Where is your evidence creationists?

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why even bother disbelieving something you don't even believe exists in the first place?

Why even bother believing in something you believe exists?

This question makes as much sense as the one above.

You know that you can't actually remove a belief in god - all you can do is make the choice not to hold a belief in god yourself.
So what is actually the point of being an atheist in the first place? :confused:
And why are you even on a Christian forum???

You seem very confused. I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster either if that makes you happy. And I thought this part of the forum was to discuss physical and life sciences, am I wrong in thinking that? There are other parts of this forum dedicated for Christians only, maybe you are looking for those?
 
Upvote 0

ianb321red

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2011
1,775
35
Surrey
✟18,267.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I didn't say the Bible had no historical basis (other religious books do too, by the way). What I said, and repeat is that there is no evidence for the existence of deities.

Which other religious books? Give me examples?

The evidence for the Christian God is in The Bible.
The Bible contains an historically accurate account of Jesus Christ, his life and the claims he made.
Jesus claimed divinity, and proved it in several ways which are recorded in The Bible..
Therefore, since The Bible is an accurate historical account, and it can be objectively attested using the universal rules of establishing historical accuracy, plus the extensive manuscript and codex library, plus the anthropological evidence, plus the archeaological evidence, plus the secular accounts from non-biblical sources (more than 45 independent sources are acknowledged to support the resurrection of Christ alone), because all of this stands up as objective evidence, then Christians believe that The Bible is an accurate account of history.

Therefore, it is an accurate and authentic text.
It demonstrates that Jesus Christ claimed to be God and proved it.
Therefore, it is proof that God exists.

To discredit this argument, it would need to proven that there is an alternative history which contradicts and discredits the historical account in The Bible.

This would need to be supported by the same quantity and quality of evidence which exists in real terms for The Bible, and that is accepted regardless of religion, belief or any other disposition.

Until an alternative version of history can be demonstrated to be correct at The Bibles expense, then the position holds that The Bible text contains accurate historical information, has an accurate of Jesus Christ and therefore provides proof that his claims to be God were true.

Therefore, God exists.

The only counter argument that can tear down this position, needs to built upon at least the same quantity and quality of evidence that The Bible text is supported by.
 
Upvote 0

ianb321red

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2011
1,775
35
Surrey
✟18,267.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You seem very confused. I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster either if that makes you happy. And I thought this part of the forum was to discuss physical and life sciences, am I wrong in thinking that? There are other parts of this forum dedicated for Christians only, maybe you are looking for those?

Your dead right I'm confused. Very confused.
I was hoping to be enlightened about atheism - the flying spaghetti monster example comes from AC Grayling or someone of his ilk..not the best example I've ever been given to be honest.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Which other religious books? Give me examples?

The evidence for the Christian God is in The Bible.
The Bible contains an historically accurate account of Jesus Christ, his life and the claims he made.
Jesus claimed divinity, and proved it in several ways which are recorded in The Bible..
Therefore, since The Bible is an accurate historical account, and it can be objectively attested using the universal rules of establishing historical accuracy, plus the extensive manuscript and codex library, plus the anthropological evidence, plus the archeaological evidence, plus the secular accounts from non-biblical sources (more than 45 independent sources are acknowledged to support the resurrection of Christ alone), because all of this stands up as objective evidence, then Christians believe that The Bible is an accurate account of history.

Therefore, it is an accurate and authentic text.
It demonstrates that Jesus Christ claimed to be God and proved it.
Therefore, it is proof that God exists.

To discredit this argument, it would need to proven that there is an alternative history which contradicts and discredits the historical account in The Bible.

This would need to be supported by the same quantity and quality of evidence which exists in real terms for The Bible, and that is accepted regardless of religion, belief or any other disposition.

Until an alternative version of history can be demonstrated to be correct at The Bibles expense, then the position holds that The Bible text contains accurate historical information, has an accurate of Jesus Christ and therefore provides proof that his claims to be God were true.

Therefore, God exists.

The only counter argument that can tear down this position, needs to built upon at least the same quantity and quality of evidence that The Bible text is supported by.

