• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

154 said:
In order to prevent you from now asking this question repeatedly ad nauseum I ask,
can you read?

My very point was if you believers can recognize any of those things,
and then specifically said "No, I would not."

Got it yet?
Click to expand...

I got it a long time ago. You can't defend any position, so you snipe and quote scripture.
 
154 said:
How many more times must I proclaim that BOTH our positions ultimately rest upon faith- that is confident belief without absolute knowledge.
Click to expand...
Now there's a clever little sleight-of-language.
It is, of course, total nonsense.
Faith is belief in things with no knowledge, not belief in things without absolute knowledge.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
So no one in Christianity has ever gotten into trouble for questioning church doctrine?
Click to expand...
Who said any such thing? No one. Straw man that no one else would call you on, of course.

I reject the Catholic Church far more than you.
 
154 said:
And in other words, you cannot recognize or admit any such things. You are extremely faithful. Perhaps you could be an inquisitor someday?
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Just one little assumption, speculation or leap of faith.
 
kerikiwi said:
Now there's a clever little sleight-of-language.
It is, of course, total nonsense.
Faith is belief in things with no knowledge, not belief in things without absolute knowledge.
Click to expand...

"No knowledge"? More nonsense.

kerikiwi said:
Oh come on. Just one little assumption, speculation or leap of faith.
Click to expand...
No.

Pearls.

John Jones said:
I got it a long time ago. You can't defend any position, so you snipe and quote scripture.
Click to expand...
Nice to know that you are so unable to resist my position that you take posts not to you as personal to you.
 
Last edited:
154 said:
"Self-defeating"? Nonsense.

How many more times must I proclaim that BOTH our positions ultimately rest upon faith- that is confident belief without absolute knowledge.

I admit it freely. You all have the greatest difficulty recognizing or admitting the simple truth.
Click to expand...


That's stupid.
Of course, all human knowledge are provisional and rest on assumptions to some extents. One would be an extreme solipcist without it (anything past cogito ergo sum ultimately relies on assumptions).

What matter is the number and importances of these assumptions (as well as the fact that science is actually testable).
Religion takes these assumptions and tackle a bunch of bigger and unwarranted ones on top of it: yes, the physical laws do apply as you say but there is also an unprovable intellect somewhere. It is infinitely powerful (despite such a thing being impossible) in our understanding of the universe and eternal (also impossible). It existed before the beginning of time (impossible) or exist outside of time (possible, I guess, but unwarranted). He knows everything that happen and will happen (and yet, we have free-will) and cares about us (mostly who we are doing the nasty with). And that's just the simplest theistic version, I have not yet started about the huge assumptions made about the Christian God, especially the ultra-conservative version)...

What you are making is an unwarranted and dishonest equivocation that it is the only recourse you have demonstrate to me the paucity of your arguments.
 
Last edited:
154 said:
"No knowledge"? More nonsense.
Click to expand...
Ok, this is silly. You're now arguing that the word you use to define yourself doesn't mean what it means. If your belief is based on solid fact, stop calling it "faith."
 
temporalillusion said:
Of course faith means belief based on knowledge.. as long as by knowledge you mean a litany of assumptions, speculations and leaps of faith.
Click to expand...


That's YOUR definition of faith not the biblical one. Also, assumptions are not necessarily unjustified. They can be based on both jusifable inductive and deductive reasoning. Can we assume that from nothing comes nothing? Or can we assume that if there was nothing then nothing would exist? Or that if thee is something then there had to be something to cause it? I see nothing wrong with those assumptions-do you?

BTW'
Here is a view which tries to reconcile the concept of an iD with current cosmological and evolutionary theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA&feature=related
 
Last edited:
Sledge said:
Ok, this is silly. You're now arguing that the word you use to define yourself doesn't mean what it means. If your belief is based on solid fact, stop calling it "faith."
Click to expand...

There is more than ample evidence to substantiate The Faith, even though it necessarily falls short of absolute. Absolute knowledge would require no faith now would it?
 
