Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Darwin's theory
Comments
-
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/invaders-drove-lizards-evolve-stickier-feet-just-10-years
Whats this? Observable evidence, in just 10 years? But...but, I thought there was no proof of this JC? Can you now use that degree of yours to explain this?0 -
If the evidence points toward a creative intelligence being the best explanation for something, as it does in the creation and evolution of life, then that explanation shouldn't be discounted because it clashes with your worldview.
The emphasis should be on the IF at the start of this sentence as without it the entire sentence is nonsense. Mainly because at this time there is nothing about the evolution of life that suggests a god. If you think there is, then I am all ears to hear why.Most of you believe evolution is a blind, dumb and directionless process. What evidence is there to back this up, beyond just assuming it?
That is a straw man misrepresentation of what most of the proponents of evolution on this thread have been saying. We have discussed the concept of "directionless" in numerous posts across the entire thread. You either simply did not read the thread at all...... before presuming to wade into it and tell us what we ourselves think.......... or you did read it and chose to ignore it so you can presume to wade in and tell us what we ourselves think.
Perhaps if you wish to look like an honest debater on the topic you would do well to learn what it is we think, rather than presume to invent it and assign it to us on our behalf?Ok, evolution is a creative and intelligent process then.
Thanks for clearing it up.
Oh your fetish for misrepresenting what other people have said really does know no boundaries does it?The standard view is that evolution is blind and dumb(unintelligent), which you seem to disagree with in one post and agree with in another.
Nice how you have suddenly dropped "directionless" from your straw man rhetoric as if you did not smuggle it in at all in the first place.The inference that intelligence is responsible for the creation and evolution of life has not been refuted.
That is because you have done nothing to establish it. We can not refute the unsubstantiated. Assertion need not be refuted.
Now if you want to stop misrepresenting others and actually get around to presenting substantiation that evolution has an intentional or intelligent agency behind it, then we can work on accepting or refuting your arguments.
But until you do so, there is nothing TO refute except your blanket assertions.
Alas this is a common tactic of the religious. Give unsubstantiated assertion that by definition can not be refuted because it is merely assertion..... then dance around the funeral pyre of your ideas convincing yourself (and it is only yourself) that your assertions have never been refutted.0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »I dont understand how can people reject the belief in god if they dont have a good reason for it
There is a good reason for it. There is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is one. So I continue to dismiss the claim until such time as you provide any.
Do you have ANYTHING to substantiate the claim that a non-human intelligence intentional agent was responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe?
Anything? At all? No? Then you have your answer.Defender OF Faith wrote: »The belief in god doesn't require evidence
How convenient. You can not substantiate your claim at all, so you merely assert that you do not need to. Nice.Defender OF Faith wrote: »There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
You appear to not understand evidence, the concept of evidence, or the procedure for producing it. Because the above does not do ANY of these correctly. You have just listed some stuff and declared them evidence. It does not work that way. Then you ended with a question. Questions are not evidence. They are questions.
Here is a little 101 on evidence for you. It is _really_ simply so stick with it, you will get it.
1) State _clearly_ what you are claiming.
2) List _clearly what you think supports the claim in 1.
3) Explain _clearly_ how what you listed in 2 supports the claim in 1.
You have barely done 1. You have done a bit of 2. And you have absolutely not done 3 at all.Defender OF Faith wrote: »Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god
And some people think they have seen bigfoot and fairies. Some people believe they have been abducted and sexually probed by aliens.
That people believe nonsense, is not evidence that that nonsense is not nonsense. Even you must know that.Defender OF Faith wrote: »These are just two good reasons for thinking that god exist
Except it is not. You just think it is. But all you have done is evidence that people believe it. But that people believe it does NOT mean it is actually true. Again you know this. You are just pretending you do not.Defender OF Faith wrote: »I find it difficult to believe that someone like Jesus who is celebrated to this day and age had a mental disorder otherwise the people of his time would of noticed this and he would not have gained the status he have today.
Perhaps they did notice. The problem is that the extra-biblical evidence of Jesus is near non-existent. So we simply have no idea what people noticed, or did not notice, about him at the time.
