Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten Reasons

Firstly, I'd like to aplogise to all, for perpetuating Willow's usual ploy of turning all of these threads from discussions about evolution into religious debate. This is not the forum to debate scriptual interpretation. For that reason, I will only linger shortly.

---

First off, the definition of ID is forthcoming and it will be in a post directed at the person who asked for it. That person posted a very lengthy comprehensive response that deserves a like manner reply.

---

In your defence, I realise that in many of these threads you are taking on just about all debators. You have some support from fellow Creationists, but I suspect that your own views often even differ from theirs (OEC vs YEC). Nevertheless, you do not demonstrate much intellectual sincerity in your debating technique, which seems to merely comprise: posit or challenge evidence, have that shot down, play the atheist conspriracy trump card to discredit any and all evidence brought against you.You play this card when you would otherwise be logically forced to concede. Why then do Creationists even bother to attmept debate with evidence? Posit your particular world views, and be done with it, or better still save it for another appropriate forum.

---

The next thing you need to do is to demonstrate that you have a brain enlightened by the Holy Spirit instead of claiming it and then proceeding to offer nothing of substance to back it up. What you have done is debut yourself as this Spirit-filled intellectual armed with the ahteist explanation of the origin of species (big deal - dime a dozen). I can't find one solitary thing of uniqueness in this post of yours that warrants your religious admission deserving the theistic dimension of truth.

---

Of all the people in the world and in the heavens above, the last person that I have to demonstrate my faith to, is you. One is a Christian by acts, as much as words. The integrity and validity of your own faith is demonstrated by your actions and words in this forum.Creationism is crippling to all of Christianity, in the same way small groups of fundamentalists are to the Islamic faith.What I bring to this debate is:1. A rationale and calm Christian perspective.
2. Acknowledgement that Christianity and Evolution can be completely harmonious.
3. The knowledge that interpretation of scripture is at best subjective and should be performed with a combination of spirit guidance, historical analysis and rationale skepticism.
4. The belief that deceit exists in this world in great abundance in both the believer and non-believer camps.
5. Recognition that dogma is bad, and that history repeatedly demonstrates that blind adherence to it and those who espouse it is the quickest path from the true word.
6. Knowledge that there are many false prophets and those who air on television "around the world 24 hours a day" demanding inordinate donations to support their lavish lifestyles are probably false prophets.
7. Recognition of the fact that there are facts about this world that are separate from world views and evolution is one of those, just as much as the fact that the sky is blue.I do not seek or require the respect of "Neo-Darwinists". My respect for my own intellectual and spiritual integrity is suffucient, and I know from experience that will in turn, in the me the respect from those who matter most in this world and beyond.Willow, I know you are very passionate about your interpretation. Humility is a requirement before the Lord: you should also demonstrate some of that before others that are more knowledgeable than yourself, particularly in the field of science. We all have very much to learn. I not only acknowledge that, I also allow God to guide my path into new knowledge be it from the Bible or beyond.

---

My ultimate point/conclusion is that of Romans, which is, if God punishes via removal of "God sight/sense" for excluding Him arbitrarily from the creation table, then persons suffering this punishment will never be able to comply with the two-fold demand of God, which in turn explains their denial of the existence of a Creator, which renders every claim of certainty defective.

---

Has anyone previously pointed out that this reasoning is dreadfully circular? (because the twofold demand also requires acknowledgement of God as the creator).

http://EvC Forum: Some Evidence Against Evolution -->EvC Forum: Some Evidence Against EvolutionNot that Willow appeared to ever actually grasp the circularity.Welcome to the forum, Light. Though I know I'm not the first to tell you, I find your posts to be quite refreshing indeed.

