I've been thinking a bit on the few ways that Christians come to believe in the Bible, and/or God, and I'm going to try to dissect them in this thread.

1.) Blind faith.

In the blind faith belief in the Bible, a person must accept that everything that is said in the bible is true, even though there are (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/flood_die.html) many (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sin.html) contradictions (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/repent.html) that appear in the Bible. This does not follow logic, and is what appears to be an Appeal to Belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_belief) logical fallacy mixed with an Appeal to Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) logical fallacy ("The Bible is true because it says it is true"), and must be rejected.

2.) Personal Revelation

In the personal revelation style, EG: "God saved my mother from dying in a car crash," the believer makes the argument that because they cannot explain why their mother was saved (An Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)) then the belief held that God exists and the Bible is correct must be true.

Another case is when the believer states that "God talked to me," or "God talked to my friend X." This can be brought down with a simple Argument to the Absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum), such as, "If your friend X heard something from God, then I heard something from Zeus that tells me that I have to have sex with you right now. Bend over." Since neither claim can be proven to be wrong or right, they both have equal validity, and the argument made by the believer is reduced to the absurd.

3.) Because X told me so

This is usually used in an argument that "It's what my parents tought me," or "My pastor tells me it's the truth." In this case, it is simply an Appeal to Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority), and logically inconsistant.

4.) Only I can see the truth, you are blinded by the Devil.

This is an Ad Hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack against the non-believer, and is already logically wrong. There is no premise to this argument except to tear down the non-believer, and perhaps a weak Appeal to Fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear) that the non-believer might be wrong.

5.) Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager is an argument that states simply that there are only 4 possible outcomes to believing or not believing in God.

You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.
You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.

This argument seems to be alright. However, this is an Appeal to Consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences), as well as a False Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma), which fails to take into account some things such as:

You may believe in God, and God does not exist, but other gods do, in which case you are punished.
You may not believe in God, and God does not exist, but other gods do, and you are rewarded for your non-belief.

Those are just two counterpoints to Pascal's Wager.

6.) It's been around for a long time / A lot of people believe it.

I often see these two arguments used in conjunction. The problem with those arguments is that, for example, a lot of people believed for a long time that the Earth was flat. The logical fallacies here are Appeal to Belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_belief) (See also: Appeal to the Majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority)) and Appeal to Tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

Conclusion

If one considers that those six arguments are the most commonly used by Christians to try to convert an un-believer to believe what they do, then I for one do not see any reason to accept their arguments and follow what they believe.

If one considers that those six arguments are the most commonly used by Christians to try to convert an un-believer to believe what they do, then I for one do not see any reason to accept their arguments and follow what they believe.
I too, don't see any logical reason to accept the six arguments. Any sane grown up person would reject these arguments, if they aren't brought up the christian way. These auguments only works on children, or uneducated people. This is why it is merely impossible to convert people who aren't raised as christians to convert to christian.

You are correct, there is no logic to it, but I'll try to tell you why people think these ways.

1) Blind Faith-much like the tobacco and alochol industries, that's just from the "hook them while they're young" approach

2) Personal Revelation- LOL...what I love about these like "God saved my mother from a car crash" is that God takes the rewards for things like airbags, safety belts, and other various security devices. It's never "the auto makers saved my mother" it's always God....oh wait, the reason for this is because people are just plain stupid.

3)Because X told me so-ok...people are gullible as well as stupid

4-6)Just look at #3

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your average Christian is like the preachers on TV, or even the ones that post on these forums so often. There are a lot of us that don't think the Bible is the literal truth, don't go around trying to convert others, and don't pretend that it's logical. I believe what I believe. I don't know why you care.

There are a lot of us that don't think the Bible is the literal truth
Hahahaha hypocrites....

Originally posted by LionelHutz
There are a lot of us that don't think the Bible is the literal truth, don't go around trying to convert others, and don't pretend that it's logical. I believe what I believe. I don't know why you care.

One of my friends is just like you, actually. You people are the ones that are cool. :) Have no problems with ya.

This thread was really put out for people like jarjar who try to use those 6 tactics to convert other people.

Faith demands one sublimate logic. They cannot co-exist.

JJBinks and Starks has been telling us that actually the strongest argument for the Bible is that its predictions came true. Well...

Anyway Lithorien claims he was severely mentally abused while a Christian hence the hatred for the religion now.

I think this was a very interesting post (seeing that I have "logician" to my avatar), Bertrand would have been pround.

In the same vein, do you think that ad hominem attacks will get people to stop believing in the Bible and accept your "logic"?

Calling people hypocrites, gullible and stupid, as Locke does will do little to advance your viewpoint. Nor will indicating that Christians are uneducated, children or insane, as pseudomask does.

The Biblical "contradictions" mentioned are usually misunderstandings of Biblical texts, or translation/copying errors.

We could make these same attacks against people who still believe in the theory of evolution, despite the lack of evidence supporting it and the contradictions concerning it in the scientific literature.

Thanks for the skeptics annotated Bible link. I'm going to be checking that out. Very interesting.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
Anyway Lithorien claims he was severely mentally abused while a Christian hence the hatred for the religion now.

You have a very good memory. I commend you. :)

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
In the same vein, do you think that ad hominem attacks will get people to stop believing in the Bible and accept your "logic"?

Calling people hypocrites, gullible and stupid, as Locke does will do little to advance your viewpoint. Nor will indicating that Christians are uneducated, children or insane, as pseudomask does.

Not at all. You're right in that ad hominim attacks don't get any discussions anywhere.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The Biblical "contradictions" mentioned are usually misunderstandings of Biblical texts, or translation/copying errors.

The problem with this statement is that it's a cop-out. There is no way that over 400 biblical contradictions could all be mis-translations or misunderstandings. Statistically that just can't be possible.. the words are right there, interpert as you will.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
We could make these same attacks against people who still believe in the theory of evolution, despite the lack of evidence supporting it and the contradictions concerning it in the scientific literature.

Thanks for the skeptics annotated Bible link. I'm going to be checking that out. Very interesting.

Actually, you can't make those arguments. The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It doesn't go around proclaiming to be the end-all-be-all of human knowledge, perfectly infallable. Your Bible does. That is why you can't attack evolution but you can attack the Bible.

And you're welcome for the link. :) I happen to like that site.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
JJBinks and Starks has been telling us that actually the strongest argument for the Bible is that its predictions came true. Well...

That's actually not that hard to refute, logically.

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therfore P.

If the Bible is true, then the predictions will come true.
The predictions came true.
Therfore the Bible is true.

This is called Affirming the Consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent). And since I sincerely doubt that they are saying "if and only if all of the predictions.." (besides - not all have come true, some are false); their logic falls flat on its face.

Originally posted by Lithorien
The problem with this statement is that it's a cop-out. There is no way that over 400 biblical contradictions could all be mis-translations or misunderstandings. Statistically that just can't be possible.. the words are right there, interpert as you will.

I believe just the opposite is true. The Bible makes thousands upon thousands of claims, statements, prophecies and declarations. If there are only 400+ "contradictions" then the Bible would prove to be remarkably consistent, from a statistical standpoint.



Actually, you can't make those arguments. The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It doesn't go around proclaiming to be the end-all-be-all of human knowledge, perfectly infallable. Your Bible does. That is why you can't attack evolution but you can attack the Bible.

I would agree, if evolution were commonly treated as a theory. However in schools, popular literature, TV shows and museums it is commonly treated as fact. People are not generally taught how little evidence there is to support the various claims of evolution. When Carl Sagan gets on TV and proclaims that evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, he opens the door for it to be examined by the same standard you wish to critique the Bible.

Would someone explain to me the predictions in the Bible that came true?
Would someone also explain how these predictions could not have been written in later, after the outcome was known.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I would agree, if evolution were commonly treated as a theory. However in schools, popular literature, TV shows and museums it is commonly treated as fact. People are not generally taught how little evidence there is to support the various claims of evolution. When Carl Sagan gets on TV and proclaims that evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, he opens the door for it to be examined by the same standard you wish to critique the Bible.

I have never heard a christian proclaim that god is a theary. They hold it up to be fact. is a theary. There is absolutly no proof that god exists. It is pure theory.

Carl Sagon doesn't proclaim that you if don't believe in his theory you will burn forever in hell. He doesn't try to scare or freighten or coerce people into believing his ideas. Christians use coersion and fear to get people to believe. They teach their children (almost from birth) that if they don't believe they will go to hell. That if they question they will go to hell, they tell them it is wrong to question god and they discourage them from searching for answers in other religions or ideas.

I have never had anyone try to threaten or coerce me into believing in evolution. I can't say the same about Christianity.


Makes one wonder who is telling the truth and who is desperate to have people believe their lies.

I believe just the opposite is true. The Bible makes thousands upon thousands of claims, statements, prophecies and declarations. If there are only 400+ "contradictions" then the Bible would prove to be remarkably consistent, from a statistical standpoint.
It's supposed to be the word of god, it should be perfect. And there are far more contradictions than just around 400. And depending on who you're debating with, the contradictions change and more appear due to their interpretation.

I would agree, if evolution were commonly treated as a theory. However in schools, popular literature, TV shows and museums it is commonly treated as fact.
It is a theory, and evolution is seen as a theory. But carbon dated fossils, we tend to see those as facts. They exist, and that is undeniable. However, how they came about, is still debatable. Well, barely debatable. I hold the opinion that if it wasn't for constant attacks by religion, evolution would be considered a law(which can still be proven wrong). I have seen no evidence that proves evolution wrong, or even gives it doubt. Except for the bible, which is not scientific evidence. There is no "missing link", that's a fabrication that has been held since Darwin first published his book, and has since been proven wrong. While it is all based off of logic, we have evidence that shows the obvious logical connections. Religion is not based off of logic, it is soley emotion, and they don't even have evidence to even give a 1% certaincy.