Many people with mental disorders, especially with bi-polar elements, can be very attractive, charismatic and powerful people though. So do not be so keen to write off the possibility merely because it sits poorly with you.Defender OF Faith wrote: »God is something uncreated by the very definition of the word God where is the flaw in this?
The flaw is that you are bypassing substantiating the existence of god, and merely attempting to define it into existence by making its existence default in how you define it.
As others have said, it is merely circular argument you present. On a foundation of a whole lot of assumption about "cause and effect".Defender OF Faith wrote: »So far is just been me defending my argument while the atheists have provided no logical or a rational reason why a god does not exist because simply the atheist cant produce a logical reason why a god does not exist
You would do well to consider a philosophy 101 course, where you will learn about the concept of burden of proof. You appear to be under the misapprehension that there is onus on _anyone_ to prove there is no god. There is not. The claim there IS a god is your claim, therefore the entire burden of substantiation lies with you, not us.Defender OF Faith wrote: »Before penicillin was discovered little evidence was present to prove that bacteria could be killed however the lack of evidence did not mean that nothing can kill bacteria
Again the philosophy 101 course would serve you well here because what you are engaging in here is false equivalence. Basically all you are saying is "Other things that we now no to be true once had no evidence, therefore the thing that I have no evidence for is somehow now credible".
It does not work that way. Just because claims that once had no substantiation turned out to be true, this does not license you to act like any OTHER claim that is unsubstantiated is credible. Those previous claims, and claimants, went out and they GOT the substantiation. And presented it. You have done neither.Defender OF Faith wrote: »where did our morality come from?
It did not "come from" anywhere. You are acting like morality is something that somehow exists in and of itself. There is no reason to think it does. "morality" is just the conversation we have as a species when we say "We want to live together in a society.... how best can we make that work?".
If you want to pretend it is more than that, go for it, but let us not lose sight while doing so that pretending is all it is.Defender OF Faith wrote: »the fine tuning or the universe and its fundamental constants do they not point toward an intelligent design?
No. It does not. If you think it does, then by all means explain why.Defender OF Faith wrote: »Believing in the existence of god is a rational and a logical belief
Believing something without substantiation is neither logical nor rational. The claim there is a god is currently unsubstantiated in any way. Much less so by you.Defender OF Faith wrote: »Yes your right and am not arguing otherwise, am basically saying that the atheists mocks the believers based on the irrationality to believe in a god; while the atheist himself cannot present any logical argument on why god does not exist.
You have said this in well over 10 posts now and have been corrected on it numerous times. AGAIN can you PLEASE teach yourself about the concept of burden of proof. Atheists have no onus..... _at_ _all_ to evidence the non-existence of god. All we have to do is point out you have failed to substantiate the claim there is one in even the smallest way, so we merely dismiss your claims as fantasy nonsense.Defender OF Faith wrote: »There are many arguments both rational and logical out there for the existence of a god
Yet you have not presented a single one.Defender OF Faith wrote: »such as the fine tuning of the universe fundamental constant
You have not evidenced that there IS "fine tuning" yet you feel you can use it as evidence for your claims?Defender OF Faith wrote: »Origin of morality
Same problem here. You are assuming something exists in and of itself, assuming it to be more than it actually is, and then presuming to use it as evidence when it is not.Defender OF Faith wrote: »the cosmological argument.
Also not an argument for god because it is based on false assumptions about causality. If you have to simply make things up about causality to make X work then X is not a valid piece of evidence for god.Defender OF Faith wrote: »All these are rational arguments that favour the existence of a god
They WOULD be great arguments for god if the arguments themselves held up. They do not however. And every time someone points this out, your best and only rebuttal is to start throwing the word "ignorant" about in a defensive waffle.
But I am well capable of discussing one of those "proofs" you have listed at great length if you want to make the attempt at doing a better job of holding one of them up. Pick one, we can run with it. Or would you prefer to just shout "Ignorant" at me and run away?0 -
Good post from nozz. The quotes really show how irrational Defender is and unable to sub stantiate any of their claims. The contortions and delusions to try to reconcile reason and knowledge with a strong belief are painful to watch. Why is this grip in the illogical so tenaciou in spite of all evidence to the contrary?
As I said before, the debate is pointless agaist such lack of reason. And while it makes for interesting sport, it does leave me with the feeling that it is a slightly cruel toying with people not really able to play the game.0 -
God allows Humans free-will ... sometimes they use it for noble purposes ... and sometimes they use it for evil purposes.
