The problem of evil

[bhsmte]

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

Would you define fraudulant science as anything that contradicts your personal religious beliefs?

In your entire life, have you ever accepted scientific findings that conflicted with your religious beliefs?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

And, some folks will believe anything that brings them comfort.

 

[bhsmte]

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

They dont promote this type of education on creationist web sites.

 

[bhsmte]

Ha ha, are you serious? I took the scientists at their own words.



It wasn't even a creationist source, what in the world are you going on about?

And thank you for admitting that you are unwilling to hear the other side of the argument. Real open-minded and honest of you. Stay in your little self-imposed box then. I will continue to research the entire argument from both sides.



Excuse me? If someone wants to present "evidence" and yet is too afraid to source it, that is a concern and far from honest.



This other "evidence" has also fallen short on many occasions.



No, you certainly are not. I am quite aware of the resources thank you. I will continue to research. Unlike you however, I will look at BOTH sides of the issue, not just the Darwinian evolution side.



Your mockery and condescension are seriously undermining your credibility.



Did he say/write those words or didn't he? Oh, and it's pretty disingenuous of you to play the "quote mining" card now. You've done your fair share of the same by that definition.



Keep waiting then. I've answered you multiple times, but I'm not going to simply tell you what you want to hear. Good luck with that.



Explain to me why it's happened then? Do you not think people with that much at stake will sometimes resort to anything when they see their research, and therefore their reputation, falling apart? People can do crazy and illogical things when they're desperate.



You asked me (and others) the same questions over and over. I refuse to continue playing such games.



Yeah....I've never read a book. You are really making the most nonsensical accusations.

However, what I WILL do is move on to more useful things. Thank you for demonstrating and openly admitting the close-mindedness that many scientists and those who agree with them have.

You have openly and honestly stated that you are completely uninterested in hearing from creationists. Perhaps their arguments are threatening to you and your thoughts about evolution. Regardless, such a closed off and narrow focus demonstrates serious problems. You are obviously not willing to consider any views that conflict with your own. Fair enough.

I have learned even more about the kind of absolute faith many put in Darwinian evolution and the fossil record. It's absurd as far as I'm concerned, but it is each person's choice.

Have you taken scientists at their word regarding the theory of evolution?

Ever hear of francis collins? The devout christian, physician, geneticist and former head of the human genome project?

Look him up and tell us what his opinion is on the evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

LOL

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Who told you that? There certainly is dishonesty that needs to be recognized in mainstream science; by all means go after it. Just try not to confuse predictions with evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I didn't miss it. However, I can give you many other quotes that question what he's claiming.

Ahh yes, you want to go digging in the creationist quote mine. Pull little nuggets way out of context, and quotes that have nothing to do with the hominid fossil record. Am I right?

 

[Loudmouth]

My question remains, are scientists manufacturing their own evidence to fill the substantial gaps in the fossil record?

No. The article you pointed to has scientists using real fossils as evidence. They then draw tentative conclusions from those real fossils. That is how science works.

Where are the actual fossils?

I already showed you the fossils.

There should be thousands of them.

Can you show us that there aren't thousands if not millions of hominid fossils? Are you telling us that you have searched every cubic foot of sediment on the Earth, and there are only a handful of hominid fossils on the entire Earth?

And yet, even with all those billions of years, adequate fossil evidence to support Darwinian evolution has not been found, to this day.

It has been found.

(It's also worth noting that Darwin himself saw major problems with this)

It's also worth noting that Darwin concluded just the opposite.

"The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

Darwin discovered that the imperfection of the geologic record was responsible for the lack of billions of finely graded transitional fossils. He solved the problem. The problem you are trying to raise was solved over 150 years ago by Darwin himself.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

So says the person who has to ignore the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Where did you demonstrate this? These hominid fossils don't look fragmentary to me, and they form a continuous temporal sequence as Gould already described.

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

As they apply to the hominid fossil record? Let's see them. Also, supply a link to the entire article so that we can check for context.

ONE picture is hardly conclusive.

The point being that no amount of fossils will ever convince you. You stick your head in the sand, and hope that the evidence goes away.

 

[Larniavc]

That's a caricature of Christian theology, one that treats the sin and brokenness in the world dismissively.

Is it, though?

What happens to someone who does not accept the gift?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Where did you demonstrate this? These hominid fossils don't look fragmentary to me, and they form a continuous temporal sequence as Gould already described.

As they apply to the hominid fossil record? Let's see them. Also, supply a link to the entire article so that we can check for context.



The point being that no amount of fossils will ever convince you. You stick your head in the sand, and hope that the evidence goes away.

This conversation is off topic.

 

[Chriliman]

Is it, though?

What happens to someone who does not accept the gift?

They perish.

To perish does not imply being tormented forever, it implies death or lack of life. God is life, so if you do not accept life given through Christ Jesus, then you will perish. It's pretty simple, God won't force you against your will to live forever in bliss, free from all evil, this is a gift that He offers through His Son.

 

[amariselle]

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.

You are right Jason. Thank you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They perish.

To perish does not imply being tormented forever, it implies death or lack of life. God is life, so if you do not accept life given through Christ Jesus, then you will perish. It's pretty simple, God won't force you against your will to live forever in bliss, free from all evil, this is a gift that He offers through His Son.

This is His hidden gift - the gift of oblivion rather than the torture of eternal bliss with no reprieve

 

[HitchSlap]

They perish.

To perish does not imply being tormented forever, it implies death or lack of life. God is life, so if you do not accept life given through Christ Jesus, then you will perish. It's pretty simple, God won't force you against your will to live forever in bliss, free from all evil, this is a gift that He offers through His Son.

No gnashing of teeth? Good then!

 

[SteveB28]

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.

Please keep commenting!

Such horrendous scientific ignorance should help those who are wavering in their beliefs, to land in the side of rationality and reason!

For Petes sake woman, do an Internet search on 'evidence for speciation' before you embarrass yourself further!

 

[HitchSlap]

You are right Jason. Thank you.

FYI, there is a "Christians Only" section for creationism on CF. You might find it to be a little more agreeable?

 

[amariselle]

Please keep commenting!

Such horrendous scientific ignorance should help those who are wavering in their beliefs, to land in the side of rationality and reason!

For Petes sake woman, do an Internet search on 'evidence for speciation' before you embarrass yourself further!

Oh, I'm not embarrassed, I can assure you.

And no, I will not be commenting further. I am done playing games.

 

[amariselle]

FYI, there is a "Christians Only" section for creationism on CF. You might find it to be a little more agreeable?

I have had quite enough of non-Christians suggesting that Christians should stay in the "Christian-only" sections of this forum. In case you have forgotten, this entire site is a Christian forum. If you don't want to encounter Christians and their view points, why in the world are you here? There are many forums for Atheists on the Internet for atheist viewpoints to be shared. This forum (and it's general sections) are meant to be an outreach for non-Christians who have honest questions and concerns regarding the Christian faith.