Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[Isambard]

"A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization"
By: Dean Overman

The book is riddled with fallacies and wrong info. Some highlights;

-Equating "acccident" to self-organization
-Faulty stats to determine "probability"
-Equationg Ambiogensis to ToE
-The old PRATT of "non-life cant create life!"
-etc.

My statement is further confirmed.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

durang, or whatever your name is, I do not agree with the big bang, I said it is very unlikely to show the absurdity of such an idea.

Whatever a pantheist is, idk, nor do I care. I am a christian, It had to be the formation of sin because before the fall everything was perfect in mankind, then after the fall, Death, Suffering, Pain, and many more things entered the world, so if didn't come from sin where did it come from? Not necessarily the man himself sins, but it could be the sin of others, but only the Christian could know something like this because Evolutionists don't believe in the Bible so they wouldn't know. Or they can have it for a reason as a blessing, but yet again I state only the Christian can understand this.

2 Peter 3 - This pertains to the creation/evolution war against each other, it is not science vs. science but religion vs. religion.

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 peter 3:3-7)


Notice verse 4, This section of scripture is warning us of the last days, now, notice verse 4, it says people are going to be saying "All things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." Evolutionists believe that the life forms on earth were forming millions of years ago, and will still go on in the future millions of years also. As you see this is fulfilling verse 4. Because they believe in uniformitarianism, where they believe the way to know the future is to look at the past (i.e. Millions of years). Like for example, "fossil's" they rarely form in today's world (present) so the vast layers of

rock containing billions of fossils must have taken millions of years to form.
Mutations are accidents in changes in genes that occur today that must have occurred ever since the beginning of time. But the bible states that at one time there was no sin, therefore there was no death of any animals or humans, no pain, no disease, no suffering, no mistakes. Mutations are mistakes that occur in our genes and are harmful. People who believe in evolution have to assume that evolution is occurring today to be able to say that what we see today are the same processes that have gone on for millions of years so a christian who believes in evolution must also believe that mankind is still evolving. To know what happened in the past there are two ways to find out what happened in the past.


1) Find witnesses who were there
2)Look for records written by witnesses.


If no one was there to see it then it is not a true theory. The only way to know the truth about the past is if someone who was there at the time who could tell us if the processes have been the same or different. The only one who was there as a witness the creation was the LORD. He has always been there because He is outside of time. The Bible claims this in the Biblical creation. Genesis is claims to be the records of the past. So the present is not the key to the future but Revelation is the key to the past. Creation, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel have the earth what it is today. We must realized what "happened" in the past (Biblically) in order to understand the future. Adam sinned in the past therefore in the future there was death, pain, suffering. So by sin of Adam we understand why we have death and mistakes in our genes. Noah's flood in the past tells the future by the fossils we have found in the present. The tower of Babel in the past tells the future of the different race of people, nations, and cultures. Evolutionists in todays world think that they are too smart for there to be a GOD, therefore they deny that the biblical record could be taken seriously. They have put their faith into what verse 4 says, " all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. " And this prophecy is being fulfilled right now as I type this.



Evolutionists according to 2 Peter 3:3-7 deny three things.


1. GOD created the world that was once covered with water that made the earth cool, not a molten blob like evolutionists say.


2. GOD judged the world by Noah's Flood


3. GOD will judge the world again by fire


They (evolutionists) deny those three things in which 2 Peter 3:3-7 states, and it also calls them Ignorant.(v.5) We have enough evidence to prove that these things happened, but it is that people do not want to become convinced. We do not need to have evidence to convince anyone, Romans 1:20 tells us we have more than enough evidence to say God is The Creator, in fact we have so much of it we are condemned if we don't believe it. Romans 1:18 tells us that they (evolutionists) suppress the truth in unrighteousness.The problem is not providing evidence to convince people the bible is true because we all have the same evidence, just different interpretations, It is just they do not want to believe the Bible. The reason for this is because then people would have to surrender unto his authortative book which has authority over a Christian and the laws He has laid down. People do not want to leave their sins because they love it. To them is pleasurable to themselves and they see it as good, well read 2 Timothy 3:4. People do not want to surrender unto the Bible because they know it is true then this would expose their sinfulness of their nature. In verse 5, It is easy to see that ignorance that people have in these types of debate, they do not care about anything given by the creationists they try do destroy our credibility and don't care like I said about what we have to say because they are only concerned about their faith in "evolution" ..There have been fossil bearing rock layers only cause by catastrophic events, and this is consistent with Noah's flood, but Evolutionists deny this because if they did not this would be agreeing with the Bible, and the theory of evolution would be rejected. So as we can see, this prophecy is being fulfilled right now. The time is ticking. *Tick Tock* *Tick Tock*

 

[mg0086]

A theory is something with the highest certainty in science.

I found that evolution has shown quite a bit of fact, but there's still a whole lot that's unknown. And to me (my opionion), it's not enough to bring it out of being a literal theory.

I do still wonder if we did come from the ape, why are they still among us? Shouldn't have they evolved into...well...us? And the apes that are with us now, where did they come from...how did they evolve? And shouldn't they have come from the same evolutionary chain that we did? Is it possible to tell the difference if they came from soemthing else?

I may be alittle under educated when it comes to this topic (given I'm not a biologist or any other sort scientist). And I really don't have the time to read all about it. But given that I don't know so much about evolution allows way for my facsination into it!

You realize that the last two Popes have publically given their support for evolution right?

Oh I'm aware of that. As science continues to find out more on evolution I'm pretty sure they'll support it as well. But it's not going to change their belief in anyway. There are 10 million other factors as to why we believe and it's mainly to do with personal experiances, even hardships...

So even if evolution proves itself to be entirely true (leaving absolutely no doubt), we'd still believe God was behind it all. And that's becasue we have many other reasons to believe.

To you they may not be good reasons, but then that would just be your opinion. And everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is I've found a reason to believe, and it makes me 1 million times happier than I was when I was an atheist. And if it makes you happy, then so be it...I'm in full support!

PeacE

 

[SuperPhil]

Spot the contradiction.

I see how you can be confused with this one. There is a certain "milk" of the word, which is the explanation of our sins and our need of a savior! Anyone can know that their sins can't go unpunished, and that Christ's mercy is a necessity!

Then there is a "meat" of the word, which is given by Christ himself. Wisdom to understand that there is freedom in surrendering! People who don't know Christ personally don't understand this.

*Sigh*
You managed to contradict yourself 3x in one paragraph.

I don't think we are communicating very well. As I don't see your confusion on this one.

Christ is Love, King of Kinds, Lord or Lords, Light, Merciful, etc.

I will never be able to understand what he did for me! NEVER! What Love he showed when he took my sins upon a cross, and gladly bore my burden!

This doesn't mean that Christ doesn't give me wisdom! I think that is what you're getting confused with.

You won't be able to understand how a Loving God could let bad things happen to people unless you are given the knowledge from Christ himself!
But that doesn't mean you don't know that you need a savior.

 

[PT Calvinist]

I asked for a citation of a creationist knowing what he/she is talking about (namely, by correctly identifying what the theory of evolution talks about).

oh....
Here ya go bud..

"Genesis"
By: Randy caldwell

 

[Isambard]

oh....
Here ya go bud..

"Genesis"
By: Randy caldwell

Mind quoting some excerpts? I'm having difficulty finding anything on that online.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Mind quoting some excerpts? I'm having difficulty finding anything on that online.

I'll try and find some...but the problem is...is that it's a cd....not a book

If I can't get any...well all was for nothing.

 

[Isambard]

I found that evolution has shown quite a bit of fact, but there's still a whole lot that's unknown. And to me (my opionion), it's not enough to bring it out of being a literal theory.

I do still wonder if we did come from the ape, why are they still among us? Shouldn't have they evolved into...well...us? And the apes that are with us now, where did they come from...how did they evolve? And shouldn't they have come from the same evolutionary chain that we did? Is it possible to tell the difference if they came from soemthing else?

Quick note of clarification, we are apes in the taxonomic sense. Your question is similar to asking "If there are still British people, how can there be Americans? Shouldn't all British people become Americans?

I may be alittle under educated when it comes to this topic (given I'm not a biologist or any other sort scientist). And I really don't have the time to read all about it. But given that I don't know so much about evolution allows way for my facsination into it!

You might like this then
YouTube - 8 -- Human Evolution Made Easy

 

[mg0086]

Quick note of clarification, we are apes in the taxonomic sense. Your question is similar to asking "If there are still British people, how can there be Americans? Shouldn't all British people become Americans?

Actually my questions weren't simular to what was demonstrated. Given that the main differences between the Americans and the British are purely cultural and political, not scientific.

So to put it simply I'm basically a different species of ape that has an overgrown brain, can walk completely upright, and are capable to making and using the greatest advances in technology. I suppose it is evident in other primates as well.

Hmm... I suppose we should start fighting for their rights given that they are no different than us. We should fight against putting them in zoos and behind cages for no appearant reason since in retrospect it is exactly like prison. Even fight to stop people from keeping them around as pets. They are after all, just another variation of us...


I never doubted the findings of evolution. But I do understand that the evolution findings are still incomplete. I don't think I'll ever doubt the findings. But like the popes that acknowlaged evolution, my faith won't be faultered given that there are many other things that lead me to believe. but I kinda answered this in my previous post too

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Quick note of clarification, we are apes in the taxonomic sense. Your question is similar to asking "If there are still British people, how can there be Americans? Shouldn't all British people become Americans?

I do not accept your claim that we "are" apes in the taxonomic sense.

Here is the definition of taxonomic by "taxonomy"


tax⋅on⋅o⋅my

   /tækˈsɒn

ə

mi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tak-son-uh-mee] Show IPA Use Taxonomic in a Sentence

–noun 1. the science or technique of classification. 2. Biology. the science dealing with the description, identification, naming, and classification of organisms.

Basically your saying were are classified as apes, I refuse to accept this claim, For the sake of this argument, if it were true, We would be hairy, climbing trees, walking on our hands and feet, and I have not seen a human live like that. We nor did not evolve from any ape form.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I found that evolution has shown quite a bit of fact, but there's still a whole lot that's unknown. And to me (my opionion), it's not enough to bring it out of being a literal theory.

I do still wonder if we did come from the ape, why are they still among us? Shouldn't have they evolved into...well...us? And the apes that are with us now, where did they come from...how did they evolve? And shouldn't they have come from the same evolutionary chain that we did? Is it possible to tell the difference if they came from soemthing else?

I may be alittle under educated when it comes to this topic (given I'm not a biologist or any other sort scientist). And I really don't have the time to read all about it. But given that I don't know so much about evolution allows way for my facsination into it!



Oh I'm aware of that. As science continues to find out more on evolution I'm pretty sure they'll support it as well. But it's not going to change their belief in anyway. There are 10 million other factors as to why we believe and it's mainly to do with personal experiances, even hardships...

So even if evolution proves itself to be entirely true (leaving absolutely no doubt), we'd still believe God was behind it all. And that's becasue we have many other reasons to believe.

To you they may not be good reasons, but then that would just be your opinion. And everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is I've found a reason to believe, and it makes me 1 million times happier than I was when I was an atheist. And if it makes you happy, then so be it...I'm in full support!

PeacE

Evolution is not fact, evolution is not true. According to the Bible.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes I do have an answer, JESUS has created every creature every creeping thing, read the account of Genesis, he has created everything in the world, and My paragraph before this explains how evolution cannot be trusted by the methods and claims you just posted.

"Jesus created every creature" is not an answer to my question about the scorpion. I'm not asking who made the scorpion.

The question is very simple, and I've already repeated it. I don't know how I can word it any more concisely. Either way I word it, you ignore half of it and claim it's a strawman. If the scorpion was made like it is now, with a complex venom and venom-injection system, what could this possibly be useful for in a world without suffering? Inversely, if the scorpion was not made with venom and a venom-injection system, then what process brought about its current form? What changed it, and how did it change? It has nothing to do with a strawman argument because I'm not rephrasing your argument. Instead, I'm merely asking a question.

" -Fossils of dead creatures are found predating mankind by many, many orders of magnitude. "

Tell me how accurate this is? And there is new scientific evidence that these methods are not accurate like ; Carbon dating it is not accurate. This also proves nothing, because you have that evidence well so do we, we all have the same fossils, Both worldview's interpret them different it is only that the evolutionary worldview has no basis for such claims except human beliefs of assumptions of people who were not there.

"-Genetics can explain changes in creatures."

Changes in variation, not evolution. You cannot say that a human being has evolved by the fossils of earlier creature, because evolution only happens over a basis of millions/billions of years, and by then DNA could not survive that length of time. Just because one small bird, and another bird medium size has some DNA that is similar does not mean that they are connected within each other by evolving.

" " -Geology, a science completely unrelated to biology, shows an Earth billions of years old.
-Astronomy, a science completely unrelated to biology, shows a universe billions of years old. " "

Show me some evidence of such claims that does not evolve around human beliefs of who was not there. Plus, Dinosaurs that Evolution claims to be billions of years old, is false information because scientists have found DNA in the bones of them, and this shows that they cannot exists millions of years. To say the past is millions of years is only the belief of a scientists supported by so-called "evidence" and human beliefs which since it is so well supported it is called "fact" whenever we do not know 100% sure it really is because no one was there billions of years ago. I mean if there was tell me who. Evolution is just a hoax of a set of beliefs that is so well supported because they have made it persuading it is called "fact" whenever it is just "opinion" based on a scientists belief(s). Like I said, We all have the same universe, the same stars, the same planets, the same fossils, the same everything, We just perceive the evidence differently because of our worldviews the only difference is the pair of glasses we have on, Creation is based upon someone who "was" there, the LORD. Evolution is stated fact because of a theory made persuasive by the assumption of belief made by a scientist who said this happened that is based on someone who "wasn't" there therefore can be based claimed as "opinion" not fact.

Even tapeworms were created by GOD for a purpose, just because "after" the fall they have these certain things in their bodies does not mean that they got these systems by evolution. You cannot use the uniformity of nature correctly (The future is like the past) because it is a precondition of intelligibility a biblical creation principle and you do not know how to use it, and this is "like" a strawman argument because either way you are going to state "evolution" is the way whenever it is not. Just because these creature have these abilities in the present, does not mean "before" the fall they had to use there abilities. You know like vestigal(sp?) structures. but it does not matter, GOD created them read the account of Genesis.

Also, the Bible states, that each animal produces an the same animal after its own kind, like

Robin + Robin = Robin

This cannot happen : Robin + Robin = Dove.

That is what evolution states, this cannot happen then you say OHH well there are Genetics to prove that, well this proves nothing, We were not there to see us change from previous organisms to today.

P.s. - If we came from these previous creatures that supposively were like us why didn't they do science and figure this out? would that be calling them dumb? why don't they have any evidence of doing science??

I'd like to see some sources, if you don't mind. Specifically about chemical dating methods not working. (And a good source, not a junk source.)

Evidence is rather objective in some cases. When so many different kinds of evidence converge on the same conclusion, it takes willful practice to ignore it.

-Lyn

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

"Jesus created every creature" is not an answer to my question about the scorpion. I'm not asking who made the scorpion.

The question is very simple, and I've already repeated it. I don't know how I can word it any more concisely. Either way I word it, you ignore half of it and claim it's a strawman. If the scorpion was made like it is now, with a complex venom and venom-injection system, what could this possibly be useful for in a world without suffering? Inversely, if the scorpion was not made with venom and a venom-injection system, then what process brought about its current form? What changed it, and how did it change? It has nothing to do with a strawman argument because I'm not rephrasing your argument. Instead, I'm merely asking a question.

I'd like to see some sources, if you don't mind. Specifically about chemical dating methods not working. (And a good source, not a junk source.)

Evidence is rather objective in some cases. When so many different kinds of evidence converge on the same conclusion, it takes willful practice to ignore it.

-Lyn

I have not ignored it, I have actually answered you just do not see it in the creation worldview because your wanting to see an answer in the evolutionary worldview and I do not have one for that view because I am a Creationist and Evolution is not true. I have already proved it biblically through my last post. The answer is obvious, food, what else could it be? You also cannot say that the venom injecting tail can be used for plants or anything else because you have no evidence for this. You cannot base something from the future to explain the past, because you were not there. Since the bible also states that "all" creatures were vegetarian at one point before the fall then it would have to be used for "vegetarian" foods. This is also a Biblical creation point of view, Now from the evolutionary worldview this will be illogical and unreasonable because this does not follow the Evolutionary belief system of the assumptions by people who were not there.

Here are some sites:

Age of the earth (Scroll down to see them)

Creation Science Book Review, Old Earth Creationism On Trial, Chapter 7
(Scroll to # 9 on the Page)

Doesn?t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis
(Excellent site on this Topic.)

 

[Isambard]

Actually my questions weren't simular to what was demonstrated. Given that the main differences between the Americans and the British are purely cultural and political, not scientific.

Your question wasn't scientific, hence why its applicable. So lets do it. answer your own question by addressingmy variation. Why are there still British ppl when there are Americans?

So to put it simply I'm basically a different species of ape that has an overgrown brain, can walk completely upright, and are capable to making and using the greatest advances in technology. I suppose it is evident in other primates as well.

Why would you suppose that? There are many humans who are unable to use technology (such as those born with mental retardation, children, those ignorant of the tech etc.). Are these ppl "less human" in your eyes? Or do you simply have no idea what an ape actually is?

Hmm... I suppose we should start fighting for their rights given that they are no different than us. We should fight against putting them in zoos and behind cages for no appearant reason since in retrospect it is exactly like prison. Even fight to stop people from keeping them around as pets. They are after all, just another variation of us...

Given that the same argument was only used to free blacks as recently as the American Civil war, I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.

 

[Isambard]

Basically your saying were are classified as apes, I refuse to accept this claim, For the sake of this argument, if it were true, We would be hairy, climbing trees, walking on our hands and feet, and I have not seen a human live like that. We nor did not evolve from any ape form.

Except for gorillas and humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees. They are best described as omnivorous, their diet consisting of fruit, grass seeds, and in most cases some quantities of meat and invertebrates—either hunted or scavenged—along with anything else available and easily digested. They are native to Africa and Asia, although humans have spread to all parts of the world. A group of apes is called a "shrewdness".[4]
Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans.[1]
A number of known extinct genera are grouped with humans in the Hominina subtribe, others with orangutans in the Ponginae subtribe. The most recent common ancestor of the Hominidae lived some 13 million years ago, when the ancestors of the orangutans speciated from the ancestors of the other three genera.[citation needed] The ancestors of the Hominidae family in turn speciated from those of the Hylobatidae family some 15 million years ago.
Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you take issue with being called a mammel as well?

 

[mg0086]

Your question wasn't scientific, hence why its applicable. So lets do it. answer your own question by addressingmy variation. Why are there still British ppl when there are Americans?


Why would you suppose that? There are many humans who are unable to use technology (such as those born with mental retardation, children, those ignorant of the tech etc.). Are these ppl "less human" in your eyes? Or do you simply have no idea what an ape actually is?



Given that the same argument was only used to free blacks as recently as the American Civil war, I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.

I really wasn't being sarcastic...

I think you have though missed the entire point of my post. I'll post it again...

So even if evolution proves itself to be entirely true (leaving absolutely no doubt), we'd still believe God was behind it all. That's only becasue we have many other reasons to believe.

To you they may not be good reasons, but then that would just be your opinion. And everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is I've found a reason to believe, and it makes me 1 million times happier than I was when I was an atheist. And if it makes you happy, then so be it...I'm in full support!

Now...back on the topic...

I found a good reason for being Atheist might just be it makes them happy. Alot of the same reasons why people would choose Christianity, Judism, Bhuddism, Islam, etc. I Find searching for the 'truth' leads people along so many different paths. And that not one person can absolutely agree on EVERY SINGLE LITTLE THING with another; because our minds are just that complex and unique.

Arguments or debates on things like religion and politics usually end up with what a sportsman would like to call a draw. No one ever really convincing the 'other' side.

It's part of the reason why i never strive to convert and just accept who they are. Becasue what if they believe in truely makes them happy? I don't wanna be the one to take that happiness away from them (as long as it didn't threaten society or anybody's life).

I guess you can say I'm the kind of person who thinks, "Maybe they should just see who I am and what kind of light I give off....then maybe...just maybe they'll wonder where I get it from..."

I know it's corny...but hey...it makes me happy

 

[b.hopeful]

Since the bible also states that "all" creatures were vegetarian at one point before the fall then it would have to be used for "vegetarian" foods.

So if before the fall we were herbivores...after the fall we became omnivores....if we wish to be perfect we should be vegetarians? an omnivorous diet is sinful? Peta will be pleased,lol.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evolution is not fact, evolution is not true. According to the Bible.

That requires a strict literal interpretation of the Bible. Not all Christians read the Garden of Eden story as a literal account of what took place.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Read the below post.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Except for gorillas and humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees. They are best described as omnivorous, their diet consisting of fruit, grass seeds, and in most cases some quantities of meat and invertebrates—either hunted or scavenged—along with anything else available and easily digested. They are native to Africa and Asia, although humans have spread to all parts of the world. A group of apes is called a "shrewdness".[4]
Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans.[1]
A number of known extinct genera are grouped with humans in the Hominina subtribe, others with orangutans in the Ponginae subtribe. The most recent common ancestor of the Hominidae lived some 13 million years ago, when the ancestors of the orangutans speciated from the ancestors of the other three genera.[citation needed] The ancestors of the Hominidae family in turn speciated from those of the Hylobatidae family some 15 million years ago.
Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you take issue with being called a mammel as well?

No I do not accept this claim, I mean for the first link it already elimates us as apes by probability.

An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.[1] In less scientific language, it has various meanings, although it often (but not always) excludes humans.[2]

You know what I find weird, Is that people say we have evolved from these previous hominds, over the course of millions of years. But how do us as humans know this? We were not there. Similarities in skull structure does not give proof to anything. How do we know that they were able to speak? How come they were hairy but our generation just happened to be hairless basically. We do not grow full coats of fur. Skull similarity is one thing, but facial features are another. Also, If we supposively came from these creature, Where is the science they did? If they don't have any, were they dumb? This situation is highly illogical. There is no proof to say we came from these creature, just by we have similar skulls, Yeaaahhhh Riiiiggggghhhtttt.

Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, I right not could just go delete that information just because it says "edit" ..Again this is a belief system(Evolution) based on the assumptions of scientists who were not there.