Stump the Christian?

[Esquilax]

No, not really. Those things can be observed, measured and tested over and over. Evolution is an extrapolation of a tiny sliver of the observed.

So, what you're saying is that you have no awareness at all of the multitude of ways that evolution has been observed, measured, tested and manipulated, over and over, for more than a century now, and yet you consider yourself knowledgeable enough about the scientific study of evolution to speak on it authoritatively. That about right?

[LastPoet]

There is something that I feel since my third year here on this forum. The idiots have no bounds defending magic and fairytales. It is indeed dismaying as they are always ready to shred any intellectual honesty just to save their vaunted belief.

Knucles in their faces won't work either, as they are so full of themselves, it would probably fuel their delusion. Bah, I live my life with fairness without god, I want people to live and let live. It is the religious anthem to proclaim theirs is the only way to live. This is why I have to keep pushing their bullshit back up their asses. If it wasn't for that, I'd have little interest in this forum.

[SteveII]

Yeah, sorry, but I'm not going to sit here and countenance your blatant goalpost shifting in order for you to prevent acceptance of common ancestry from ever being reasonable. It's dishonest in the extreme, it shows that you have no understanding of science or probabilistic reasoning, and it demonstrates a profoundly unrealistic approach to epistemology, and the blatant special pleading involved in your dismissal of things with huge amounts of evidence based on a lack of certainty, while simultaneously accepting things with no evidence at all (your religion) because you want to.

Top to bottom, your desperate scrabbling to lower modern biology to the level of your religion is absurd.

I am not shifting a goalpost by suggesting it was in the wrong place to start with. There is a different between reasonably assuming a premise to be true and reasonably assuming a premise to be true and mock all others who don't see it the same way. Everything about evolution is reasonable. I said 10 pages ago that evolution should be taught. The conversation went sideways when I mentioned distinguishing between fact and theory. Word choice aside, when evolution is taught in public schools, it is not couched in phrases like "probabilistic" "as far was we can tell". It is taught as 100% incontrovertible fact.

As far as special pleading, you are naive to think that the level of proof needed to get an adherent to jettison a religious belief is not higher than "as far was we can tell".

[robvalue]

Making religion look stupid is not the aim of the theory of evolution. It just happens to be a side effect.

Like all scientific theories, it models reality. It's not science's fault if reality does not correlate to dusty old books written by people with very little understanding of the world around them. It's not surprising at all, really. We've had 2000 years of learning since then.

[Esquilax]

I am not shifting a goalpost by suggesting it was in the wrong place to start with. There is a different between reasonably assuming a premise to be true and reasonably assuming a premise to be true and mock all others who don't see it the same way.

Look, when "not seeing it the same way" uniformly involves huge, sweeping misconceptions about extremely basic concepts involved with a premise, then that is worth mockery. If you can't even be bothered to understand the thing you disagree with, then you are being ignorant.

Everything about evolution is reasonable. I said 10 pages ago that evolution should be taught. The conversation went sideways when I mentioned distinguishing between fact and theory. Word choice aside, when evolution is taught in public schools, it is not couched in phrases like "probabilistic" "as far was we can tell". It is taught as 100% incontrovertible fact.

You know what? I'm a product of public school education, I have had literally no other formal scientific education beyond high school classes, and I understand that science is probabilistic and evidence based, subject to change. That was taught to me. In fact, that was taught as a basic tenet of science, that must be applied to one's understanding of every other specific subject we studied, before we got into specific units.

For all your bluster about how things are taught in science classrooms, that shit sure as hell didn't pass me by. Maybe you need to start giving both teachers and students more credit than you are; not everyone is as forgetful as you are.

As far as special pleading, you are naive to think that the level of proof needed to get an adherent to jettison a religious belief is not higher than "as far was we can tell".

The special pleading is inherent in that statement: you demand a standard of proof higher than "all the available evidence suggests," for things you don't already believe in, yet you'll accept your religion based on "we have no evidence at all, but just faith it, please!"

[Godscreated]

How can I corner, of course with my words, Christians and make them feel they have no choice but admit to rethinking their position or part of their positions when it comes to the bible or their god? I usually go fishing online at conservative news sites like Breitbart News Network. I'll click on a story or headline, look down at the comments and either look for key words that Christians use or post a stimulating comment, which they would of course feel the need to correct me or defend their so called faith. Is there any tools or creative weapons of reason and logic that I can use to stump them?

You might stump those who live their Christian life without studying scriptures, but those who live in a solid relationship with Christ can't be stumped, especially by one who knows so little they need to ask for someone else's ideas. Be original, though you may find yourself the one who gets stumped.

GC

[Randy Carson]

Nope.

Just the idea that a sovereign God can, has and does interact with His creation occasionally as He deems appropriate.

In ways that we can't measure, test, or verify?

Bingo.

You can't. Consequently, science can have nothing to say regarding the existence of God.

---

Nope.

Just the idea that a sovereign God can, has and does interact with His creation occasionally as He deems appropriate.

You are, full of shit. That is the truth.

Silly Euro. You crack me up. 

---

Where science contradicts either of them, then the premise was wrong. The debate comes as to what science has contradicted. It cannot comment on God, it cannot comment on the existence of things outside our universe, it cannot comment on whether God acts within our universe, and it cannot comment on existence of consciousness, an eternal soul, morality, heaven or hell.

So...when there's a conflict between science and theological claims, science is wrong?

And if we can't verify or test or measure or examine something, why the hell would you ever believe in it?

Can science verify the existence of everything?

[Esquilax]

Bingo.

You can't. Consequently, science can have nothing to say regarding the existence of God

---

If it affects the real world, it can be tested. If it doesn't affect the real world, it isn't your god.

Your petulant affectation that you somehow have some authority to decide what science can and cannot test is utterly meaningless.

[Randy Carson]

This sounds like fun, what kind of trickery do you use now?

I use none, and I did say "creative weapons of reason and logic", Christianity in the bible seem to violate logic and morality, and I am very interested in why Christians don't understand this.

Maybe because we've read it and understood it properly? 

---

No, not really. Those things can be observed, measured and tested over and over. Evolution is an extrapolation of a tiny sliver of the observed.

A correction. Evolution is a fact and the ToE is the method to which we try and explain the fact (and do a good job of it too). It's as established as magnetism and gravity, and believing it to be false with no real evidenced reason why doesn't stop it being factual.

Then why is it known as the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution?

I've never heard of the "theory of gravity"...but the Law of Gravity I know.

---

There is something that I feel since my third year here on this forum. The idiots have no bounds defending magic and fairytales. It is indeed dismaying as they are always ready to shred any intellectual honesty just to save their vaunted belief.

Knucles in their faces won't work either, as they are so full of themselves, it would probably fuel their delusion. Bah, I live my life with fairness without god, I want people to live and let live. It is the religious anthem to proclaim theirs is the only way to live. This is why I have to keep pushing their bullshit back up their asses. If it wasn't for that, I'd have little interest in this forum.

Christians lie.
Christians are intellectually dishonest.
Christians are prideful.
Christians are deluded.

Man, it sure is refreshing to see how wonderfully developed the atheist sense of living in harmony with and caring for others really is. Gotta love that societal evolution.

---

Making religion look stupid is not the aim of the theory of evolution. It just happens to be a side effect.

Like all scientific theories, it models reality. It's not science's fault if reality does not correlate to dusty old books written by people with very little understanding of the world around them. It's not surprising at all, really. We've had 2000 years of learning since then.

How so, rob?

What if God created all things and used evolution to get us to this point?

---

Bingo.

You can't. Consequently, science can have nothing to say regarding the existence of God

---

If it affects the real world, it can be tested. If it doesn't affect the real world, it isn't your god.

Your petulant affectation that you somehow have some authority to decide what science can and cannot test is utterly meaningless.

What you actually mean is the real "material" world.

You have no way of testing the real "immaterial", do you?

[Esquilax]

Then why is it known as the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution?

If you don't understand a topic, might I suggest you do a little research before you speak so authoritatively on it?

I posted this link earlier in the thread, by the way. It's a bit funny really, watching so many theists talk about science while misunderstanding basic concepts of it.

I've never heard of the "theory of gravity"...but the Law of Gravity I know

---

You've never heard of it because you're ignorant of the topic you are talking about, and apparently have no interest in learning before you open your mouth.

In science, laws explain what, but theories explain how. Why is this so hard for you people? Did you flunk out of high school before your first few science lessons?

What you actually mean is the real "material" world.

You have no way of testing the real "immaterial", do you?

If god has never interacted with the material world, then he never created it, never was Jesus, never performed miracles and never answers prayers. Is that the god you believe in?