"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Or other means. But what your saying right now is god could exist and evolution could be correct. Am I right in assuming that?

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that if you believe in a deistic kind of god, then I guess evolution could in fact occur. But even if this is the case, there is still an intelligent mind behind the whole process, which would still make naturalism not true. So even if god did orchestrate the process, that would be a defeater of atheism.

No in the sense that I believe that based on the historicity of Jesus Christ, and if Jesus Christ rose from the dead as I believe, then there is no point in believing that such a perfect being would use a trial and error process to carry out his will.

We've never observed black holes do you think their real?

I would ask what reasons do we have to think that they are real?

No. But you seem incapable of understanding my best. Still beats yours though.

:beach:

All of them are so demonstrably false that it makes you look like a fool defending them. Your "defense" of them has been nothing but bickering and denial of reality. But since you insist.

Refutation over rhetoric.

"Argument from Ignorance" means that you are arguing from a position based in ignorance. You don't understand it therefore its wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Until you can provide an argument that isn't from ignorance it is already refuted. There is no need to even go further.

I am making arguments based on the BEST EXPLANATION. Besides that, the arguments are laid out and they are sound. If the premises are true then the conclusion is true regardless of whether we like the implications or not.

Really? Good now we can throw out countless amounts of biology as the mystery is solved. Foxes are nothing more than orange dogs. All the actual biological differences be damned.

I, unlike you and others, don't need to go beyond necessity. A fox is a kind of dog. No reason for further inquiry.

And this proves what?

I guess it doesn't prove anything more than if I were to point out a german shepard and ask you "what is that", and you say "it looks like a dog to me".

This literally makes no sense.

Oh yeah....saying that we got our eyes, brains, ears, etc from a mindless and blind process makes all the sense in the world.

Its a process that follows rules and probability. I mean by your logic what are the chances of a Sun existing?

Do you realize that the sun is positioned just close enough to keep our planet warm, but far enough not to burn this place up...yet not to far so that we are not freezing our behinds off?

I mean all that hydrogen "randomly" fusing to make helium like that. I mean wtf? And its so random that there is energy released to create light and radiation. Woah man. The chances of all this randomly happening is totally impossible. I mean god is the only possible answer. I mean atoms are "mindless" and how do they "know" to fuse like that?

There is no purpose or agenda to the sun existing, on naturalism. I don't think it is a coincidence that the sun is here, and all of these complex forms of life are dependent upon it staying here. On my view, the sun was "placed" there for obvious reasons by the Creator of the universe and everything within it.

Checkmate atheists.

Bravo, you've just succesfully refuted theism :clap

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You already have more than enough on your plate to learn, so I hesitated a bit before typing this. Anyway, this is yet another fallacy of yours. Suppose the nth event occurs at t = 1 second. The previous one, the (n-1)th, occurs at t = 0.5 second. The previous one, the (n-2)th, occurs at t = 0.25 second. See how that works? An infinite number of events have no problem occurring within a finite amount of time.

If there were an infinite amount of events leading to your birth, how would you ever get to the point of birth?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that if you believe in a deistic kind of god, then I guess evolution could in fact occur. But even if this is the case, there is still an intelligent mind behind the whole process, which would still make naturalism not true. So even if god did orchestrate the process, that would be a defeater of atheism.

No in the sense that I believe that based on the historicity of Jesus Christ, and if Jesus Christ rose from the dead as I believe, then there is no point in believing that such a perfect being would use a trial and error process to carry out his will.



I would ask what reasons do we have to think that they are real?



:beach:



Refutation over rhetoric.



I am making arguments based on the BEST EXPLANATION. Besides that, the arguments are laid out and they are sound. If the premises are true then the conclusion is true regardless of whether we like the implications or not.



I, unlike you and others, don't need to go beyond necessity. A fox is a kind of dog. No reason for further inquiry.



I guess it doesn't prove anything more than if I were to point out a german shepard and ask you "what is that", and you say "it looks like a dog to me".



Oh yeah....saying that we got our eyes, brains, ears, etc from a mindless and blind process makes all the sense in the world.



Do you realize that the sun is positioned just close enough to keep our planet warm, but far enough not to burn this place up...yet not to far so that we are not freezing our behinds off?



There is no purpose or agenda to the sun existing, on naturalism. I don't think it is a coincidence that the sun is here, and all of these complex forms of life are dependent upon it staying here. On my view, the sun was "placed" there for obvious reasons by the Creator of the universe and everything within it.



Bravo, you've just succesfully refuted theism :clap

Other earth like planets with similar positioning have been found last I checked.

So wait you don't believe in evolution because you can't see it?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Other earth like planets with similar positioning have been found last I checked.

And?

So wait you don't believe in evolution because you can't see it?

Science is supposed to be about observation, last I checked. Evolution is presented as a scientific theory, but there is no observation to support it, so therefore, it isn't even science.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that if you believe in a deistic kind of god, then I guess evolution could in fact occur. But even if this is the case, there is still an intelligent mind behind the whole process, which would still make naturalism not true. So even if god did orchestrate the process, that would be a defeater of atheism.