Nothing that is historically accurate in the Bible proves that God exists. There is no evidence for the claims (as you yourself put it) that Jesus made, you (and all Christians) chose to believe them. There is no archaeological evidence of a single miracle or act of God described in the Bible. There is no evidence for water being turned into wine. No evidence for resurrections.

There are a lot of things in the Iliad (by Homer) that are historically accurate. Does that make Greek mythology the truth? There are just as many historical accuracies in the Bible as there are in the Quran.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Your dead right I'm confused. Very confused.
Ian, the atheist says in his heart, "there is no god."

When these guys tell you there is no evidence for a god, they are coming from the standpoint of empirical senses; and this is why they want empirical evidence of Him.

But according to the Bible, the [atheist] says in his heart, "there is not god."
 
Upvote 0

revo74

Newbie
Dec 8, 2011
53
1
✟7,678.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Which other religious books? Give me examples?

The evidence for the Christian God is in The Bible.
The Bible contains an historically accurate account of Jesus Christ, his life and the claims he made.
Jesus claimed divinity, and proved it in several ways which are recorded in The Bible..
Therefore, since The Bible is an accurate historical account, and it can be objectively attested using the universal rules of establishing historical accuracy, plus the extensive manuscript and codex library, plus the anthropological evidence, plus the archeaological evidence, plus the secular accounts from non-biblical sources (more than 45 independent sources are acknowledged to support the resurrection of Christ alone), because all of this stands up as objective evidence, then Christians believe that The Bible is an accurate account of history.

Therefore, it is an accurate and authentic text.
It demonstrates that Jesus Christ claimed to be God and proved it.
Therefore, it is proof that God exists.

To discredit this argument, it would need to proven that there is an alternative history which contradicts and discredits the historical account in The Bible.

This would need to be supported by the same quantity and quality of evidence which exists in real terms for The Bible, and that is accepted regardless of religion, belief or any other disposition.

Until an alternative version of history can be demonstrated to be correct at The Bibles expense, then the position holds that The Bible text contains accurate historical information, has an accurate of Jesus Christ and therefore provides proof that his claims to be God were true.

Therefore, God exists.

The only counter argument that can tear down this position, needs to built upon at least the same quantity and quality of evidence that The Bible text is supported by.

The Bible is not historically accurate.

Bible scholars agree the first gospels weren’t written until decades after the Jesus died. That means oral transmission played a significant role and we all know how unreliable that is.

The original manuscripts aren’t around, instead we have copies of copies of copies of Greek manuscripts. There are thousands of discrepancies and evidence of later interpolation. Whole books that were not part of the original canon were later added. Other whole books that were part of the original canon were removed. Generations of Christians lived and died being guided by gospel that is now deemed incomplete and mistaken.

Then there is the fact that the Bible was cherry picked. For example: the majority of gospels about Jesus aren't even in the Bible.

Only a person who is emotionally compromised and completely biased can say with a straight face that the Bible is historically accurate.

Even if I am wrong about everything I said, which i am not, you still have the problem of how to interpret it. It's quite obvious that Christians quarrel over this vigorously.

The number and severity of problems the Bible faces is insurmountable.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I thought this part of the forum was to discuss physical and life sciences, am I wrong in thinking that? There are other parts of this forum dedicated for Christians only, maybe you are looking for those?

That is something that everyone needs to be reminded of here. If I were to begin posting in one of the theology forums specifics concerning ice core chronology, I'm sure I would be reminded rather quickly that my post is in appropriate for that forum.:)
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
First of all the theory of evolution and the Bible are diametrically opposed to one another. If one is true the other must be false. The bible says that every animal brings forth after its own kind, while evolution says the opposite. The bible says there is one kind of flesh of beasts and another kind of flesh of man. To put it another way...man is NOT just another animal in the evolutionary chain.
On the contrary, evolution demands that offspring are practically identical to their parents. Large change can occur down hundreds of generations, but rapid one-generation change is not how evolution works. Moreover, to boil the Bible down to a literal reading of Genesis 1 is to do a disservice to the rest. One doesn't need to believe Genesis 1 is literally true to be a Christian.

Scientists are no more able to speak to the veracity of evolution and the first cause than those they accuse of not knowing either. It is a belief born of faith...no proof. Where are the scientific answers to these questions.
I will endeavour to answer them. If you are genuinely interested in discussing these things, I'll gladly join you in another thread (one of your own making, or my "Ask a Physicist Anything" thread linked in my sig).

Science is a search for causes (based on observation).....so what was the very first cause? What did they observe?
First, a clarification: science is the search for truth through empiricism and logical deduction. Scientists acquire facts, then posit hypotheses to explain those facts, then make predictions from those hypotheses, then test those predictions with experiments. If the hypotheses are right, they eventurally become theories. If the predictions fail, then the hypotheses are discredited. This is the Scientific Method.

Second, what was the very first cause? We don't know. A more immediate question is, was there a very first case? Again, we don't know. And that's OK - science wouldn't exist if we knew everything.

What created the matter and energy necessary to create the universe?
Again, we don't know. There are tentative ideas, but none with any real evidence. Some suggest that the 'positive' energy of matter counteracts the 'negative' energy of gravitational potential, thus there is zero net energy in the universe. Initially, there was zero energy, then quantum fluctuations caused this change - instead of 0+0=0, we had 1-1=0. The equation is the same, but the terms are not. But like I said, we simply don't know where the energy content of the universe came from, or indeed if it even needs a First Cause to explain it.

For every cause there is an effect. If the effect is evolution what caused it? And why?
This sounds like a confusing mix of different terms. First, "For every cause there is an effect", is an adage referring to the law of causality, which more specifically states that any event in the universe must be preceded by another event that caused it. A particle doesn't spontaneously change direction, it must be affected by something else - cause, and effect.

Second, the law of causality is an empirical law, which means it's only a 'law' insofar as we haven't really seen it violated. It seems to be a universally binding law, but for all we know it might not be. Indeed, the wacky world of quantum mechanics seems to be replete with uncaused events - particles spontaneously popping into existence, ex nihilo, without any prior cause, creating such effects as the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation. In other words, at the fundamental level of the universe, the law of causality may well be false.

Third, evolution is not an 'effect' in the sense used by the law of causality; you seem to be equivocating two different meanings of the same word. But if you question is, "What caused evolution?", well, evolution is something that inevitably happens when you have inheritable traits and imperfect reproduction and so on.

If you believe that people are nothing but evolved animals then why don't we still live like animals?
We do: we live like humans. Remember, science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Some animals eat their own young, some animals die for them. Some animals live in isolation, some live in incredibly complex societies. It's always baffled me when Creationists suggest that evolution implies that we must pick a species of animal and adopt its behaviour - why on Earth should we do that? We humans are animals, inasmuch as we fit that biological taxon. That doesn't mean we have to act like animals - and besides, which animal 'should' we act like? The gazelle? The ant?

Isn't the rise in violence just survival of the fittest?
No. The cause of violence is a complex issue, but it generally boils down to competition for resources like food, water, shelter, territory, etc. More abstract concepts and resources (like social acclaim, religion, politics, etc) can also lead humans to violence. But whatever the causes of violence, survival of the fittest is a different concept altogether.

I'm aware this post is getting long, so I'll try to be brief. 'Survival of the fittest' is an inaccurate colloquialism for a specific concept in evolution, the concept whereby those with more advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce and pass on those traits than those with disadvantageous traits. Slightly longer fur in cold climes helps you, so you breed more and more offspring have longer fur, until such time that the whole population has this new, longer fur. Shorter fur is disadvantageous, so is quickly bred out by natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" is an often misunderstood term because of the word 'fittest' - it isn't an advocation for tyranny and suchlike, but rather it's just an inaccurate description of a general biological phenomenon.

If we are animals and survival is the evolutionary answer...then why is killing or stealing food for our families wrong? Animals do it don't they?
Whoever said stealing food to feed a starving family is wrong? Animals kill to feed or protect their young, and when satiated, predators will often let prey roam near them - they don't need to kill, so they don't. Humans, on the other hand, kill for reasons other than necessity.

But, again, science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Why should we model human behaviour on what this species or that species does? Why are giraffes such a role-model to base your actions on? Or flying squirrels? Or sheep?

