.
Science is man's invention.
If there is a descrepancy between them (once we really understand what has been written) the problem must be with man's invention.

God knows all the facts. So if we really understand what was SAID, and there is a contradiction to what science says, my attitude is to wait and see what science says tomorrow. They change you know.

God knows all the facts. And eventually, I don't care who you are, you have to TRUST someone.

doesn't do at all. And many things to which the belief in religion is counter productive.

I don't turn from Jesus because of this. That would be an excuse which would display hypocrisy.

I don't dump a lot of things which have an element of counterproductivity.

As it stands, even with religion, I am sure that if you would be rather objective about it, you would realize that in the name of religion -

a lot of cloths have been put on naked backs,
a lot of food has been put into hungry stomachs,
a lot of healing has been done on suffering people,
under the banner of God, many productive things have and still happen in the world.

If you deny this then I think you are being bigotted.

For me the chances that your god exists are unquantifiable, but hover around the zero mark.

And I think of Christ's words "If the light in you be darkness, how great is the darkness."

Originally posted by jaywill

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,

AGREED, that mass extinctions took place. That is what is proved by the fossils.

[quote]


large number of new species evolved only to die off again ...[text shortened]... . That is what is not proved. Relationships of descent is not proved.

Maybe true. Maybe not.

at the very least if disproves your religion of a single creation event.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
at the very least if disproves your religion of a single creation event.

I do not believe the fossil records prove that there was a least five mass
extinctions of animals in the past. There was only one mass extinction
of animals and man and that was the flood in Noah's day. As Dasa would
say, "the dating is done by dishonest scientist".

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not believe the fossil records prove that there was a least five mass
extinctions of animals in the past. There was only one mass extinction
of animals and man and that was the flood in Noah's day. As Dasa would
say, "the dating is done by dishonest scientist".

luckily, what you believe is irrelevant to the facts.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
luckily, what you believe is irrelevant to the facts.

These are not facts, the are speculation, even the ones that do the
dating know that.

Originally posted by jaywill
I said let the participants view and decide for themselves.

If you are trying to impress me that you have a little more clear minded analysis about the content of that video, I'm not going to be impressed.

So you can't answer my questions?
You are being dishonest. You know perfectly well that the video in question does not support your claim on the key points I have mentioned.

Originally posted by jaywill

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?!

Consider that the idea of the development of the biosphere as we see it with the assumption that there was NO intelligent design involved - is th ...[text shortened]... .

You should be happy for him.

He noticed that the emporer had no cloths so to speak.

Again, what exactly does Anthony Flews 'conversion' to deism have to do with evolution?! That's what we're discussing here isn't it?

Originally posted by jaywill

I do. You can't. because you refuse to think for yourself.

If I don't agree with you, I am not thinking for myself ?

I cannot BUT think for myself. Things like the human reproductive system don't happen without intelligence.

Richard Dawkins informs us "Biology is the study of complicated things that giv ...[text shortened]... se they indeed have been.

It happens that the revelation of The Bible teaches the same.

Thinking for myself, I think there is the appearance that these organisms have been made for a purpose because they indeed have been.

Why don't you read the rest of The Blind Watchmaker to find out how complicated biological organisms can come about without a designer?!

Originally posted by twhitehead
It doesn't need 'study'. It is really a matter of definition. Scientists have defined the word 'ape' to include humans. It is a classification term used to describe all species with certain characteristics.

It is not a matter of definition... Humans are not apes.

Please see the below link to wiki about apes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apes

By the way, which scientists do you consider as the authorities on evolutionary theory? I would like to find out what they actually say on the subject.

Originally posted by twhitehead
"Humans are apes. It is true by definition that we evolved from apes, and continue to evolve as apes."

Originally posted by shahenshah
It is not a matter of definition... Humans are not apes.

Please see the below link to wiki about apes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apes

By the way, which scientists do you consider as the authorities on evolutionary theory? I would like to find out what they actually say on the subject.

Originally posted by twhitehead
"Humans are apes. It is true by definition that we evolved from apes, and continue to evolve as apes."

From the wiki page you linked:

"Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, common chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Either the first four[3][4][5] or all five[6] are collectively called the great apes."

Humans are apes.

Originally posted by shahenshah
It is not a matter of definition... Humans are not apes.

As avalanchethecat points out, the Wikipedia entry you refer me to quite clearly states that humans are apes.
It also says that there have been various meanings for the word historically and in many historical contexts it did not include humans.
But all this, is most definitely a matter of definition. Whether humans are apes or not is not a matter of 'truth' or 'fact' but a matter of whether or not we choose to call them such.

By the way, which scientists do you consider as the authorities on evolutionary theory? I would like to find out what they actually say on the subject.
I don't have any particular names in mind. I tend to accept the findings of science, as an authority, not individuals. Is there a particular part of my earlier statement that you still dispute?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As avalanchethecat points out, the Wikipedia entry you refer me to quite clearly states that humans are apes.
It also says that there have been various meanings for the word historically and in many historical contexts it did not include humans.
But all this, is most definitely a matter of definition. Whether humans are apes or not is not a matter of 't ...[text shortened]... not individuals. Is there a particular part of my earlier statement that you still dispute?

Read a couple of paragraphs further...
"Biologists have used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[3] or more recently to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, so that "ape" becomes another word for "hominoid"."

If you read down to the end of the page... Changes in taxonomy, it is clearly that humans and the apes had a common ancestor. So humans did not evolve from Gorillas or Orangutans.

The theory and terms changes with the individual and with time.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Read a couple of paragraphs further...
"Biologists have used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[3] or more recently to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, so that "ape" becomes another word for "hominoid"."

If you read down to the end of the page... Changes in taxonomy, it is clearly that human ...[text shortened]... rillas or Orangutans.

The theory and terms changes with the individual and with time.

Yes, it's customary to use the most recent definitions in science.

Who claimed that humans evolved from gorillas or orang utans? Certainly nobody who knew what they were talking about. It is, however, a stone cold certainty that the common ancestor of the pan troglodytes and homo sapiens would also have been a great ape. Further, the common ancestor of that beast and gorilla gorilla would also have been a great ape. Whichever way you look at it, if you accept speciation by evolution, you accept that humans evolved from apes. If you accept modern nomenclature, you also accept that humans are apes. If you don't accept these things, why are you even having this discussion?

And no, the theory doesn't change with the individual and with the time, it changes with the addition of new data.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Read a couple of paragraphs further...
"Biologists have used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[3] or more recently to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, so that "ape" becomes another word for "hominoid"."

If you read down to the end of the page... Changes in taxonomy, it is clearly that human ...[text shortened]... the apes had a common ancestor. So humans did not evolve from Gorillas or Orangutans.

I still don't understand what you are disputing. I think I agree with you on all the above points, and have not said anything different.

The theory and terms changes with the individual and with time.
Which theory are we talking about? I think the basic family tree of man has been known since Charles Darwins time. I am sure he would have said that mans ancestors were apes. I don't think any reputable biologist has ever suggested otherwise since the time of Darwin.
The definition of 'ape' has changed over time, which is why I said that the issue of whether or not man is an ape is really only a matter of definition. But currently, in scientific circles, mankind is classified as a 'great ape', a sub group of 'apes'.