Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

originally posted by: WarminIndy
There is no evidence that natural selection leads to new species, and that's what the discussion is about. If there is no evidence of natural selection leading to new species, then that means the only other one is selective breeding.

Now, show the evidence of natural selection. You guys said it was random, but you can't prove it. You said natural selection leads to new species, but you can't prove it.

Yes you are right we don't know if the process guiding evolution is natural or selective, but you are making an assumption by saying that since we can't say definitively if it is natural then it is selective. But those two options aren't even the only options. Your article actually suggests that the process is algorithmic. The only thing that we can be sure of is that it is occurring. What is guiding it is still up in the air. Just know that if the force is intelligent, then it certainly isn't anything like the Christian one.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WarminIndy
There is no evidence that natural selection leads to new species, and that's what the discussion is about. If there is no evidence of natural selection leading to new species, then that means the only other one is selective breeding.

Now, show the evidence of natural selection. You guys said it was random, but you can't prove it. You said natural selection leads to new species, but you can't prove it.

Yes you are right we don't know if the process guiding evolution is natural or selective, but you are making an assumption by saying that since we can't say definitively if it is natural then it is selective. But those two options aren't even the only options. Your article actually suggests that the process is algorithmic. The only thing that we can be sure of is that it is occurring. What is guiding it is still up in the air. Just know that if the force is intelligent, then it certainly isn't anything like the Christian one.

Thank you.

But I think that when you say "The Christian God", it would be much more appropriate to say "The God of the Hebrews", as the Bible says "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".

The name Yaweh is not really a name, it is just four letters that mean "I AM" The God that IS. Perhaps Christians do take on a simplistic view of God and it might work for them, but I AM means I AM and long before Christianity.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Hebrew, Christian, Islam, Zoroastrianism, it's all the same god. If god is guiding evolution, it is most likely through algorithms, which is counter to what abrahamic religions say.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Hebrew, Christian, Islam, Zoroastrianism, it's all the same god. If god is guiding evolution, it is most likely through algorithms, which is counter to what abrahamic religions say.

Why can't God use mathematics? Surely an intelligent being such as that would know math. I can't do math, I have Dyscalculia. How it is in opposition?

And Islam is not the same, their Allah is not Yaweh. They know this and we know this. Allah was just an idol that Mohammed decided to choose out of all the others, that's all.

That's one issue.

Zoroastrianism had Ahura Mazda, there has been no correlation so far, because Ahura Mazda is a proper name.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes the god of islam is the same as the hebrew god. They even have jesus as a prophet... You should really go study religious history. The only difference between islam and christianity is that they worship one more prophet than christians do.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes the god of islam is the same as the hebrew god. They even have jesus as a prophet... You should really go study religious history. The only difference between islam and christianity is that they worship one more prophet than christians do.

Well, as you assumed....

I have read the Quran, the Hadiths and the Sunna. I have right now on my computer a copy of the Quran published by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so it is the accepted translation into English. The Hadiths are available to read online.

I know what they believe and know that their Issa is whom they mistakenly believe is Jesus Christ. But not only that, I have studied history, it was my first major in college and comparative religions. I am not ignorant about religions.

Not only that, I have personally conversed with Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians and other groups. Don't believe them when they say the gods are the same.

But this isn't a debate out the various religions, just don't assume I didn't know what the religions teach.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh I get it, there are subtle details that the different religions try to harp on to keep with the stigma that they worship different religions, which is odd since each of those religions wants to teach love and acceptance and they refuse to believe that they all worship the same god. But whatever, that is just the folly of religion. It's all the same to me anyways. Not real.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

isnt it funny how all these countrys seem to have come up with the idea of a God all seperatly, maybe there is somthing to do with that.

Now i cant explain how we came into being either, i have theory's and i base what i know on what. but obviously we did just spurt out of the ground or somthing and maybe a God did maybe they didnt. while i believe in the goo story i reserve the right to change my mind and i wish a God would show up and settle it once and for all.