Aren't the STD diseases including AIDS the logical result of man just living as an animal with no basis for morals?
No. STDs, like all diseases, are the result of sharing the world with bacteria and viruses which have a vested interest in breeding in your body - you are, to them, a walking food factory. Only a small fraction of bacteria and viruses cause illness - after all, what's the point in irritating or even killing the host you live in and feed off? - but they're the ones that we hear about the most, since they're the ones that detrimentally affect us. And a small number of those are sexually transmitted - a disease reproduces best by infecting others, and sex is a fantastic way for all sorts of grubs to cross over to other people, since a whole host of juices and mucous membranes come into contact. Thus, STDs are particularly virulent.

And are morals scientific?
Depends. There are certainly strong theories that explain the origin of such moral urges like selflessness, love for one's kin, the urge to raise a family, etc. Even more complex urges, like altruism, which seem to go directly against evolution, have quite cunning evolutionary purposes (for instance, endangering yourself to save your children or nieces or nephews may remove you from the gene pool, but you end up saving your children or nieces or nephews - and since they carry your genes (or your genes once removed), the altruism gene itself gets passed on).

So, are morals scientific? Yes and no. There are moral urges (like don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, protect children, etc) that have well-understood origins - they're instincts that have evolved to ensure the better survival of human society.

How did life arise from nonliving matter?
A very good question indeed. There are a number of similar explanations for this, collected under the umbrella term 'abiogenesis', and they go something like this: the warm oceans of pre-biotic Earth were awash with all sorts of simple chemicals (hydrogen, oxygen, ammonia, methane, etc), and these are known to spontaneously form more complex organic molecules.

Some of these were the lipids, fatty molecules with one end that doesn't like water. So, they stuck together in these double-layered sheets, their hydrophobic tails in the middle, and their hydrophilic heads on the outside. Those which formed closed bubbles had no exposed hydrophobic ends, so these were by far the most popular structure for lipids to form in.

Another sort of molecule to form were amino acids, monomers that can spontaneously come together (simply by crashing into each other) to form longer chains, called polymers. The lipid bubbles could let the small monomers inside, but large polymers couldn't get back out. Thus, you had a bubble with monomers pouring in and out, but any polymer that formed was stuck there.

Some polymers are self-replicating. It was only a matter of time before one such molecule began to self-replicate, however poorly. As monomers poured in and the polymers replicated, the lipid bubble itself grew as more lipids hit it. Lipid bubbles grow in odd shapes, with long 'arms' branching off. Mechanical action (like waves or other large structures hitting them) can break these arms off, and the 'gap' is quickly closed by the water-hating lipids. Thus, you had a large bubble full of self-replicating polymers that gets split into two smaller bubbles. This is how replication began.

Once you have replication (lipid bubbles growing and splitting, and polymers replicating) with inheritance (the polymers in the bubble would be in both daughter bubbles, sharing whatever traits they may have) and variation (an accident during polymer replication or an inaccurate copying would mean the new polymer would spread its new variation (or mutation) to all its descendents. If the mutation was beneficial, it would quickly dominate the bubble and future bubbles) - you have evolution.

And that, in a rather large nutshell, is the origin of life.

So millions of years ago.....there was this soup that consisted of all sorts of stuff.....ammonia, nitrogen etc...just bubblin away and all of a sudden out of this soup came the first cell. Aren't there cells in soup? How did that soup form? Or was it a bang.......then where did the energy come from to create a bang? Wasn't spontaneous generation... I think Pasteur proved that wrong.
You're close. The origin of the first cell is described above - the lipid bubble filled with polymers. These are naturally extremely simple cells, but why should we expect anything less? Modern cells are quite complex, but they've had billions of years to refine themselves. The 'Spontaneous Generation' Louis Pasteur disproved in 1859 refers specifically to an ancient Greek idea (one that persisted until the early 19th century), and is unrelated to evolution and abiogenesis.

I think it is a scientific fact that life only arises from life.
It's not, but nevermind.

How when no life existed did substances come into being which are absolutely essential for life but which only can be produced by life?
Life is extraordinarily varied. Perhaps one form of life could come about from simple molecules, and produces the more complex molecules for other forms of life to arise. The original form of life died out, so all we have is this cycle of life creating life - but there's no reason there wasn't a much simpler form of life that kick-started the cycle.

