Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith

[shernajwine]

You have a way of reading quite far into things and creating things that weren't said or implied.

The point is I would like to talk to you (or other people on the forum) and not random websites I could Google and find.  I want to know your position; I want your description of your position.  I don't want someone else to describe your position.

well i was being sarcastic, i apologize.

as far as my method of posting, i read a lot of different information and felt it was easiest to
1. make a statement on my position
2. copy the information on which i based my position
3. reference my information so that anyone interested in seeing the entire article could access it

if i merely reworded everything from the websites it would have just taken longer and i'm not as verbally fluid as the authors of the information. also i'm slightly lazy about posting (you see i don't even use capitols lol)

anyhow, i'll remember your aversion to copy/pasting, and in the future if i want to comment on your posts i will make sure and use my own words. agreed? alrighty then 

[Falconer02]

Oh really!?

No not really. When you dig far down enough atleast. The only thing the individual may lose is their belief in one of the many gods that say otherwise.

Evolution has created a cult mind-set. Instead of scientists trying to discover the truth, they will boycott those who disagree.

Well considering what creationist 'facts' are (the deluge, 6,000 yr. old earth, dirt man and rib woman, etc.), I personally think it's best that they keep the fantasy away from the reality. Science must not fall to old myths as it has countless times in the past. Instead it must dig for the truth constantly. I'm uncertain if you've ever seen this chart before, but this explains it pretty well--
http://media.photobucket.com/image/science%20and%20religion/Raveryn/religionkv0.png 

There is a vast difference between real science and evolutionary fantasy!

Evolution is real science. "Evolutionary fantasy" falls within the world of Pokemon.

[rwdeese]

RW: Evolution has created a cult mind-set. Instead of scientists trying to discover the truth, they will boycott those who disagree.

Well considering what creationist 'facts' are (the deluge, 6,000 yr. old earth, dirt man and rib woman, etc.), I personally think it's best that they keep the fantasy away from the reality.

1. There is more evidence for the deluge than there is prove for something coming out of nothing or for transitional forms, for that matter.
2. We know the compounds that make up man - you should research this some.
3. This leaves the rib story the only problem. Rules of evidence provides adequate proof for any objective researcher.

Science must not fall to old myths as it has countless times in the past. Instead it must dig for the truth constantly

I agree with this... as long as it is objective truth. I find most so brainwashed with evolution that they attempt to look at everything through those lens.

I'm uncertain if you've ever seen this chart before, but this explains it pretty well--
http://media.photobucket.com/image/science%20and%20religion/Raveryn/religionkv0.png 

I love charts. These ones are pretty good - but the inaccuracies ruin them.

RW: There is a vast difference between real science and evolutionary fantasy!

Evolution is real science. "Evolutionary fantasy" falls within the world of Pokemon.

Evolutionary studies are too biased to regard as reliable research!

[queenofnines]

Let's take a break from the evolution argument for a sec and look at an example of the alternative:

According to creationists, there was a Great Flood that caused things like the Grand Canyon and buried the bones of the dinosaurs that didn't make it onto the ark.  But I can prove to you quite easily that Noah's Ark never happened.  You don't even have to be a scientist to understand it; it's quite simple.

Proofs:

#1 Noah, his family, and all of the animals would have died due to toxic levels of oxygen and nitrogen.  This is because the mass of liquid described in the Bible would have raised the atmospheric pressure enough to cause a dramatic increase of these elements.  We know Noah's ark was high in the atmosphere from these verses:

"And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth." (Genesis 7:17) and "And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.  And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.  Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:18-20)

#2 ALL marine life would have died due to the rapid mixture of salt and fresh water from the conglomeration of various pure water sources.  The ark wasn't built with tanks for Shamu.  Interesting that the Bible writers seemed to have forgotten this little fact.

#3 Bible contradiction: it says in Genesis 6:19 to take TWO of every sort of animal but in Genesis 7:2-3 it says to take SEVEN of some of the animals.

#4 Many animals taken out of their natural habitats would have perished.  They would also each have required SPECIALIZED diets.  And how did the food kept on the boat not spoil??

#5 Records of flourishing civilizations in China, Egypt, Babylon, and Mesopotamia exist straight through the flood era of 2500-2000 BCE.  This contingency creates a bunch of obvious problems because the flood supposedly vanquished the inhabitants of these regions.  If this was the case, why do we now possess their journals made before, during, and after this global deluge?  The flood would have certainly destroyed these societal accounts.

