Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Creationists, explain to me why humans and dinosaurs....

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
Unfortunately geologists disagree with your journalist^^


I don't care if the entire population of the planet disagrees. If you have a claim, substantiate it.

Some claims can be taken on face value. Other claims - such as the idea that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time - require a bit of justification, especially in the face of good arguments to the contrary.


Oh, and Glen J. Kuban (the man to whom the page i posted is copywritten) is not a journalist. He has a degree in biology and teaching. He works as a programmer and system analyst.
You could have found that out with a two-second google search. That's how i found it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/gkbio.html
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
Unfortunately geologists disagree with your journalist^^


Unfortunately, your Paluxy River prints have been repudiated by science for sometime now. And, to reemphasize exton's point, please, in the future, consider citing your sources.
Back to top
phoneguytim
Newbie


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
well, the Paluxy river prints have been attacked by evolutionists since they were found--and understandably so. if the prints are accepted as genuine, the evolutionists would have to completely re-think their theories.

I've actually been down to the Paluxy river, actually talked in person to Dr. Carl Baugh, actually seen in person the Burdick Print, actually seen in person the pressure striations in the cross sections of the print that prove that it could not have been carved. this is very troublesome to evolutionists--so, they constantly attack the scientist, or they simply ignore it.

i used to be a Theistic Evolutionist because I believed in a higher power and I thought that higher power used evolution to bring about life as we know it. but after seriously looking at and thinking about the evidence for the theory of evolution, i came to the conclusion that evolution just doesn't make sense--too many logical gaps. special creation without the use of evolution fits the current evidence much better than evolution---in my opinion, of course.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
phoneguytim wrote:
well, the Paluxy river prints have been attacked by evolutionists since they were found--and understandably so. if the prints are accepted as genuine, the evolutionists would have to completely re-think their theories.

I've actually been down to the Paluxy river, actually talked in person to Dr. Carl Baugh, actually seen in person the Burdick Print, actually seen in person the pressure striations in the cross sections of the print that prove that it could not have been carved. this is very troublesome to evolutionists--so, they constantly attack the scientist, or they simply ignore it.

i used to be a Theistic Evolutionist because I believed in a higher power and I thought that higher power used evolution to bring about life as we know it. but after seriously looking at and thinking about the evidence for the theory of evolution, i came to the conclusion that evolution just doesn't make sense--too many logical gaps. special creation without the use of evolution fits the current evidence much better than evolution---in my opinion, of course.


Special creation has no explanation for modifications in isolated populations; special creation has no explanation for vestigial features; Special creation has no explanation for the creator.

In can not be denied that "special creation" stops further study. The moment a claim is accepted that "god did it" is the moment you hang up your investigational activities and retire because there are no answers to seek beyond that. That is huge problem with "special creation": it doesn't explain anything.

As for the Paluxy River tracks. The prints may have been carved, the creationist camps and the scientific camps both agree that the McFall/Baugh sites involve several geographic phenomena like elongated dinosaur tracks, non-striding trails, invertebrate trace patterns AND evidence of deliberate alteration. Creationists have acknowledged this since th 1970s and Baugh has brought no credible evidence to prove they are anything more then the conclusions drawn by science.

I'm sorry, but without some verifiable proof, Baugh is tilting at windmills.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm

Quote:
In 1990 the Burdick track was re-sectioned across the toes and heel under the direction of Carl Baugh and Don Patton. Subsequently Patton promoted the track in the MIOS newsletter, which requested donations for a new museum display of the track (Patton, 1990). At the 2nd International Conference on Creationism in 1990, Patton displayed and sold photographs of the new cross sections, claiming that they showed subsurface deformation lines proving the print authentic. However, others at the conference, including the current authors and creationist paleontologist Kurt Wise, observed that the alleged pressure features were algal structures truncated by the print depression, indicating that that track was carved. Nevertheless, Carl Baugh and Don Patton continued to promote the track as genuine (Baugh, 1996, 2005).


Quote:
The surface of the Burdick track contains many small pit marks unlike known track surfaces in Glen Rose. The sides of the slab show many chisel marks, which like the pit-marks, are reminiscent of the carving technique described by Wayland Adams. Don Patton (1990) claims to have found the outcrop from which the Burdick track was taken, but has not documented that the bed contains any tracks, or that it contains pit patterns like the Burdick track.