In any case, refer to my explanation on the origin of life above.

DNA is essential for life to exist......so when no life existed how did DNA come into existence?
DNA would be one of those polymers I described above - or, at least, a distant descendants. Most scientists believe the first self-replicating molecules were more akin to RNA, and then were RNA, and then became DNA.

There is something scientific that clearly demonstrates that life from nonliving matter is impossible.....I think its called the law of probability.
There are many laws of probability, the most universal being: "No matter the odds, as the number of trials tends to infinity, the odds of a success tends to one". In other words, no matter how unlikely it is for life to form, if it tries to happen enough times (each time a polymer forms counts as a single 'trial'), then, eventurally, it will happen.

That said, I'm not aware of any law of probability that clearly demonstrates that life from non-living matter is impossible. What law are you referring to?

Do animals have morals? If we came from animals then...do lions feel remorse when they kill their prey? Do animals have a moral code? If we came from these animals......how did we get a moral code?
How indeed. As I alluded above, morals have an evolutionary origin. Various urges like "Don't kill" and "Don't rape" stem from a rather simple principle: if an individual doesn't want X done to it, and everyone has the urge to not do X, then the individual is unlikely to have X done to it. More simple: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. From an evolutionary point of view, this inexoriably leads to the evolution of instincts to eschew murder and rape and things.
 
Upvote 0

mdancin4theLord

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2011
923
42
Arizona
✟1,309.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why even bother believing in something you believe exists?

This question makes as much sense as the one above.



You seem very confused. I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster either if that makes you happy. And I thought this part of the forum was to discuss physical and life sciences, am I wrong in thinking that? There are other parts of this forum dedicated for Christians only, maybe you are looking for those?


This topic is in the physical and life sciences........but the topic is Where is your evidence creationists? So who does that draw in to the debate?

Christians have every right to come to discuss this......the topic invites us to do so.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This topic is in the physical and life sciences........but the topic is Where is your evidence creationists? So who does that draw in to the debate?

Christians have every right to come to discuss this......the topic invites us to do so.

And yet nobody provided a single shred of evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mdancin4theLord

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2011
923
42
Arizona
✟1,309.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wiccan_Child said "On the contrary, evolution demands that offspring are practically identical to their parents. Large change can occur down hundreds of generations, but rapid one-generation change is not how evolution works. Moreover, to boil the Bible down to a literal reading of Genesis 1 is to do a disservice to the rest. One doesn't need to believe Genesis 1 is literally true to be a Christian.'

But no child has the same fingerprints as anyone on earth....DNA is different...there might be commonalities between a child and parent they get through genes but every human being on earth is different...there have never been two people identically the same. Identical twins don't have the same fingerprints but have the same DNA.

And you as a Christian know that one does not have to believe in Genesis to be a Christian? LOL Sorry but what do you know about living and experiencing the Christian life? Do you think it only involves head knowledge? You can be a high and lofty scientists, physicist...whatever and spout big terms and complexed theories on here...but don't tell me what living the Christian life is all about. First of all...at best you have head knowledge of what you read. No one is a Christian who has this. You are a Christian when the heart is involved. This leaves you out. You are not born again....therefore you do not have the Holy Spirit. And it is the Holy Spirit that gives interpretation and who comes upon you when you accept Christ. No matter how hard you try...you won't get it...and that is according to the Scriptures ...the Scriptures you bash and make pot shots at. I would not begin to tell you about your pagan religion and all the goddesses and gods you worship.
Seems odd on here that the Christian unbeleiver thinks that Christians are the only ones that argue about their faith. I have seen this with your religion...people argueing about witches and witchcraft and certain traditions...what is it and what it is not. Seems like you can't agree. I mean Wiccan views are all over the place really.


"I will endeavour to answer them. If you are genuinely interested in discussing these things, I'll gladly join you in another thread (one of your own making, or my "Ask a Physicist Anything" thread linked in my sig)."

I am interested to a point. We will never agree because our worldviews are opposite. I won't budge and I am sure you won't. You seen very confident and I believe that Christ is the only way and the Truth. I am not going to sit and read pages of scientific theory that I don't get.
The point I made is valid. Science can't answer the big questions. At best they guess at the first cause...and like you admitted....they don't know. So we are left with a few choices. And I choose a creator. It is just as logical as what science thus far has to offer.


