The Demise of Evolution

[AnotherAtheist]

I did once remember hearing an interview with a Christian on the radio. She said that she did not believe in God when she was younger. She said that due to serious problems she had, she decided to kill herself. She went to a pharmacy and asked if they sold poison. When the pharmacy asked what sort of poison she wanted, she said 'something that will kill a large animal'. The pharmacy sold her something, and the woman returned home and drank it. She said that the poison had no effect on her whatsoever, and she said that she believes that God protected her. Without being prompted she because defensive and said that some people might say that the pharmacist was suspicious and gave her something that wasn't a poison. But, the lady on the radio said that she was sure that it was real poison and that it was God who saved her, i.e. a miracle.

@Strathos - is that the sort of evidence you mean?

 

[VirOptimus]

That actually is how it works. Which supports my original claim that you wouldn't understand.

No, if you cant support your position with real evidence your argument is unsupported.

 

[pitabread]

What I said was that it's possible to receive evidence, but you need to first be open to it, and even then it's up to God to enlighten you.

That doesn't sound particularly reliable.

 

[Speedwell]

That actually is how it works. Which supports my original claim that you wouldn't understand.

I suspect you are talking at cross purposes. This is a science forum, and the evidence being requested of you is scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence or personal feelings and experiences. Scientific evidence must be objective and subject to being examined and evaluated by anyone who wants to.

 

[Strathos]

What you said was that evidence exists and that you could tell us about this evidence. When asked on multiple occasions to tell us about this evidence you have failed to do so and have insisted that it's our fault we cannot see the evidence rather than your fault for not being able to support your claims. It's all there in black and white for anyone to see.

I never said I could tell you what the evidence was, specifically.

I did once remember hearing an interview with a Christian on the radio. She said that she did not believe in God when she was younger. She said that due to serious problems she had, she decided to kill herself. She went to a pharmacy and asked if they sold poison. When the pharmacy asked what sort of poison she wanted, she said 'something that will kill a large animal'. The pharmacy sold her something, and the woman returned home and drank it. She said that the poison had no effect on her whatsoever, and she said that she believes that God protected her. Without being prompted she because defensive and said that some people might say that the pharmacist was suspicious and gave her something that wasn't a poison. But, the lady on the radio said that she was sure that it was real poison and that it was God who saved her, i.e. a miracle.

@Strathos - is that the sort of evidence you mean?

No.

No, if you cant support your position with real evidence your argument is unsupported.

Maybe from your perspective.

That doesn't sound particularly reliable.

It wouldn't, if you don't approach this from the proper mindset.

I suspect you are talking at cross purposes. This is a science forum, and the evidence being requested of you is scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence or personal feelings and experiences. Scientific evidence must be objective and subject to being examined and evaluated by anyone who wants to.

In that case, I don't have any scientific evidence. Satisfied?

 

[VirOptimus]

I never said I could tell you what the evidence was, specifically.



No.



Maybe from your perspective.



It wouldn't, if you don't approach this from the proper mindset.



In that case, I don't have any scientific evidence. Satisfied?

And if you dont have scientific evidence then you have no evidence.

 

[pitabread]

It wouldn't, if you don't approach this from the proper mindset.

Mindset doesn't have anything do with it.

You said, "What I said was that it's possible to receive evidence, but you need to first be open to it, and even then it's up to God to enlighten you." (my emphasis)

So not only does have a person have to be "open" or humble or whatever, but then even if they do that, God might still not provide them with anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And if you dont have scientific evidence then you have no evidence.

To be fair I would say that there is a lack of reliable evidence. Strangely no one wants to claim that they only have poor evidence for their beliefs.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

To be fair I would say that there is a lack of reliable evidence. Strangely no one wants to claim that they only have poor evidence for their beliefs.

I believe that there will be alien races out there in the universe. However, my evidence for such is poor.

 

[pitabread]

To be fair I would say that there is a lack of reliable evidence. Strangely no one wants to claim that they only have poor evidence for their beliefs.

Some Christians openly admit it's about faith and not evidence. That is a view I can respect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some Christians openly admit it's about faith and not evidence. That is a view I can respect.

That is the honest approach. It is when they claim to have an evidence based belief and then fail to supply any that they lose respect.

 

[Strathos]

And if you dont have scientific evidence then you have no evidence.

That's very narrow-minded of you.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's very narrow-minded of you.

Thats the way reality works.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That's very narrow-minded of you.

If an airline decided that instead of maintaining their planes and doing safety checks, that they would instead pray for a safe journey before flying, would you be so narrow-minded that you wouldn't fly on that airlne?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I never said I could tell you what the evidence was, specifically.

Indeed. What you said was that you could tell us about the evidence. We're still waiting while you dance around making excuses and trying to pretend the problem lies anywhere but with you.

It wouldn't, if you don't approach this from the proper mindset.

Once again you accuse others of being at fault rather than addressing the issue. So far it seems "the proper mindset" is being prepared to accept non-existent evidence as compelling because you want it to be.

In that case, I don't have any scientific evidence. Satisfied?

Finally. After all this back and forth, you are prepared to admit you made a false claim. Thank you.

 

[Speedwell]

In that case, I don't have any scientific evidence. Satisfied?

I'm satisfied, why aren't you? Why isn't faith enough for you?

 

[Strathos]

I'm satisfied, why aren't you? Why isn't faith enough for you?

That's a non-sequitur if I've ever heard one.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's a non-sequitur if I've ever heard one.

It makes sense to me Strathos. Perhaps you should re-read it.
Speedwell is satsified with the absence of scientific evidence for his beliefs, finding his faith sufficient to sustain them. He is puzzled as to why you seem to either require something more, or felt that something more existed.
@Speedwell , please correct me if I have that wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What I said was that it's possible to receive evidence, but you need to first be open to it, and even then it's up to God to enlighten you.

That doesn't sound particularly reliable.

Of course it's unreliable - it's the traditional GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) evasion. If it doesn't happen, either it's down to you because you somehow aren't 'open' to it, or GWIMW.

Paranormal claimants have made similar evasions too - if your carefully controlled experiment didn't find a trace of the effect, perhaps it only happens when you're not looking at it!

Ironic that quantum mechanics has gone the other way, and the event (wavefunction collapse) only happens when you are 'looking' at it

 

[Strathos]

It makes sense to me Strathos. Perhaps you should re-read it.
Speedwell is satsified with the absence of scientific evidence for his beliefs, finding his faith sufficient to sustain them. He is puzzled as to why you seem to either require something more, or felt that something more existed.
@Speedwell , please correct me if I have that wrong.

Except that doesn't accurately represent what I'm saying at all.