Simple question for evolutionists

reply to post by PrinceDreamer

And what does your contempt of other peoples views portray if it is not arrogance? While I understand your view points very well and on the whole agree with them, there is no reason to be condescending towards others. Belief is personal to the individual and whilst I disagree with many other peoples viewpoints it doesn't actually make me right, or in fact you right.

I wish Madness would get this, sadly it looks like he is incapable of understanding this even when people that agree with him tell him "hey don't come across as so arrogant and condescending it's not helping our cause".

Later Madness stills says to you

Now, I'm not belittling anyone...you're just demonstrating your ignorance. I'm calling you out on it.

He attacks his own allies because they don't agree 100% with his personal theories, it the epitome of total arrogance.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33



Thank you Blue_Jay33, at least you saw the points I was trying to make initially, I did even state somewhere in one of my posts the I actually believe in evolution and don't follow the bible, sadly that was overlooked as well...

It would seem to me that some people follow topics just to be argumentative, to be bombastic rather than involve themselves in discussion which is the whole purpose of a forum in the first place.

I was going to make a whole list of points, but your post did it far more succinctly than I could

Thank you

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


...and you just didn't bother to address my points, lovely. The point I was trying to make to you was that you were being ignorant and so are other people. I don't 'happen' to accept evolution or any other scientific principle, it's there, it's supported by evidence.

And then you just attacked the very idea of the scientific method by calling me a parrot. You were being ignorant, I pointed out how you were being ignorant, and you just bothered to ignore me and claim you were making some sort of point of value when you clearly were making a point which lacked any substance.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Apparently carrying on personal vendettas is okay on ATS, good to know.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Apparently carrying on personal vendettas is okay on ATS, good to know.

Not a vendetta, just advocating a civil discussion devoid of arrogance, and I will call you out on that, obviously you don't like that.

the primordial egg had to come from itself. While this is hard to imagine it makes more sense then a physical object coming from nothing. The primordial egg could be immaterial, like an essence or fundamental law of nature, which somehow originates the matter we experience in the physical world. Or, the matter could just be psychic, which would still require an eternal self-arising essence but also a consciousness containing all the lower consciousness beings.

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
You say there is no proof of creationism but I say there is, you, me and every living thing on this planet is proof of creationism, I was created by the union of my mother and father, I was created and all living things were created by variations of this manner, the real question is how was the very first life form created, note how I said created because it had to be, weather it was chemicals reacting with amino acids to "create" the first living organism, or the hand of god, who of us can say with certainty? No one, we can only surmise or theorise but none of us has actual "PROOF"

I was going to just quote the first sentence of this paragraph but soon discovered that meant quoting almost the entire thing anyway.

Proof is a rare commodity in science, it is only generally found in mathematics and some forms of computer science. The vast majority of science is evidence based, we believe things because there is overwhelming evidence to support that position and no evidence that contradicts it. So instead of talking about proof when debating evolution versus creationism we should be talking about evidence.

So do you have much evidence to support the position that the world was created by an intelligent entity?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by PrinceDreamer

 

...and you just didn't bother to address my points, lovely. The point I was trying to make to you was that you were being ignorant and so are other people. I don't 'happen' to accept evolution or any other scientific principle, it's there, it's supported by evidence.

And then you just attacked the very idea of the scientific method by calling me a parrot. You were being ignorant, I pointed out how you were being ignorant, and you just bothered to ignore me and claim you were making some sort of point of value when you clearly were making a point which lacked any substance.

In what way am I being ignorant? By accepting that others may have beliefs different to mine? You claim others are ignorant, I asked you for proof on how life was created, how the universe was created, and you gave a honest reply, YOU DON'T KNOW, and yet you call people who do believe in creationism ignorant because of their faith, yet all you have is faith in the scientists who have come up with a THEORY.

I am not saying this theory is wrong, or in fact that you are wrong, just that you have belief in something that is not proven, and to me that is no different than someone having belief in religion, they believe in their religion because it makes sense to them, you believe in science because it makes sense to you. You make claims you cannot substantiate, look at your signature with links to posts saying "Creationism: PROVE IT! " (Isn't a religion a belief, if they could prove it, it would be science) "The Ignorance of Creationists" A presumptive and antagonistic forum post heading if I ever saw one.