"First, a clarification: science is the search for truth through empiricism and logical deduction. Scientists acquire facts, then posit hypotheses to explain those facts, then make predictions from those hypotheses, then test those predictions with experiments. If the hypotheses are right, they eventurally become theories. If the predictions fail, then the hypotheses are discredited. This is the Scientific Method."

And do scientists error? Yes Do they work from a bias or viewpoint? Yes

The first cause can not be observed.....so there is no way scientists can test anything that came from it.....it happened to long ago to do so.

"Second, what was the very first cause? We don't know. A more immediate question is, was there a very first case? Again, we don't know. And that's OK - science wouldn't exist if we knew everything."

And they won't ever know. God does exist and He knows everything. Science can't begin to address this question. Sure science would exist......everythings evolving remember. In 1,000 years man might not look the same...we might have horns...and no ears. Right?


"Again, we don't know. There are tentative ideas, but none with any real evidence. Some suggest that the 'positive' energy of matter counteracts the 'negative' energy of gravitational potential, thus there is zero net energy in the universe. Initially, there was zero energy, then quantum fluctuations caused this change - instead of 0+0=0, we had 1-1=0. The equation is the same, but the terms are not. But like I said, we simply don't know where the energy content of the universe came from, or indeed if it even needs a First Cause to explain it."

Yes, again Science does not know. Not a clue. All those brilliant scientists and no answer. How long have they been working on this one? There will never be evidence.......where would it come from.....everything is evolving so fast that nothing can be observable.


"We do: we live like humans. Remember, science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Some animals eat their own young, some animals die for them. Some animals live in isolation, some live in incredibly complex societies. It's always baffled me when Creationists suggest that evolution implies that we must pick a species of animal and adopt its behaviour - why on Earth should we do that? We humans are animals, inasmuch as we fit that biological taxon. That doesn't mean we have to act like animals - and besides, which animal 'should' we act like? The gazelle? The ant?"


Sure and some humans kill their own. But we do not crawl around on the earth as the animals do...so to say we are living like they are is absurd. We do not live or at least it is not accepted that society live based on ......"the survival of the fittest." People help people and we have laws that prevent this from happening.

At one time if we were one in the same.......how on earth did we end up looking like we did.....and the monkey and ape.....we see in zoos.....still look the same?

We are civilized, we have morals......animals do not.

Darwin was a racist...his theory racist. He would be horse whipped if he made the statements he did then today. He also was sexist. His theories that the black race would die out......was totally wrong. Or do you think he was right and in the end...they will die out..and be overtaken by the white race? Seems to me the black race is doing fine. Boy there were people however that ran with his theories (Hitler and Margaret Sanger) and set upon making his theory happen.


"No. The cause of violence is a complex issue, but it generally boils down to competition for resources like food, water, shelter, territory, etc. More abstract concepts and resources (like social acclaim, religion, politics, etc) can also lead humans to violence. But whatever the causes of violence, survival of the fittest is a different concept altogether."


Not really. People overtake governments to survive. They want to wipe out religions to survive. Who competes in our country for food? Sure we have homeless.....but most Americans have a roof over their heads.

What is the cause of violence in relation to evolution? Isn't is directly connected to evolution? We are animals.....we want to survive....so look out I have a right to kill you for my own survival?


"I'm aware this post is getting long, so I'll try to be brief. 'Survival of the fittest' is an inaccurate colloquialism for a specific concept in evolution, the concept whereby those with more advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce and pass on those traits than those with disadvantageous traits. Slightly longer fur in cold climes helps you, so you breed more and more offspring have longer fur, until such time that the whole population has this new, longer fur. Shorter fur is disadvantageous, so is quickly bred out by natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" is an often misunderstood term because of the word 'fittest' - it isn't an advocation for tyranny and suchlike, but rather it's just an inaccurate description of a general biological phenomenon."


I am not talking about traits....as in hair color or height or build...I am talking about emotional makeup....the inside drive will of a human being. More importantly a moral code....why we do the things we do.