Originally posted by Echo2
I have never heard a christian proclaim that god is a theary. They hold it up to be fact. is a theary. There is absolutly no proof that god exists. It is pure theory.

Most of us prefer to use the word 'faith,' not theory, although I see your point. But honestly, did you really expect to see a disclaimer at the beginning of the bible - please note that the following might be true... any similarities to actual events are purely coincidental...

Carl Sagon doesn't proclaim that you if don't believe in his theory you will burn forever in hell. He doesn't try to scare or freighten or coerce people into believing his ideas. Christians use coersion and fear to get people to believe. They teach their children (almost from birth) that if they don't believe they will go to hell. That if they question they will go to hell, they tell them it is wrong to question god and they discourage them from searching for answers in other religions or ideas.

It may come as a big scary surprise to you, but not all Christians rampage about town preaching fiery destruction to non believers, nor do they all terrify children into saying prayers every night. You really need to let go of the stereotype.

I have never had anyone try to threaten or coerce me into believing in evolution. I can't say the same about Christianity.

Makes one wonder who is telling the truth and who is desperate to have people believe their lies.

That's interesting, because I did have a biology teacher who absolutely insisted that evolution was The Truth, non-believers be damned, etc. Never called her a liar though. That'd just be rude.:rolleyes:

What a great thread, a lot of points to cover. Those “logical fallacies” links are pretty cool, though I can’t help but notice that you kind of missed an important one, it’s not really a logical fallacy, but it’s useful in this discussion. Here let me get that for you: this is from the website you gave us:
Straw man The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than your opponents actually offer.

Now with that out of the way let’s look at this post of yours, Lithorien, first you said:
“In the blind faith belief in the Bible, a person must accept that everything that is said in the bible is true, even though there are many contradictions that appear in the Bible. This does not follow logic,…”

Blind faith? Faith? Yes. Blind? What is blind? The Christian claims there is a God, the atheist claims there is no God.
The Christian claims evidence for the existence of God such as; cosmology, the anthropic principal, evidence from design (like the complexity of molecular machines), there’s also the evidence from information, who gave the DNA its thousands and thousands of pages of information? Information comes from an intellect. Not to forget the slightly more philosophical evidence from emotion, which asks; can non-emotional, non-loving, impersonal, unthinking, matter create from scratch an emotional, loving, personal, reasoning, thinking being?

The atheist claims; “God doesn’t exist because I’ve never seen Him.” That would be an Argument from ignorance, this also from the website:
“The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantium or argument by lack of imagination, is the assertion that because something is currently inexplicable, it did not happen, or that because one cannot conceive of something, it cannot exist. This assertion is often encapsulated by the adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
An atheist would argue that once there was nothing and then it exploded, from that explosion came all the stars, planets and moons, from that explosion + time + chance we got life, intelligence, emotion, and reason.
For the atheists claim that there is no God to be a reasonable claim, they would have to have complete knowledge of everything that is anything. Say that a particular atheist had 50% of all knowledge, could God exist in the other 50% he doesn’t know?
Everyone has faith. When you step on board a plane you have faith that it won’t crash. When the Christian says “there is a God“, they are using a certain amount of faith, granted the reasoning Christian claims that their faith is built on an incredible amount of evidence, but it takes faith never the less.
When the atheist says “there is no God,” they don’t have 100% knowledge so they have to apply faith. I say it’s blind faith.
Of course I’m open to the atheist listing the evidence they have that indicates an absence of God.

I understand that you brought up the Bible, but I thought that discussion would be covered best in a later point.

Time to post, I’ll pop in later to look at your next point Lithorien.

Originally posted by Echo2


I have never had anyone try to threaten or coerce me into believing in evolution. I can't say the same about Christianity.


Makes one wonder who is telling the truth and who is desperate to have people believe their lies. There is a professor at a university who makes everyone who completes his course on evolution sign an agreement with him stating that God doesnt exist. I forgot which university it is. To me, that seems a lot like desperation.

Originally posted by stark
The atheist claims; “God doesn’t exist because I’ve never seen Him.” That would be an Argument from ignorance, this also from the website:
“The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantium or argument by lack of imagination, is the assertion that because something is currently inexplicable, it did not happen, or that because one cannot conceive of something, it cannot exist. This assertion is often encapsulated by the adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
An atheist would argue that once there was nothing and then it exploded, from that explosion came all the stars, planets and moons, from that explosion + time + chance we got life, intelligence, emotion, and reason.
For the atheists claim that there is no God to be a reasonable claim, they would have to have complete knowledge of everything that is anything. Say that a particular atheist had 50% of all knowledge, could God exist in the other 50% he doesn’t know?
Argument from ignorance, eh? Sounds like you're a bit ignorant.

Most atheists are technically agnostic, but use the "atheist" label for one reason or another. I'm technically agnostic, but I call myself an atheist for simplicity's sake. I do not, and have never claimed "God does not exist." Rather, my claim is "There is no incontrovertible evidence for the existance of a supreme being." And, to me, there isn't. God has never shown up on my lawn, dressed only in tennis shoes, drinking out of a brown bag and mumbling something about the coming of the Apocalypse. That was just Blib. But I digress.

If science one day proves the existance of God, I'll become a believer. But only then and no sooner.

The word Athiest can really be defined two ways.

"I don't believe in God."
OR
"I believe there is no God."

The first one is more commonly considered agnostic . It's where I fall in and it's probably where most self described "athiests" fall. It is simply easier to call yourself an athiest, I remember how hard it was to explain to my mom what agnosticism was. (And when I did I got a spiel about how I'm probably gonna go to hell and how I shouldnt tell Nana :cool: ).

Originally posted by stark

The Christian claims evidence for the existence of God such as; cosmology, the anthropic principal, evidence from design (like the complexity of molecular machines)

Yes, you may claim it, but that does nothing to prove your claim. From a scientific point of view you must present evidence which shows that these things have come from God.

who gave the DNA its thousands and thousands of pages of information?

The question is improperly phrased because the question itself assumes that the "information" came from a "someone". If you want to find out the truth you must first ask the right questions. The proper question in this case would be "where does the 'information' in DNA come from?"

Information comes from an intellect.

Not true. At least not in this case. First of all I believe your characterization of DNA as "information" is faulty, but I'll get to that in a minute. Let's look at intellect and the transfer of information.

in·tel·lect n.
1. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.

Insects transfer information to one another frequently, for example, ants leave chemical trails for other ants to follow, and bees communicate with others in the hive to tell them where to go to find sources of nectar. In neither case are they "reasoning" or demonstrating a "capacity for knowledge and understanding", they are simply following instinctual programming.

Similarly, although on a much more fundamental level, when a cell reproduces using DNA it is not receiving and decoding "information" in the sense that we think of something which transfers knowledge, it is simply executing chemical reactions without any understanding whatsoever. In short, DNA may represent "information" but this doesn't imply intellect because nobody 'reads' the pattern of nucleotides, other molecules simply react with them in preprogrammed ways.

Not to forget the slightly more philosophical evidence from emotion, which asks; can non-emotional, non-loving, impersonal, unthinking, matter create from scratch an emotional, loving, personal, reasoning, thinking being?


Interesting question, and I'd have to say that I believe it can. Just because you can't understand how it happened doesn't mean it must have been God.

Give us an example Vile. That actually was a very good point stark brought up

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Argument from ignorance, eh? Sounds like you're a bit ignorant.


Borg, that really hurts…
...wait…
Oh sorry, that wasn’t what was hurting, I’d just put my keys in my back pocket and was sitting on them. I’m fine now

Anyway you said this:
"Most atheists are technically agnostic, but use the "atheist" label for one reason or another. I'm technically agnostic, but I call myself an atheist for simplicity's sake. I do not, and have never claimed "God does not exist."

I'm talking about atheist not agnostics, so my "God does not exist" quote is in relation to atheists not agnostics or technically agnostics.
So just for clarification purposes, when I mention that an atheist does not believe in God, I'm not talking about agnostics I'm talking about atheists. It's really quite easy; not all atheists are agnostics, some are really atheists. You'll be able to tell right off when I'm speaking about agnostics, I'll actually use the word "agnostic," or maybe "technically agnostic.

Vilepagan, I see your post and I'll answer it eventually, but I want to answer this thread a bit at a time and in order. You know how I do it.

Originally posted by Blibblob
It's supposed to be the word of god, it should be perfect. And there are far more contradictions than just around 400. And depending on who you're debating with, the contradictions change and more appear due to their interpretation.

The original manuscripts have been copied and translated numerous times. There have been some minor errors that have crept into some of the translations due to copy errors, faulty translations, and in at least one case, a flat out addition to a prior manuscript. The amazing thing is that none of these errors contradicts any major doctrine of scripture. Yes, the original manuscripts were the word of God and were absolutely perfect.

My point was that, even if I were to concede Lithorien's 400 contradictions (which I am not willing to do, as most of the claimed contradictions are just misunderstandings of the texts) the Bible would still be remarkably accurate and worthy of serious consideration.

This cannot be said of the theory of evolution since the entire fossil record contradicts it's claims.

As for the fear and coercion claim, we can see who is desperate to force their lies upon others. The evolutionists won't even allow competing theories a voice in our schools. Why? Because then intelligent children will see that the evolutionary emperor has no clothes.

Originally posted by Jwjames111
Give us an example Vile. That actually was a very good point stark brought up

I'm afraid you need to be more specific james.

An example of what?

What point of stark's are you referring to?

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The original manuscripts have been copied and translated numerous times. There have been some minor errors that have crept into some of the translations due to copy errors, faulty translations, and in at least one case, a flat out addition to a prior manuscript. The amazing thing is that none of these errors contradicts any major doctrine of scripture. Yes, the original manuscripts were the word of God and were absolutely perfect.