You need to read post #36 of mine in this topic in context. What I said here to my opponent is something you would never say or admit.I challenged you to present what your theism brings to this debate. Embarassingly, you chose to preach your message of humanism under the guise of using the text of Scripture.You can call yourself whatever you want but you are not a theist.You branded something circular arbitrarily without an ounce of argument. You avoided the guts of my last post and we all know why.I think you should not force everyone to listen to you preach in this topic as what you say has no relevance to this debate unlike mine which I have extensively argued. If you want to debate in a theistic setting then I will be waiting for you. Presently I am active in the "Where did God come from " topic and the "Message of the Bible " topic.My next posts will be directed at Mr.Darwinsterrier in this topic.

yourdictionary.com defines theism as:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.What definition are you using that makes Light not a theist? !!!!???

You are dense headed.The inability (for whatever reason) to deny credit to God as the Creator is a penalty from God for arbitrarily excluding Him from the creation table. This exclusion is contained in the claim of rational enquiry which plainly proclaims that no position is taken or considered toward the Divine.God is not fooled by this silly claim of neutrality, in response He chose to punish persons guilty of not crediting Him by irrevocable removal of capacity to recognize Him. This is what Romans teaches.God only wants scientists/students/whoever, to, as they turn the lights off in the laboratory and lock up to go home, to say "thank you God".Deny Him this CREDIT (thats all He requires) and you risk the punishment mentioned above which the 20th verse of Romans 1 calls His wrath. Persons suffering this punishment are easy to recognize - they display an attitude that doesn't care about God, they never think of Him. This punishment also applies to so called theists who deny the wrath of God and make it of no effect. To these types the Bible says God will make them believe a lie (that His wrath doesn't exist) as the penalty for making void His word. In either case you believe something that isn't true which is the essence of being deceived - you think it is true - but it aint.Now I am finished in this matter for reals. (I will ignore the cheers of the room) you can have the last word if you want.

This person is feigning theism as he argues common atheism.He also revealed his true motivation of attacking me when he cowardly ranted his bias against Dr.Scott. This person will now undoubtedly go off topic and rant some more.I am a theist and this person is a backstabber whose computer is raging against the greatest and brightest scholar of christianity.I am off topic but I unintentionally do not give your posts the same amount of response that you give mine.

He did? Where did he do that?Added by edit:Sorry it is off topic.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-30-2003]

So much for the 2nd greatest commandment, eh? I think you need to rephrase this question by replacing "deny" with "give." That said, this statement is still circular. What you're saying is that I exclude God BECAUSE HE IS COMPELLING ME TO EXCLUDE HIM as a penalty for the very exclusion which apparently I can't UNDO. What type of horse hockey is that? It doesn't need to be. The position WRT to the Divine can be personal. Whatever one can discover through scientific enquiry, that person is certainly free to believe that "this is the way God did it." It's just not absolutely necessary in order for the process to be effective. There, no exclusion. It's your problem if the fruits of scientific enquiry don't coincide with your preconceived notions of how reality is supposed to operate according to the most literal interpretation of your favorite religious text. Plenty of them do. The point is that their belief is personal, and not necessary to the methodology. Apparently because they can't, thanks to God. What type of justice is that? Would it be just to continually imprison a person for the fact that he/she a prisoner? I could've sworn that the Bible tells us that God is love, and that love is not vengeful or angry. For really reals?

My recollections and impressions are that this topic started off as being better that average, and somewhere along the line has gone into a skid.Might people wish to consult the beginning portions of the topic, and take it from there?Adminnemooseus

There is no such assumption at the outset. The idea is to test the explanatory hypothesis that is proposed.1. Living things are complex.2. Suggested explanation: they were designed by an intelligence.3. Prediction of the explanation: there should be no really stupid / blatantly suboptimal designs in nature... because an intelligent designer should not, by definition, do things less well than they could be done.4. Find suboptimality, and the hypothesis is refuted, even if we have no explanation to replace it with.5. Suboptimality is indeed found. So the hypothesis is rejected.Note that this reasoning says nothing whatever about evolution, or offers any other explanation for the observations.I am fine until 3. Who is to say that a design is "bad" or non optimal. do we merely look at the "now" such as pausing a video tape and complaining that casablanca looks fuzzy? because the pause scene was not "optimized"? Just because you are unable to see reason does not conclude illogical design it only proves that you cannot see a logical design. Not to sound insultive , but this only proves your lack of creativity and/ or foreknowledge of events.I do not disagree that evolution is a possiblity-- however since we are to have evolved from unlife, we should be able to mimic that original spark and cannot. using your type of arguemen:
1)life started simple ( evolved into complexity later)
2) Hypothesis - if evolution is correct we should be able to easily create an orginism from "dead" materials
3) if we cannot then hypothesis is wrong
4) we cannot
5) therefore god exists
I would not use this arguement in a real debate, only to attempt to show the fallicy of the original arguement.

