Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[NYcarbineer]

no by my standard, a person who claims that an act is irrational and then does it, is irrational......


of course they don't have to.....they choose to.....and once they choose to they are atheists instead of agnostics.....


do you claim to have proof that unicorns do not exist?.......that would make you irrational.....

Atheism is not a belief system. As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I've never a human fly like a bird - unassisted - just by flapping his arms. If I conclude from that that humans cannot fly like birds, that their arms are not capable of functioning like bird's wings,

I don't think you can call me irrational.

However, if you tell me that humans can fly like birds, but that we just haven't figured out what the trick to it is, or somesuch,

are you thinking rationally? Which of us with our respective conclusions is more rational?

Do you consider the conclusion there is a god and the conclusion there is not a god to be equally rational?

No. The weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion based on the principles of rationality that God exists.

But no one is under the obligation to be purely rational.

 

[NYcarbineer]

not at all.....you see, I assumed you were rational and were thinking about things that naturally occur.....there are things that do not naturally occur and can be proven not to occur......you have now added another dimension......can something be caused supernaturally that cannot naturally occur......the answer is yes.....however, my argument is still perfectly accurate and you have gained nothing.....thus we see that God has not intervened and made your argument lucid.....

All I did was introduce the idea of anything is possible, and you claimed that was wrong.

it IS wrong....everything is not possible, everything is not impossible.....that proves nothing with respect to the existence of a deity.....

So a unicorn is neither possible nor impossible?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Given that there is no evidence OF God's existence, why would they have to? None of the claims of God's existence are evidentiary in nature.

And btw you dodged the point.

they would have to because they claim it is irrational to believe something which cannot be proven.....


as to your "point" it is diversionary and I didn't dodge it, I ignored it.....the standard set by a court of law for criminal proceedings has nothing to do with the standards atheists set for convincing them that something is to be believed.....

Who is more dogmatic, a devout Christian or an atheist?

how would you propose to measure the difference?......

 

[Gadawg73]

That principle would render our system of justice irrational, since the standard for proof of guilt is only beyond reasonable doubt,

not beyond all possible doubt.

Is our justice irrational? Is it justice to put a man's fate in the hands of the outcome of an irrational system?

do you believe atheists can prove God does not exist to even the standard of a preponderance of the evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.....

I know to an absolute certainty that Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist. Because to do that, they would have to prove everything that does exist in the universe and from that demonstrate that the evidence shows nothing in terms of God's existence.

So, the fact that we, as a species, know only an insignificant percentage of what does exist in the universe... we have no means to even know what questions one might ask, to even begin to learn what we'd need to know before we could begin to understand the ideas that might lead us to know what we'd need to know to even think about what God might be, pretty well precludes any potential legitimacy for the Anti-theist premise.

It' foolishness on a grand scale.

And I know to an absolute certainty that I or no one can prove that God does exist.
Because that is a belief.
Atheists do not believe in God and religious people do believe in God.
That is the difference between beliefs and science.

 

[PostmodernProph]

All I did was introduce the idea of anything is possible, and you claimed that was wrong.

it IS wrong....everything is not possible, everything is not impossible.....that proves nothing with respect to the existence of a deity.....

So a unicorn is neither possible nor impossible?

????.....does "everything" mean unicorn in your dictionary?.....you are the one claiming anything is possible.....I disagree with you....I do not believe in unicorns.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

no....I didn't set the standard for atheists.....they did.....they say that believing something which cannot be proven is irrational.....

..

Not all atheists hold exactly the same opinions for starters. Atheists can be atheists while still possessing a degree of agnosticism,

as can theists. You can believe in God while not being absolutely certain that he exists.

But as to believing in something as a fact without proof is irrational. That's inherent in the definition of rationality.

You, however, are clinging to the insistence that only non-believers can be irrational.

 

[Old Rocks]

Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.

Unfortunately, it's a theory - not a fact - It's the Theory of Evolution - untill someonme invents a Time Machine it will remain a theory. It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it .

