The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[Dr GS Hurd]

Dr Wolfgang Smith is NOT a geocentric.

The Status of Geocentrism
by Wolfgang Smith
Arguing that Tychonian geocentrism and Einsteinian acentrism are reconciled based on their different darshanas, Dr. Smith surveys the empirical evidence in favor of geocentrism and of heliocentrism, and makes out the case for geocentrism based on a science of relativistic physics that accords with traditional doctrine.

Every single thing that you have claimed in this chat room to be true that I know from personal, professional experience has been a lie.

 

[As I was saying]

I don't speak for other atheists. I just speak for myself. Evolution makes no claims for or against the existence of a God. Science's goal is to explain the natural world. It makes no claims of the super natural.

That it's a claim with no supporting evidence. I don't outright reject the possibility of a God. I just don't find it convincing. So I choose not to believe in it.

What objections do you have to the overwhelming amounts of evidence in favor of evolution?

The definition of a theory in the scientific context is: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation".

It's higher than a fact because it confirms other facts. Gravity is just a theory. Do you think gravity is "fantasy" too?

I was a Christian for quite some time growing up. I think you'll find that most atheists are former Christians or former members of other faiths. Again I don't speak for everyone but when I really dove into my faith, I came to the conclusion that there wasn't any convincing evidence and I had no good reason to believe any of it to be true.

In that case, what they say is right.

No supporting evidence? What you really mean is whether there is or isn't you ain't going to believe it as your mind is made up. I did a search one day "Does God exist" on the internet and I got over a million sites. More said he did that those that said he didn't. Some of them proved he did purely from a scientific perspective. So when you say there is no supporting evidence you are revealing your prejudice and inability to reason reasonably.

I haven't seen any evidence in favour of evolution. All I have seen is speculation, theory, claims and counter claims and in some cases downright falsification of facts.

The definition of a theory in a scientific context doesn't hold water. If it did, the Piltdown man would not have made the scientific community a laughing stock. And gravity is not a theory it is a fact. I am surprised with all your so called knowledge you did not know that.

I have spent 60 years investigating my faith in God and in that time, it has got stronger and stronger and more convincing and full of truth so I have no good reason to believe that it is not true.

 

[As I was saying]

The Status of Geocentrism
by Wolfgang Smith
Arguing that Tychonian geocentrism and Einsteinian acentrism are reconciled based on their different darshanas, Dr. Smith surveys the empirical evidence in favor of geocentrism and of heliocentrism, and makes out the case for geocentrism based on a science of relativistic physics that accords with traditional doctrine.

Every single thing that you have claimed in this chat room to be true that I know from personal, professional experience has been a lie.

Every single thing that you claim in this chat room to be true may be a complete fabrication as you can say whatever you want here but that does not mean it is true. Your comment here may have been made up by you. i have read an email this morning written by Wolfgang that denies geocentrism.

And whose to say what you know from a personal and professional experience. That is as meaningless as a partridge in a pear tree.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I did a search one day "Does God exist" on the internet and I got over a million sites. More said he did that those that said he didn't. Some of them proved he did purely from a scientific perspective. So when you say there is no supporting evidence you are revealing your prejudice and inability to reason reasonably.

Would you like to provide a source for scientific evidence for the existence of God? I'm going to guess you don't provide this link. Science doesn't try to prove God. It doesn't try to disprove God either. Because you can't prove a negative. God is an unfalsifiable claim. This makes the argument for God's existence very weak.

There is a teapot too small to be seen by telescopes orbiting around the moon right now. Prove it doesn't exist.

I haven't seen any evidence in favour of evolution. All I have seen is speculation, theory, claims and counter claims and in some cases downright falsification of facts.

What falsification of facts? Provide a source. You either ignore the evidence or don't understand it.
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ I could post thousands of links to the evidence. We'll start with this one.

The definition of a theory in a scientific context doesn't hold water.
And gravity is not a theory it is a fact. I am surprised with all your so called knowledge you did not know that.

The THEORY of general relativity describes the why when discussing gravity. The law of gravity describes the attraction between two objects. The theory of gravity deals with the WHY the objects attract each other.

Why wouldn't the definition of theory hold water when it comes to evolution? Evolution makes observations, predictions, tests. It's the most solid theory science has. That's a fact no matter what you believe.

I have spent 60 years investigating my faith in God and in that time, it has got stronger and stronger and more convincing and full of truth so I have no good reason to believe that it is not true.

Good for you. I don't hold those same beliefs. Our world views are different. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[crjmurray]

Sorry to say, you are the one who is confused. First of all, I haven't claimed I am an expert in anything. All I have done is to pass on what I have learnt from reading, writing, listening, and observing.