If the original manuscripts were "perfect" why would there have been errors made in copying and translating them? Why add the additional manuscript?

My point was that, even if I were to concede Lithorien's 400 contradictions (which I am not willing to do, as most of the claimed contradictions are just misunderstandings of the texts) the Bible would still be remarkably accurate and worthy of serious consideration.

Can you cite a prophecy from the Bible that has proven to be "remarkably accurate" and couldn't have been altered after the fact?

This cannot be said of the theory of evolution since the entire fossil record contradicts it's claims.

I believe this statement to be utterly false. Can you cite some examples of fossils that show that the theory of evolution is false? How do you explain the fact that most biologists agree with the Theory of Evolution, if as you claim "the entire fossil record" refutes it?

As for the fear and coercion claim, we can see who is desperate to force their lies upon others. The evolutionists won't even allow competing theories a voice in our schools. Why? Because then intelligent children will see that the evolutionary emperor has no clothes.

I think there are three good reasons for not teaching "creation science" in schools.

1. The foundations of "creation science" are predicated on a belief in a specific religion, namely Christianity, and we would be remiss if we didn't then consider the creation myths of all other religions.

2. The ideas put forward by "creation science" aren't science. They aren't presented in a scientific manner and cannot be verified through experimentation, they must merely be "believed" as a matter of faith.

3. The best reason that "creation science" shouldn't be taught in schools, is the same reason why we no longer teach our children that the Earth is flat...because we know better.

Okay, Lithorien, I’m back you wrote about the Bible and how Christians believe in it even though it has many contradictions. Well I’ll ask you the same question I ask many of those claiming that the Bible has many contradictions: What is your favorite Biblical contradiction. Let’s see if it is really a contradiction or not.

Next you said:
“Appeal to Authority logical fallacy ("The Bible is true because it says it is true"),”

I’ve never actually seen a Christian use this argument, however I’ve heard many non-believers say that Christians use this argument. If I ever do hear a Christian try it, I’ll be sure to let them know that they have better arguments then that.

Next you said:
“In the personal revelation style, EG: "God saved my mother from dying in a car crash," the believer makes the argument that because they cannot explain why their mother was saved (An Argument from Ignorance) then the belief held that God exists and the Bible is correct must be true.”

Well, what do ya know, another argument that I’ve never heard a Christian use. I do agree that it certainly is a very weak argument for the defense of the scripture. It’s amazing to think that someone actually says something to the effect of “my mother lived through a car crash, God saved her, therefore the Bible is true.” Suspiciously amazing come to think of it. Now, of course, I would attribute the mothers survival to God, but I see God as sovereign over all creation. All that I have, is from God, all that happens to me is from God, including my salvation. The Bible says in Romans 8:28 “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

Next you said:
“Another case is when the believer states that "God talked to me," or "God talked to my friend X." This can be brought down with a simple Argument to the Absurd, such as, "If your friend X heard something from God, then I heard something from Zeus that tells me that I have to have sex with you right now. Bend over." Since neither claim can be proven to be wrong or right, they both have equal validity, and the argument made by the believer is reduced to the absurd.”

You are certainly right, if you believe that God is talking to someone else simply because they told you God was talking to them it is indeed…absurd. That’s why so many other religions are suspect. Mohammed says that God spoke to him, (in a cave I believe) and gave him this religion we call Islam. Siddhartha Gautama claims that he was sitting under a fig tree on the banks of the Meranjana River when he had a vision and reached complete enlightedment. Sure enough come to find out he is the enlighted one, the Buddha. Now millions of people attempt to follow hundreds of rules of self denial because “Buddha told them to.” The Mormons have their founder, Joseph Smith Jr., who claims that God himself came and told him that all of Christianity is wrong and that He would show Joseph the right way. I’m glad Christianity doesn’t have to bow to that kind of evidence. We have the accuracy of the Bible, the miracles of Jesus, and His followers, the resurrection of Jesus, there is no one guy saying “follow me gang, because when I was in a cave God told me something.”

Next you wrote:
“Because X told me so
This is usually used in an argument that "It's what my parents tought me," or "My pastor tells me it's the truth." In this case, it is simply an Appeal to Authority, and logically inconsistant.”

Say, look at that, another argument that I’ve never heard a believing Christian actually use.

Well that’s about it for this post, I’ll work on the rest of Lithoriens post later.

Okay back again and almost done with your post, Lithorien, so I’ll start where you said:
”Only I can see the truth, you are blinded by the Devil.
This is an Ad Hominem attack against the non-believer, and is already logically wrong.”

First, a Christian saying “Only I can see the truth…” is theologically wrong, the Bible says that all who want to find the truth, can. Now, to say that someone being blinded by the devil is logically wrong, is logically wrong. If there is a Devil and he’s blinding the non-believer, then it’s not illogical. By the way one can also be blinded by pride, willful desires, and other human caused reasons.

Next you said:
“Pascal's Wager is an argument that states simply that there are only 4 possible outcomes to believing or not believing in God.”

I see you’ve come up with a couple of counterpoints to Pascal's Wager. I’ve got another one you can add to them:
You may believe in God, and God does exist, but you completely fail to believe His Word, and reject Jesus Christ and his death on the cross for your sins, in which case you are punished by being eternally separated from God.

Next you wrote:
“It's been around for a long time / A lot of people believe it.”

Can you believe it, one more argument I’ve never heard a believing Christian use.
Did I already talk about the straw-man rhetorical technique? I must have.

Finally you said:
“If one considers that those six arguments are the most commonly used by Christians to try to convert an un-believer to believe what they do, then I for one do not see any reason to accept their arguments and follow what they believe.”

The most commonly used???
I’ll be sure to keep my eyes open for Christians using these arguments.

Stark your on a roll. Vile im referring to the post Stark made b4 i posted. And the supoosed logic being used here to defeat the Bible isnt very logical in my humble opinion.

If the original manuscripts were "perfect" why would there have been errors made in copying and translating them?
Because people make errors when they copy a document thousands of times over thousands of years by hand, and some words, phrases, and ideas do not translate well into other languages.


Can you cite a prophecy from the Bible that has proven to be "remarkably accurate" and couldn't have been altered after the fact?
I guess I should’ve said “remarkably consistent”. That’s what I was aiming for, but the prophecies concerning the birth of Christ would fit the bill.


Can you cite some examples of fossils that show that the theory of evolution is false? How do you explain the fact that most biologists agree with the Theory of Evolution, if as you claim "the entire fossil record" refutes it?
The fossil record is completely lacking in the transitional forms necessary to support evolution. All supposed transitional forms presented, such as Homo Erectus, Archeopteryx, or Piltdown Man have been shown to be fiction, fantasy, or fraud.

The ideas put forward by "creation science" aren't science. They aren't presented in a scientific manner and cannot be verified through experimentation, they must merely be "believed" as a matter of faith.
Replace the words “creation science” with “the theory of evolution” and the above statement would be 100% correct.

The best reason that "creation science" shouldn't be taught in schools, is the same reason why we no longer teach our children that the Earth is flat...because we know better.
Then why are you keeping it a secret? Rather than censoring opposing viewpoints, those who “know better” should confidently debunk creationism. Why aren’t they doing that?

Because they can’t.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The fossil record is completely lacking in the transitional forms necessary to support evolution. All supposed transitional forms presented, such as Homo Erectus, Archeopteryx, or Piltdown Man have been shown to be fiction, fantasy, or fraud.
Until you provide a source for this, I would have to take you at your word. Which obviously won't work. Source, please.
Replace the words “creation science” with “the theory of evolution” and the above statement [The ideas put forward by "creation science" aren't science. They aren't presented in a scientific manner and cannot be verified through experimentation, they must merely be "believed" as a matter of faith.] would be 100% correct.
But the theory of evolution is presented in a scientific manner and while it cannot necessarily be verified by experimentation, evidence supports it. Therefore, it is the currently accepted theory.
Then why are you keeping it a secret? Rather than censoring opposing viewpoints, those who “know better” should confidently debunk creationism. Why aren’t they doing that?

Because they can’t.
I see debunkings of creationism all over the web. In fact, a Google search for "creationism debunked" yielded this (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/) as the number one result.

Originally posted by Jwjames111
Stark your on a roll. Vile im referring to the post Stark made b4 i posted. And the supoosed logic being used here to defeat the Bible isnt very logical in my humble opinion.

I looked at starks post and he made several points...I ask again...What point of stark's are you referring to?

What is wrong with the logic being used in this thread? Can you give some specific examples and explain why they are faulty?

pseudomask, I see you’re new here, well welcome aboard, I look forward to having a few lively debates with ya. I do have to respond to something you said, it was from your post on page one, where you said:
“These auguments only works on children, or uneducated people. This is why it is merely impossible to convert people who aren't raised as christians to convert to christian.”

I may be reading you totally wrong, correct me if I am, but are you suggesting that in the whole world the only people who are Christians are those that were raised Christian? You used the word “merely” which means “simply” or “just“. Now if you meant the word “nearly” that’s another matter. I’ll wait and hear your response to see if you want to make a correction.
No. Wait a sec. After thinking about it I think I’ll accept your statement and add to it. I’m going to say that it is simply impossible to convert people to Jesus, whether they were raised as Christians or not…for people, that is. It is the power of God that comes in and changes a persons heart to accept Jesus as Lord of their life, we can only be His servants in delivering the Word. So yes your post looks much better to me now.

Hey Locke, I was just going over your post and thought I’d like to respond, I’ll start where you said:
“Blind Faith-much like the tobacco and alochol industries, that's just from the "hook them while they're young" approach”

I know what you mean by “blind faith” and the “hook them while they’re young approach.” I have a friend that I grew up with, I met him when we were in 5th grade, from the time he was very young his father continually pounded into his head that there is no God. His father would get mad at the thought of someone believing in God. So now my friend is an atheist, with pure blind faith that his dad was right, that there is no God. Get them while they’re young.