Allow me to question on this tangent: do you think Atheism should be defeated in some sense? How do you explain the existence of Atheists?

Do you believe that perhaps God meant the biological lifeforms to be as they are?

Do you believe that Atheism is in some sense wrong? If so, how come God allowed it to exist in the first place?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

And?



Science is supposed to be about observation, last I checked. Evolution is presented as a scientific theory, but there is no observation to support it, so therefore, it isn't even science.

You know this to be an outright lie, you have been informed that you are wrong on this one at least five times in this thread and yet you still claim it.

Is lying a big part of what your religion is about or is this just something you do on your own?

This is why it's almost impossible to have a discussion with you, you ignore everyone posts completely and keep repeating the same crap over and over and over again and it doesn't matter how many times people correct you or how many links are provided to you, you just don't read it and don't want to accept that you are wrong.

I honestly think that you are an atheist trying to give theists a bad name.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

And?



Science is supposed to be about observation, last I checked. Evolution is presented as a scientific theory, but there is no observation to support it, so therefore, it isn't even science.

No it's not.

Science means knowledge. THat is what science seeks. Observation is only one way to gain knowledge but it certainly isn'ttge only way, at least in the way you're trying to define it. By saying that you don't believe evolution exist is pretty much saying you dont' believe that traits can be inherited.

The irony is that you have never observed God, yet you believe in God.

 

[secret2]

If there were an infinite amount of events leading to your birth, how would you ever get to the point of birth?

Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are welcome.

 

[johnhanks]

I, unlike you and others, don't need to go beyond necessity. A fox is a kind of dog. No reason for further inquiry.

Since we're not going beyond necessity, and given that foxes are chromosomally far more different from dogs than humans are from chimps, your statement above can be confidently extended: A human is a kind of ape. No reason for further inquiry.

The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and other fox-like canids last shared a common ancestor with the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and other wolf-like canids about 12–15 million years ago (Wayne et al. 1997; Wayne and Ostrander 1999; Wayne and Vila 2001). This ancient divergence is mirrored in the extensively rearranged karyotype of the fox (34 metacentric and 0–8 B [micro] chromosomes) compared to the 78 predominantly acrocentric chromosomes of the dog (Breen et al. 1999; Graphodatsky et al. 2001; Yang et al. 1999).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If there were an infinite amount of events leading to your birth, how would you ever get to the point of birth?

He literally just explained that to you.

 

[Ouroboros]

Paradoxes of infinity: Paradoxes of Infinity

There are examples of concepts where the border is infinite and yet the area is finite.

I believe experience is the finite point in time and space where the infinite(s) meet. It's the paradox and conundrum of existence and reality, and a non-temporal God doesn't explain the sudden existence of temporality since God would never be able to get to a point in time of creating time. We can only accept that the infinite finds its finite point in the here and now.

 

[philbo]

You know, we're making this way too easy for Call_of_the_Wild: he's being bombarded by a range of answers, leaving him to repeat the same evasions and non sequiturs, the same misunderstandings and erroneous assertions without ever having to actually think about anything anyone posts.

In his head he's probably congratulating himself about how he's out-debating all these atheists because he has the chance to ignore attempts to drag him back on to thinks he doesn't want to think about.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And?



Science is supposed to be about observation, last I checked. Evolution is presented as a scientific theory, but there is no observation to support it, so therefore, it isn't even science.

Where is evolution not observed? Even ancient farmers who were selectively breeding livestock had a concept for evolution because they saw not what generation-to-generation breeding does, but what the breeding over several generations can do. We see evolution all around us, you are just choosing to not see it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You know, we're making this way too easy for Call_of_the_Wild: he's being bombarded by a range of answers, leaving him to repeat the same evasions and non sequiturs, the same misunderstandings and erroneous assertions without ever having to actually think about anything anyone posts.

:beach:

In his head he's probably congratulating himself about how he's out-debating all these atheists because he has the chance to ignore attempts to drag him back on to thinks he doesn't want to think about.

Engaging with the opposition is my calling.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Paradoxes of infinity: Paradoxes of Infinity

There are examples of concepts where the border is infinite and yet the area is finite.

I will ask you as well, if there were an infinite amount of events leading to your birth, at what point would your birth come to past?

I believe experience is the finite point in time and space where the infinite(s) meet. It's the paradox and conundrum of existence and reality, and a non-temporal God doesn't explain the sudden existence of temporality since God would never be able to get to a point in time of creating time. We can only accept that the infinite finds its finite point in the here and now.

I am not sure how you draw that conclusion. If God is atemporal, then the concept of time is simply not something that exists in reality. There are no moments prior, and no moments after, and there isn't even any moments during, because in order to have a "present" moment you have to have a prior moment.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Allow me to question on this tangent: do you think Atheism should be defeated in some sense? How do you explain the existence of Atheists?

You are asking me my opinion, so I will give you my opinion. My opinion is the reason that atheists exist because people don't like the idea of accountability. People dont like the idea of this "higher" form of accountability. And not only that, but I also think that every single human being that knows that deep down inside, that God exists. Everyone. They have to simply convince THEMSELVES that God doesn't exist, and they think that by doing that they can play it safe by saying "I don't know". The bible says that man is without excuse, and only a fool would say that there is no God.