Until you can categorically prove there is no god you cannot call someone ignorant for believing in one, that is arrogance, which is what I have been trying to point out to you. Science does not have all the answers, not yet at least. When I look at the bible it makes no logical sense to me at all, and I can rip holes in it, but I can also point to flaws in science too, it does not mean all of science is wrong, I wouldn't for example throw out the laws of physics just because a bumble bee can fly.

To sum up, just because someone has different beliefs to you does not make them ignorant, and to claim so is arrogant

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by connorromanow

 

Well...that's why the argument from design falls flat on its face. If everything requires a designer than the designer itself requires a designer. The only way to escape from this circular loop in the reasoning is to appeal to the fallacy of special pleading and confer without logical reason the attribute of 'not needing a designer' upon the designer who must necessarily be more complex than all of the things that must have been designed due to how complex they appear to be.

So it is really no different than science then, that say's that the very first sign of life just appeared from nothing.

reply to post by Crayfish


No I don't have any proof it was at all, and in fact I don't believe in an all powerful, intelligent super deity dictating the lives of people on earth or anywhere else for that matter. My beliefs are somewhat different and don't follow any structured religion. My belief is "true" only to me, I offer no proof and no argument for my beliefs because I realise they are just personal to me, nor do I have a Jesus complex where I wish to convert others.

My point was that there is evidence that creation at work in every new life that appears, because two other things joined together to make that separate life form, until those two people, animals or plants came together that life did not exist, would never exist if they had not come together, therefore they created a new life, This does not prove god, does not prove the creationist movement, but it does prove that life is created, Yes the offspring is the result of genetics and the DNA of the parents, but by the two coming together the life was created. And it was argued to point out different view points, rather than to prove god

Peace

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
...yet all you have is faith in the scientists who have come up with a THEORY.

Please do not use the "just a theory" argument without first absorbing the contents of this article:

www.religioustolerance.org...

Summary: A scientific theory is probably not what you think it is.

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
Until you can categorically prove there is no god you cannot call someone ignorant for believing in one, that is arrogance, which is what I have been trying to point out to you.

If he cannot call somebody ignorant for believing in something that has no evidence, what should he call such a person. What should we call somebody that still believes in Santa Claus after reaching adulthood? Would misguided be more acceptable?

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
When I look at the bible it makes no logical sense to me at all, and I can rip holes in it, but I can also point to flaws in science too, it does not mean all of science is wrong, I wouldn't for example throw out the laws of physics just because a bumble bee can fly.

You can point out flaws in science? Do you have an example of a time when you have done so? I'm afraid you cannot use the bumble bee example:

en.wikipedia.org...

PS, Re last post, I asked for "evidence", not proof.

Originally posted by Theophorus
If nothing exists except beings that receive their existence,How does anything exist at all?

We don't have the answer to all questions.
Not having the answer is a fine place to be, once you get comfortable with it. We can just say, "I don't know". Because we do not know everything.

Or, if we NEED an answer when there isn't one, we can make one up until science finds the right answer. Hence: "It must be God"!

Just because you don't have an answer for something, that doesn't mean that the answer is God.

reply to post by Crayfish

Please do not use the "just a theory" argument without first absorbing the contents of this article:

I was referring to the big bang theory and the creation of the universe for the third time I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION sigh...

If he cannot call somebody ignorant for believing in something that has no evidence, what should he call such a person. What should we call somebody that still believes in Santa Claus after reaching adulthood? Would misguided be more acceptable?

the definition of ignorant:
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Do I seem uneducated, how is having a different belief make someone uneducated? Was Columbus ignorant for believing the world was round when all others said it was flat? The fact that the soul cannot be quantified does not mean it does not exist, it just means we haven't the method to measure it yet. Absence of proof, is not proof of absence

You can point out flaws in science? Do you have an example of a time when you have done so? I'm afraid you cannot use the bumble bee example:

Look here, this will point out some of the flaws in theory of evolution, there are flaws in nearly every scientific theory which is why they are still classed as theories, because they cannot be absolutely proven, it does not mean they are wrong, just that some points need to be clarified.

Link

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
Look here, this will point out some of the flaws in theory of evolution, there are flaws in nearly every scientific theory which is why they are still classed as theories, because they cannot be absolutely proven, it does not mean they are wrong, just that some points need to be clarified.