Hi Lionel, I can’t help but notice that you said:
“There are a lot of us that don't think the Bible is the literal truth, don't go around trying to convert others, and don't pretend that it's logical.”

I just wanted everyone in this thread to remember that there are a lot of us that do think the Bible is the literal truth, do care enough about others eternal salvation to at least try to bring them the good news of Jesus Christ, and do understand that it is not logical only if there is no God.

Now out of curiosity, what is illogical about the Bible?
I'm very interested in this.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Until you provide a source for this, I would have to take you at your word. Which obviously won't work. Source, please.

Most recently, a book entitled The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution by Hank Hanegraff.

But the theory of evolution is presented in a scientific manner and while it cannot necessarily be verified by experimentation, evidence supports it. Therefore, it is the currently accepted theory.

How do you present something in a “scientific manner” without providing experimental evidence to support it? Isn’t the scientific method based upon repeatable experimentation?

I see debunkings of creationism all over the web. In fact, a Google search for "creationism debunked" yielded this (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/) as the number one result.

Gee, Borg, it must be true if you read it on the internet, just like the first link in a google search for debunking evolution (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/debunked.htm)

Originally posted by pseudomask
I too, don't see any logical reason to accept the six arguments. Any sane grown up person would reject these arguments, if they aren't brought up the christian way. These auguments only works on children, or uneducated people. This is why it is merely impossible to convert people who aren't raised as christians to convert to christian.

You must have never heard of Jehovah's Witnesses. Or you believe that the thousands upon thousands that have become Jehovah's Witnesses after being another religion OTHER THAN christianity must all be dumb, uneducated, or have the mind of a child. Your statement was quite brash and illogical and you did not view the facts b4 making it. If you make statement like that you will be picked apart here.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

How do you present something in a “scientific manner” without providing experimental evidence to support it? Isn’t the scientific method based upon repeatable experimentation?


Here's a good explanation of why "creationism" by it's very nature falls outside the realm of science, while Evolution does not.

As a complement to labelling evolution as "just a theory", the creationists also like to refer to their own particular outlook as a "model". Examination will quickly show that this is simply not true--creationism is not a scientific model in any sense of the word. Scientific hypotheses, theories and models are all based upon several fundamental criteria. First, they must explain the world as it is observed, using naturalistic mechanisms which can be tested and verified by independent observation and experimentation. Although the existence of God is not necessarily denied by science, supernatural explanations which are based upon the unseen actions of God are excluded from science as a matter of necessity. As biologist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out, science is dependent upon the assumption that the world is real and operates according to regular and predictable laws, which are not changed from moment to moment at the whim of supernatural forces: "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course." (cited in Montagu, 1984, p. 241) Geologist and theologian Dr James Skehan also notes, "I undertake my scientific research with the confident assumption that the earth follows the laws of nature which God established at creation . . . . My studies are performed with the confidence that God will not capriciously confound scientific results by 'slipping in' a miracle!" (Strahler, 1987, pp. 40-41)

In a manner similar to that of science, the actions of supernatural entities are also excluded from the legal arena--no person is permitted to argue in a US court that they are not responsible for a crime because Satan was in control of them, or that such and such a crime happened because it was the will of God. Neither system denies the existence of God, but both exclude God as an explanatory mechanism.

The creationist idea that God divinely created the universe may or may not be true, but, by postulating a supernatural event which occurs outside of the natural laws of the universe, such an idea places itself firmly outside the realm of science. There is simply no experiment which can verify any of its assertions and no predictions of future data that can be drawn from this hypothesis, and those who hold such conclusions can do so only on the basis of faith. This is fine for a religious outlook or an ideology, but it has nothing at all in common with science.

Another characteristic of science is that it must be falsifiable. As we have seen, it is not possible to "prove" that any scientific model is absolutely true and correct. It is, however, quite possible to prove that any given scientific model is not correct--that is, it can be conclusively shown to be false. The evolution model, for instance, could be falsified in any number of ways--a new species could be reliably observed to suddenly POOF! into existence from nowhere, for instance. On a more realistic level, the evolution model would be conclusively falsified if any of the three basics we pointed out earlier--variation, heritability or selection, were shown by experiment to be invalid (i.e., if some genetic mechanism were to be found which made it chemically impossible for mutations to occur in the DNA, or for any such mutations to be passed down from one generation to the next). The evolutionary model would also be falsified if the fossil remains of a fully modern human being or a flowering plant were to be reliably found in strata that have been dated to the Cambrian period of earth's history, or the Devonian, or the Permian, or if it were to be conclusively shown that all fossils found to date are elaborate fakes, planted by an international conspiracy of evolution scientists to impose secular humanism upon the earth. So far, however, no evidence has been reliably presented, by the creationists or by anyone else, which falsifies the evolution model. Every experiment that has been performed and every bit of data which has been collected has tended to confirm its validity.

And how does creation "science" fare when put to this test? The central tenet of creation "science" is that God created the universe out of nothing, by Divine fiat. This "model" is, however, completely unfalsifiable. There is no test or experiment which can conclusively show that God does not exist, or that creation did not occur. Since, by definition, God is capable of doing or accomplishing anything, there is nothing that can be pointed to that God cannot have done, and therefore the hypothesis itself is unfalsifiable. Any potential problem with the "creation model" can be (and very many times has been) explained away with a wave of the hand, with the simple assertion, "God did it that way." Because the tenets of scientific creationism cannot be tested, investigated or falsified, and because they invoke supernatural entities as explanatory mechanisms, they cannot be considered to be a scientific model.

Further, some "Creationists" openly admit that "Creationism" is not science.

Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, openly admits, in his textbook Scientific Creationism:

"A. Creation cannot be proved

1. Creation . . . is inaccessible to the scientific method.

2. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 5)

"The creationist model does presuppose a God, or Creator, who did create things in the beginning." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 4)

Another ICR member, Duane Gish, writes, in his book Evolution? The Fossils Say No!:

"Creation is, of course, unproven and unproveable by the methods of experimental science. Neither can it qualify, according to the above criteria, as a scientific theory, since creation would have been unobservable and would as a theory be nonfalsifiable." (Gish, 1978, p. 21)

"We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. . . . We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." (Gish, 1978, p. 40)

Originally posted by stark
Now out of curiosity, what is illogical about the Bible?
I'm very interested in this.

That was poorly phrased on my part. What I was getting at was that the existance of God or the truth of the Bible can't be proven with logic, or by any other means. Which is why I choose not to proselytize (sp?). While I believe I'm right, I can't prove it, so who am I to tell others that they're wrong?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
That was poorly phrased on my part. What I was getting at was that the existance of God or the truth of the Bible can't be proven with logic, or by any other means. Which is why I choose not to proselytize (sp?). While I believe I'm right, I can't prove it, so who am I to tell others that they're wrong?

Lionel,

How I wish you were on our side, we could use a good thinker like you, lol.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Lionel,

How I wish you were on our side, we could use a good thinker like you, lol. Which "SIDE" would that be? He is an admitted Christian. Just because he doesnt believe everything you have been told to believe makes him on a different "SIDE"? WTF do you mean by that?

I see Christians like you sometimes....(thank God very rarely) and they always make me think they believe in God only because that makes them somehow superior to other people who dont hold the exact same belief.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Which "SIDE" would that be? He is an admitted Christian. Just because he doesnt believe everything you have been told to believe makes him on a different "SIDE"? WTF do you mean by that?

I see Christians like you sometimes....(thank God very rarely) and they always make me think they believe in God only because that makes them somehow superior to other people who dont hold the exact same belief.

Wow, where did that come from?

You try to give someone a compliment around here, and somebody who isnt involved anyhow, has to come rub their nose in it. (That would be you in this case)

I was getting Lionel and Dan confused...I always do, because I like them both.

I dont know where you get the idea or the gaul for that matter than I use my belief in God to be above someone. God loves everyone us the same. I do not think for one second I am any better than you, or vise versa.

You might wanna check where you stand while your on the high horse Havok. I have never said anything to you that gives you the right to say what you did.

I apologize if I gave you such a reason to blow up as you did, but lets hope your ok now.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I was getting Lionel and Dan confused...I always do, because I like them both.

Yet you quoted Lionel and then named him in your post. :rolleyes:

How bout answering my question? Which side is Lionel on, if he is not on your side?

Originally posted by HaVoK
Yet you quoted Lionel and then named him in your post. :rolleyes:

How bout answering my question? Which side is Lionel on, if he is not on your side?

Geeze, you totally missed that didnt you. I meant I was confusing the beliefs of the two.:rolleyes: Not the two people.

I was thinking Lionel was the one who was Athesist. Does that answer your question or should I draw a diagram.:hitout:

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Geeze, you totally missed that didnt you. I meant I was confusing the beliefs of the two.:rolleyes: Not the two people.

I was thinking Lionel was the one who was Athesist. Does that answer your question or should I draw a diagram.:hitout: Then maybe you should say what you mean and i wouldnt have to be a mind reader. Of course, judging by your previous posts, you really dont know what you're talking about most the time anyway.

"Creation Science": supported by "Certified Scienticians"





Dan's atheist?


Christians have sides within themselves? Which Christians are the "real" ones then? Or better? I personally like the ones that keep to themselves, meaning they respect our differences without trying to make me one of them.......

Originally posted by the guy with bulging eyeballs
Another characteristic of science is that it must be falsifiable. As we have seen, it is not possible to "prove" that any scientific model is absolutely true and correct. It is, however, quite possible to prove that any given scientific model is not correct--that is, it can be conclusively shown to be false. The evolution model, for instance, could be falsified in any number of ways--a new species could be reliably observed to suddenly POOF! into existence from nowhere, for instance.
And this is exactly what we find in the fossil record. All species in the fossil record appear suddenly POOF! from nowhere. Therefore, according this quote, evolution has already been disproven.