On judgment day, God will make no distinction between the atheist and the agnostic. Every single person knows that God exists in their hearts, but because they don't want to answer to him, they convince themselves that he doesn't exist in an effor to play it safe. But in the end, God will hold everyone accountable for what they do know, not what they don't know.

Do you believe that perhaps God meant the biological lifeforms to be as they are?

As they are, or as you claim that they are?

Do you believe that Atheism is in some sense wrong?

I believe atheism is a wrong world view.

If so, how come God allowed it to exist in the first place?

The bible says that only a fool would say in his heart that God doesn't exist, so based on that, your assumption that God is "allowing" atheism to exist is clearly a bad one.

 

[LuisDantas]

I will ask you as well, if there were an infinite amount of events leading to your birth, at what point would your birth come to past?

At whichever point one deems significant. It is all in the eye of the beholder and depends on what one understands exactly as being a birth.

I am not sure how you draw that conclusion. If God is atemporal, then the concept of time is simply not something that exists in reality. There are no moments prior, and no moments after, and there isn't even any moments during, because in order to have a "present" moment you have to have a prior moment.

There are those who believe that God exists "outside time". As valid a view as any, I suppose.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You know this to be an outright lie, you have been informed that you are wrong on this one at least five times in this thread and yet you still claim it.

I said what I want is OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF MACROEVOLUTION. Unless you can provide me with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF MACROEVOLUTION, you are the one that is lying. All you and others have done is tell me what you "think" has occurred. You are basically telling me what the theory is, when I am asking for observational evidence of it.

I've said that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Any disagreements on this? No. I've said that dogs have never been observed to produce non-dogs, and all animals have only been observed to produce is what they are, and not what they are not. Any disagreements here? No.

So therefore, since this is all we've ever seen, then there is no reason for ME to go beyond what humans have always observed since the history of mankind. Notice I said there is no reason for "me". If YOU choose to believe that millions of years ago, these transformations were taking place, fine. Believe whatever you want. But to call it science is disingenuous, and if you disagree with that, then I guess we will just have to disagree.

Is lying a big part of what your religion is about or is this just something you do on your own?

Evolution throughout its history has been full of hoaxes and down right deception, yet you are asking me is lying apart of my religion. Is it apart of yours?

This is why it's almost impossible to have a discussion with you, you ignore everyone posts completely and keep repeating the same crap over and over and over again and it doesn't matter how many times people correct you or how many links are provided to you, you just don't read it and don't want to accept that you are wrong.

Ignore posts? That is bogus. How am I ignoring posts when I quote from people DIRECTLY and respond to their posts DIRECTLY?

I honestly think that you are an atheist trying to give theists a bad name.

Trust me, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

At whichever point one deems significant. It is all in the eye of the beholder and depends on what one understands exactly as being a birth.

Cmon now Luis that is a cop out. But you know what, it doesn't matter. Pick any given point, and the same thing will apply. If a house has an infinite amount of steps to undergo before it will be completed, will it ever be completed? Yes or no?

There are those who believe that God exists "outside time". As valid a view as any, I suppose.

Well, not outside of time after time began to exist, but outside of time in the sense that before creation, God existed, and time didn't. Time was a creation of God, which makes perfect sense considering the problems with infinity.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are asking me my opinion, so I will give you my opinion. My opinion is the reason that atheists exist because people don't like the idea of accountability. People dont like the idea of this "higher" form of accountability. And not only that, but I also think that every single human being that knows that deep down inside, that God exists. Everyone.

Rest assured, on this last particular point you are quite simply mistaken. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

They have to simply convince THEMSELVES that God doesn't exist, and they think that by doing that they can play it safe by saying "I don't know". The bible says that man is without excuse, and only a fool would say that there is no God.

The Bible says a lot of things. It is up to every individual person to decide which parts to lend importance, if any, and to which extent.

One of the consequences is that anyone is entitled to not consider it as a reference.

On judgment day, God will make no distinction between the atheist and the agnostic.

Of couse. Why should he even care whether people believe in him or not in the first place?

Every single person knows that God exists in their hearts, but because they don't want to answer to him, they convince themselves that he doesn't exist in an effor to play it safe. But in the end, God will hold everyone accountable for what they do know, not what they don't know.

If you say so. Truth is, I don't see why that would be important. At least, not more important than actual good will and other moral virtues and corresponding failures.

As they are, or as you claim that they are?

As they are. I am no biologist, nor a Creationist.

I believe atheism is a wrong world view.

As in simply innacurate, or is there any deeper consequence? You seem to imply above that it may be dangerous for us when God passes judgement.

I don't see how that could even happen; a God that cares about whether I believe in him is a false God by definition, after all.

The bible says that only a fool would say in his heart that God doesn't exist, so based on that, your assumption that God is "allowing" atheism to exist is clearly a bad one.

Or your reading of the Bible is wrong at some level. I know which one I find more sensible.