As I said....people took what Darwin wrote in his books......and killed millions of people based on his theories. They just wanted a faster result. Darwin thought the black race inferior in every way...so did Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood. She targeted blacks...even attended KKK meetings to spew her evolutionistic hatred. Fittest to these two.....meant exactly what I am talking about.

"Whoever said stealing food to feed a starving family is wrong? Animals kill to feed or protect their young, and when satiated, predators will often let prey roam near them - they don't need to kill, so they don't. Humans, on the other hand, kill for reasons other than necessity."

So why are they wrong based on evolution? If we all evolved and are different...then who is to say that anyones morals are wrong? If I want to sleep with your husband is that wrong? Hey I might have lost mine and have starving children and he said he would give me money. Would stealing files from my doctors office and giving the information to someone who might be hurt by someones records.....is that wrong? How does evolution address this? No God...no morals......we are just animals. No moral absolutes in evolution?

What is necessity? Mine might be different than yours. And by evolutionary standards......we both are right.



" There are certainly strong theories that explain the origin of such moral urges like selflessness, love for one's kin, the urge to raise a family, etc. Even more complex urges, like altruism, which seem to go directly against evolution, have quite cunning evolutionary purposes (for instance, endangering yourself to save your children or nieces or nephews may remove you from the gene pool, but you end up saving your children or nieces or nephews - and since they carry your genes (or your genes once removed), the altruism gene itself gets passed on).'

Explain as in factual or guess? It should be easy for the evolutionist because none of what you just posted should matter like you said. Altuism gene? How about passing the "I am a terrorist and gonna blow up the Twin Towers" or passing the "I am a serial killer gene"?

"So, are morals scientific? Yes and no. There are moral urges (like don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, protect children, etc) that have well-understood origins - they're instincts that have evolved to ensure the better survival of human society
."

I don't believe they evolved and of course you just include them because you have too but you can't exlain the W's. How was evil born? How was good born? Why?
You want be to believe that they just evolved?


"A very good question indeed. There are a number of similar explanations for this, collected under the umbrella term 'abiogenesis', and they go something like this: the warm oceans of pre-biotic Earth were awash with all sorts of simple chemicals (hydrogen, oxygen, ammonia, methane, etc), and these are known to spontaneously form more complex organic molecules."

But what created the energy that created the hydrogen etc? And the energy that produced the energy what created that? What was the first cause......and why are we here? What purpose did evolution benefit?

How did all this happen and in PERFECT HARMONY. The stars aligned just right mathematically....and the design of the eye. Evolution....all happened by random chance? To believe all this happened by chance.....takes a lot of faith to believe.


"Another sort of molecule to form were amino acids, monomers that can spontaneously come together (simply by crashing into each other) to form longer chains, called polymers. The lipid bubbles could let the small monomers inside, but large polymers couldn't get back out. Thus, you had a bubble with monomers pouring in and out, but any polymer that formed was stuck there."

What created the first molecule? Big Bang........what happens when something explodes? Do things come together or do they blow up ? So out of an explosion....the eye was formed.....our morals....humans......animals......our bodies working in perfect harmony...our organs.....come on. How far fetched is this kind of thinking? I look at nature...and I see things growing old, they die and decay....they lose stucture. Evolution says however that things develop in complexity and stucture. [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]




"And that, in a rather large nutshell, is the origin of life."


Thought you said the first cause is not known? What is the first cause? A cell just doesn't appear. What caused the first life. And how did it come about if nothing before it was alive? Can you make a rock come alive?



"You're close. The origin of the first cell is described above - the lipid bubble filled with polymers. These are naturally extremely simple cells, but why should we expect anything less? Modern cells are quite complex, but they've had billions of years to refine themselves. The 'Spontaneous Generation' Louis Pasteur disproved in 1859 refers specifically to an ancient Greek idea (one that persisted until the early 19th century), and is unrelated to evolution and abiogenesis."


What caused or created the lipid bubble and the polymers? Where did the energy come from. And why did it happen for what purpose?





"DNA would be one of those polymers I described above - or, at least, a distant descendants. Most scientists believe the first self-replicating molecules were more akin to RNA, and then were RNA, and then became DNA."