Furthermore, there is evidence (algal secretions in the limestone) that indicate that the "Brudick track" that Dr. Baugh has staked his claim was made on the underside of the slab. The algal growth direction in Baugh's slab is downward (away from the track side).
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One big problem I have with a lot of "creation" scientists (scientists who claim evidence against evolution) is that they make their claim and go away. It is the faithful zealots that promote their claim and keep it floating.

For example, the Dr. Baugh and the Burdick prints. He has claimed that the tracks are authentic way back in 1990 time frame. In about 20 years, he has come up with NOTHING more. Not one iota of evidence explain all the other anomalies with his prints - why are the algal growths backwards? why are the striations inconsistent throughout the track? etc, etc. Yet, despite this drought of further work, Baugh has this claim as a show piece of his own Museum. Thus, Special Creationists glom onto Baugh and hold this 2 decade old piece as if its some revelation.

It has been called into question, his claims have been refuted, where has Baugh been for the past 20 years to defend his claims as any reputable scientist would.
Back to top
phoneguytim
Newbie


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i'm gonna have to disagree with you on the "creation stops further study" thing. maybe for some, it does... for others, it does not. you also beat the tired old drum that one cannot prove god. but that brings about the same old tired drumbeat in retort that says that you cannot disprove god. most evolutionists start with the assumption that there is no higher power. creationists start with the assumption that there is one. both are biases and both are unprovable.

when i speak to laymen evolutionists about this issue, i generally ask them to explain how evolution will continue an organism on an evolutionary path of great change whenever the intermediate steps are neutral and/or harmful to the organism. punctuated equilibrium just cannot explain it without a great deal of what i call "suspension of disbelief". think about it--why would a small change in an organism be allowed to continue if the change was neutral and/or harmful to the organism? natural selection only rewards the changes that are for the better--it weeds out the different, weak and inferior.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
phoneguytim wrote:
i'm gonna have to disagree with you on the "creation stops further study" thing. maybe for some, it does... for others, it does not. you also beat the tired old drum that one cannot prove god. but that brings about the same old tired drumbeat in retort that says that you cannot disprove god. most evolutionists start with the assumption that there is no higher power. creationists start with the assumption that there is one. both are biases and both are unprovable.


First off I will give you the same comment I have given a number of posters here: "Stop responding to what you wanted me to say and start responding to what I did say"

I have not made any statement about having to prove god, I stated that "special creation" has no explanation for the creator. If you want to attack a strawman, do so, but don't attribute it to me.

Your logic is faulty, it is not valid to expect a positive claim for god because you can not find proof of its non-existance. If that logic was valid, then Odin, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Babba Yagga are all existent beings. Christian god has no special place in human logic to get a bye on this sort of fallacy.

What you do not have is any evidence to lead one to accept, as fact, the premise that your god exists. Ergo, it is on faith that you believe in god. And by that logic it is NOT on faith that someone does not believe in god. It is the natural state to not accept something for which there is no evidence. Faith in things are part of the human psyche and not part of science.

I can accept that you disagree that "special creation" stops further study, to each his own. But, I do find it highly dubious that you have met nearly a majority of "evolutionists" to make such a claim as "most evolutionists". In fact, you might start by explaining what you mean by "evolutionist". You seem to have some definition in mind that I am not aware of.

phoneguytim wrote:
when i speak to laymen evolutionists about this issue, i generally ask them to explain how evolution will continue an organism on an evolutionary path of great change whenever the intermediate steps are neutral and/or harmful to the organism. punctuated equilibrium just cannot explain it without a great deal of what i call "suspension of disbelief". think about it--why would a small change in an organism be allowed to continue if the change was neutral and/or harmful to the organism? natural selection only rewards the changes that are for the better--it weeds out the different, weak and inferior.


You are certainly misunderstanding evolutionary change. It does not allow anything, it operates in the evironment that exists for an organism and does so through mechanisms such as natural selection.

A small change is not "allowed to continue" it occurs. An organism either has a small change or it doesn't. That organism either passes along that change through its DNA or it doesn't. If the small change is neutral (as many mutations are), it is irrelevant to the process, neither promoting nor degrading the organisms survivability. If the small change provides a benefit or a detriment, either alone or in combination with other small changes, natural selection becomes an issue.