One primary hole being the absense of intermediate species or transitional fossils with the geological evidence.

Transitional fossils are the remains of those creatures which should be found ‘in-between’ one kind of creature and another kind. For example, evolutionists have long sought the ‘missing link’ between ape and human—some sort of half human/half ape intermediate form. None has ever been found, though many candidates have come and gone. Amplified, no doubt, by the lure of prestige, fame and fortune, the desire to discover such a fossil has led some even to fabricate evidence, such as with the famous Piltdown Man hoax. In that case, though the perpetrator has never been definitively identified, a human skull was ‘planted’ with an ape’s jaw which was crudely ‘doctored’. The result fooled the world for decades into thinking this was proof of human evolution.

And your comment re:Gravity - uh sorry to burst your bubble - but Gravity is a fact , and uh yes but I'm sorry they do understand how it works......You must be a Liberal - Right ?

For evolution we have DNA, and genetics. We actually engineer with genetics. Gravity?? We do not know how it works. We have equations that tell us what the effects are, but no solid explanation as to how it works. We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.

Yes, for some reason for the last 20 years, it has been liberals that work at understanding science while 'Conservatives' work at denying science, and willfully maintaining their ignorance as a badge of honor.

 

[PostmodernProph]

[

no....I didn't set the standard for atheists.....they did.....they say that believing something which cannot be proven is irrational.....

..

Not all atheists hold exactly the same opinions for starters.

true they may all have different favorite foods, but everyone of them says there is no god.....that's what makes them atheists.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.

Unfortunately, it's a theory - not a fact - It's the Theory of Evolution - untill someonme invents a Time Machine it will remain a theory. It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it .

One primary hole being the absense of intermediate species or transitional fossils with the geological evidence.

Transitional fossils are the remains of those creatures which should be found ‘in-between’ one kind of creature and another kind. For example, evolutionists have long sought the ‘missing link’ between ape and human—some sort of half human/half ape intermediate form. None has ever been found, though many candidates have come and gone. Amplified, no doubt, by the lure of prestige, fame and fortune, the desire to discover such a fossil has led some even to fabricate evidence, such as with the famous Piltdown Man hoax. In that case, though the perpetrator has never been definitively identified, a human skull was ‘planted’ with an ape’s jaw which was crudely ‘doctored’. The result fooled the world for decades into thinking this was proof of human evolution.

And your comment re:Gravity - uh sorry to burst your bubble - but Gravity is a fact , and uh yes but I'm sorry they do understand how it works......You must be a Liberal - Right ?

For evolution we have DNA, and genetics. We actually engineer with genetics. Gravity?? We do not know how it works. We have equations that tell us what the effects are, but no solid explanation as to how it works. We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.

Yes, for some reason for the last 20 years, it has been liberals that work at understanding science while 'Conservatives' work at denying science, and willfully maintaining their ignorance as a badge of honor.

odd.....I'm both a conservative and a Christian and I believe in both DNA and gravity....did I miss something?.......

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is not a belief system. As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I've never a human fly like a bird - unassisted - just by flapping his arms. If I conclude from that that humans cannot fly like birds, that their arms are not capable of functioning like bird's wings,

I don't think you can call me irrational.

However, if you tell me that humans can fly like birds, but that we just haven't figured out what the trick to it is, or somesuch,

are you thinking rationally? Which of us with our respective conclusions is more rational?

Do you consider the conclusion there is a god and the conclusion there is not a god to be equally rational?

No. The weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion based on the principles of rationality that God exists.

But no one is under the obligation to be purely rational.

You have stated Atheism is not a belief system, but stating it does not make it so. If it is based upon belief, then it is a belief system.

So, what evidence - other than belief - can you present that the conclusion that God exists is less rational than the conclusion that God does not exist?

 

[PratchettFan]

Given that there is no evidence OF God's existence, why would they have to? None of the claims of God's existence are evidentiary in nature.