As for being confused about books and papers I have claimed to read let me paraphrase. You are having problems that I am not the average Joe who knows very little about atheism and evolution and the fact I have taken the trouble to get informed about it and you do not like the fact that you can't browbeat me into submission with words, accusations and cynicism and am not frightened to confront you about what you believe is silly nonsense.

On forums like these, all we get are theories and hypothesis from atheists who have no qualifications of any kind and who have the audacity to sneer at professors, Ph.Ds, and various educated personnel because they don't believe in evolution and who in fact have more knowledge and understanding in their little finger than all the supposed knowledge (second hand) that is claimed by atheists here.

So let me say it again. Why would I, a person who has been studying evolution for at least 10 years, and have been studying the bible for 60 years and have a degree in theology, and have three university degrees in various disciplines, give the time of day to someone who is not interested in anything apart from pushing a failed ideology that is nothing more than a theory when I personally know the way, the truth and the life?

You claim to be logical then sort that one out because what you want to happen, me to believe what you say is the most illogical thing that can happen.

Funnily enough though, you are the Average Joe when it comes to creationists. You spout a bunch of PRATTs and claim that you have knowledge of subjects of which you are demonstrably ignorant of. We even have a name for this type of behavior, it's so clichéd! Pigeon chess! I don't say any of this to be rude, it's just an observation. You'd have an easier time if you would address the evidence that people present, show your own evidence, answer questions, ask questions, and stop being so nasty.

 

[crjmurray]

The definition of a theory in a scientific context doesn't hold water. If it did, the Piltdown man would not have made the scientific community a laughing stock. And gravity is not a theory it is a fact. I am surprised with all your so called knowledge you did not know that.

No, the theory of gravity explains why gravity operates the way it does. This is highschool level stuff.

 

[The Cadet]

And why should I care what an atheist who is far from qualified in terms of the people I quoted, has to say about anything?

I don't know. Maybe because the validity of a message is not determined by who states it? If you're not interested in having a discussion with me, that's fine, but I wish you would have said so earlier.

 

[ecco]

Do you really understand what YOU just wrote?

Haven't found any evidence supporting evolution. The evidence is clear in the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and he created everything after its own kind. To believe in evolution is to call God a liar and the Bible is clear that God is not a man that he can lie.
I know you don't understand this fact because satan has blinded your eyes but there is nothing I can do about this whilst you are so cynical.

And for your information, none of these 13,000 died for me and paid the price for my sin so they are irrelevant to my understanding of God and his son Jesus. I happen to know that I am not going to be asked on judgment day "why didn't you believe in evolution when 13,000 clergymen did?

[/QUOTE]

I was going to post my own response. But, I'll let one of those 13,000 clergy do it instead.

http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Resources/Faces2.htm
The Rev. William R. Clough, Minister Member, Peace River Presbytery
Northport, FL

I first encountered creationism as a sophomore biology major interested in the science-religion dialog. Even with a very basic knowledge of science I could see creationist arguments were either false or misleading and I was intrigued. How could they effectively make it a widespread truism that one of the best confirmed theories in science is "full of holes" or "discredited"? How could such a miniscule slice of Christianity dominate the discussion? Mostly I was bothered because Jesus says that lying is the native language of the devil (John 8:44). Getting well intentioned Christians to believe and defend demonstrably false things is the devil's greatest triumph. Moreover, the vast majority of people outgrow the "warfare model" (Ian Barbour's term) between Christianity and biology and it's time we were clear on that point. We have a responsibility to our communities to challenge atheistic materialism on the one hand and dogmatic rationalization on the other; to support a more honest view of God's world and sophisticated view of human knowledge.




ETA: Don't know why the picture came out so big.​

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Jon.

Gravity is just a theory. Do you think gravity is "fantasy" too?

There is a theory of gravity, yes. Science still has no idea what causes gravity.
Science is still searching for the source of this force, we call gravity.

I came to the conclusion that there wasn't any convincing evidence and
I had no good reason to believe any of it to be true.

May I ask Jon, what you define this evidence to be?

How do you know that the evidence is insufficient?

Atheism is a belief system?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

May I ask Jon, what you define this evidence to be?

How do you know that the evidence is insufficient?

Atheism is a belief system?

The arguments for God I have heard are "It says in the bible" which is circular reasoning. The bible is the claim. I have also heard personal experience arguments, which I can not verify. People of other faiths have personal experiences for the God or Gods they believe in too. I could say that I have had a personal experience that I deep belief that there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard. This gives my life much meaning. You don't have any reason to believe this claim.

Atheism is not a belief system. It's a lack of belief. One could argue that you are an atheist when it comes to other Gods. I just take it one God further.

