Atheists watch Ray Comfort's "Evolution vs God"

[leibowde84]

True, nobody can quite agree on specifics, mechanism, reasons for gaps etc etc,

the only agreement across 'evolution as taught' is that its all down to chance, as opposed to design, that's a pretty fundamental difference

So it all boils down to belief in the necessity of God?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So it all boils down to belief in the necessity of God?

well, the necessity of predetermined design, plans, blueprints to work from, to account for life as we know it- as opposed to simply random improvements. I would attribute the blueprints to God, though you wouldn't necessarily have to...

just as with classical physics, the concept of underlying design, plans, blueprints predetermining exactly how creation would unfold- was attributed to God by BOTH sides, and hence rejected by many because of it. Until they were discovered, and the formerly blatant implication vanished

Similarly now with life, evolutionists agree with everyone else now, that such designs would imply God, but if/when they are discovered, I have no doubt that this inference will likewise mysteriously vanish- and the designs will likewise be attributed to mere fluke themselves. The old atheism of the gaps!

 

[dust1n]

*At least 3.

I said as far as I was aware.

 

[leibowde84]

well, the necessity of predetermined design, plans, blueprints to work from, to account for life as we know it- as opposed to simply random improvements.

So, what empirical evidence do you have to support this hypothesis? I've only heard you find faults with other theories, but what verifiable evidence do you have for your alternative theory that there was a "designer"?

 

[McBell]

So, what empirical evidence do you have to support this hypothesis? I've only heard you find faults with other theories, but what verifiable evidence do you have for your alternative theory that there was a "designer"?

I sincerely hope you are not holding your breath....

 

[dust1n]

True, nobody can quite agree on specifics, mechanism, reasons for gaps etc etc,

the only agreement across 'evolution as taught' is that its all down to chance, as opposed to design, that's a pretty fundamental difference

Not really. I've been arguing with Christian ID-proponents, and "non-denominational" ID-proponents, and the link. There appears to be no actually agreement about any specific, mechanism, reason for a gap... etc.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, some books agree with you. and the Vatican, apparently.

I'm still worshipping the emporer, don't need a quasi middleman ''priest'', I can talk directly to the ''deity'' aspect of my other deity .

Er, I don't need a priest to talk to God. The priests are the ones with the authority to confer the Sacraments.

 

[Desert Snake]

Er, I don't need a priest to talk to God. The priests are the ones with the authority to confer the Sacraments.

I'm not sure what you mean, though, considering confession, and then if the sacraments are necessary, it's a de facto thing, right?

 

[leibowde84]

Er, I don't need a priest to talk to God. The priests are the ones with the authority to confer the Sacraments.

Well, some books agree with you. and the Vatican, apparently.

I'm still worshipping the emporer, don't need a quasi middleman ''priest'', I can talk directly to the ''deity'' aspect of my other deity .

Doesn't everyone have the authority to "talk to God"?

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not sure what you mean, though, considering confession, and then if the sacraments are necessary, it's a de facto thing, right?

Why can't we all just confess directly to God? Where is the reasoning behind that? I mean, it's counter-intuitive.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Doesn't everyone have the authority to "talk to God"?

Of course. We're encouraged to.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course. We're encouraged to.

Phew ... I thought I might have been talking to myself this whole time.

 

[Desert Snake]

Doesn't everyone have the authority to "talk to God"?

Depends on what context you mean. For example, rites or such that are considered ''necessary'' by some, no, they are basically saying that not everyone could talk to deity in that sense. Because think about it, if it is exclusive to a group, then where is the ''individual'' relationship to deity there? In the most important aspects of a faith? So, it isn't a simple question as such; some churches, pretty much don't have any rules, those would be along the lines of what you are actually insinuating, imo. If you really think I meant just ''talk to deity'', then sure anyone could, of course.

Why can't we all just confess directly to God? Where is the reasoning behind that? I mean, it's counter-intuitive.

Ah, but is that doctrine of how many churches?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't know that Ray Comfort dood is still a thing. After watching that painful banana thing, I wish we'd just ignore him until he goes away. Kinda like how we should just ignore Ken Ham and let him blow steam into a dwindling receptive audience until there is no more steam, rather than giving him some fuel to extend the life span of his dying ways.

 

[leibowde84]

Ah, but is that doctrine of how many churches?

How is that relevant? Lots of bad things have been done by the church, and lots of good things have been done by the church. Lots of good things have been done by atheists. Lots of bad things have been done by atheists. Lots of good things have been done by muslims. Lots of bad things have been done by muslims.