And btw you dodged the point.

they would have to because they claim it is irrational to believe something which cannot be proven.....


as to your "point" it is diversionary and I didn't dodge it, I ignored it.....the standard set by a court of law for criminal proceedings has nothing to do with the standards atheists set for convincing them that something is to be believed.....

Who is more dogmatic, a devout Christian or an atheist?

That would depend upon the person.

 

[Gadawg73]

no by my standard, a person who claims that an act is irrational and then does it, is irrational......


of course they don't have to.....they choose to.....and once they choose to they are atheists instead of agnostics.....


do you claim to have proof that unicorns do not exist?.......that would make you irrational.....

Atheism is not a belief system. As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I've never a human fly like a bird - unassisted - just by flapping his arms. If I conclude from that that humans cannot fly like birds, that their arms are not capable of functioning like bird's wings,

I don't think you can call me irrational.

However, if you tell me that humans can fly like birds, but that we just haven't figured out what the trick to it is, or somesuch,

are you thinking rationally? Which of us with our respective conclusions is more rational?

Do you consider the conclusion there is a god and the conclusion there is not a god to be equally rational?

Exactly as both are beliefs only.

 

[DGS49]

Religion is basically how Man explains the unexplainable. Why do good people die young? Why do natural disasters occur? What controls the weather?

What is often forgotten is that Darwin's hypothesis about the origins of species was universally rejected at first, BECAUSE ALL OBSERVATION POINTS TO AN OMNIPOTENT CREATOR! Think about it. There is simply no way that all plant and animal life can have reached its present state - ideally adapted to its enviroment in an infinite number of ways - unless it was all planned by an infinitely intelligent being or force.

But "god' is not a scientific/natural explanation, and Science demands an explanation that does not rely on supernatural phenomena.

So if you increase the timeline essentially to "infinity," then I suppose it's possible that the great variety of life on earth can be explained by gradual adaptation through the process of natural selection. The "Theory of Evolution" is the explanation of how species originated, based on all observable evidence (recognizing that human history does not record a single example - other than perhaps in bacteria - when one species has evolved into another species). ANY TRUE SCIENTIST WILL LOOK CRITICALLY AT EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING, TO SEE IF THE THEORY NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED OR ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF SOME OTHER THEORY.

The difference between Science and Religion is basically this: When Religion encounters evidence that contradicts the Faith ("heresy"), it reacts by attacking the publisher of that evidence, attacking the evidence, ignoring the evidence, or (usually) trying to reconcile the evidence with the Faith. Thus, rational Bible-believers long ago conceded that much of the Bible is "allegorical" and not to be understood as historical, scientifically accurate information.

On the other hand, when Science encounters evidence that contradicts the currently prevailing hypothesis, it first seeks to reproduce the evidence, to make sure that it is scientifically repeatable and sound. Then it re-examines the hypothesis to see if it still works. For example, "atomic theory" went through several different models before arriving at the current understanding.

The best summary that I have read of the contra-indications to Evolution are in an Ann Coulter book, tho I can't recall which one it was. She devotes an entire chapter an dit is well-researched and footnoted.

Politically and psychologically, the biggest problem with "Evolution" now is that its most vociferous proponents are Liberal-atheists - definitely not scientific types, who truly only know enough about Evolution to realize that it does not need "god" to work. Thus, for those people, Evolution has become a substitute religion, and when anything is said or produced that contradicts their tenuous understanding of Evolution, the react in the way described above for religious heretics. Because they don't have the scientific bona fides to rebut evidence scientifically.

For them, Evolution is a religion and not a scientific theory.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is not a belief system. As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I've never a human fly like a bird - unassisted - just by flapping his arms. If I conclude from that that humans cannot fly like birds, that their arms are not capable of functioning like bird's wings,

I don't think you can call me irrational.

However, if you tell me that humans can fly like birds, but that we just haven't figured out what the trick to it is, or somesuch,

are you thinking rationally? Which of us with our respective conclusions is more rational?

Do you consider the conclusion there is a god and the conclusion there is not a god to be equally rational?

Exactly as both are beliefs only.