The topic of this thread is evolution though, so I guess you could PM me if you wanted to discuss the topic of the existence or non existence of God.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Jon.

So you believe that you are aware of what the real evidence is.

So you believe that the Bible is not the inspired revelation of the Christ.

So you believe you have the ability to assess the data (evidence) and draw the
correct conclusion.

So you believe that there exists, a lack of this co called evidence.

Atheism is a pure belief system at it's very core.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Hello Jon.

So you believe that you are aware of what the real evidence is.

So you believe that the Bible is not the inspired revelation of the Christ.

So you believe you have the ability to assess the data (evidence) and draw the
correct conclusion.

So you believe that there exists, a lack of this co called evidence.

Atheism is a pure belief system at it's very core.

You are misrepresenting the definition of atheism.
"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Jon.

Evolution is a belief system, a belief that there exists sufficient evidence, to
construct a naturalistic explanation of life on this planet. This belief system
requires the acceptance of the primary assumptions. If you do not accept the
required assumptions, then you cannot be a card carrying evolutionist.

One of the key assumptions, is that there exists sufficient evidence, within the
fossil record, that supports the theory of evolution.

As far as I am aware, a species can suddenly appear in a strata layer without
there being any prior record, of that species in the strata below.

It is the lack of real evidence in the prior strata, that has always been the
stumbling block for me. I cannot assume the species above, had any prior
existence, before it appeared in the strata layer. I have no basis on which
to assume anything about that species. It the lack of a belief, that undermines
my trust in evolutionary theory.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Evolution is a belief system, a belief that there exists sufficient evidence, to
construct a naturalistic explanation of life on this planet. This belief system
requires the acceptance of the primary assumptions. If you do not accept the
required assumptions, then you cannot be a card carrying evolutionist.

Evolution is not a belief system. I do not believe in evolution, I understand it. Not only is there sufficient evidence but the evidence is overwhelming. There is comparative anatomy, embryology, DNA, a massive fossil record of transitional fossils. It is not based on assumptions, it's based upon evidence, which there is an abundant amount.

As far as I am aware, a species can suddenly appear in a strata layer without
there being any prior record, of that species in the strata below.

It is the lack of real evidence in the prior strata, that has always been the
stumbling block for me. I cannot assume the species above, had any prior
existence, before it appeared in the strata layer. I have no basis on which
to assume anything about that species. It the lack of a belief, that undermines
my trust in evolutionary theory.

I'm not sure you understand how rock layers work and what fossils are found there.
Here is a helpful link for you: http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/news/index.php?id=48

The cool thing about fossil discovery is that evolution can accurately predict what they will find and where they will find it.
For example, paleontologist, Neil Shubin was on the team that discovered Tiktaalik (the transition from fish to amphibian). Him and his team predicted how old the fossil would be, where they would find it and what they would expect to find. They took out a geological map and searched on an island in Canada. After 5 years of study, they found Tiktaalik (You can see the fossil in a Chicago museum). They accurately predicted what they'd find and where they'd find it.

I highly recommend the 3 part documentary "Your Inner Fish". It's done by Neil Shubin. It's a very well done and interesting documentary. It should help clear up any misunderstandings you have about the theory of evolution.

 

[klutedavid]

Evolution is not a belief system. I do not believe in evolution, I understand it. Not only is there sufficient evidence but the evidence is overwhelming. There is comparative anatomy, embryology, DNA, a massive fossil record of transitional fossils. It is not based on assumptions, it's based upon evidence, which there is an abundant amount.



I'm not sure you understand how rock layers work and what fossils are found there.
Here is a helpful link for you: http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/news/index.php?id=48

The cool thing about fossil discovery is that evolution can accurately predict what they will find and where they will find it.
For example, paleontologist, Neil Shubin was on the team that discovered Tiktaalik (the transition from fish to amphibian). Him and his team predicted how old the fossil would be, where they would find it and what they would expect to find. They took out a geological map and searched on an island in Canada. After 5 years of study, they found Tiktaalik (You can see the fossil in a Chicago museum). They accurately predicted what they'd find and where they'd find it.

I highly recommend the 3 part documentary "Your Inner Fish". It's done by Neil Shubin. It's a very well done and interesting documentary. It should help clear up any misunderstandings you have about the theory of evolution.

Hello Jon.

Can a species suddenly appear in the fossil record?

Will check your link tomorrow.