Mutations that weakens a species diminishes the chances for that species in a given environment. The species either adapts or expires (in a sense). Mutations that advantage a species over others promotes that species or effectively diminishes others.

I am not certain what part of this you find so astonishing. Since you accept that mutation and adaptation can and do occur, what do you see as the barrier to complete adaptation/mutation if its favorable? So far, the only explanation given to that by special creation is "God doesn't allow it". That, effectively means that Special Creationists must stop further study.
Back to top
phoneguytim
Newbie


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
Your logic is faulty, it is not valid to expect a positive claim for god because you can not find proof of its non-existance. If that logic was valid, then Odin, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Babba Yagga are all existent beings. Christian god has no special place in human logic to get a bye on this sort of fallacy.


I did not claim existence of god based on other's inability to disprove god's existence. my main point, that you obviously missed, was that both sides start with an assumption--and that both assumptions are unprovable. that's it. so, to see which assumption, and thereby which theory best explains the existence of the current universe, we must go by evidence and which theory best fits.

i understand your reluctance to accept that it takes a measure of faith to believe in evolution. it would be highly optimistic of me to expect you to ever openly admit it. but if one is truly objective and honest and look at all the assumptions that fill in all the gaps in the evolutionary theory, they will see that it is a belief based on assumptions. evolution is a theory, is it not? what is a theory if not an as-yet unproven idea. but if one truly believes in a theory, which is an unproven idea, that is faith. sorry if that is hard for you to swallow.

fellfire wrote:
are certainly misunderstanding evolutionary change. It does not allow anything, it operates in the evironment that exists for an organism and does so through mechanisms such as natural selection.

A small change is not "allowed to continue" it occurs. An organism either has a small change or it doesn't. That organism either passes along that change through its DNA or it doesn't. If the small change is neutral (as many mutations are), it is irrelevant to the process, neither promoting nor degrading the organisms survivability. If the small change provides a benefit or a detriment, either alone or in combination with other small changes, natural selection becomes an issue.

Mutations that weakens a species diminishes the chances for that species in a given environment. The species either adapts or expires (in a sense). Mutations that advantage a species over others promotes that species or effectively diminishes others.

I am not certain what part of this you find so astonishing. Since you accept that mutation and adaptation can and do occur, what do you see as the barrier to complete adaptation/mutation if its favorable? So far, the only explanation given to that by special creation is "God doesn't allow it". That, effectively means that Special Creationists must stop further study.


Forgive me for using the word "allowed"... by it I meant live. not allowed=die.

to bring about something in an organism that has never been there before is what i am referring to. an organism doesn't just sprout a new arm, organ, etc in a single generation. that is the stuff of fairy tales. but what evolution proposes is that something totally new to the organism that has never existed before will, over time, develop. that just doesn't make logical sense. just because the end result of the supposed change would benefit the organism, it would not benefit the organism in the interim eons while the change was taking place.

how does something that has never existed before start? how does one way of an organism doing something change into a different way of doing the same thing? the "magical" answer i've heard over and over from evolutionists like you is that "over time, the organism slowly evolved x" time is for evolutionists like god is for creationists--both are evoked when evidence and/or explanation is not known. for example, take some internal organ that has never before existed... how would it start out in an organism. and please don't tell me that it would appear suddenly fully functional. doesn't evolution teach that it would start out as a mass and slowly evolve over countless generations into a fully functional organ that helps the organism survive better? why would that mass become anything more than a mass? how does that mass hep the organism survive over its peers? until it is functional, it would be an unproductive drain on the organism's metabolism and, therefore, hurt it's chances for survival. and many of the changes evolution proposes took place would have to be in tandem with other changes in order for the overall benefit to the organism to take place (birds, for example).

we know what natural selection does with harmful mutations (which account for far and away the greatest percentage of mutations)--it removes that organism from the gene pool. but what does natural selection do with neutral mutations? it tends not to propagate them, they are generally phased out and/or become increasingly recessive traits. my contention is that until a change, or mutation, becomes a benefit to an organism, the mechanism of natural selection tends to work against it. and the time frames that evolution requires for these changes (millions and millions of years in some cases) would tend to help natural selections work against the mutation because it would have more time to phase out the recessive trait, or non-beneficial mutation.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In pure reason, you cannot get anything stronger than a theory, because you can never make a logically valid argument for something happening in the future.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
In pure reason, you cannot get anything stronger than a theory


In pure reason, there are no theories, because a theory requires empirical validation.