Long story short, whether or not a belief is "doctrine of any church", we all should use our own intellect to read between the lines and believe what we see as coming from God, rather than coming from imperfect ancient men. I take a lot of pride in the amount I have looked into the historicity of the Bible, Jesus, and the church. And I refuse to believe blindly, looking at everything with an open mind.

The only thing we know is that nobody known nothing.

 

[leibowde84]

I didn't know that Ray Comfort dood is still a thing. After watching that painful banana thing, I wish we'd just ignore him until he goes away. Kinda like how we should just ignore Ken Ham and let him blow steam into a dwindling receptive audience until there is no more steam, rather than giving him some fuel to extend the life span of his dying ways.

Ken Ham is a cute old Australian ... who has been completely brainwashed by redneckery. It's sad really. I mean, people riding dinosaurs. 6000 years. No supporting evidence, but, instead, mere gaps in evolution pointed out. Get real.

Argue from ignorance (god of the gaps) much?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, what empirical evidence do you have to support this hypothesis? I've only heard you find faults with other theories, but what verifiable evidence do you have for your alternative theory that there was a "designer"?

Any theory of how life got here is circumstantial. We can not repeat, observe, measure and verify a single cell morphing into a man, or verify that each significant improvement was an accident.

Similarly with classical physics, we could not move beyond it until we acknowledged it's fallibility, that it's problems were fundamental, not just anomalous gaps to be excused- because the overall theory was so attractive, and the alternative so academically unfashionable


But evidence again partly comes down to probability, we don't need direct evidence of cheating to deduce that the 10 royal flushes were probably rigged.

 

[viole]

The only thing we know is that nobody known nothing.

Which is logically equivalent to everybody knows something

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Which is logically equivalent to everybody knows something

Ciao

- viole

* only thing we can know for sure.

 

[gnostic]

I take your point, obviously Darwin was not the be all and end all of the ToE

FINALLY, you are learning. About bloody time.

Darwin is just a pioneer in the field of biology with regarding to evolution. But we don't live today in the 19th century. Biologists and biology have gone further with evolution, and found there are other possibilities for evolution to occur among animals or plant life, other than Darwin's Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is just one biological mechanism for change (evolution). There are others - four of them.

1. Mutation
2. Gene Flow
3. Genetic Drift
4. Genetic Hitchhiking

That doesn't mean that Natural Selection (NS) has become obsolete. Far from it.

Natural Selection is still relevant theory to evolution, today, because of new scientific discoveries, have increased our knowledge about Natural Selection, so NS has progressed further, with the other mechanism, like Mutation, for instance, and with further knowledge and methodology that help understand more about NS, like DNA and RNA. (Meaning mutation complement Natural Selection, as well as to other evolutionary mechanisms.)

NS related to natural forces from the environments that affect genes. Forces, like the climates, terrains, the availability (or scarcity) of food or other resources. Each generation of life, must learn to adapt to changing environment, and one of the means of adapting is at genetic level.

The potential problems he cites in Origin- were only hypothetical in his day, but through science came to be realized. The fossil record DID reveal large gaps and sudden jumps, as opposed to a smooth continuous process. The mechanics (DNA) that drives the process are NOT accounted for by the process itself. Darwin's arguments against evolution, not mine.

Arggghhhh!!! For every tiny step forwards you make, you take a couple of steps backward.

First off, Darwin doesn't know everything to there is to know about biology, or even about his Natural Selection.

Second, Darwin certainly didn't know anything about DNA, because he wasn't aware of this nucleic acid. So of course, there is going to be gaps between what he do know and what he don't know.

If you want to really understand about Natural Selection, then read some biology textbooks, and not Darwin's Origin. What Darwin knew is basic, when comparing what we do know now about evolution.

Stop getting fixated with the Origin, and what Darwin is missing. Science progresses forward.

You getting fixated by what Darwin's know or say, but ignoring all future development of this theory in the 21st century, would be something like me, using the 19th century electrical telegram as a mean of communication, and ignoring all other telecommunication since then, like telephones and we no longer need wires for telecommunication, like CB radio, satellite phones, and of course the mobile phones.

And lastly, you wrote:

The potential problems he cites in Origin- were only hypothetical in his day, but through science came to be realized.

That's not true.

He travelled the world on the HHMS Beagle during much of the 1830s, before returning to England. All that he had written (and later published in 1859) were based on his observation of animal and plant life. His conclusions are based on evidences that he have managed to record in his travel journals, and meticulously drawing what he had observed.

Recording evidences, and directly observing what he see, make his theory on Natural Selection (in his On Origin of Species, as well as his other works) make it not merely a hypothesis, but valid experimental theory. Other biologists, including botanists can go to the places, further demonstrate that is more than hypothesis.

In science, if there are evidences available, and other scientists can verify with more evidences, then it no longer remain hypothesis.