What created the energy to create the polymers?




"How indeed. As I alluded above, morals have an evolutionary origin. Various urges like "Don't kill" and "Don't rape" stem from a rather simple principle: if an individual doesn't want X done to it, and everyone has the urge to not do X, then the individual is unlikely to have X done to it. More simple: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. From an evolutionary point of view, this inexoriably leads to the evolution of instincts to eschew murder and rape and things."


Do unto others.......evolved? Yea right. Does everyone live by that motto? No
Why don't they if morals evolved and we all are the same?
 
Upvote 0

mdancin4theLord

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2011
923
42
Arizona
✟1,309.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And yet nobody provided a single shred of evidence.


You seem to know all the answers...you tell us we have it all wrong.

So could you do me a favor......and answer these?

What was the very first cause?

Why are we here and for what purpose?
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is something that everyone needs to be reminded of here. If I were to begin posting in one of the theology forums specifics concerning ice core chronology, I'm sure I would be reminded rather quickly that my post is in appropriate for that forum.:)

So are you of the opinion that ice-core chronology isn't theological in nature?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You seem to know all the answers...you tell us we have it all wrong.

So could you do me a favor......and answer these?

What was the very first cause?

Why are we here and for what purpose?

Changing topics again? Start a new thread, and I will gladly answer there. Actually, those questions are more appropriate in the Philosophy subforum. Just a reminder, this thread was started by someone asking for evidence from creationists (of which there is none).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
J

Jazer

Guest
Identical twins don't have the same fingerprints but have the same DNA.
Identical twins do not always share their food. At times one will be bigger then the other. There can be a lot of difference between identical twins.

"Identical twins emerge when a zygote — the fertilized egg that develops into an embryo — splits into two embryos. As such, they should have the same genomes. The researchers speculate that as the cells making up each embryo divide over and over again during development in the womb, mistakes occur as dividing cells shuffle copies of their DNA into daughter cells.
But genetic differences between identical twins might also accumulate after development over a twin's life as well. "I think all our genomes are under constant change," Bruder told LiveScience."

‘Identical’ twins? Not according to their DNA - Health - Health care - More health news - msnbc.com
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Identical twins do not always share their food. At times one will be bigger then the other. There can be a lot of difference between identical twins.

"Identical twins emerge when a zygote — the fertilized egg that develops into an embryo — splits into two embryos. As such, they should have the same genomes. The researchers speculate that as the cells making up each embryo divide over and over again during development in the womb, mistakes occur as dividing cells shuffle copies of their DNA into daughter cells.
But genetic differences between identical twins might also accumulate after development over a twin's life as well. "I think all our genomes are under constant change," Bruder told LiveScience."

‘Identical’ twins? Not according to their DNA - Health - Health care - More health news - msnbc.com

Hmm... So now you believe in mutations? Or are you just copying and pasting things you don't believe in?

Hint: mistakes in copying DNA during cell division = mutation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
C

cupid dave

Guest
"First, a clarification: science is the search for truth through empiricism and logical deduction. Scientists acquire facts, then posit hypotheses to explain those facts, then make predictions from those hypotheses, then test those predictions with experiments. If the hypotheses are right, they eventurally become theories. If the predictions fail, then the hypotheses are discredited. This is the Scientific Method."



Since Christ is Truth the quest of Science appears to be a very christian endeavor, indeed.

And, in this Age we have established this scientific method by which Truth can be pinned down and made explicitly the same for all observes.
Truth for me, under laboratory conditions is the same truth for you and our peers.

However, it is more germane to Christianity that we discover, recognize, and admit to the Truth in the discipline of Human Behavior.


As an example, the Bible focuses our attention on the distrucive nature of sexual promiscuity.
We are advised against toleration of harlotry and overt homosexual expressions in our society.

The atheist and Gay communities fiercely attack this advice and have always argued that their behavior hurts no on.
But the evidence today is now available in Statistics which show that Single Mothers have grown to @ 50% of all American families.

In addition to requiring a change in economics, (promoting an untried Socialism to replace a system that would not otherwise have seemed "broken"), that Stats tell us that 75% of crime and all social problems are caused by kids raised without the authority of a natural father in the home.
 
Upvote 0