When something is proven in pure reason (such as in math), it's called a "theorem". The difference is a few letters, but it's important.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
phoneguytim wrote:

you also beat the tired old drum that one cannot prove god. but that brings about the same old tired drumbeat in retort that says that you cannot disprove god.


That's largely besides the point.

For example, I can't disprove the existence of planet-destroying, purple hippopotami, but that doesn't mean that it's reasonable to believe that they exist.

Quote:

most evolutionists start with the assumption that there is no higher power. creationists start with the assumption that there is one. both are biases and both are unprovable.


No no, atheists start with that assumption. The existence or non existence of god has nothing to do with evolution.

And, like i said, the disproveability of god is besides the point - just because you can't prove that something can't possibly exist doesn't mean that it is in any way reasonable to believe that it does exist.

Or, put another way: if there is no evidence that something exists, then you don't need a reason to doubt its existence, because the idea itself is not substantively different from any other figment of someone's imagination.

You do, however, always need a reason to believe that something exists, in order for that belief to be reasonable.

Quote:

when i speak to laymen evolutionists about this issue, i generally ask them to explain how evolution will continue an organism on an evolutionary path of great change whenever the intermediate steps are neutral and/or harmful to the organism.


Harmful mutations get weeded out, if they're severe enough. Neutral ones stick around.

The thing about neutral mutation is that they're not permanantly neutral; a mutation may be neutral when it occurs, but end up being beneficial - or harmful - later on in time, should the environment that its carriers live in changes in a certain way.

Quote:
think about it--why would a small change in an organism be allowed to continue if the change was neutral and/or harmful to the organism?


It has nothing to do with "allowed". All parts of the genome - mutations and all - in one's gametes are inherited, regardless of their effects on the resulting child organisms.

If the organism that those gametes produces does, itself, manage to reproduce, then those mutations will continue on into the next generation.

The only way a gene doesn't consistently make it to the next generation is if it somehow helps in preventing reproduction in its host organism.

The default situation is that genes will continue, not that they will be weeded out.

Quote:

natural selection only rewards the changes that are for the better--it weeds out the different, weak and inferior.


Natural selection doesn't weed out the "different". The only way natural selection has any effect is through reproduction - if a gene doesn't hamper reproduction, it sticks around, generally speaking.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Lester wrote:
In pure reason, you cannot get anything stronger than a theory


In pure reason, there are no theories, because a theory requires empirical validation.

When something is proven in pure reason (such as in math), it's called a "theorem". The difference is a few letters, but it's important.


I meant logic, which is down in the rest of my post, but yeah.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
phoneguytim wrote:
fellfire wrote:
Your logic is faulty, it is not valid to expect a positive claim for god because you can not find proof of its non-existance. If that logic was valid, then Odin, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Babba Yagga are all existent beings. Christian god has no special place in human logic to get a bye on this sort of fallacy.


I did not claim existence of god based on other's inability to disprove god's existence. my main point, that you obviously missed, was that both sides start with an assumption--and that both assumptions are unprovable.


Your point was not missed, it was mistaken. As exton pointed out - there is no need to prove something unreasonable can't exist. It is taken for granted by any sane human that if something has absolutely no evidence to support it, then it's existance is unsupportable and requires faith. There is no evidence to support the existance of god. Period. One has faith that god exists despite the total lack of evidence. The only assumption here is yours.

phoneguytim wrote:
i understand your reluctance to accept that it takes a measure of faith to believe in evolution. it would be highly optimistic of me to expect you to ever openly admit it. but if one is truly objective and honest and look at all the assumptions that fill in all the gaps in the evolutionary theory, they will see that it is a belief based on assumptions. evolution is a theory, is it not? what is a theory if not an as-yet unproven idea.


Once again your are demonstrating you seemingly complete lack of understanding of science. You do not seem to understand what a scientific theory is. The theory of evolution is as much an "As-yet unproven idea" as the theory of gravity, or the special theory of relativity. Do you think it takes belief to know that time slows down as one approached the speed of light? or that all mass attracts all other mass due to a relationship involving the mass and 1/r squared?