#6 The task of covering every mountain with only 40 days worth of precipitation would require a rainfall of 6 inches per minute, which is far too tremendous for the primitive ark to remain intact.  In great contrast, we can count on a rainfall of only 6 inches per hour from a category 5 hurricane.  Also, the heat generated by the impact of the raindrops on the flood surface would have been more than enough to boil the water and prevent it from rising (but the Bible says it DID rise).


Doubts:

#1 How could EVERYONE except Noah and his family have been evil?  These means babies, children, the elderly, the deaf and blind -- ALL EVIL!  It also means that god is pro-abortion, as many women would have been pregnant at the time of the flood.

#2 The average lifespan for those living in the Neolithic/Bronze Age (a.k.a. Biblical times) according to archaeology was 15-30 years.  Noah was 600 when he built the ark.

#3 How did Noah travel by foot across thousands of miles and single-handedly gather all of the MILLIONS of types of animals?

#4 The very foundation for the Noah's Ark story falls flat when you consider god did it to destroy the wicked, yet wicked people continued to exist after it happened.  Why would an omniscient god have to wipe out all of his creation for a specific quality that he KNEW would continue to exist?  The flood was for nothing, yet god carried out his horrific genocide anyway.

#5 No one has ever found the ark even though we know its final resting place is supposed to be in the mountains of Ararat located in Turkey (Genesis 8:4).  All evidence presented as "proof" of the ark's discovery has been admitted to be a hoax, proven a hoax, or withheld from testing.

#6 The Genesis flood is extremely similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian legend that predates Noah by at least 1,000 years.  The similarities between the two tales are so remarkable that one cannot write them off in good conscience as mere coincidences.

#7 The animals' muscles would have atrophied after months in confined pens.

Continued...

[queenofnines]

Proofs Noah's Ark didn't happen:

#7 No geological evidence.  The flood should have created a massive extinction along the floors of the oceans and millions of land organisms that would have certainly been victimized by the flood would also have deposited a large layer of terrestrial fossils, but neither of these are the case.  Coral reefs would have been utterly destroyed, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived 100,000+ undisturbed years.  The floodwaters (combined with lava) would have obviously melted the polar ice caps.

#8 How did Noah gather animals indigenous to lands like Australia, Antarctica, and America, especially considering these lands had not yet been discovered?  Also, god gave Noah only a 7-day warning to load the ark!!  (Genesis 7:4)

#9 Dinosaurs couldn't have fit on the ark even if they had the entire crude vessel to themselves.

#10 Everyone would have suffocated to death because there was only one 18-inch opening near the roof.

#11 Eight people would not have been able to keep up with throwing out the millions of pounds of poop produced every day by the animals.  The buildup of toxic methane gas would have suffocated them all and would also have been extremely flammable.  All of that poop would have also been a breeding ground for parasites, bacteria, and disease.

#12 The two flood-surviving members of each species wouldn't have provided enough genetic variation to guarantee their futuristic representation in the ecosphere.  Diseases and genetic defects had a great chance of pushing them into extinction due to the lack of essential variety at the molecular level.

#13 We do not see the 5,000 years that our DNA would reveal if all humans descended from the sole survivors of god's flood.  Instead it is 98+% the same as the great apes.

#14 The dove returning with the olive leaf couldn't have happened because such a plant would not have had time to germinate after the flood.

#15 Problems with the ark construction: Noah would have had no way to prevent the wood from rotting in the hot desert sun before it even set sail.  Waves would have undoubtedly capsized the makeshift craft; rocks would have slammed into the boat.  There weren't enough people to pump out all of the water the boat would have inevitably taken in.  There were also no propellers or steering mechanisms to deliver the animals back to their respective continents after the flood was over.


"The story's utter ridiculousness is probably why many polls indicate that an increasing number of Christians no longer claim a literal belief in the Old Testament.  Sure, one can easily explain the whole fiasco by use of miracles: God made all the water appear and disappear; God prevented all the water from becoming too hot; God put the animals into hibernation; God kept the ark afloat; God repopulated the earth with life; and God erased all evidence of the flood.  By invoking the 'miracle clause', however, Christians are using unverifiable events that any person can insert into any scenario in order to maintain the legitimacy of any religion.

To rectify all these problems in such a deceitful manner is to go against the whole purpose of constructing the ark in the first place.  Applying such implausible explanations would also mean that God, once again, intentionally misleads people who rely on their logical and observational talents that he himself gave them for deducing answers to readily apparent problems.  Searching for the truth behind Noah's ark isn't a matter of coming up with any solution for a problem that makes the story fit, but rather discovering the most likely solution to the problem so that we have the most likely answer (that is, like every other global deluge story that came before and after Noah, the biblical flood is a lie).  The source of the entertaining tale was most likely a tremendous flood that would later be embellished to fantastical proportions.  When taken literally, the tale of Noah's ark is an insult to human intelligence and common sense.  If the story didn't appear in the Bible, as is the case for dozens of other flood legends, no one would be giving it a second thought." ~ http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

[Falconer02]

But Queen! You forget! GOD did everything so he bent the laws of reality so it could happen! That's proof enough!

1. There is more evidence for the deluge than there is prove for something coming out of nothing or for transitional forms, for that matter.

?
Considering the deluge is an obvious myth, this statement is completely backwards.

We know the compounds that make up man - you should research this some.

Rib woman. Rib. Woman.

I agree with this... as long as it is objective truth. I find most so brainwashed with evolution that they attempt to look at everything through those lens.

Why do you keep calling evolution a brainwashing science when you can actually see it happen with your own 2 eyes? Macroevolution is obviously different when it comes to visuals, but there is no difference besides time-scale. That and it's well documented with visual evidence that has been contested many times by countless different parties. And, of course, the religious groups are the ones always yelling foul about it.

I love charts. These ones are pretty good - but the inaccuracies ruin them.

What inaccuracies are in that chart?

Evolutionary studies are too biased to regard as reliable research!

Biased? Even though scientists all over the world have studied the evidence and came to the same or near-same conclusions given the evidence found? Unless you can prove to me that every individual scientist doing the research has the same mindset of Fox News scripters and reporters, or that they're all secretly in on something just to focus people away from what you personally believe, these studies are not biased.

[queenofnines]

But Queen! You forget! GOD did everything so he bent the laws of reality so it could happen! That's proof enough!

Indeed!  How silly of me!   

[rwdeese]

Let's take a break from the evolution argument for a sec and look at an example of the alternative:

Sure! I enjoy entertainment.

According to creationists, there was a Great Flood that caused things like the Grand Canyon and buried the bones of the dinosaurs that didn't make it onto the ark.  But I can prove to you quite easily that Noah's Ark never happened.  You don't even have to be a scientist to understand it; it's quite simple.

"[you] can prove" that Naoh's Ark never happened. ok, I'll bite!

I will respond to each of these "proofs" on other posts

[Falconer02]

I will respond to each of these "proofs" on other posts

Some words of advice-- try keeping everything in one topic. It's a bit more concise and professional. You don't want to pull a Marieelissa and flood the forum with 30+ threads. When that happens, other debates and discussions get thrown onto the next pages and a lot of people don't root around there.

Edit: I only say this because I saw your "proof #1" post. I figured you were going to make a new thread for each.

[shernajwine]

Noah's Ark Rebuttal
#1 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. (Genesis 7:20)
In reality, the Hebrew word ma‛al, translated "higher" really means "upward." So, in essence, the text is saying that the flood was 15 cubits (20 feet) deep, in total, not 15 cubits above the mountains. In addition, the Hebrew word har really refers most often to hills rather than mountains. (so perception of mass liquid false)

#2 You're belief here obviously is that the flood came by rain alone: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened" (Genesis 7:11). Notice this important fact: The source of the water was both the atmosphere ("windows of heaven") and subterranean water ("fountains of the great deep").
 
#3 Considering that these are from the same book (and within a 13-passage section), the idea of a true contradiction is unlikely.  The Genesis 6:19 passage is telling the number that Noah had to bring on the ark in order to keep them alive (for a species to reproduce, they only need a male and a female).  In Genesis 7:2, the number of clean animals that are to be brought is upped to seven because now God is ordering Noah to bring animals for food and sacrifice.  Genesis 7:8-9, it's simply saying that they entered the ark two by two, and says nothing about the idea that there were only two of each type of beast.  Not a contradiction.

#4 Many animals are capable of adapting for the sake of survival. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets.

#5 Your understanding here is that the flood was global and it wasn't. Also your understanding here is that the flood created more liquid than it actually did. Since the flood did not destroy the 'earth' it is easy to assume that records of civilization would have been preserved outside the area of the flood.

#6 Again refer to #1. Also: Outside Genesis one (through Genesis 2:5), the entire Genesis account through the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) specifically refers to  local  geography. All the place names mentioned are in the Mesopotamian flood plain. Therefore, all the instances of the word erets can and should be translated "land," instead of "earth," since it all refers to local geography. There is no reason to think that the flood account is any different from the rest of the Genesis account through chapter 11.

#7 The flood was a combination of rain and underground reservoirs of water bursting open. So all these millions of fossils are not necessary when looking at the flood from a 'local' perspective

#8 Once again think "locally"

#9 Any dinosaurs could have been represented by their young.

#10 The density of animals on the Ark, compared to the volume of enclosed space, was much less than we find in some modern, mass animal housing used to keep stock raised for food (such as chicken farms), which requires no special mechanical ventilation. It is also interesting to note that the convective movement of air, driven by temperature differences between the warm-blooded animals and the cold interior surfaces, would have been significant enough to drive the flow of air. Plus, wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further.

#11 The danger of toxic or explosive manure gases, such as methane, would be alleviated by the constant movement of the Ark, which would have allowed manure gases to be constantly released. Secondly, methane, which is half the density of air, would quickly find its way out of a small opening such as a window. There is no reason to believe that the levels of these gases within the Ark would have approached hazardous levels. Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. Therefore they would have devised a system to work smarter not harder.

#12 Well I am not a scientist by any means but considering your choice of words, if there was a 'chance' they could have been pushed into extinction, there is a 'chance' they wouldn't.

#13 Noah and his family were not the sole survivors if we are to believe the "local" theory of the flood

#14 I think I made my point about the global vs local thing....

#15 This is pure conjecture

Oops before I forget:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html
http://www.dadsdayoff.net/flood.html

[queenofnines]

(so perception of mass liquid false)

I guess your camp is divided over this issue then!  But what does the Bible say?  "ALL the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." = global

Also:

"How else would God's flood annihilate every living thing on earth, as this was his stated intention, unless the elevated water extended well beyond the Middle East?  An additional difficulty, randomly selected from the pile of problems with the local flood suggestion, is the inability of the ark to travel hundreds of miles to Ararat without water high enough to reach the oceans.  Liquids seek their own level and don't stand in one area without complete confinement.  Since the barriers required for this magical constrainment are not present, we can only conclude that a local flood scenario is not only logically impossible but also entirely incompatible with the biblical text." ~ http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

Notice this important fact: The source of the water was both the atmosphere ("windows of heaven") and subterranean water ("fountains of the great deep").

"The 'fountains of the deep' (Genesis 7:11) contain only 1% of the necessary water; 99% would have to fall from the supposed sky ocean." ~ http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html (I encourage people to read this full article in detail as it fills in many of the things I left out in my presentation)

Many animals are capable of adapting for the sake of survival.

This simply isn't true.

Since the flood did not destroy the 'earth' it is easy to assume that records of civilization would have been preserved outside the area of the flood.

It DID destroy the earth, though!  This kind of talk comes from believers who have not read their Bibles and instead rely on creationist sites (no offense, Sherna!  love ya!):

Genesis Chapter 6 KJV:

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

...

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

Hey god said all this, not me!  

Any dinosaurs could have been represented by their young.

The boat was still not big enough even if ALL the animals were babies.  Also, wouldn't they need their mothers to nurse them and such?  Also, how could sexually immature animals repopulate the earth?

wind blowing into the window would have enhanced the ventilation further.

This is grasping at straws.  Reminder: ONE 18-inch window at the TOP of the boat.  The boat was several decks deep.  Suffocation = inevitable.

The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around.

Then all of their muscles would have atrophied.

there was a 'chance' they could have been pushed into extinction, there is a 'chance' they wouldn't.

Grasping at straws again.

I think I made my point about the global vs local thing....

You didn't because that's not what the Bible says!  Flood (according to the Bible) = global = all of my points/proofs stand.

This is pure conjecture

Occam's Razor.  


Sherna, since I have proved those creationist sites are lying to you by quoting the Bible...where do you stand now?  By them feeding you this lie of a "local" flood...you can see what atheists/agnostics are trying to warn good people like you about.  This type of lie is classic of creationists; they do it all the time, especially when it comes to evolution!  

They are successful because most of their readers: a) really want to believe in god  b) will trust what is written so long as it "sounds good" and appears scientific...and most importantly! c) most Christians don't actually read their Bibles or check the facts on these types of articles!