"Creation is, of course, unproven and unproveable by the methods of experimental science. Neither can it qualify, according to the above criteria, as a scientific theory, since creation would have been unobservable and would as a theory be nonfalsifiable." (Gish, 1978, p. 21)

Fine. For the sake of argument I will stipulate this. However neither is evolution provable by the methods of experimental science. And it is an even worse example of science than creationism, because, according to Vil’s quote of Strahler, evolution is not only disprobable, but disproven.
Yet we continue to allow this theory, which has already been disproven, according to an atheistic evolutionist to be taught as science unchallenged in our schools.

Originally posted by The Guy who's uncool
And this is exactly what we find in the fossil record. All species in the fossil record appear suddenly POOF! from nowhere. Therefore, according this quote, evolution has already been disproven.


This would be true if every creature that ever lived had been fossilized and then every fossil had been unearthed and studied. Then, after every fossil had been studied, and accurately dated, the fossil record would have to show that in fact species spontaneously appeared. Since this is obviously not the case your assertion is false.


The evolution model, for instance, could be falsified in any number of ways--a new species could be reliably observed to suddenly POOF! into existence from nowhere, for instance.

If you believe that the fossil record shows that species have spontaneously appeared then you have no understanding at all of the fossilization process, nor of the evolutionary process.

Firstly, fossilization only occurs under very unusual circumstnces, and only a small percentage of species will be able to be studied using the fossil record, and even then some species will only have a few examples of fossils to be studied. Secondly, there is no way to use an ancient fossil to "reliably observe" the spontaneous appearance of a new species, since it is not a record of a creatures appearance, only of it's death. The only way to reliably observe an new species spontaneously appearing would be to do so now, in the present, and since this has never happened, this fact lends credence to the Theory of Evolution. What the fossil record can, and does show, is that over vast amounts of time, subtle changes occur in species that leads one species to evolve into different species.

Jere, I AM NOT ATHIEST ! Get your facts straight before you speak of me. You seem to think that not believing in your Christian religion and not to believe the Christian Bible is anything but a story written by men and totaly accepted by others is being an athiest.

Many people believe in a supreme force, you call a god.
Has nothing to do with Bibles and Mans-religions.

This religion thing is man made. A god would have no need for such.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I was thinking Lionel was the one who was Athesist. Does that answer your question or should I draw a diagram.

I'm glad you cleared that up!

Originally posted by Vilepagan
This would be true if every creature that ever lived had been fossilized and then every fossil had been unearthed and studied. Then, after every fossil had been studied, and accurately dated, the fossil record would have to show that in fact species spontaneously appeared. Since this is obviously not the case your assertion is false.



If you believe that the fossil record shows that species have spontaneously appeared then you have no understanding at all of the fossilization process, nor of the evolutionary process.

Firstly, fossilization only occurs under very unusual circumstnces, and only a small percentage of species will be able to be studied using the fossil record, and even then some species will only have a few examples of fossils to be studied. Secondly, there is no way to use an ancient fossil to "reliably observe" the spontaneous appearance of a new species, since it is not a record of a creatures appearance, only of it's death. The only way to reliably observe an new species spontaneously appearing would be to do so now, in the present, and since this has never happened, this fact lends credence to the Theory of Evolution. What the fossil record can, and does show, is that over vast amounts of time, subtle changes occur in species that leads one species to evolve into different species.

Okay, then, now you are saying that evolution is not falsifiable, and that it cannot be tested by repeatable experimentation, therefore it is not science according to your quote. Secondly, the fossil record provides no examples whatsoever that “over vast amounts of time, subtle changes occur in species that leads one species to evolve into a different species.”

I take umbrage at your claim that I do not understand the evolutionary process, though. I'm a big fan of science fiction.;)

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Okay, then, now you are saying that evolution is not falsifiable, and that it cannot be tested by repeatable experimentation, therefore it is not science according to your quote.

No Uncool, I'm not saying that at all, what I'm saying is that it is falsifiable, it just hasn't been proven false by any species "poofing" into existence. The Theory of Evolution is "falsifiable" because their is a way to prove it wrong, it just hasn't happened yet. It can definitely be tested by repeatable experiments, and has been.

Secondly, the fossil record provides no examples whatsoever that “over vast amounts of time, subtle changes occur in species that leads one species to evolve into a different species.”

Utter nonsense. The fossil record clearly demonstrates differences in creatures appearing over vast amounts of time. Hominid fossils are an excellent example of this process.

Originally posted by Vilepagan


No Uncool, I'm not saying that at all, what I'm saying is that it is falsifiable, it just hasn't been proven false by any species "poofing" into existence. The Theory of Evolution is "falsifiable" because their is a way to prove it wrong, it just hasn't happened yet. It can definitely be tested by repeatable experiments, and has been.


Utter nonsense. The fossil record clearly demonstrates differences in creatures appearing over vast amounts of time. Hominid fossils are an excellent example of this process. [/B]

Please provide me with examples of repeatable experiments that have been done that show one species evolving into another. Of course there are differences to be found within species. However this lends no credence to the theory of evolution. If evolution were to be shown correct, we should see some examples in the fossil record that are transitional between species, as I highlighted before.

Oh wait, transitional forms are there, we just haven't found any yet. How convenient.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Please provide me with examples of repeatable experiments that have been done that show one species evolving into another.

Pure sophistry. Experiments can show that Evolution has taken place, but I'm not aware of how you might set up an experiment to capture the process in action.

If evolution were to be shown correct, we should see some examples in the fossil record that are transitional between species, as I highlighted before.


Again, you make an argument that sounds plausible, but is fallacious. How can an organism be "transitional"? You are using the old tired argument of "the missing link", which is a false concept, and in no way shows that the Theory of Evolution is invalid. One species evolves into another without the neccessity of a "transitional" organism.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Pure sophistry. Experiments can show that Evolution has taken place, but I'm not aware of how you might set up an experiment to capture the process in action.


Again, you make an argument that sounds plausible, but is fallacious. How can an organism be "transitional"? You are using the old tired argument of "the missing link", which is a false concept, and in no way shows that the Theory of Evolution is invalid. One species evolves into another without the neccessity of a "transitional" organism.

Unbelievable. You believe in a theory which has no evidence to support it and you cannot even provide one example of an experiment that would lend it any credence. Perhaps there is an experiment that exists, but, just like the evidence in the fossil record, we haven't quite found it yet.

When I ask for evidence, Any evidence, One shred, you fail to provide any. Oh, I guess I'm just a sophist for actually wanting scientists to provide evidence to support their theories.

The theory of evolution demands that transitional forms exist, yet you call it a "tired old argument" to ask for any evidence of them. The only other option is that species appear, POOF, out of nowhere, and in a previous post, an atheistic evolutionist said that would disprove evolution.

You can continue to exercise your blind faith in evolution if you want. I prefer evidence.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Unbelievable. You believe in a theory which has no evidence to support it and you cannot even provide one example of an experiment that would lend it any credence. Perhaps there is an experiment that exists, but, just like the evidence in the fossil record, we haven't quite found it yet.

When I ask for evidence, Any evidence, One shred, you fail to provide any. Oh, I guess I'm just a sophist for actually wanting scientists to provide evidence to support their theories.

The theory of evolution demands that transitional forms exist, yet you call it a "tired old argument" to ask for any evidence of them. The only other option is that species appear, POOF, out of nowhere, and in a previous post, an atheistic evolutionist said that would disprove evolution.

You can continue to exercise your blind faith in evolution if you want. I prefer evidence.

Im really liking Uncool's point. I never thought of anything like that...

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Jere, I AM NOT ATHIEST ! Get your facts straight before you speak of me. You seem to think that not believing in your Christian religion and not to believe the Christian Bible is anything but a story written by men and totaly accepted by others is being an athiest.

Many people believe in a supreme force, you call a god.
Has nothing to do with Bibles and Mans-religions.

This religion thing is man made. A god would have no need for such.


Ok....so you believe in "a God."

You say 'a god'...there is no such thing as 'a God.' there is THE God. Anyway your right God doesnt need religion, but it we as his servants do.

Here's your "transitional forms": Timeline of hominids. (http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html)
Timeline from apes to hominid (http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/pcprimpr.html)
Fossil evidence in the first one, looking for some for the apes.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/121/primatology/aegyptopithecuszeuxis.jpg
Aegyptopithecus skull.

Proconsul skull. (http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:SZYw5pwXhQ4J:fossils.valdosta.edu/fossil_pages/fossils_ter/images/p15_R.gif)

Try searching google, it will open you to the world of evolutionary evidence.

There is a very definite logical progression of species. Now then, show us evidence of creationism.

Forgive me for not being an expert on this field, but here are two problems I have with evolution.

One, if Apes begat Humans...why are their still Apes?

And what is the probability of amino acids coming together in the right spot, temperature, connections, etc in order to form life?

One, if Apes begat Humans...why are their still Apes?
Because the same apes begat other apes of a different evolutionary line. Just because a small portion of a population evolve to a more efficient way to do things, does not mean the less efficient way always disapears. Now, we don't have any living apes that existed millions of years ago, but we had decendents, less efficent than us, but more efficient than the ones millions of years ago.

And what is the probability of amino acids coming together in the right spot, temperature, connections, etc in order to form life?
I'd say gazillons upon gazillions(not a real number, let's just say it's really really really big though) to one. But in an infinite universe, it's bound to happen. Or if an improbability field goes by :D.

Yay Hitchikers! Very good book.

So why havn't we seen any more evolutionary jumps like the ape to man in other species? Surely the dolphins and some whale species have been catorgized as intellegent and therefore could evolve into a humoid species? The pig's main organisms are most similar to man but they havn't evolved into humans.


Here a few quotes from websites debunking darwinism and evolutionism.


Another theoretical flaw grew out of Darwin's incomplete understanding of genetics. Darwin assumed that any species could slowly evolve into any other species through a series of small changes. But scientists now know that genes have mutability limits. A DNA chain will stretch only so far from its original form before breaking or snapping back

DNA stretching from primitive apes to modern day humans seems like a rather large stetch to me.

Dr. Dean Kenyon, a professor of biology at San Francisco State University and co-author of a standard textbook on chemical evolution, Biochemical Predestination, and Percival Davis, a professor of science at Hillsborough Community College and the author of several college-level biology texts, likewise point out that studies of mutations have failed to produce evidence of evolution and in fact strongly tend to refute it:

As the central mechanism of evolution, mutations have been studied extensively for the past century. The fruit fly has been the subject of many experiments because its short life-span allows scientists to observe many generations. In addition, the flies have been bombarded with radiation to increase the rate of mutations. Scientists now have a pretty clear idea what kind of mutations can occur.

Mutations do not create new structures. They merely alter existing ones. Mutations have produced, for example, crumpled, oversized, and undersized wings. They have produced double sets of wings. But they have not created a new kind of wing. Nor have they transformed the fruit fly into a new kind of insect. Experiments have simply produced variations within the fruit fly species. . . .

The changes observed in the laboratory and the breeding pen are all limited. They represent microevolution, not macroevolution. These limited changes do not accumulate the way evolutionary theory requires in order to produce macro changes. The process that produces macroevolutionary changes must be different from any that geneticists have studied so far. . . .

How likely is it that random mutations will come together and coordinate to form just one new structure? Let's say the formation of an insect wing requires only five genes (a very low estimate). Most mutations are harmful, and scientists estimate that only one in 1,000 is not
The probability of two non-harmful mutations occurring is one in one thousand million million. For all practical purposes, there is no chance that all five mutations will occur within the life cycle of a single organism. (Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, Dallas: Haughton Publishing C


If that isnt enough....heres one more point.

According to classical (or Darwinian) evolutionary theory, life slowly evolved in stages, e.g., the certain "ape-like creatures" gradually evolved into man, some reptiles evolved into mammals (to include birds), some dogs evolved into horses, etc., etc. If this were the case, we would expect to find numerous "transitional forms" in the fossil record, i.e., fossils of animals that were half dog and half horse, or that were half ape and half man, or that were half reptile and half bird, etc., etc. However, not a single clear-cut transitional form has been found.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
So why havn't we seen any more evolutionary jumps like the ape to man in other species? Surely the dolphins and some whale species have been catorgized as intellegent and therefore could evolve into a humoid species? The pig's main organisms are most similar to man but they havn't evolved into humans.
An ape and a human are quite similar. However, an ape/human and a dolphin are not all too similar, or have you not noticed this?

Also, just because something hasn't evolved into something doesn't disprove evolution at all.
Another theoretical flaw grew out of Darwin's incomplete understanding of genetics. Darwin assumed that any species could slowly evolve into any other species through a series of small changes. But scientists now know that genes have mutability limits. A DNA chain will stretch only so far from its original form before breaking or snapping back
Huh?! That's a load of crap! DNA has no mutability limits. Unless, of course, you can give me some scientific proof that it does. (i.e. NOT some Christian creationist "scientist")
Dr. Dean Kenyon, a professor of biology at San Francisco State University and co-author of a standard textbook on chemical evolution, Biochemical Predestination, and Percival Davis, a professor of science at Hillsborough Community College and the author of several college-level biology texts, likewise point out that studies of mutations have failed to produce evidence of evolution and in fact strongly tend to refute it, etc.
What that experiment fails to take into consideration is the environment. In the lab, the envrionment is quite controlled. The fruit flies encounter no predators, no lack of food, no disease, etc. Natural selection occurs because members of a population without a specific trait either die before they can reproduce or are rendered sterile and thus cannot reproduce. For example, let's say tomorrow, something happens to the Earth and any people with blue eyes are rendered sterile. All the people with blue eyes cannot reproduce. Now, people with an advantaged trait, say brown eyes, can still reproduce. In 100 years, all blue-eyed people will have died off. A few will still be born due to genetics, but brown, hazel, and green will predominate. Fast forward a thousand years, and the genes for blue eyes, having been unable to be passed on through generations, will nearly have disappeared. That is how evolution works, Jere.

So why havn't we seen any more evolutionary jumps like the ape to man in other species? Surely the dolphins and some whale species have been catorgized as intellegent and therefore could evolve into a humoid species? The pig's main organisms are most similar to man but they havn't evolved into humans.
They weren't jumps. Yes, dolphins are highly intelligent, however, they are about as intelligent as they need to be. It's not that difficult to get food in the water, countless schools of fish, just swim through it and you have a dinner. However, human evolution is very peculiar. Humans evolved in Africa. Now, Africa was starting to become desert like in many areas around that time period. Some apes decided to leave the forest, better food source or something. Now, in order to catch their food in the desert, they had to develop upright legs, something that we've seen happen in modern apes, can't remember which one it was. Then, their brain needed to be bigger in order to outthink the food, they figured out how to use tools, our guess is that they used rocks and such and lobbed them. Over time they got smarter and smarter, ease of living, easier to catch food. Now, the brain grew at an exponential rate, and didn't stop until homo sapien sapien came around(we have the about the same brain size as they did). More tools, brain had to be bigger. To the point where they figured out how to group together and have tribes and such. Grows to now. Don't think that just because we're so smart now, that we were much smarter than dolphins a million years ago.

DNA stretching from primitive apes to modern day humans seems like a rather large stetch to me.
Uh, here's more what that guy(Lawrence Keleman) says:
The fly naturally grows about thirty-six bristles, but Mayr was able to breed otherwise normal flies with as few as twenty-five and as many as fifty-six bristles. When Mayr pushed the fly's genetic material beyond these limits, samples became sterile and died out. When allowed to breed normally, though, even the most mutant strains returned to almost normal bristle counts within five generations. Similarly, scientists have changed the famous peppered moth (Briston betularia) from speckled to silver, silver to black, and black back to speckled. But the moth never became green, purple, or blue; and it always remained a moth.
What he's talking about are bred mutations. Of course something becomes sterile when a mutation sucks. I mean, why keep a mutation that takes off a wing? One that makes you blind? Now if the mutation made it go faster, I'm sure it would keep, and have no problems in the future. Since I know nothing about what they really did in the study, I can't come to a very good conclusion.(END EDIT, sorry if it sounds bad now...) The mutations evolution talks about(most of them) are the natural ones. Which occur during sexual reproduction. Chromosomes splitting wrong, other things they talked about in bio that I wasn't paying attention to... Now, those aren't messing with portions of the DNA, they are chaning them before the DNA is actually made(copied). There is no bounce back when it doesn't know it's been changed.

Now, on the second big thing you have in there. Mutations change small portions of structures, if it's a good change, it stays, if it's not, it goes. Good changes may get changed again, and over millions, billions of years, you have new creatures.

Okay, now fossils have been found, for countless animals. Of course we can't find a fossil for every single one, as Vile said, to make a fossil requires very very specific enviromental conditions. There is a rather logical line around horses and mice and such, an ancient "horse" was about 14" tall. Now, to find fossil information on the internet for that... It's late and I'm lazy, maybe if I remember tomorrow after my homework.

EDIT:Shit, I had gotten studies mixed up...

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Unbelievable. You believe in a theory which has no evidence to support it and you cannot even provide one example of an experiment that would lend it any credence. Perhaps there is an experiment that exists, but, just like the evidence in the fossil record, we haven't quite found it yet.

When I ask for evidence, Any evidence, One shred, you fail to provide any. Oh, I guess I'm just a sophist for actually wanting scientists to provide evidence to support their theories.

You know what uncool...I'm not a scientist...I will look for the proof that you demand, and maybe I'll find it, but until then I'll believe wht scientists tell me rather than the dogma preached by religion when it comes to scientific questions.

The theory of evolution demands that transitional forms exist, yet you call it a "tired old argument" to ask for any evidence of them. The only other option is that species appear, POOF, out of nowhere, and in a previous post, an atheistic evolutionist said that would disprove evolution.

Your contention that "transitional" forms would exist is fallacious, no matter how much you would like it to be true.

You can continue to exercise your blind faith in evolution if you want. I prefer evidence.

When it comes to "blind faith" and "evidence" those who believe in a supernatural creation are the ones who are blind. What evidence can you provide for a supernatural creation?

Jere, why do you continue to argue this. All of your evidence is absolutely right and infallible in my opinion. It all makes perfect sense. Yet there will always be ones who will take what was not covered and magnify it to the point that it looks like it means something. In some instances it may mean something. But it still doesnt make anything you said less right. You KNOW/believe that you are correct, yet as you amass evidence to prove you are correct, there is enough evidence that says you are wrong to cancel you out. Therefore, in my humble opinion, you assuredness is all that matters. Let others believe what they want. I, for one, don't find it flattering to even think that I evolved from a monkey. Yet, once again, if you dont believe in a CREATOR and a CREATION then I guess you will believe most anything...

The word of God is evidence enough for me.

Well then jere there you have it.

Originally posted by Jwjames111
Jere, why do you continue to argue this. All of your evidence is absolutely right and infallible in my opinion. It all makes perfect sense. Yet there will always be ones who will take what was not covered and magnify it to the point that it looks like it means something. In some instances it may mean something. But it still doesnt make anything you said less right. You KNOW/believe that you are correct, yet as you amass evidence to prove you are correct, there is enough evidence that says you are wrong to cancel you out. Therefore, in my humble opinion, you assuredness is all that matters. Let others believe what they want. I, for one, don't find it flattering to even think that I evolved from a monkey. Yet, once again, if you dont believe in a CREATOR and a CREATION then I guess you will believe most anything...


Wow, Thanks.

Cant argue with a post like that, lol.:D

No, but in all seriousness, your right and I see your point. On some level I know its our responsibility to testify and whitness....but its like singing to the deaf.

Originally posted by Jwjames111
Jere, why do you continue to argue this. All of your evidence is absolutely right and infallible in my opinion. It all makes perfect sense. Yet there will always be ones who will take what was not covered and magnify it to the point that it looks like it means something. In some instances it may mean something. But it still doesnt make anything you said less right. You KNOW/believe that you are correct, yet as you amass evidence to prove you are correct, there is enough evidence that says you are wrong to cancel you out. Therefore, in my humble opinion, you assuredness is all that matters. Let others believe what they want. I, for one, don't find it flattering to even think that I evolved from a monkey. Yet, once again, if you dont believe in a CREATOR and a CREATION then I guess you will believe most anything...
Patronizing little ass...

Unflattering as it may be, science says we did indeed, evolve from apes (NOT monkeys)

And Jere...why can't evolution and religion coexist? Why couldn't God have instigated and helped along evolution as part of his plan? I know plenty of Christians who see it that way...

Because the Bible says Adam was made from dust...not the evolution of Apes.

And about your reply to James....do you find it much more flattering to be evolved from Apes than Monkees?:rolleyes:

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Because the Bible says Adam was made from dust...not the evolution of Apes.
Let's just throw one thing out there about the Bible...
Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 5:5: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
And about your reply to James....do you find it much more flattering to be evolved from Apes than Monkees?:rolleyes:
Never said it was flattering, hence my saying "Unflattering as it may be".

im sorry Borg, but thats how i see it.

They did Die.

They gained a world of sin...and what does the bible say the wage of sin is.....Death.

Read that verse again, Jere.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Let's just throw one thing out there about the Bible...
Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 5:5: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Never said it was flattering, hence my saying "Unflattering as it may be".

Well since you want to use the Bible, i'll give you this scripture:
2 Peter 3:8a

"However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9_Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. "

i do believe that perfectly explains that which u speak of.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
And Jere...why can't evolution and religion coexist? Why couldn't God have instigated and helped along evolution as part of his plan? I know plenty of Christians who see it that way...

Like say, me.

Lionel,

I probably want be able to respond until tomorrow....because the sweet nothings of sleep are screaming my name....but I am interested in the concept of Christians beliving in this concept.

I would like to know, even if you need to open a thread, (unless its just one of those because I dont go by the bible type answers) how you can justify believing in it, and have faith in God too.

Im not saying you are wrong, but I want to grasp my brain around his concept. So open my eyes.

originally posted by VilePagan
When it comes to "blind faith" and "evidence" those who believe in a supernatural creation are the ones who are blind. What evidence can you provide for a supernatural creation?

You just said that, despite lacking any evidence, you were going to believe what the scientists tell you. That sounds like blind faith to me.

The evidence for supernatural creation lies in the complexity of biological life forms. It is statistically impossible that they just created themselves, out of nothing.

I’m also disillusioned by the disingenuousness of the adherents to evolution. First, they claim that over millions of years, tiny changes in biological life cause species to evolve into other species. Obviously, if this were true, there would be evidence of this in the fossil record. When none is found, they claim that none is needed. Now, species supposedly “evolve” abruptly. If this were true, we should see evidence of new species evolving within the past several hundred years. We do not see any evidence of this, either, and since tiny changes over vast amounts of time are no longer required for evolutionary change, the evolutionists have provided no proposed mechanism for punctuated equilibrium.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
You just said that, despite lacking any evidence, you were going to believe what the scientists tell you. That sounds like blind faith to me.

What I said was, that I couldn't neccessarily provide evidence, no that it didn't exist. Perhaps I do have "faith" in scientists, but I don't believe it's "blind" faith, because the evidence can be presented and requires no belief in the supernatural.

The evidence for supernatural creation lies in the complexity of biological life forms. It is statistically impossible that they just created themselves, out of nothing.

Occam's razor is a scientific principle that suggests that a supernatural creation is the least likely of the various creation theories because it isn't the simplest. The complexity of life forms might be a proof of supernatural intervention if it were the only possible way to explain the complexity of life forms, but it is not. You may believe that it is "statistically impossible" but the truth is that it may be statistically "unlikely", or it may even be statistically "likely" that life comes into being on planets like our own. With only our planet to study we have no way of judging the statistical likelihood of life existing on such planets.

I’m also disillusioned by the disingenuousness of the adherents to evolution. First, they claim that over millions of years, tiny changes in biological life cause species to evolve into other species. Obviously, if this were true, there would be evidence of this in the fossil record.

Fossils only allow us to make the most crude judgements about the life forms that left them. We can only deduce general things about the animals that left their petrified remains behind. Why do you assume that "tiny" differences would neccessarily be discernable? And I would like to point out that no two fossils of the same species of animal are completely identical. Does this not represent changes within the species?

When none is found, they claim that none is needed. Now, species supposedly “evolve” abruptly. If this were true, we should see evidence of new species evolving within the past several hundred years. We do not see any evidence of this, either, and since tiny changes over vast amounts of time are no longer required for evolutionary change, the evolutionists have provided no proposed mechanism for punctuated equilibrium.

Perhaps I mispoke in a previous post when I said there were no "transitional" species. What I meant was, that a "species" of any creature has certain characteristics which define it as one species or another. When a fossil is found scientists examine it and try to figure out what creature it comes from and assign it to its proper species. The fossil itself may be slightly different from previous examples found, and if it is different enough they may assign it to a new species or not. There is often disagreement between scientists over whether it belongs to a previously recognized species or an entirely new one. In no way did I mean to suggest that species widely different from anything previously known suddenly "pop" into existence, and again the fossil record bears this out. If creatures did spontaneously occur, you would expect to find fossils of creatures that bear no similarity to other creatures whatsoever.

Another important point to remember is that the vast majority of fossils are just fragments of the whole creature. It is a very rare thing indeed when a whole, intact skeleton is found. Many mistakes have been made when reassembling fragmentary fossils into a whole creature.

Once a whole creature has been assembled then it may be examined to see where it fits into the evolutionary tree. It may be a precursor to a modern animal, or it may fall along one of the many branches of the evolutionary tree that have since died out. This is a very complex problem and may never be solved with 100% accuracy.

You just said that, despite lacking any evidence, you were going to believe what the scientists tell you. That sounds like blind faith to me.
For you all, I'll repost my old post.

Here's your "transitional forms": Timeline of hominids. (http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html)
Timeline from apes to hominid (http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/pcprimpr.html)
Fossil evidence in the first one, looking for some for the apes.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/121/primatology/aegyptopithecuszeuxis.jpg
Aegyptopithecus skull.

Proconsul skull. (http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:SZYw5pwXhQ4J:fossils.valdosta.edu/fossil_pages/fossils_ter/images/p15_R.gif)

Try searching google, it will open you to the world of evolutionary evidence.

There is a very definite logical progression of species.


The evidence for supernatural creation lies in the complexity of biological life forms. It is statistically impossible that they just created themselves, out of nothing.
Statistically impossible? In an infinite univers, nothing is statistically impossible. Those small changes are not only statistically possible, but they have logical progression. "Those that could, did, those that couldn't didn't." - Dickman(our research teacher). Cells grouped together because it was easier to survive, again it was easier to survive with specialization, and again different things occured depending on the enviroment, because it was easier to survive. Evolution happens for ease of survival, that happens every day. We also have another name for a level of evolution, adaptation.

Obviously, if this were true, there would be evidence of this in the fossil record.
We have tons of fossil evidence. Of course we can't document every year of evolution, for not everything can be fossilized. We don't have fossils of ancient bacteria(well, we have some, imprints in ice or something), because they don't leave behind bones. And bones do disolve, it requires a very very specific situation to create a fossil.

Heres an article I founded.

Called five reasons why not to believe in Evolution.

1. It is Bad Science.
Evolutionists claim that all living things share a common origin, and that over millions of years life
has progressed from microbes to human beings. Yet this claim is totally unsupported by scientific
observations. No one has ever observed evolution taking place, and there is no evidence that it
happened in the past. Living organisms certainly show wide variation, but this is always within
limits. Finches have different sizes and shapes of beak, but they remain finches. There are several
hundred different breeds of dogs, but they are still dogs. Natural selection can only "shuffle" the
genetic information already present; no new traits can be added.


Yet evolutionists claim that fish evolved legs and walked on to the land, that reptiles evolved
wings and became birds, and so on. Not only is this genetically impossible, the fossil record
reveals absolutely no trace of any such changes. 130 years ago, Charles Darwin bemoaned the
problem of the "missing links". Many millions of fossils have been unearthed since then, but not
one transitional form has ever been found! Both the living world and the fossil record support the
Biblical account of creation, where we read that God created things "according to their kinds"
(see Genesis chapter one). True science supports creation, not evolution!



2. It Degrades Human Beings.

The Bible tells us that God created human beings in His own image (Genesis 1: 27 & 5: 1), "a
little lower than the heavenly beings." (Psalm 8: 5). Evolution says that humans are "a li ttle
higher than the apes" and arrived on earth only after a long process of evolution. Evolutionists
love to reconstruct our alleged ancestors from fragments of bone, and what they lack in actual
fossil material they fill from their imagination. Yet despite the many hairy creatures which are
pictured in books or on television, there is no proof that "ape-men" ever existed. The evidence
shows that humans have always been humans since the beginning. The idea that we have
evolved has given rise to some very inhuman philosophies and practices. Charles Darwin
believed that Europeans were superior to coloured people, and Hitler, spurred on by his belief
that the Germans were a "master race", murdered 6 million Jews, whom he considered inferior.
Communism, which is evolution-based, has also been responsible for some of the blackest deeds
of history. Evolution is also the very foundation of humanism, which is so influential today. The
evolutionary notion of the "survival of the fittest" applied to human affairs is a horrible idea, and
has given rise to abortion on demand and calls for euthanasia to be legalised. The widespread
acceptance of evolution has certainly degraded and brutalised the human race.



3. It is Incompatible with God's Nature.

When people claim that God used evolution to create life, do they really realise what they are
saying? This would mean that God - whom the Bible claims is a loving Creator - used a process
which involved millions of years of death and suffering in order to produce human beings. And
that when God saw that His creation was "very good" (Genesis 1: 31), not only were many of the
animals on earth tearing each other apart, but beneath the ground lay a vast graveyard of
fossilised animals, the results of at least 600 million years of such death and struggle!

Nobel-prizewinning biologist Jacques Monod once said in a broadcast in Australia: "Natural

selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species... I am surprised that a
Christian would defend the idea that this is the system which God more or less set up in order to
have evolution." The Bible reveals that God simply has to speak in order to create. When God
came to us in Jesus Christ, this is how He worked - stilling a storm, raising a dead man, healing the
sick - so why would He waste millions of years? Jesus also came to help the helpless, lift up the
fallen and strengthen the weak; this is opposite to the "survival of the fittest". The idea of
evolution is so alien to God's ways, that to claim He used this process to create life is
to insult Him.



4. It undermines Christianity.

The central theme of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He died and rose
again to save us from sin and death. To find out the origin of sin and death we must go back to
Genesis! There we read that our first ancestors, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God, and as a result of
"The Fall" death entered God's perfect world. This is echoed in the New Testament: "Sin entered
the world through one man, and death through sin" (Romans 5: 12). "As in Adam all die, so in
Christ will all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15: 22). The Bible describes death as an enemy and
intruder in God's once-perfect creation, yet if God used evolution to create us, death was not the
result of human sin, but has always been present since the beginning. Therefore, evolution
strikes at the very foundation of the Gospel and removes the reason for the coming of Jesus as
Saviour.



5. It is a Stumbling-block to Christian Faith.

Most people have been persuaded by the media and educational system that evolution is a fact
beyond dispute. If people believe that the origin of the universe and life can be explained without
God, and that they themselves have arrived on earth as the result of millions of years of mindless
evolution, they are far less likely to be responsive to the message of the Gospel. And if they
believe that death and suffering have always been part of life on earth, they will find it difficult to
believe in the existence of a loving Creator. Of course, conviction of sin is the work of the Holy
Spirit, but Christians have a duty to remove stumbling-blocks which make it hard for people to
believe, and evolution is probably the greatest stumbling-block of all. Only as Christians become

informed about evolution, and the evidence against it, can they counter the widespread belief that
the Bible and Christianity are no longer credible because "science can explain everything". Using
the evidence for creation is proving to be a very effective tool in evangelism, and many, many
people have come to faith in Christ as a result of being shown the unscientific nature of
evolution, and the facts that support the Biblical account of origins

1. Everything there is false. The fossil record does support evolution. It is genetically possible. It has been observed.

2. And? Saying we were created by a mythical Superman doesn't sound too flattering either. And in any case, it is irrelevant how flattering it is if it is the truth...

3, 4, & 5. Maybe you should think of those not as reasons to disbelieve in evolution, but to disbelieve in Christianity, or at least the version that preaches all that, if indeed evolution is incompatible? There is far more evidence for evolution than there is for a god.

1. It is Bad Science.
BS. What's bad science is taking a mystery and attributing it to a magical force for no damn reason. It is not bad science, countless evidence supports it. Not a single shred of that was done under bad scientific conditions.

No one has ever observed evolution taking place
Well no fucking duh! It takes millions of years for evolution to do it's work, homo sapien sapiens have only been around for a few hundred thousand!

As for the rest of it. We don't care. If science decided to not disprove something because it' shake the foundations of somebody's faith, well, frankly, we'd have nothing. We would still think the sun revolved around us, we would still think the earth was flat, we would still think that bugs spontainously appeared, we would still think countless things. And we would be living in the stone age. And I'm quite sure the great St. Augustine would not be considered a saint, but somebody burned at the stake for blasphemy. Frankly, the fact of the matter is that, science does not bow to your worthless petty feelings

and the facts that support the Biblical account of origins
Oh, the facts that don't fucking exist.

:corn: :corn: :corn: :corn:

Christians have one book to base their beliefs in creation upon.

At least there are many on-going investigations into Darwins theorys. They one day may be proven. Not much of a way to prove something written thousands of years ago by a bunch of arabs.

Look at all the posts, wow! I’m still on page one. I guess that’s okay, I’ll just plod along and touch on what ever posts I’m able to. Echo you’re up with your statement:
“Faith demands one sublimate logic. They cannot co-exist.”

I just don’t see why you think that faith and logic cannot co-exist. Everyone has faith of some sort, including scientist. In the morning some get into their car and go to work with the faith that they will not get into an accident. Many married people have faith that their spouse won’t fool around on them. When we board an airplane we have faith that we will reach our destination without crashing, my boss doesn’t enjoy faith in airplanes so he never flies.
I understand you probably mean faith in God, but my point is that every day people trust in what they cannot test empirically. A Christian has faith that there is a God, we don’t have a hair from His head, nor can we jump in a car and drive to His house, but we have evidence and we have faith. An atheist (yes, I mean atheist) doesn’t have any proof that God doesn’t exist, he would have to have 100% knowledge to know something like that, but they do have the fact that they’ve never seen Him, and they have faith that He doesn’t exist. The agnostic doesn’t know if there is a God and has great faith that there is no evidence that He exist. The agnostic faith is so great that when confronted with evidence, such as the irreducible complexity of cells and different bacterium, they will say “it’s possible that it just happens, given enough time, and the universe with all its stars, planets, life, and reasoning emotional beings, also just happens.

Yes, great faith.

Echo, I would like to see you give a couple of reasons why you think faith and logic cannot co-exist.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Try searching google, it will open you to the world of evolutionary evidence.

You can also do a google search to find a world of “evidence” supporting alien life on earth, lost civilizations under the sea, and on Mars, and that President Bush and Tony Blair are great disco dancers. You will also find a lot of evidence against evolution by searching google.

Originally posted by VilePagan
Occam's razor is a scientific principle that suggests that a supernatural creation is the least likely of the various creation theories because it isn't the simplest.

Are you serious? Intelligent Design is easily the simplest explanation for creation. You can make many arguments against creation science, but to say evolution is simpler makes no sense at all. Occam’s razor would actually lend support to supernatural creation over the mental meanderings and backpedaling of evolution.

Fossils only allow us to make the most crude judgements about the life forms that left them. We can only deduce general things about the animals that left their petrified remains behind. Why do you assume that "tiny" differences would neccessarily be discernable? And I would like to point out that no two fossils of the same species of animal are completely identical. Does this not represent changes within the species?

This too would argue against evolution. Evolutionists make very specific judgments about these life forms. If tiny differences are not discernible then evolution cannot rise above the level of pure fantasy. The HUGE differences we see between species supports the contention that God created these species independent of one another. Of course we see differences within species, but we see no evidence that one species changes into another.

Another important point to remember is that the vast majority of fossils are just fragments of the whole creature.

Exactly. That’s why evolutionists are not to be believed when they find 3 teeth and a thighbone and say they’ve found a precursor species to modern man.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
You can also do a google search to find a world of “evidence” supporting alien life on earth, lost civilizations under the sea, and on Mars, and that President Bush and Tony Blair are great disco dancers. You will also find a lot of evidence against evolution by searching google.

This argument cuts both ways Uncool. Apparently since you can't refute a specific argument or piece of evidence you resort to calling into question all information available on the subject of Evolution simply because this evidence appears on the Internet. Brilliant argument.

Are you serious? Intelligent Design is easily the simplest explanation for creation. You can make many arguments against creation science, but to say evolution is simpler makes no sense at all. Occam’s razor would actually lend support to supernatural creation over the mental meanderings and backpedaling of evolution.

Incorrect. Creation and intelligent design both require the intervention of an outside force, while Evolution "simply" relies on nature. You are deliberately misrepresenting or misunderstanding the usage of "simplicity" in this case.

This too would argue against evolution. Evolutionists make very specific judgments about these life forms. If tiny differences are not discernible then evolution cannot rise above the level of pure fantasy.

The point was that some tiny differences will be discernible while most would not, because only the skeletons of fossilized creatures are typically preserved for study. Any differences that might occur in the soft tissues of such creatures would not neccessarily be determinable form fossilized remains.

The HUGE differences we see between species supports the contention that God created these species independent of one another.

It also supports Evolution over a vast period of time.

Of course we see differences within species, but we see no evidence that one species changes into another.

You don't see it because you've closed your mind to it. The vast majority of reputable scientists see the evidence and correctly interpret it.

Exactly. That’s why evolutionists are not to be believed when they find 3 teeth and a thighbone and say they’ve found a precursor species to modern man.

Just out of curiosity, what do you make of all the hominid remains that have been found? What species that God created do these bones come from?

While we're on the subject, and since you mentioned "pure fantasy", where are the remains of the dragons, giants, unicorns, satyrs, and cockatrices that the Bible mentions?

This argument cuts both ways Uncool. Apparently since you can't refute a specific argument or piece of evidence you resort to calling into question all information available on the subject of Evolution simply because this evidence appears on the Internet. Brilliant argument.
I was merely pointing out, once again, that something isn’t true, just because it’s on the internet. I could not discuss Blib’s links because, for some reason, they aren’t working on my machine.

Creation and intelligent design both require the intervention of an outside force, while Evolution "simply" relies on nature. You are deliberately misrepresenting or misunderstanding the usage of "simplicity" in this case.
You are deliberately misrepresenting Occam’s razor. Intelligent design “simply” relies on the hand of God. Evoluti