Atheists, Why Do You Believe That Christians Cannot Accept Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

I consider faith a bad thing.

It depends on who the object of your faith is.

Ever heard of Shoko Asahara? his faith was in Shakti, and look what happened.

 

[Occams Barber]

Only on paper.

Taxonomy, archaeology, anthropology, palaeontology and genetics would all disagree.

(Cue: Science can take a hike!)

OB

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Could you please rephrase this?

He was making fun of atheism using false examples.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Appealing to authority is absolutely a logical fallacy. Whether it's false or irrelevant authority or not.

I'm simply giving the common definition of the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. If you have a different definition, so be it, but don't expect others to accept it without question.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Wasn't meant to be rude ... but factual .... Apes don't recognize us as their own kind because we aren't of their kind.

Do you have a source or reference for that, or did you make it up?

“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical,” said biologist Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute. “The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”

The Biologic Institute is a pseudoscientific front for the Discovery Institute's 'Wedge' strategy:

"The Biologic Institute was a section of the Discovery Institute created to give the organization a facade of conducting biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design creationism, funded by the Discovery Institute." Wikipedia​

Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as 1,000+ Scientists Share Their Doubts | Evolution News

Another reference lacking credibility. 'Evolution News' is published by CSC (Center for Science and Culture), an arm of the Discovery Institute.

"The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public-school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution." Wikipedia​

 

[Shemjaza]

Wasn't meant to be rude ... but factual .... Apes don't recognize us as their own kind because we aren't of their kind.

That's a poor argument for several reasons.

One: other great apes have been known to show empathy and interact with humans.

Two: Not all humans recognise other humans as being the same 'kind'.

Three: Most dogs are convinced that we are also dogs.

the "facts" are ever changing .... more is learned as time goes on, the high complexity of things are becoming more apparent

This is a very vague statement... can you give a specific example?

“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical,” said biologist Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute. “The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”

I'm not even a scientist and I know the answer. Mutation creates variation... variation can increase complexity.

Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as 1,000+ Scientists Share Their Doubts | Evolution News

But how many of them have appropriate areas of expertise... and more importantly, how many of them were called Steve?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm with @Rose2020 and @Strathos on this one. Wanting something does not mean it has to be true. I can want God to exist, I can want to believe in God - it makes no difference if God exists or not. If it gives me comfort, is that not a good enough reason?

There's a world of difference between wanting to believe and believing. Occam's Barber's original point was, "Wanting to believe is not, in itself, a valid reason to believe."

The unspoken assumption in 'valid reason' is that the individual has good cause to think that the subject of belief is true; but what reasonable person is happy to believe what they don't have good cause to think is true?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

John 20:29 said:
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

This is literally an appeal to the credulous and the gullible.

 

[Caliban]

Well, why do you say it's bad?

First, I'm not sayin the faith, or your faith is bad. I am saying faith, as an approach to determining truth and reality is bad. People do not use faith to determine when to cross the street; in that situation they look both ways and wait until it is safe. They use the tools of evidence and their senses. Faith is different. People uses faith when they believe something, but there is not enough evidence to conclude the accuracy of the belief. Do this simple thought experiment and ask yourself this question: is there anything a person could not believe on faith?

If you can think about his with out changing the definition of the word faith to mean something like trust, you will begin to see why faith is a bad way of apprehending the truth.

 

[Caliban]

It depends on who the object of your faith is.

Ever heard of Shoko Asahara? his faith was in Shakti, and look what happened.

No, I have not heard of him. Read my previous post #329. In every case, evidence will be a better tool of determining truth than faith.

 

[eleos1954]

What does this seemingly random link have to do with our conversation? At least write a summary of what claim this is supposed to support.

it isn't worth debating ... you are set in your beliefs evidentially and so am I ...

basically I come to this ....

as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.

So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)

 

[eleos1954]

What bearing does your "on-going relationship with the Lord" have on the substance and validity of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

How does it invalidate the facts of disparate populations of organisms developing through hereditary mechanisms over time?

well ... basically I come to this ....

as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.

So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)

 

[eleos1954]

Do you have a source or reference for that, or did you make it up?


The Biologic Institute is a pseudoscientific front for the Discovery Institute's 'Wedge' strategy:

"The Biologic Institute was a section of the Discovery Institute created to give the organization a facade of conducting biological research with the aim of producing experimental evidence of intelligent design creationism, funded by the Discovery Institute." Wikipedia​

Another reference lacking credibility. 'Evolution News' is published by CSC (Center for Science and Culture), an arm of the Discovery Institute.

"The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public-school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution." Wikipedia​

well ... basically I come to this ....

as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.

So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)

 

[eleos1954]

That's a poor argument for several reasons.

One: other great apes have been known to show empathy and interact with humans.

Two: Not all humans recognise other humans as being the same 'kind'.

Three: Most dogs are convinced that we are also dogs.



This is a very vague statement... can you give a specific example?



I'm not even a scientist and I know the answer. Mutation creates variation... variation can increase complexity.


But how many of them have appropriate areas of expertise... and more importantly, how many of them were called Steve?

well ... basically I come to this ....

as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.

So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)

 

[VirOptimus]

well ... basically I come to this ....

as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.

So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)

The finetuning argument does not carry any weight.

 

[Caliban]

it isn't worth debating ... you are set in your beliefs evidentially and so am I ...

basically I come to this ....

as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.

So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)

You made a mistake in this post--no one ever claims that the universe is random. That's your problem, if you mistakingly use this trope, you will conclude it is impossible. I would agree; a random universe cannot produce order. But there is nothing random about it.

 

[April_Rose]

He was making fun of atheism using false examples.

Oh okay, well the truth is that I forgot what I was even asking this about lol

 

[eleos1954]

You made a mistake in this post--no one ever claims that the universe is random. That's your problem, if you mistakingly use this trope, you will conclude it is impossible. I would agree; a random universe cannot produce order. But there is nothing random about it.

lots of theories about it .... ie ... random things happened within the universe to produce what we have now.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

the word random appears in several of them

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

well ... basically I come to this ....

as time goes on ... and ... science discovers just how intricate and complex and fine tuned many many things in our world and in the universe really are .... believing everything randomly happened over millions/billions years with million/billions of random happenings taking place and would have had to in such a precise manner to produce all of these complexities by themselves becomes evolution impossible.

So, I leave it at that and move on, let everyone be convinced in their own mind ;o)

Randomness is far from the whole story.

Pseudoscience and a mistaken argument from incredulity paint a sorry picture for the basis of your belief.

 

[Caliban]

lots of theories about it .... ie ... random things happened within the universe to produce what we have now.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

the word random appears in several of them

No, nothing is random as you describe it. Gravity is not random. Atomic Mass is not random. If things were random we could not do science or make predictions. When you use the term random that way, you create a straw man. At that point you are arguing against a fictional character.