It wouldn't be free-will if God stood over everyone with a big stick, jumping in every time that free will was used for evil.
But is that not exactly what "god" does when it threatens to sentence people to an eternity of burning in hell with little demons shoving pitchforks up their asses if they don't believe in it? I don't know about you but I'd call that a massive restriction of "freewill" (and quite possibly the acts of a vein, petulant child).Its not just in Peanut Butter ... we never have observed new life or even new proto-life spontaneously emerging anywhere on any substrate.
Of course, there is a very good reason for this ... it is mathematically and logically impossible and is in breach of the Law of Biogenesis.
Again a misuse of the word "Impossible", it was not impossible, it was improbable but entirely possible and does not breach any laws. As a matter of fact half of your arguments actually prove that "god" doesn't need to exist. See something about your UPB link that you kept posting and some of the things you were saying was itching at the back of my mind and I realized what it is. All you creationists use the same argument that the chances of the proper conditions for life to begin happening all at once are so miniscule as to be impossible but see thats the thing, you are admitting that (no matter how miniscule) there is a chance . You are admitting that there does exist at least 1 possible set of conditions that, if achieved, can lead to life.
Your whole maths (UPB) "evidence" crap is based around proving not that the conditions can't exist but that they can exist but it is highly improbable that they would and hate to tell you this but if the conditions can exist, no matter how miniscule the chances, then the occurrence of life was always possible without the intervention of an outside influence. You've actually disproved "God" yourself constantly posting that link.0 -
Advertisement
-
... do you have any examples of these god's actions in Greek history?
Why yes, I do.
If you look around, you'll notice the land of Greece and the heavens above it, and the people that live in it: there's your evidence. Where did all these come from, if not created by the gods? Hessiod, composing in 700BC but drawing on older sources, tells it something like this: Uranus, the Sky Father, was born of the dark void of Chaos, and his brother Eros caused him to lie with his sister Gaia, the Earth Mother, who made the mountains and the sea, over which Uranus, the sky, hung. Born of that union were the twelve Titans, of whom Cronus and Rhea in turn bore (some of) the Olympian Gods. Cronus would eventually castrate his father, and try to kill his six children, Hera, Demeter, Hestia, Hades, Poseidon and L'il Zeus. Other pairings of the Titans produced the 3,000 rivers, the sun, moon and stars and loads of other readily observable things, and perhaps most significantly Prometheus, who would work with Athena to create mankind from clay (familiar and thus plausible, I presume), and gave mankind the gift of fire.
So the first easily-observable action of the First Gods, Titans and Olympian Gods was the creation of the universe, which you can see is true because it's all around you, and the Greeks and the rest of mankind, which you know is true because the Greek bailout was all over the papers recently.
For more recent interventions in history of the kind alluded to in the prevention of genocide, can I direct you to the the existence of numerous 'documented' kings of Achea, with ascribed archaeological remains including palaces, tombs, inscriptions and artistic depictions, who are partial descendants of the Gods, and who went to war with Troy using the cassus belli of the abduction of another god-descendant Helen, but probably just wanted to free up the Dardenelles for toll-free passage to the Black Sea. During that important geopolitical conflict, Apollo, Hera, Poseidon and Athena regularly interfered for one side or the other, through such divine means ad plague, intelligence and weather (familiar tactics to a bible student, surely).
Indeed, study of Homer led to archaeologists making predictions of the locations and character of long lost cities and palaces, which were then scientifically verified through excavation. Mycenae, Pylos, Knossos and the burned walls of (many) Troy(s) are all there for you to go and see, and scholarship has shown that the Homeric poems in which the role of the Greek Gods in these lineages and events is described were composed some time around 700BC, describing events of ca. 1200BC.
Far, far more indications of the reality of these gods and their effects on civilisation exists than for Jehovah's strangely ahistorical interactions in the Middle East.
And they're still complete bollocks.
But seeing as you can't disprove them, they must be true.0 -
-
Mod
What a trainwreck. There's not really much more to be said on the matter, when I have time I'll read through the thread properly and, judging by the last few pages, infractions and/or will be handed out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement