2 proofs that nature was designed

[Kylie]

Thankyou. I have met very few true atheists, most are agnostic: ie have no opinion.

Another atheist here. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about atheism.

 

[Astrid]

Another atheist here. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about atheism.

But are you a TRUE atheist, like me?

 

[Strathos]

Evolution is atheism in disguise?

How do you figure this? My husband is a Christian and he thinks evolution is the correct explanation.

Or do you think that anything other than a literal interpretation of the Bible is atheism?

There are two primary reasons for this:

1. Creationists teach people the lie that evolution means that life arose from nothing and God doesn't exist.

2. When creationists debate evolution, their opponents are often atheists, and the debate often turns into a theism vs. atheism debate.

 

[Frank Robert]

There are two primary reasons for this:

2. When creationists debate evolution, their opponents are often atheists, and the debate often turns into a theism vs. atheism debate.

Do creationists believe only atheists accept the preponderance of evidence for evolution?

 

[Astrid]

There are two primary reasons for this:

1. Creationists teach people the lie that evolution means that life arose from nothing and God doesn't exist.

2. When creationists debate evolution, their opponents are often atheists, and the debate often turns into a theism vs. atheism debate.

A whole thread could be devoted to just the common lies.

 

[Astrid]

Do creationists believe only atheists accept the preponderance of evidence for evolution?

True Christians are creationists, some
say.
I hold that a faith requiring ignorance and lies
could hardly be the " true" one.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's not a question of a creator God. The existence of God is really not an issue in this forum....

Ok. The issue of a Creator instead of mindless evolution is the topic of this forum.
If you want to include space aliens, you can.
Forum guidelines - Mar 28, 2015#1

 

[Speedwell]

Ok. The issue of a Creator instead of mindless evolution is the topic of this forum.
If you want to include space aliens, you can.
Forum guidelines - Mar 28, 2015#1

I don't know exactly what you mean by "mindless evolution," but if you mean the theory of evolution as science describes it, then the possibilities are

1. A creator and no evolution.
2. A creator and evolution.
3. Evolution and no creator.

The science is the same in case 2 and 3. Consequently, the position that it must be a creator or evolution is a politically-motivated false dichotomy and has no place on this forum. If you want to argue that the theory of evolution is wrong, you will be arguing with both theists and atheists, because the notion that the theory of evolution denies a creator God is a lie.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't know exactly what you mean by "mindless evolution...

Sure. That would be mindless evolution. Evolution that proceeds with no mindful intention or goal.
Evolution based on the religion of "randomness", a force that does not exist.
This was explained to me by a forensics examiner who demonstrated to me that randomness does not exist. If all the forces are known, then any result can be predicted.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure. That would be mindless evolution. Evolution that proceeds with no mindful intention or goal.
Evolution based on the religion of "randomness", a force that does not exist.

I don't know anything about that evolution. It's certainly not the theory of evolution which science describes. Maybe you should be in a different forum.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't know anything about that evolution. It's certainly not the theory of evolution which science describes. Maybe you should be in a different forum.

I suppose it's hard for you to predict what I'll decide.

 

[Astrid]

I suppose it's hard for you to predict what I'll decide.

We predict you will not decide to learn anything about evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

We predict you will not decide to learn anything about evolution.

As Young Earth Creationists, they study the theory more than most do.

 

[Kylie]

As Young Earth Creationists, they study the theory more than most do.

They still tend to get it wrong, however...

 

[SkyWriting]

They still tend to get it wrong, however...

True evolutionists never claim they are right.
Only the amateurs ones do that.

 

[Kylie]

True evolutionists never claim they are right.
Only the amateurs ones do that.

True, a real scientist will never say, "The science is 100% guaranteed to be correct."

But we are still able to say, "The science is so well supported that it is vanishingly unlikely that it is wrong, and anyone who claims it is wrong had better provide some mighty good evidence to support their claims."

 

[SkyWriting]

True, a real scientist will never say, "The science is 100% guaranteed to be correct."

But we are still able to say, "The science is so well supported that it is vanishingly unlikely that it is wrong, and anyone who claims it is wrong had better provide some mighty good evidence to support their claims."

Just the amateurs say such things. Professionals do not. See for yourself:
proof - PMC - NCBI

 

[Kylie]

Just the amateurs say such things. Professionals do not. See for yourself:
proof - PMC - NCBI

I'm sorry, are you claiming that only amateurs say things like, "The science is so well supported that it is vanishingly unlikely that it is wrong, and anyone who claims it is wrong had better provide some mighty good evidence to support their claims."

Because that's not my understanding.

Also, it is very possible to prove things in mathematics. The proof that the square of the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle is equal to the squares of the other two sides is easy to understand and available for all to see.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm sorry, are you claiming that only amateurs say things like, "The science is so well supported that it is vanishingly unlikely that it is wrong, and anyone who claims it is wrong had better provide some mighty good evidence to support their claims."

Exactly. ONLY amateurs.

You are welcome to show me wrong if you disagree.

 

[Kylie]

Exactly. ONLY amateurs.

You are welcome to show me wrong if you disagree.

Richard Feynman himself said that we can never prove something true using science, we can only ever prove it wrong, and even if we have a massive number of experiments which support the theory we are testing, we can never say that the theory has been proven.

Please note that whenever we have a theory which has a huge number of experiments supporting it, anyone who comes along and says that the theory is wrong had better have a very good theory to replace it with, and they had also better explain why the first theory was wrong.

For example, Newton's theories about how the planets moved worked really well. Einstein came along and said they were wrong, and he was able to provide a better theory AND he was able to explain exactly how Newton got things wrong.

Or do you think that that Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein were amateur scientists?

By the way, what point are you trying to make here? You claimed in post 275 that a true evolutionist (and I assume that you accept that this applies to any scientist as well) would never claim to be right, to which I agreed.

However, I said that a real scientist is more likely to say, "We are probably right due to the large amount of supporting evidence we have." Yet now you are claiming that a real scientist would say this either.

So tell me, what exactly do you think a real scientist would say?

Perhaps, "Gee, all our experiments have given us results that cluster around this one particular explanation, so I guess we better tell everyone we don't have the foggiest notion what's going on"?