Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith

[rwdeese]

Atheistic Evolutionist: Creation is not a science because creationists do not have all the evidence.

Believer: Do you never everything?

AE: We will never know everything.

Believer: I agree. Will we continue to find new evidence?

AE: Yes, that is correct.

Believer: That means we can't be sure about anything, right?

AE: Yes, this is true.

Believer: Logically then, we cannot be sure about evolution right?

AE: Ahem... Oh no! Evolution is a fact. (funny how they will embrace logic until their faith is confronted)

This demonstrates how faith based AEs really are - they are determined to ascribe to evolution no matter where the evidence may bring them. Evolution is a fact, you know - lol You see, models of science will continue to change, but the beliefs that these modesls are built on will keep this debate going. The belief (or faith) of evolution is the foundatioinal basis for the scientific models (interpretations or stories) used to attempt an  explanation of the present. In other words, evolution came first, then they built evidence around it (Darwin had no evidence). AEs are not prepared - even if it turns out to be the only option - to change their actual belief/faith. They are very committed to this faith! What is comical though is they actually think that to believe that God created the world makes less sense than a "nothing" created the world. In essence then, AEs place their faith in "nothing!"

[queenofnines]

Epic troll post!  It sounds like a bad knock-knock joke.  This is NOT how the conversation would go at all...

Atheistic Evolutionist (not all people who accept evolution are atheists, and vice versa): Creation is not a science because creationists do not have all the evidence have "evidence" that is irrespective and against the ACTUAL evidence.  It is junk science.

Believer: Do you never everything?

AE: We will never know everything.  WTF does that mean, do I "never" everything?  ...  Tee-hee, it is a joke.  No, our little human minds will probably never know "everything".  But if the progress we've made just in the last 100 years speaks for anything, we're going to damn well find out A LOT.  Science isn't "all or nothing" -- stop treating it as such.

Believer: I agree. Will we continue to find new evidence?

AE: Yes, that is correct.

Believer: That means we can't be sure about anything, right?

AE: Yes, this is true.  No we can never be 100% sure of anything, BUT we can have a very accurate, working picture of reality.  What makes you 100% sure god is real, btw?  What makes you 100% sure it is the CHRISTIAN god?  What makes you 100% sure that the authority figures you put your faith in (Ken Hovind, Ray Comfort, Lee Strobel, Ken Ham) are not using junk science and feeding you lies?

...See, I can give it right back to ya, buddy!

Believer: Logically then, we cannot be sure about evolution right?

AE: Ahem... Oh no! Evolution is a fact. (funny how they will embrace logic until their faith is confronted)  Nobody would say this.  Stop spreading your propaganda and lies.  I already addressed that it is not science's job to give us 100% absolutes...nor is it LOGICAL to expect that.  Science gives us the best working picture of reality and for you to call it inferior to the god of your 2,000-year-old book written by primitive, superstitious men is laughable at best and an atrocity against humanity at worst.

[jcribb16]

Believer: That means we can't be sure about anything, right?
AE: Yes, this is true.  No we can never be 100% sure of anything, BUT we can have a very accurate, working picture of reality.  What makes you 100% sure god is real, btw? 

  It is true that we can never be 100% sure of anything. As for God, all I can say is faith and trust in God is the basis of my belief.  I know one day we will ultimately meet our maker, that's for certain. But I maintain my belief just as you maintain yours.  I like reading your posts.  At least we can agree to disagree!!!

[Falconer02]

Believer: That means we can't be sure about anything, right?

Nothing is ever 100% true. But to get really down and dirty in trying to explain it will eventually make us look like hippies high on acid. Let's just try to be rational and realistic.

I already addressed that it is not science's job to give us 100% absolutes...nor is it LOGICAL to expect that.  Science gives us the best working picture of reality and for you to call it inferior to the god of your 2,000-year-old book written by primitive, superstitious men is laughable at best and an atrocity against humanity at worst.

This is as close to the truth as anyone can get on the subject.

In other words, evolution came first, then they built evidence around it (Darwin had no evidence).