Ok. I agree with you. But you also said this:

"And I know to an absolute certainty that I or no one can prove that God does exist.
Because that is a belief.
Atheists do not believe in God and religious people do believe in God.
That is the difference between beliefs and science. "

NYCarbineer has said that the "not God" position is the more rational, which you agree is a belief. Does that mean NYCarbineer is not an Atheist?

 

[GreenBean]

Evolution is a scientifically established fact. No scientist is questioning that it is real. The various arguments are not about if it is happening but how it is happening. You may as well deny the existence of gravity because no one can say for sure how it works.

Unfortunately, it's a theory - not a fact - It's the Theory of Evolution - untill someonme invents a Time Machine it will remain a theory. It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it .

One primary hole being the absense of intermediate species or transitional fossils with the geological evidence.

Transitional fossils are the remains of those creatures which should be found ‘in-between’ one kind of creature and another kind. For example, evolutionists have long sought the ‘missing link’ between ape and human—some sort of half human/half ape intermediate form. None has ever been found, though many candidates have come and gone. Amplified, no doubt, by the lure of prestige, fame and fortune, the desire to discover such a fossil has led some even to fabricate evidence, such as with the famous Piltdown Man hoax. In that case, though the perpetrator has never been definitively identified, a human skull was ‘planted’ with an ape’s jaw which was crudely ‘doctored’. The result fooled the world for decades into thinking this was proof of human evolution.

And your comment re:Gravity - uh sorry to burst your bubble - but Gravity is a fact , and uh yes but I'm sorry they do understand how it works......You must be a Liberal - Right ?

For evolution we have DNA, and genetics. We actually engineer with genetics. Gravity?? We do not know how it works. We have equations that tell us what the effects are, but no solid explanation as to how it works. We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.

Yes, for some reason for the last 20 years, it has been liberals that work at understanding science while 'Conservatives' work at denying science, and willfully maintaining their ignorance as a badge of honor.

eloquently clutching at straws

For evolution we have DNA, and genetics. We actually engineer with genetics.

Such as GMOs - Genetically Modified Organisms -

for some reason for the last 20 years, it has been liberals that work at understanding science

Such as the Liberal Tofu eating Tree Huggers who campaign vigorously against GMOs and other Scientific achievements , or perhaps the Liberal asshats who have destroyed the Space Program - because "We have more pressing problems here on Earth" such as replacing the American Worker with cheaper South American illegal Immigrants.

If its the Climate Change Deniers of which you refer to - Climate Change is an unproven theory - there is as much proof against it as there is for it . Personally - I don't have an opinion on it - because as stated - there is as much proof against it as there is for it

We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.

So we don't engineer around gravity ? WOW - I guess someone should tell all those planes , helicopters and other aerodynamic machines up in the sky right now - that they should get their heads out of the clouds and come back down to Earth.- Right ?

 

[alang1216]

The best summary that I have read of the contra-indications to Evolution are in an Ann Coulter book, tho I can't recall which one it was. She devotes an entire chapter an dit is well-researched and footnoted.

Politically and psychologically, the biggest problem with "Evolution" now is that its most vociferous proponents are Liberal-atheists - definitely not scientific types, who truly only know enough about Evolution to realize that it does not need "god" to work. Thus, for those people, Evolution has become a substitute religion, and when anything is said or produced that contradicts their tenuous understanding of Evolution, the react in the way described above for religious heretics. Because they don't have the scientific bona fides to rebut evidence scientifically.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of citing Ann Coulter and then condeming evolutionists as lacking the scientific bona fides to rebut evidence scientifically.

You are accusing your opponents of exactly what you are doing.

 

[alang1216]

We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.

So we don't engineer around gravity ? WOW - I guess someone should tell all those planes , helicopters and other aerodynamic machines up in the sky right now - that they should get their heads out of the clouds and come back down to Earth.- Right ?