Could there be flaws in modern synthesis? Yes. Are the flaws in modern synthesis? Probably. Does this is any way affect the status of evolution (as a phenomenon) as a fact? No.

reply to post by infojunkie2


Except...no. The current prevailing scientific thought is that life came from preexisting material under specific conditions, not 'from nothing'. Please, clear the straw man off of the floor on your way out.

reply to post by PrinceDreamer

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
In what way am I being ignorant?

Claiming the big bang has no supporting evidence, for one. By mixing up the names of two different scientists who work in two different fields. By demonstrating a complete ignorance of how science works by asking me to somehow magically derive the entirety of scientific knowledge in the world on my own with my limited lifespan and resources....etc.

By accepting that others may have beliefs different to mine?

Nope, I accept that too. I just accept that they're either wrong or they're somehow right even though they have no logical reason to come to the conclusion they're at.

You claim others are ignorant, I asked you for proof on how life was created, how the universe was created, and you gave a honest reply, YOU DON'T KNOW,

Yes, because nobody knows. A few scientists have some ideas, and they're actually bothering to do research into those ideas to see whether or not those ideas are right.

and yet you call people who do believe in creationism ignorant because of their faith,

Yes, it's ignorant to accept things without evidence....and to demonstrate a complete ignorance of science.

yet all you have is faith in the scientists who have come up with a THEORY.

This is the biggest reason why you're being ignorant. There is no faith involved and you don't know what the word 'theory' means if you're going to put it IN CAPITAL LETTERS as if it's making a dramatic point. A theory in the scientific sense of the word (and that's definitely how we're talking about it) is a proven explanation. Circuit theory (your computer wouldn't be working without it being true), germ theory, cell theory, and the theory of evolution. All of them are theories because they are proven, not because they are unproven.

Now, on the faith issue...where's the faith in accepting an idea for which I can read the data sets and see the conclusions derived if I so choose? There's transparency in science. I can even read follow up papers and critiques of those papers by other scientists. It's an intentionally self-correcting process, no faith needed.

Claiming certainty while demonstrating ignorance...

I am not saying this theory is wrong, or in fact that you are wrong, just that you have belief in something that is not proven, and to me that is no different than someone having belief in religion,

Theories are proven. It is different than believing in a religion in that very sense.

they believe in their religion because it makes sense to them, you believe in science because it makes sense to you.

No, I believe in science because it is proven. I am using a computer, aren't I?

You make claims you cannot substantiate, look at your signature with links to posts saying "Creationism: PROVE IT! " (Isn't a religion a belief, if they could prove it, it would be science)

It's a religious belief that makes an explicit claim about the natural world that should be evidenced. It is not a purely metaphysical religious belief. Were the world created, especially by a divine being, there should be evidence of this.

"The Ignorance of Creationists" A presumptive and antagonistic forum post heading if I ever saw one.

I'm sorry, but it's not presumptive, it's a conclusion derived from five years of discussing things with creationists and having to repeatedly explain very simple scientific concepts...like what a theory is. In fact, you're ignorant of science too.

Until you can categorically prove there is no god you cannot call someone ignorant for believing in one,

...yes I can. I can call them ignorant for believing in something for which there is no evidence. It's not up to me to disprove their deity to call them ignorant, it's up to them to prove their deity exists for me to stop doing so...

And I don't tend to call theism in general ignorant. Creationism, that's just a completely different animal.

that is arrogance, which is what I have been trying to point out to you.

Except that it isn't.

Science does not have all the answers, not yet at least. When I look at the bible it makes no logical sense to me at all, and I can rip holes in it,

Because it's wrong in so many places. Has a few good things sprinkled in, and I love learning about the history of the book.

but I can also point to flaws in science too, it does not mean all of science is wrong, I wouldn't for example throw out the laws of physics just because a bumble bee can fly.

...bumblebees don't violate the laws of physics. You've cited an urban legend as a flaw in science...but all you've demonstrated is your own ignorance. Bumblebees fit in perfectly with the laws of physics.

Please, show me a flaw in science.

To sum up, just because someone has different beliefs to you does not make them ignorant, and to claim so is arrogant

You're right, but I'm only calling them ignorant because they're showing themselves to be ignorant. They're not ignorant because their beliefs are different, they're ignorant because their beliefs are demonstrably ignorant.