Unless you're suggesting certain animals that live in the world today were 'built' by us, this is a false assumption. Darwin had evidence of something (finches for example) and built theories around that. A lot of them were bunk. Natural selection wasn't. So scientists studied into that model. And now NS is THE major attribute within evolution as we've discovered tangible proof that we can see with our own 2 eyes. Welcome to progressive science. You see it in everything from biological evolution to the invention of the lightbulb-- Edison tried finding a filament to make the bulb work. He went through tons of different things before he found what actually worked. And then he and future scientists built upon that.

[jcribb16]

   I had added you as my friend in my profile and when I clicked the envelope, it let me send you an email.  I hope that was okay.  Actually I thought it would just do a private post/mail to you but I guess not. 

[shernajwine]

i see that a lot of debates about evolution vs creationism come down to first cause. i am seeing that atheistic evolutionists think that although science hasn't found a first cause, they will inevitably find one.
creationists think the first cause was a creator i.e. God of the bible.

creationists have faith that God was the first cause
atheistic evolutionists have faith that science will figure it out

mind you, this is just my observation  

[jcribb16]

   That's a good observation.

[liljp617]

i see that a lot of debates about evolution vs creationism come down to first cause. i am seeing that atheistic evolutionists think that although science hasn't found a first cause, they will inevitably find one.
creationists think the first cause was a creator i.e. God of the bible.

creationists have faith that God was the first cause
atheistic evolutionists have faith that science will figure it out

mind you, this is just my observation  

On a quite important first note:  Evolution has nothing to do with a "first cause."  The Theory of Evolution makes no claims on the "first cause" and makes no attempt to explain how life arose on Earth -- that is a different field of biology.  It merely provides an explanation (backed by observation and undeniable evidence) for the diversity and unity of all known life on this planet.

Continuing...

People throw the word faith around unnecessarily "/

There's a clear difference between faith and belief:

I believe the chair I'm sitting in isn't going to break.  That is obviously a belief I hold; it is not faith-based though.  I have quite substantial evidence and reasoning to hold this belief.  

I hold this belief on the basis that I have sat in many chairs over the years, none of which have broken under my weight.  I've seen countless numbers of people sit in similar chairs, none of which have I witnessed breaking under the weight of others.  I understand the structure of a chair, its intended purpose, and the reputation chairs have when it comes to them randomly breaking.

A faith-based belief would be never having seen a chair in my life, never sitting in a chair, never witnessing other people sit in a chair, having no knowledge of how chairs are built, etc. and still believing chairs very, very rarely randomly break just from people sitting down on them.  That is a faith-based belief, because it lacks evidence or reason.  How could I reasonably believe chairs rarely do or don't break randomly if I have absolutely zero experience with or observations of them?

To connect:

Science, especially modern, has continuously closed the knowledge gap that religion, spiritualism, and other metaphysical claims used to own (weather, geological events such as earthquakes and volcanoes, famine, plague, etc.).  I believe this trend will continue.  That requires no faith to believe -- science has proven time and again that it can bridge this knowledge gap given time and technological advancements.  The evidence that scientific thought is capable of this is there...the trend has been building for decade upon decade.

[shernajwine]

you make a valid point liljp and i concede that faith and belief are two different things.

it doesn't change the FACT however that evolution is still considered a theory. since darwin presented the theory all those long long years ago, it is still defined as a theory because it cannot be proven to be 100% correct. there are evidences that support the theory and there also evidences that disprove the theory.

so until it can be completely proven it is only theory.

i would think that if science was going to prove it, after all this time....they would have done it. but it is my BELIEF that they never will prove it because i have seen science fail to prove it time and again. there is substantial evidence and reasoning to hold this belief, because i hold it on the basis that i have seen science fail to prove evolution as an infallible truth.

[liljp617]

you make a valid point liljp and i concede that faith and belief are two different things.

it doesn't change the FACT however that evolution is still considered a theory. since darwin presented the theory all those long long years ago, it is still defined as a theory because it cannot be proven to be 100% correct. there are evidences that support the theory and there also evidences that disprove the theory.

so until it can be completely proven it is only theory.

i would think that if science was going to prove it, after all this time....they would have done it. but it is my BELIEF that they never will prove it because i have seen science fail to prove it time and again. there is substantial evidence and reasoning to hold this belief, because i hold it on the basis that i have seen science fail to prove evolution as an infallible truth.

To state what should be obvious by now: The word theory, as used in science, carries a completely different meaning compared to the every day usage of the word theory.  There is no such thing as "just a theory" in science.  It's not just a guess that a handful of scientists thought sounded nice.  It takes a great deal of evidence, observation, and experiment, combined with the scrutiny of peer-review, for a proposal to achieve the level of scientific theory.

There are many scientific theories I would imagine you have no issue with -- Germ Theory, the idea that microorganisms (germs) are the cause of many diseases and illnesses.  Cell Theory, the idea that cells are the basic unit of structure of all living organisms; also describes the structure and function of cells.  Circuit Theory, which describes the process of how electrical/pneumatic/hydraulic circuits function.  Plate Tectonic Theory, the idea that the Earth is made up of a series of individual plates and that these plates move.

Germ and Cell Theory are at the core of every medical procedure and medication out there.  I would assume you have little problem going to the doctor when you have strep throat and getting an antibiotic for it.  How that antibiotic functions is based "only on theory."  Every time you flip your lights or computer on, you're making use of Circuit Theory.  The cause of earthquakes and many volcanic eruptions is tied in with Plate Tectonic Theory.  Is there a reason you don't cut these theories down solely on the basis of being "just theories?"


On a side note, the word theory in "Theory of Evolution" is not meant to imply a toss-up between whether evolution occurs or not -- it is plain fact that evolution occurs, we have witnessed it first-hand in both labs and nature on numerous occasions.  The word theory in this context is in reference to how the entire process works and all the factors involved in that process.  That knowledge is not yet completely fulfilled.  In a similar fashion, gravity remains a theory (Gravitational Theory) in that scientists are still attempting to fully understand the mathematics and reasons behind why the force of gravity behaves as it does.  To be clear, it is a law that objects with mass attract each other, but the exact reasons this force occurs and the mathematics behind it is theory.

The word theory in these cases describes what's going on behind the picture.  It is not a testament to whether the event occurs or not; we're well aware that the events occur.  The theory aspect is a testament to the forces and processes that contribute to and cause the event, which are often not 100% known or explained in the case of a scientific theory.  Thus, it remains under the label of scientific theory until those forces and processes are explained.



(feel free to show the evidence disproving the Theory of Evolution -- please no nonsensical pseudo-science either from Mr. Hovind or those like him)

[jordandog]

liljp,
Excellent job of taking down the 'theory' debating tool!

[shernajwine]

yep you're a smart cookie lol!

i found an interesting video today. tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-6gFBpXdM

[queenofnines]

i found an interesting video today. tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-6gFBpXdM

I watched the video.  Complexity is not a good argument for god, because then god himself would have to be infinitely more complex.  Also evolution is not pure chance like the video says.  There are also dozens of examples of body parts that have been unintelligently "designed".

Have you watched the videos relating to this topic that I posted in the other thread?  http://www.fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=16675.msg206459#msg206459  (Note: only the third one can be seen as a little "insulting")

[shernajwine]

yes i watched them.

[liljp617]

yep you're a smart cookie lol!

i found an interesting video today. tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-6gFBpXdM

The videos main premise is irreducible complexity, which is a core proposal of intelligent design.  It basically says that life is too complex to have arisen through natural selection, and thus life was designed by some intelligent creator -- nonsense logic to say the least.  Michael Behe's common arguments for irreducible complexity involve blood clots, the eye, and flagella.  All of which have been shown can arise naturally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples

The video references the mouse trap in particular.  The idea has been broken down by John H. McDonald and he has shown that a mouse trap can still function as a mouse trap with parts missing.  He also shows how the addition of smaller parts can then induce previously added parts to function differently (and perhaps more efficiently):  http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html


Intelligent Design is a nonscientific argument.  It is the purest form of pseudoscience "on the market."  Its entire foundation rests on multiple fallacies -- argument from ignorance, god of the gaps, false dilemma, etc.