Dude, having faith in something means you believe something without or even in spite of the evidence. Getting pissy when someone points out that that's what "having faith" means just makes you and your religion look sillier. At least have the guts to acknowledge that you believe something without evidence. That's slightly more admirable that your present attempt to claim you have faith but that you have evidence of what you believe, which shows you're either lying or don't understand English.
 
154 said:
There is more than ample evidence to substantiate The Faith, even though it necessarily falls short of absolute. Absolute knowledge would require no faith now would it?
Click to expand...

Now faith is being sure of things hoped for, certain of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1.

Science is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories - Edward Wilson, 1999.

Evidence for instantaneous creation is the text of Genesis (or other religious text of your choosing). The text is read, believed, and acted on, and all physical stuff seen later must be interpreted through that lens.

Evidence for big bang/abiogenesis/evolution is stuff. That stuff is examined, measured, and analyzed, and the best idea that fits the results is what is kept.

Have a nice day! :)
 
Radrook said:
That's YOUR definition of faith not the biblical one. Also, assumptions are not necessarily unjustified. They can be based on both jusifable inductive and deductive reasoning. Can we assume that from nothing comes nothing? Or can we assume that if there was nothing then nothing would exist? Or that if thee is something then there had to be something to cause it? I see nothing wrong with those assumptions-do you?
Click to expand...

They are all very reasonable and I would have to accept them with a few caveat.
-These assumptions are based on our experience in our universe, they might break down when dealing with something else.
-These assumptions are good until they get contradicted by facts, in which case, we will to reject or amend them (essentially, treat them as physical laws, I'd say).

For example, the assumption that 'nothing come from nothing' sounds pretty good to our non-relativistic brains but, in reality, we know that it is not true and that nothing does in fact generate things in a constant manner.

But let's apply your argument where, I suppose, you intended to, the Big-Bang theory.
Your argument would therefore be that, nothing can not generate something, therefore something would have to have generated the energies in the Big Bang (and that would, presumably, be your Christian God).
The common answer to that is that, if we have a problem to account for the existence of an enormous but finite amount of pure energy, the problem would only be compounded by taking it a step further, one would you account for the existence of an infinitely (literally) vaster amount, not only of energy, but of complexly organized energy (a mind).
In order word, far from answering the problem, the injection of God only made it bigger and more unlikely... The assumptions just became infinitely bigger...

At this point, in my experience, apologetists will resort to special pleading (God always is outside of time and does not need an origin, which is as yet the biggest assumption of them all, I think) or invoke the mysteries they were so unsatisfied with a step earlier (if God is a mystery beyond our understanding, why wouldn't the origin of the Big Bang be?)


After all, possible explanations includes a -much- bigger and rarer version of a known phenomenon or just the idea that our initial assumption, nothing can come from nothing, is quite true in our universe but does not apply past the border of our universe after all, our models already indicate that our most fundamental physical laws break down and stop applying in the Plank epoch, why not this one too?
 
Radrook said:
That's YOUR definition of faith not the biblical one.
Click to expand...

No, that's what 154's been throwing around. Complain to him, not me.

Radrook said:
Also, assumptions are not necessarily unjustified. They can be based on both jusifable inductive and deductive reasoning. Can we assume that from nothing comes nothing? Or can we assume that if there was nothing then nothing would exist? Or that if thee is something then there had to be something to cause it? I see nothing wrong with those assumptions-do you?
Click to expand...

Of course, I don't think that assumptions are unjustified. Again take this up with 154, he's the one throwing around complaints about assumptions.

In science, assumptions are usually identified and VERY clearly defined.

Radrook said:
BTW'
Here is a view which tries to reconcile the concept of an iD with current cosmological and evolutionary theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA&feature=related
Click to expand...

I'll check it out, you can also check out the BioLogos Forum: http://biologos.org/

Are you going to answer the question I posed? How many mutations do you think there are between your parents' genetic code and yours?

Or at least be forthcoming if you refuse to answer the question and why.
 
Radrook said:
Can we assume that from nothing comes nothing?
Click to expand...

Actually something comes from nothing all the time; quantum mechanics requires it.

Radrook said:
Or that if thee is something then there had to be something to cause it?
Click to expand...

That's not a reasonable assumption no, since we observe things that have no cause and you believe in something that had no cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom