The problem of evil

[amariselle]

Then why did you dismiss their findings solely because they used a computer model?

I "dismissed" their "findings" because they are not findings at all, they are speculation based on fragmentary evidence.

How do you know that?

Scientists have admitted the severe problems with the fossil record themselves. Would you like me to share some statements many scientists have made?

Loudmouth showed you some of the fossils here, which you ignored.

ONE picture is hardly conclusive. A link was not provided to disclose the source, even when I asked multiple times. So yeah, hardly trustworthy.

Moreover, the scientists didn't say that the fossil record as a whole is extremely scarce and fragmentary. The article specifically says:

Please provide trustworthy evidence showing how complete the fossil record is. And please be sure to include direct fossil evidence for our supposed common ancestor.

Yes, your accusations are baseless. You don't understand what they did or why.

Again, show me that my accusations are "baseless". Please provide evidence of the missing fossil record and the direct link to the ancestor we apparently share with apes. If you think the fossil record is complete enough, demonstrate that it is.

Loudmouth already posted examples satisfying this question. You ignored it.

Again, ONE picture with no source is NOT adequate. Are you serious? It was a bunch of skulls with numbers, nothing more. No information was given regarding the picture.

How in the world am I supposed to take that seriously?

At this point, I wonder whether you are being deceptive.

Really now? I am more concerned with scientists being deceptive. You do realize they have created hoaxes in the past to fill in the gaps I'm referring to right? They have so much money and so much of their reputation staked on their claims, they can't afford to be wrong. They've resorted to such dishonest measures before, who really knows everything that goes on behind the scenes?

You didn't directly address my posts (1, 2, 3, 4), except for some portion of 1, so don't lie about it.

Don't lie about it? How about you actually regard my answers, the problem is, they aren't the answers you wanted.

If you understood the definition of 'theory' in science, you would know that this is actually a way of praising evolution for its merits; it's not the insult you imagined it to be. It's only because you didn't understand the definition that you thought that such a comment - "it's just a theory" - would be deprecating.

I'm sure evolution has merits, actually I'm not against evolution that holds there is change within a particular species over time. I am however against the idea that one species becomes another. There has never been any credible evidence of this, and many scientists have acknowledged that. I praise THEM for their honesty. They admit the gaps in the fossil record and are continuing to search for those fossils, they aren't making computer models to fill in the gaps artificially.

 

[SteveB28]

I'm sure evolution has merits, actually I'm not against evolution that holds there is change within a particular species over time. I am however against the idea that one species becomes another.

If you accept that evolutionary changes can occur within species, please explain the mechanism involved which would prevent enough of those changes occurring that would create a unique species.

 

[FireDragon76]

As compared to the dismissive responses we get when we ask why the Christian God would allow such brokenness to go on without intervening?

He has intervened. That is why we believe and confess in our creeds that Christ died for us, and on the third day he rose from the dead and ascended to God's glory, taking our human nature into God so that we could inherit immortality and incorruptibility, to be a holy people with him forever. The old order of things, pain, sorrow, will pass away, and be no more (Rev 21:4).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your opinion.

Not just his...

 

[amariselle]

Not just his...

And my opinion is not just mine. What's your point?

 

[amariselle]

If you accept that evolutionary changes can occur within species, please explain the mechanism involved which would prevent enough of those changes occurring that would create a unique species.

It has never, not ONCE been observed or evidenced. Surely after billions of years, which is how old this earth is according to many scientists, such a transition would have been observed? So where is the evidence and why has it not even been observed in scientific experimentation?

Evolution from one species to another simply does not occur.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am not "anti-science", I am anti-fraudulent science.

You're barking at the moon with this paleontological computer model. It's not being used or promoted as evidence of evolution - that would be pointless, given that evolution is already an accepted scientific theory based on multiple independent lines of empirical evidence; it's a prediction of what fossils we may expect to find in future if the currently accepted ancestral hierarchy is correct.

There have been more than a few instances of fraudulent science, and the search for more is a laudable aim, but you won't help anyone by making straw-man arguments (although you may entertain a few people on an internet forum). If you're really anti-fraudulent science, why not turn your investigatory talents to the many areas on the fringes of science where pseudoscience springs up like weeds, and where you could make a useful contribution?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Evolution from one species to another simply does not occur.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And my opinion is not just mine. What's your point?

Just sayin'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It has never, not ONCE been observed or evidenced. Surely after billions of years, which is how old this earth is according to many scientists, such a transition would have been observed? So where is the evidence and why has it not even been observed in scientific experimentation?

Evolution from one species to another simply does not occur.

You have some catching up to do:
Observed Instances of Speciation
More Observed speciation
Watching Speciation Occur

 

[amariselle]

You're barking at the moon with this paleontological computer model. It's not being used or promoted as evidence of evolution - that would be pointless, given that evolution is already an accepted scientific theory based on multiple independent lines of empirical evidence; it's a prediction of what fossils we may expect to find in future if the currently accepted ancestral hierarchy is correct.

There have been more than a few instances of fraudulent science, and the search for more is a laudable aim, but you won't help anyone by making straw-man arguments (although you may entertain a few people on an internet forum). If you're really anti-fraudulent science, why not turn your investigatory talents to the many areas on the fringes of science where pseudoscience springs up like weeds, and where you could make a useful contribution?

Really? There is no dishonesty that needs to be recognized and addressed in mainstream science? Interesting.

 

[amariselle]

If you see someone being raped, and you have the ability to stop it without any risk of harm to yourself, do you think you are morally obligated to at least try to prevent it?

Sure, but if I were God and saw things from His perspective (which I don't) then perhaps I would have a better understanding of intervening vs. taking away a person's free will.

I find it absurd that people blame terrible actions by other people on God. Tell me, do you also blame parents for the actions of their children?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Did Darwin write those words or not?

Yes, he did. Did you see the other words he wrote?

Ha ha, so now research should be something accomplished in a certain amount of time? Isn't it an ongoing thing?

Yeah, and you're just at the beginning, given that you still harbour some misconceptions about evolution, which is why I encouraged you to pursue it further.

Am I now? Is the fossil record complete or isn't it?

"Complete" in what sense? In that it gives us a perfect picture of phylogeny? No. No one ever claimed that it was "complete" in that sense.

Have you or have you not inserted various quotes to support your claims? If I can't do so, neither can you.

Yes, I have inserted quotes, but not out of context. Quote mining "is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint." (RationalWiki)

Who is going to bother reading this? People have much better things to do with their time.

I'm sure you're counting on it.

So you DO want to hear from creationists then? Why did you say you didn't?

So long as creationists have something worthwhile to present that brings to bear on biological questions. In my experience, however, they usually don't.

You didn't respond, you rejected everything I said and then tried to get me to answer the snake questions repeatedly, because you didn't like my answers. You've done the same to other Christians as well.

I didn't respond? Here you go... links to my responses, again. (1, 2, 3, 4)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure, but if I were God and saw things from His perspective (which I don't) then perhaps I would have a better understanding of intervening vs. taking away a person's free will.

So you are more moral than Yahweh. You would intervene. He doesn't.

I find it absurd that people blame terrible actions by other people on God. Tell me, do you also blame parents for the actions of their children?

If you see one child preparing to hit another, do you just stand back and say "Free will. I can't do anything to stop this." If you see one of your children ready to cross the road before oncoming traffic, do you intervene or sit idly by?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Really? There is no dishonesty that needs to be recognized and addressed in mainstream science? Interesting.

As I explained to you earlier. They are not here to have discussions. They want to debate. They will continue to argue and distract with strawman arguments in order to continue arguing. They are only on a Christian forum in order to argue against Christianity because they hope to destroy religion....period. They are not looking for answers so this is the only logical explanation as to why they are here. I would recommend putting these atheist activists on your ignore list and kick the dust off your sandals.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If one is seeking forgiveness from God they'll also seek forgiveness from the people they've wronged.

If they genuinely seek forgiveness from the party they have wronged, then they need not seek the forgiveness of any deities at all.

 

[Chany]

The free will theodicy faces several issues:

1. It assumes free will is possible at all.

2. It assumes free will is possible for humans.

3. It assumes humans have free will.

4. It assumes the free will required to allow us to be the master of our destiny is actually morally relevant to us.

5. It assumes that there is not a possible world in which humans have free will and do not choose evil.

There is contention to be had with all of these points.

 

[Chriliman]

If they genuinely seek forgiveness from the party they have wronged, then they need not seek the forgiveness of any deities at all.

My answer was based on what you said here:

How about if I steal your car, never return it to you, and ask God for his forgiveness instead? Order restored?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My answer was based on what you said here:

I did specify that the car was never returned to you, didn't I?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

To any non-atheist activist who really want a biblical explanation as to why there is evil in the world:

First, God gave us free will. Without free will, we will be only programmed to do right. If God did not give man free will, there would be no meaningful relationship between God and Man. It would be like a doll where you pull the string and the doll says "I love you". It is empty and meaningless as compared to someone who freely made the decision to love God.

Second, God could intervene to stop all evil. However, that would require God to intervene to prevent us from doing something we want to do.

Third, God could remove anyone who chooses to do wrong. If God were to do this, there would be nobody left.

Rather, God created a "real" world where our decision has real consequences that affect other people. God is concerned about the the evil that is in this world because he created laws in order to discourage and punish people for their evil actions. He punished and destroyed nations who set aside justice to allow evil to prosper. Evil happens in this world because we choose to sin. God allows us to choose to sin because that freedom to choose is precious and essential to having a meaningful relationship with Him.