Newton and then Einstein developed formulas that approximate the effects of gravity but neither proposed a theory of how gravity worked. Newton's worked in the everyday world we operate in and Einstein refined it for objects traveling very fast. The one thing we know is that both are incomplete and they break down at quantum scales. The Standard Model of physics postulates a "graviton" particle but none have yet to be found.

 

[BillyP]

Do you consider the conclusion there is a god and the conclusion there is not a god to be equally rational?

Exactly as both are beliefs only.

Ok. I agree with you. But you also said this:

"And I know to an absolute certainty that I or no one can prove that God does exist.
Because that is a belief.
Atheists do not believe in God and religious people do believe in God.
That is the difference between beliefs and science. "

NYCarbineer has said that the "not God" position is the more rational, which you agree is a belief. Does that mean NYCarbineer is not an Atheist?

The only rational position to hold is to be agnostic, as no proof exists for god being real, and no proof exists for god not being possible.

 

[GreenBean]

We do not engineer gravity. No anti-gravity machine, nor any idea of how such would work.

So we don't engineer around gravity ? WOW - I guess someone should tell all those planes , helicopters and other aerodynamic machines up in the sky right now - that they should get their heads out of the clouds and come back down to Earth.- Right ?

Newton and then Einstein developed formulas that approximate the effects of gravity but neither proposed a theory of how gravity worked. Newton's worked in the everyday world we operate in and Einstein refined it for objects traveling very fast. The one thing we know is that both are incomplete and they break down at quantum scales. The Standard Model of physics postulates a "graviton" particle but none have yet to be found.

Nor do we understand in it's entirety - Genetics - we don't know why or how every enzyme acts and interacts to produce the results it does. We have a basic idea and from there we are able to produce , Genetically Modified Organisms.

Gravity in the same essence - is not 100% understood - but we are able to manipulate it ,and yes we do know basically , how it works - or at least about 90% and are able to engineer around it . So although it is true that there is no known anti-gravity machine - there is also no known machine that can create a complex organism. Based on our knowledge we engineer around the obstacles.

So getting back on track to the original post from several weeks ago that someone saw fit to ressurrect

And your comment re:Gravity - uh sorry to burst your bubble - but Gravity is a fact , and uh yes but I'm sorry they do understand how it works......You must be a Liberal - Right ?

Stands - But I do thank your well informed opinion - are you trying to verbally engineer around the obstacles that stand in the way of your opinions ? - I know how you guys just hate when facts get in the way of your opinions.

 

[PratchettFan]

Exactly as both are beliefs only.

Ok. I agree with you. But you also said this:

"And I know to an absolute certainty that I or no one can prove that God does exist.
Because that is a belief.
Atheists do not believe in God and religious people do believe in God.
That is the difference between beliefs and science. "

NYCarbineer has said that the "not God" position is the more rational, which you agree is a belief. Does that mean NYCarbineer is not an Atheist?

The only rational position to hold is to be agnostic, as no proof exists for god being real, and no proof exists for god not being possible.

Agnosticism simply accepts that we don't know, it does not preclude belief one way or the other. But I do concur the only truly rational position is neutrality.

However, I would offer that this is an unattainable ideal. It sounds good, but fails to take into account that we are talking about people. I seriously doubt it is possible to not hold beliefs on one side of the issue or the other. In every case where I have met someone who claimed to hold no such beliefs it took only a few minutes to determine they were brimming over with beliefs.

To claim that Atheism is not religious by nature is absurd. It is entirely religious. It makes absolutely no sense outside of a religious context. It is a pure belief system. The problem modern Atheists are having is they are trapped in their own dogma. They can't simply say they believe there is no God (a perfectly acceptable conclusion) because it has been written that they have no such beliefs. So they ignore the obvious in favor of the dogma. Rather than presenting objective evidence (of which they have none) we hear the same tired clichés and unsupported claims of intellectual superiority.

We all believe what we believe. I'm not sure we actually have power over that to any significant extent. The trick is to understand when we are engaged in belief and differentiate between it and knowledge. Atheists have no more capacity to do that than Theists. They are no more rational than Theists. They are no less inclined to proselytizing than Theists.