Everything we know of can be explained through natural causes (physics, biology, etc), and then there's the stuff we can't explain (yet). In the past, how humans evolved was unknown, but we know better now. No magic involved.

If you look at the "god did it" track record, you realize how awful it is. Comets a sign of god? No. Plagues a sign of god? No. A global flood happening? Nope, didn't happen. And the list goes on...

Your examples and claims are flawed. Take mountains for example, we know how they formed. Same goes for humans, we know how we evolved...again, no magic

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
Look here, this will point out some of the flaws in theory of evolution, there are flaws in nearly every scientific theory which is why they are still classed as theories, because they cannot be absolutely proven, it does not mean they are wrong, just that some points need to be clarified.

Link

Your source is rather biased. Admittedly it is hard to find an unbiased opinion but a link to a site with the tag line "Your questions about the bible answered" is a bit of a give away. I know Wikipedia can also be biased but there's a 50/50 chance of it being biased either way and usually the articles meet in the middle somewhere near the truth after a lot of edits and discussion. So lets see what Wikipedia says about the flaws you've identified:

The "Punctuated Equilibrium" flaw
Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[21] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[22] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[2] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".[11]

The "Microevolution vs Macroevolution" flaw
The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[48] Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.[49]

In the case of punctuated equilibrium there are gaps in the evidence, but that evidence overwhelmingly still points to evolution being valid as a theory. So no flaw there.

The "flaw" of microevolution not being able to be translated to macroevolution just appears to be a complete myth conjured up from somewhere by the site you referenced.

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Remember we're not talking in terms of proof here.

reply to post by Crayfish


Not only that...

There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this.

How convenient...not even a single example or source of the information

Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.

Sometimes I walk, sometimes I run...mostly I walk. Doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive as long as they don't happen at the same time, which they obviously don't

A species can change more rapidly for a few hundred thousand years, and then slow down for a few thousand/million years. His view about how evolution happens is so ridiculously uninformed, it's kinda sad he gets to post disinfo articles like that, dumbing down the people.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods.

Simply not true...an easy example is the frog.

The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

This claim just shows how little the author knows about evolution...more specifically the time scales involved. "All at once" when it comes to evolution can still mean millions of years, but who cares about facts, right?

Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding.

I guess the author has never been to a farm

The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.”

And of course he tops it off with this old argument again...and argument which has been completely debunked dozens of times.

Here's why this is complete and utter nonsense...

Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits.

Another nonsense claim, especially if you consider the theory of evolution makes no statements regarding a religion. What it does though is prove that the Christian genesis account (amongst other religious creation theories) is hogwash as humans clearly didn't just show up in their current form, they evolved.

Also, saying the "application is flawed" brings up another point. We actively use findings from the theory in modern medicine and gene technology...if it were incorrect, it we wouldn't a lot of the meds we have today!

Cliffnotes: The author of that article is 100% clueless, and doesn't even bother backing up any of his claims with objective evidence. Hell, he states it's too "complicated", automatically assuming his readers are blind sheep too dumb to think for themselves...he expects them to simply believe what he writes, and sadly many people fall for that kind of pseudo science because it fits the worldview they've been brainwashed to believe

I have experienced things beyond science, science can not explain certain things and lots of people go through things science can not explain or even prove meaning there is something else or realm in which we have been seperated from.

I think God has always existed, his spirit is infinite, it is impossible to have a universe realm where nothing exists, even time can be measured even the smallest particle has a measurement, even before the big bang occurred it had a measurement of how long it took to even become a big bang, nothing is a measurement for saying there was nothing, to even make an equation based that nothing is possible only exists because it is in this existence to do so.

That is just this realm of reality let alone before this universe was created, there could be thousands of realities and universes, where did they come from, maybe one of those realities always existed because infinity says so it could. God does says heaven has many mansions,

John 14:2

International Standard Version (©2008)
There are many rooms in my Father's house. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going away to prepare a place for you?
Text

If that is the case we just have to live this life out, living makes who we are and maybe we also exist else where and this life determines our fate and our universe but facing death helps us have decisions about fate in our afterlife in order for us to have control and understanding to infinity that is probably at our disposal when we get there.