These, and others, are all accepted scientific theories along the lines of:

Quote:
Theories are constructed in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances we are constructing models of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".


Just like creationists failed to redefine "science" to include the supernatural, you fail to redefine "scientific theory" to be an unproven idea.

Your arguement that evolution is "just a theory" is such a Creationist canned falicy that I begin to wonder if you are not simply parroting some creationist website. If so, it would be instructive to simply post the link and we can discuss the site. Otherwise it seems that creationisms refuted arguments are all still alive in some minds.

phoneguytim wrote:

to bring about something in an organism that has never been there before is what i am referring to. an organism doesn't just sprout a new arm, organ, etc in a single generation. that is the stuff of fairy tales. but what evolution proposes is that something totally new to the organism that has never existed before will, over time, develop. that just doesn't make logical sense. just because the end result of the supposed change would benefit the organism, it would not benefit the organism in the interim eons while the change was taking place.


Again, your logical sense is proven incorrect. "something totally new in an organism" has been proven in lab experiments with many organism. All of them have accelerated generation cycles, but the laboratory studies clearly demonstrates that mutations (nuetral and benefitial) can be retained across generations.

Totally new here means additional winglets in stable fruit fly strain; abilities to break down new molecules in bacterium; etc. All these things have occurred through mutations that have proven to be passed on from one generation to the next. This is a fact proven in the lab and accepted by most creationists - they call it microevolution.

phoneguytim wrote:
how does something that has never existed before start? how does one way of an organism doing something change into a different way of doing the same thing? the "magical" answer i've heard over and over from evolutionists like you is that "over time, the organism slowly evolved x" time is for evolutionists like god is for creationists--both are evoked when evidence and/or explanation is not known. for example, take some internal organ that has never before existed... how would it start out in an organism.
doesn't evolution teach that it would start out as a mass and slowly evolve over countless generations into a fully functional organ that helps the organism survive better? why would that mass become anything more than a mass? how does that mass hep the organism survive over its peers? until it is functional, it would be an unproductive drain on the organism's metabolism and, therefore, hurt it's chances for survival.


You are either purposefully ignoring your own arguments and reinventing nomenclature or you are not paying attention to what you are writing.

"how does that mass hep the organism survive over its peers? until it is functional, it would be an unproductive drain on the organism's metabolism and, therefore, hurt it's chances for survival."

If the "mass" was something that hurt the chances of survival it would be, by definition, a harmful mutation. The theory of evolution does not claim that harmful mutations are promoted, it states the opposite - that harmful mutations would have a tendency to be not selected for in subsequent generations. Now, your argument therefore comes down to claiming ALL mutations are harmful. This is patently false.

Survival is not a zero-sum game with regard to mutations. That neutral "mass" is not a drain on metabolism, if it is not a harmful mutation, it either does nothing to effect the organism and would have as good a chance of being selected for as every other feature of that generation (call it a "50-50 shot"), or it would be benefitial which would imply it has a better chance of being passed on to future generations.


phoneguytim wrote:

we know what natural selection does with harmful mutations (which account for far and away the greatest percentage of mutations)--it removes that organism from the gene pool. but what does natural selection do with neutral mutations? it tends not to propagate them, they are generally phased out and/or become increasingly recessive traits.


How do justify such an assumption? If a mutation is neutral, it may or may not get passed along to other generations depending on the gene affected. But, statistically and experimentall, numerous neutral mutations get passed along. Just read up on junk gene. We ourselves carry large number of unactivated genes. Why haven't those genes been disappearing over generations?


phoneguytim wrote:
my contention is that until a change, or mutation, becomes a benefit to an organism, the mechanism of natural selection tends to work against it. and the time frames that evolution requires for these changes (millions and millions of years in some cases) would tend to help natural selections work against the mutation because it would have more time to phase out the recessive trait, or non-beneficial mutation.


Your contention is refuted in scientific studies. That is one of the problems you have by claiming that evolution is an "as-yet unproven idea", many of evolutions claims are tested and proven. Your premise of your argument here is false, unless you have access to some study which demonstrates otherwise, all you have is a strawman starting with:

"If my contention that until a change, or mutation, becomes a benefit to an organism, the mechanism of natural selection tends to work against it were true ...."

Sorry, but I'm not here to debate against your strawman.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
phoneguytim wrote:
I did not claim existence of god based on other's inability to disprove god's existence. my main point, that you obviously missed, was that both sides start with an assumption--and that both assumptions are unprovable.

Your point was not missed, it was mistaken. As exton pointed out - there is no need to prove something unreasonable can't exist. It is taken for granted by any sane human that if something has absolutely no evidence to support it, then it's existance is unsupportable and requires faith. There is no evidence to support the existance of god. Period. One has faith that god exists despite the total lack of evidence. The only assumption here is yours.

Just a thought, but it seems to me that phoneguytim has a point here and fellfire has missed it. At some point in history an individual might reasonably have made similar statements regarding x-rays; not because there was no evidence that they existed, but because--at that time--we did not understand how to recognize the evidence; we lacked the tools to measure x-rays. That did not mean that they did not exist, nor did it mean that it was correct to claim to know that they did not.

I'm not claiming to know that God exists; but I am suggesting that fellfire can't reasonably claim to know that He doesn't. It is perfectly logical to posit that God may exist, but that we lack the ability to recognize available evidence supporting that reality.

In the end, I understand why the believers want to argue that God exists, but I find it hard to understand why those who don't believe sometimes feel compelled to argue--with every bit as much fervor--that they know God does not exist. An individual who was blind from birth might reasonably claim to "know" that light does not exist, if we accept fellfire's argument. The only evidence he or she has for the existence of light is the word of others who have experienced it for themselves.

Maybe we're all born blind to (and unable to measure) the wavelength of light that would expose God to us.

==
I hope those reading this will take time to understand what I've written. My statements above are not an argument for the existence of God; they are an attempt to disprove--or at least disagree with--fellfire's suggestion that he need not prove the non-existence of God ("there is no need to prove something unreasonable can't exist") to know it to be true.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
I hope those reading this will take time to understand what I've written. My statements above are not an argument for the existence of God; they are an attempt to disprove--or at least disagree with--fellfire's suggestion that he need not prove the non-existence of God ("there is no need to prove something unreasonable can't exist") to know it to be true.


A point taken, Trespasser, but again, you are reading more into my statement then what I stated. I have never claimed to "know God does not exist." I have stated that there is no evidence of the existence of god: do you dispute this claim? If so, please bring forth such evidence. A claim that there may be such evidence that we have not yet found, is not evidence, it is conjecture as to the existence of evidence.

Now, starting with what I said, rather then what some poster wanted me to say: "There is no evidence of the existence of god." I am not claiming to know that god doesn't exist. Also what I am not doing is positing the existence of god, nor positing the non-exitence of god. I am saying, again, that I, and every sane human, is reasonable in spending as much consideration on god as they do on any other object of the imagination. which may be none.

TrespasserW wrote:
An individual who was blind from birth might reasonably claim to "know" that light does not exist, if we accept fellfire's argument. The only evidence he or she has for the existence of light is the word of others who have experienced it for themselves.


Someone who is blind could reasonably claim to not consider the existence of light if it had no impact on their life whatsoever. Someone who argues with them that light does exist without presenting any evidence to the blind is a zealot and there is no reason for the blindperson to consider their word regarding this falacy anymore then they should consider someones belief in Santa Claus.

However, a blind person can understand mathematics and physics. They could be versed in biology and ecology. For instance, a blind person could create a device with that converts energy into sound and with that device, they could implicitly test for "light", thus learning about the properties and existence of light and having scientific proof. Proof that can be replicated by other people, blind or not, and is irrefutably based on knowledge and not opinion. Such proof has never been presented for the existence of god.

Now, the point of interest I find here is that every Christian I have had a discussion with regarding atheism comes back with the same argument: "you can't know that god does not exist", even after repeatedly telling them that is irrelevant to my point. I would almost believe that "believers" are hard-coded with this argument; that because they "beleive" then then they find it impossible to accept that someone simply finds no compelling evidence.

By your argument, for me to have faith that god doesn't exist, I would have to have faith that the toothfairy doesn't exist or that Odin doesn't exist ... and you would have to have that same faith. You are asserting that every person in the world has faith in the non-existence in a whole plethora of shit, god being just one of these "faiths". It is a facetious argument at best.

I am not debating against the existence of god, because there is nothing to debate, it is your faith. There is no evidence regarding god.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites
My Big Breasts