[Falconer02]

Hey Sherna...I do value your opinions and questions. After reading Queens post above, would you do me the favor of reading my post link and telling me what you think? On this thread?

http://fusioncash.net/forum.php?topic=16675.30

[shernajwine]

well queen, there is division on whether the bible flood was global or local. i looked at sites that represented the global side of the issue...they also give counter arguments for your statements. i found that the local theory was better backed by scripture but i can't say that i know anything to be fact. i'm not a scientist, im not a theologian, im not a philosopher....i'm just a person searching for truth. but i don't think those creationists sites were lying but thanks for trying to warn me lol 

i will say that i only checked certain scriptures referenced on the site with my bible. so you got me there.   

[shernajwine]

One thing I should state for all sides is that the religious sides will always fight to keep their beliefs and faith standing no matter what other sides may throw at it. Is this a good thing? For them, sure. And in a few cases it is for everyone. But this type of reasoning ability stems back all the way to childhood. The unwllingness to shed ones own beliefs and see the other side of the argument could easily be related to the idea of santa clause. Personally I was fortunate to know from the get-go that it was fake. But when I introduced the truth to a believer, of course they always fought back. Because this rocks their foundation and they want to believe because it makes them feel good. They don't want to give up what has been reinforced in their heads even though the idea is ludicrous and has absolutely no proof. If skepticism was thrown their way, they'd work around it to make it true ("reindeer don't fly" "but these are magic reindeer! And since you've never seen one, you can't deny it!"). I noticed as the grades progressed with my classmates, more and more people figured it was fake. Obviously due to maturity and reasoning ability (or a person telling them that has these traits). Granted there is no major harm in believing in santa clause, but there is in religion due to the dangerous, questionable, and enslaved philosophies they come with (not all, but many are).

Anyways, on the other side of the fence, methods of science are not foolproof. But they are indefinately perfectable. There is a tradition of criticism that enforces improvement whenever and wherever flaws are discovered. Unlike many religious beliefs, nothing is off limits to investigation or questioning. The major problem of this is the 'not foolproof' variable is used by those who are suspicious of science as their grounds for denying it as a privileged status in the truth-seeking department-- as if the religions and practices they align themselves with are better off in these regards (sound familar, rw? lol).

But where are the examples of religions abandoning old ways of thinking in regards to irresistable evidence? Time and time again in science you'll see yesterday's heresies becoming today's new orthodoxies. No religion exhibits that pattern in it's history.

I had to pull this quote from the other thread so I could address it properly. I want to be careful here because I'm in no way claiming expertise in any area.
I think if we just changed some words around in your post we could say exactly about atheists, what you have claimed people of religion do to protect their beliefs. I have found that whatever atheists or skeptics have to do to prove their platform, they will. Even if it means denying something a creationist says and blowing it off as pseudoscience instead of taking it into true consideration.  To actually consider that they could be wrong?? They hold very fiercely to their belief there is no God. Evolution enables this belief because if evolution is a lie then how do you explain creation? You can't, there is no third option...without evolution no atheist or skeptic has a leg to stand on. Putting every question you have about the bible itself aside......without evolution it doesn't stand up. That being said, if you diligently search creation websites you will find several verifiable scientific claims that put evolution into serious question.

Religion is not off limits to truth seeking. There are Christian scientists out there. And what you are calling "irresistable evidence" I call "questionable evidence". 

Let me quote here:
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes  that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html

Let me just say here Falconer that when I came into the forum I was blown away by many atheists and non believers posts. At first it was offended shock....but every time something new posted, I thought, "Wow, they have a point...I should look into this... I was concerned that I perhaps I was looking at everything through Christian glasses but I feel like my reaction in response to posts became more curious than outraged. I genuinely felt that I wanted to know the truth. It's hard for me to explain but I was willing to accept that I could have been wrong my whole life, if I was proven wrong. But was I going to only look at atheist or evolution sites to come to this conclusion??? No, so perhaps you will say that because I don't want to be wrong I accepted the information on the sites that fed my beliefs and couldn't accept the opposing information because I want them to be wrong.

Now....take that last statement and apply it to yourself. I can't say for sure that I can unbiasedly psychoanalyze myself to say that that statement isn't true about me. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't....but is it true about you?

Don't answer me back on that question. It's not important to justify yourself to me or anyone else, you asked my opinion and I answered you as truthfully as I could. Please know I respect you, this reply isn't meant to attack and I'm not trying to debate any further about the specifics of evolution.

Much love and thank you for hearing me out 

[rwdeese]

I don't see any evidence that God exists - will you help me!