The problem with these threads is that they are an attack on Evolution, which does have some scientific evidence to back it up. However, there is nothing wrong with a dissenting view as long as you posit an alternative.

so again, I ask, why would you nit pick evolution without giving us the alternative theory...which is....?

a reply to: Biigs

Not really. Humans are curious animals. When things, fantastic things occurred that humans couldn't explain (we call them natural disasters today), humans invented "gods" that directly controlled nature. As humans started learning more and more about their environment, less and less gods were needed. God was given more powers as more and more fantastic things were discovered.

There is a clear documentation of historians about the evolution of "god". Tracing all the way back to local deities living in trees, up to some divine one god ruling over everything. God is just an ancient assumption that is losing its place as knowledge and information makes headway.

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

isnt it funny how all these countrys seem to have come up with the idea of a God all seperatly, maybe there is somthing to do with that.

Now i cant explain how we came into being either, i have theory's and i base what i know on what. but obviously we did just spurt out of the ground or somthing and maybe a God did maybe they didnt. while i believe in the goo story i reserve the right to change my mind and i wish a God would show up and settle it once and for all.

And on this one, I will let you and krazyshot beat that dead horse. But have you considered that God did, but you didn't want to believe it?

As far as krazyshot's assertion that there are subtle difference, those are glaringly obvious.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

There is no evidence that natural selection leads to new species, and that's what the discussion is about. If there is no evidence of natural selection leading to new species, then that means the only other one is selective breeding.

Now, show the evidence of natural selection. You guys said it was random, but you can't prove it. You said natural selection leads to new species, but you can't prove it.

I'm not sure anyone would describe natural selection as 'random'.....well noone that knows anything about evolution...

You show, once again, that you lack even a highschool level of understanding of the issue.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only difference between islam and christianity is that they worship one more prophet than christians do.

That and also that Muslims don't believe that god ever had a son.

Christians worship Jesus as the son of god and god himself (I don't think I'll ever understand their trinity logic). While Muslims believe that Christians are misguided for doing that.

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

isnt it funny how all these countrys seem to have come up with the idea of a God all seperatly, maybe there is somthing to do with that.

Now i cant explain how we came into being either, i have theory's and i base what i know on what. but obviously we did just spurt out of the ground or somthing and maybe a God did maybe they didnt. while i believe in the goo story i reserve the right to change my mind and i wish a God would show up and settle it once and for all.

Countries are governments. There's no easier way to control people than through religion. But there are thousands of religions and very, very few are monotheistic. Bet you didn't know that.

You have hypotheses not theorums (ie. theories). You " base what you know on what"? Huh?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh I get it, there are subtle details that the different religions try to harp on to keep with the stigma that they worship different religions, which is odd since each of those religions wants to teach love and acceptance and they refuse to believe that they all worship the same god. But whatever, that is just the folly of religion. It's all the same to me anyways. Not real.

The differences between many religions are significant not subtle. There are thousands of religions and I'm pretty sure you're not familiar with the teachings of most or all of them. Saying they all worship the same god is not only wrong it's insulting to the followers of those religions. The three Abrahamic religions worship the same god. Much as they would like to be the only religions, they are not.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

You don't believe in statistics? Surely they exist... And they exist as a function of probability, assuming random sampling. Now, I will certainly agree, not all sampling is random. But let us assume that if a large number of nearly random individuals is polled, then that result would approximate the "truth." This is the law of large numbers, and I think you'll find that "truth" can be approximated quite well with what you might call a "small portion."
en.wikipedia.org...

That said, from my previous source...
"The ARIS 2008 survey was carried out during February-November 2008 and collected answers from 54,461 respondents who were questioned in English or Spanish."

Is nearly 55,000 people a decent proportion of the population for you? You could argue non-random sampling, but that seems like a large enough sample to me to see the general trend of things. I suppose you could (and did) argue that perhaps there are closet atheists, but why would an atheist hide that fact from others? Would it be fear of mistreatment after exposure? If so, you would be arguing that atheists are persecuted, not persecutors.

I don't really care about other people. I care about your logic, my logic, and the understanding of the two (in this discussion). What Stephen Hawking (might have) said is of no concern. What Richard Dawkins might have said is of no concern (although frankly I find it odd that you should only be attacking his character, not his arguments).

What I have experienced, learned, and what I have personally done with science have shown me that a possibility exists that the Earth came about naturally. If that is the case, the theory of world creation with the fewest possible unnecessary assumptions is the best, logically speaking. The addition of a god to a world which could potentially exist naturally is an unnecessary (even if potentially true, although I don't think the literal interpretation of the bible would work here) assumption. Therefore, the simpler world (no god) is the better logical conclusion.

I'm not parroting anything. I'm arguing with logical means here, not even my forte of geological sciences. You, on the other hand, have been attacking the characters of others, disregarding evidence of any and all claims against your beliefs (even non-religious ones), and you are asserting (parroting) the words of another without summarizing them (posting a link to a 42 minute video).

Side note, I'm sorry, I'm a busy man. I don't have 42 minutes to watch a video, so please summarize or give some kind of indication of why I should spend 42 minutes on this and I can come back to it later.

As for Hitchens, again, can we argue with logic instead of ad hominems? You are broadly generalizing large groups of people here. If you want to complain about being generalized as a "creatard," why are you continuing this generalization of "shouting" atheists? Why are you attacking characters and not ideas? Do you not understand how illogical or contradictory you are being by doing this?

Let me be clear, there are no popes of atheism. You can't merely attack "the head" and kill the body. You really must attack the claims made by atheists while soundly defending your own. I like that you're actually discussing things, you're actually trying and not trolling. It's refreshing, and I do appreciate that. That said, I find your logic against my position lacking thus far.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh I get it, there are subtle details that the different religions try to harp on to keep with the stigma that they worship different religions, which is odd since each of those religions wants to teach love and acceptance and they refuse to believe that they all worship the same god. But whatever, that is just the folly of religion. It's all the same to me anyways. Not real.

The differences between many religions are significant not subtle. There are thousands of religions and I'm pretty sure you're not familiar with the teachings of most or all of them. Saying they all worship the same god is not only wrong it's insulting to the followers of those religions. The three Abrahamic religions worship the same god. Much as they would like to be the only religions, they are not.

Except they are. We can trace the history of their gods back to their origins and they all worship the same god. Hence the title "abrahamic religions". Sorry that insults you, but it's true. But I guess it is easier to hate someone of another religion if you pretend they don't worship the same god.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Oh I get it, there are subtle details that the different religions try to harp on to keep with the stigma that they worship different religions, which is odd since each of those religions wants to teach love and acceptance and they refuse to believe that they all worship the same god. But whatever, that is just the folly of religion. It's all the same to me anyways. Not real.

The differences between many religions are significant not subtle. There are thousands of religions and I'm pretty sure you're not familiar with the teachings of most or all of them. Saying they all worship the same god is not only wrong it's insulting to the followers of those religions. The three Abrahamic religions worship the same god. Much as they would like to be the only religions, they are not.

Except they are. We can trace the history of their gods back to their origins and they all worship the same god. Hence the title "abrahamic religions". Sorry that insults you, but it's true. But I guess it is easier to hate someone of another religion if you pretend they don't worship the same god.

Please, tell us the origin of Islam.

The media is promoting that in such a way that they had never done 20 years ago, but only recently do you hear "The Islamic scriptures" as being part of any discussion about an historical event that pre-dates Christianity.

So tell us the history of Islam.

a reply to: WarminIndy

History of Islam

a reply to: WarminIndy

i dont know, im agnostic.

i believe science but i leave room for a God.

im not a science professor nor am i a religious guru of any kind.

you balance the facts and make a decision, science has my money at the moment