there are some problems with the above logic.
If we cannot weakens the hypothosis, it does not prove it wrong. Our lack of knowledge of our to accomplish it or inability to accomplish it without geologic time doesn't prove it can not be done. Just that we haven't figure it out.We cannot {ias yet[/i]. Until we demonstrate that it can not be done period we don't know if it will be doable in the future.Even if it can not be done then the doesn't prove God. (in the usual sense of the word) It means we have to search farther afield. Was the first life pushed through from a parallel universe by intelligences there? Did it arise there under different physical conditions and get pushed through by some natural process (a wormhole? ). We still don't know. All we'd prove is that we don't know how it happened not that it had to be supernatural.Besides really proving it can not happen would be very, very difficult. So far we are getting more and more hints of how it might have unfolded. So the evidence is just barely starting to build to say it is at least naturally possible even if we don't (and may never) know just exactly how it actually happened.
However, this is all very off topic. Sorry

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-08-2004]

To agrav8r:
Evolution is NOT about how life began it is about how life became more complex AFTER it began.To Willowtree: Who are you to judge whether Light is a theist or not? According to my dictionary Theism is the belief in god or a higher power. Could you please explain your definition of theism? I am sorry but you can't just dismiss or ignore anything that contradicts your claims. Umm so does this mean that more than half the planet is under the "wrath" of god for not believing exactly as you do? Ya know, I could say the very same thing but credit my invisible pink unicorn and it would be just as valid. So it would be nice if you could support this claim.

Evolution is NOT about how life began it is about how life became more complex AFTER it began.Which is exactly the point i was making. He stated that the abnormalities proved the non existence of maker, and i was merely mimicking his weak arguement with a similar weak arguement to allow hime to see the fallacy.

there are some problems with the above logic.
Again i put a disclaimer that this was a very weak arguement thatI would not use other than to display the fallacy of his original arguement. Read the last statement of my postEven if it can not be done then the doesn't prove God. (in the usual sense of the word) It means we have to search farther afield. Was the first life pushed through from a parallel universe by intelligences there? Did it arise there under different physical conditions and get pushed through by some natural process (a wormhole? ). We still don't know. All we'd prove is that we don't know how it happened not that it had to be supernatural.I would call these types of arguements "scientism". I am not saying that you believe or don't believe them, only that they are proving willowtree point that a non God world view would taint the arguement.
Perhaps it is because i do not understand the logic. I will attempt to illuminate my beliefs and the logic used and then perhaps we would be on better ground to discuss semantics.A) we were created by God
B) we were not
If A is true than either :
1) God did it in such a way that we can mimick it and "create life " as well
2) God did it in a way that is impossible to recreate
In 1 God cannot be proven/disproven, in 2 God is proven.
If B is true than:
1)It has to be recreatable
Now if we cannot find a way to make it recreatable, your arguement is that we just haven't looked hard enough, or perhaps to come up with "scimagical" reasons why we haven't found it yet (wormholes, multidemisional rifts, aliens who decided to leave no trace of their existance so as to not ruin their experiment.. ect ect)- If I am not mistaken it is this type of world view that willow was talking about.
However these arguements are an IC debate and not an evolution debate.
Again my original post was there to shed some light on what I considered a weak arguement and to give a similar version to help illuminate how weak it truely was not as a reasoning that I used.