 

[As I was saying]

I was going to post my own response. But, I'll let one of those 13,000 clergy do it instead.

http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Resources/Faces2.htm
The Rev. William R. Clough, Minister Member, Peace River Presbytery
Northport, FL

I first encountered creationism as a sophomore biology major interested in the science-religion dialog. Even with a very basic knowledge of science I could see creationist arguments were either false or misleading and I was intrigued. How could they effectively make it a widespread truism that one of the best confirmed theories in science is "full of holes" or "discredited"? How could such a miniscule slice of Christianity dominate the discussion? Mostly I was bothered because Jesus says that lying is the native language of the devil (John 8:44). Getting well intentioned Christians to believe and defend demonstrably false things is the devil's greatest triumph. Moreover, the vast majority of people outgrow the "warfare model" (Ian Barbour's term) between Christianity and biology and it's time we were clear on that point. We have a responsibility to our communities to challenge atheistic materialism on the one hand and dogmatic rationalization on the other; to support a more honest view of God's world and sophisticated view of human knowledge. ETA: Don't know why the picture came out so big.[/QUOTE]

As I was saying....Haven't found any evidence supporting evolution. The evidence is clear in the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and he created everything after its own kind. To believe in evolution is to call God a liar and the Bible is clear that God is not a man that he can lie. I know you don't understand this fact because satan has blinded your eyes but there is nothing I can do about this whilst you are so cynical.

And for your information, none of these 13,000 died for me and paid the price for my sin so they are irrelevant to my understanding of God and his son Jesus. I happen to know that I am not going to be asked on judgment day "why didn't you believe in evolution when 13,000 clergymen did?"

I have a feeling and forgive me if I am wrong the Presbyterian church in the USA has suddenly discovered that the bible endorses homosexuality and same sex marriage so you will forgive me if I don't get all excited about what he said.​

 

[As I was saying]

I don't know. Maybe because the validity of a message is not determined by who states it? If you're not interested in having a discussion with me, that's fine, but I wish you would have said so earlier.

You atheists don't believe that for one moment as I have noticed that they are very quick to denigrate anyone who says anything they disagree with even though they may be highly qualified in their field of endeavour. That is the trouble when you make up things as you go along you get to have a habit of tripping over your own feet. At the same time if that is what you believe, why do you keep asking who said what or what is a person who said it qualified in? None of that matters if the validity of the message is not determined by who states it.

 

[As I was saying]

No, the theory of gravity explains why gravity operates the way it does. This is highschool level stuff.

And high school level stuff teaches us that gravity is not a theory.

 

[As I was saying]

Funnily enough though, you are the Average Joe when it comes to creationists. You spout a bunch of PRATTs and claim that you have knowledge of subjects of which you are demonstrably ignorant of. We even have a name for this type of behavior, it's so clichéd! Pigeon chess! I don't say any of this to be rude, it's just an observation. You'd have an easier time if you would address the evidence that people present, show your own evidence, answer questions, ask questions, and stop being so nasty.

It is not an observation, it is an opinion that you are forced to make because you cannot box me into a corner and I will not talk about the demonstrable ignorance of atheists when it comes to understanding the truth of scripture, the existence of God and the reality of a relationship with him.

They seem to specialise in making "gotcha" claims from a verse or two and saying "there you are. That is what God is like." Such an action reveals the paucity of your knowledge, showing that you don't know even the most basic of understanding as to how you interpret scripture and despite this you pontificate that you know all about God, you know the one that you do not believe exists and as we do not believe what you believe, then we must be wrong.

For most atheists you try to find the verse/s which support your cynicism and then say "there you are" rather than learning what the scripture teaches and make what you believe conform to the truth. I read the comments of atheists like this every day and it gives me a good laugh as they try to justify their cynical take on things.

 

[As I was saying]

1. Would you like to provide a source for scientific evidence for the existence of God? I'm going to guess you don't provide this link. Science doesn't try to prove God. It doesn't try to disprove God either. Because you can't prove a negative. God is an unfalsifiable claim. This makes the argument for God's existence very weak.

2. There is a teapot too small to be seen by telescopes orbiting around the moon right now. Prove it doesn't exist.

3. What falsification of facts? Provide a source. You either ignore the evidence or don't understand it.
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ I could post thousands of links to the evidence. We'll start with this one.

4. Why wouldn't the definition of theory hold water when it comes to evolution? Evolution makes observations, predictions, tests. It's the most solid theory science has. That's a fact no matter what you believe.

5. Good for you. I don't hold those same beliefs. Our world views are different. There is nothing wrong with that.

1. Do your own homework. I do and do not ask you to provide evidence. Anyway, I was told that atheists know everything so why are you asking me what you already know.

2. Prove that it does.

3. The transitional fossils don't exist so that doesn't say much for your evidence.

4. For the reason I stated.

5. You don't mean that because if you did, you would not spend all your time trying to convince us you are right and we are wrong. You really must stop making things up as you go along.