Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[SteveII]

Sorry if I was confused with your lists.

Differences among denominations are not necessarily weaknesses. Differences come from cultural, social, and doctrinal variations but you are going to have to adhere to the basic NT teachings to be called Christian. Anything added on top of that is man-made.

The reason I mention the NT most is because it is 1) evidence that God exists, 2) provides everything you need to live worthy of God and 3) is what the entire OT was looking forward to and preparing for. 

You seem convinced that evolution has answered everything. It has big gaping holes that you can drive a truck through but it is your only option since it is the best naturalistic explanation. Theism has the flexibility to go where the science leads us no matter what and I think that is the far better position to be in.

Flexibility Lol. You mean when something is proven wrong just change your story to fit in with it?

Isn't that pretty much how scientific theories work?

[Expired]

Flexibility Lol. You mean when something is proven wrong just change your story to fit in with it?

Isn't that pretty much how scientific theories work?

Science admits it's mistakes and moves with the times, if something is proven to be wrong, it is disregarded and not adapted to accommodate incorrect previous thinking.

[Veritas_Vincit]

For an atheist, evolution is all or nothing. The problem is "evolution" can have multiple meanings that you can use at will to make sentences like "Evolution isn't true because it disproves creationism, it's true because is based on observed facts and many types of evidence"

What observed facts prove the mechanism that went from single cell to complex systems?

What observed facts prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor?

Don't spout theories, you said there were observable facts that prove evolution.

You see this is the sad thing Steve II, your profile says you are "looking for reasonable dialog" (I think you mean dialogue unless that's an American spelling) but people following this thread will notice that you clearly haven't read my post or watched the video that I took the trouble to attach which gives an accessible overview of the evidence for evolution by natural selection. Or you can go to talkorigins.org for a more comprehensive breakdown of the evidence for common ancestry.

But you have also missed the broader point I said which is that whether or not the theory of evolution is true has no baring on whether Creationism or Intelligent design are true. Both of those theories would have to meet their own burden of proof for anyone to be justified in believing them. As it happens, both theories are actually contradicted by whole categories of evidence. It's like we're making a puzzle and we don't know what the picture is, but we've put together about 95 out of 100 pieces. Now, there are still a couple of gaps but if we look at it we can see that all the pieces we have put together go to make a clear, beautiful picture of a tree, to the point where it would be ridiculous to find out that it's actually a magic lamp because the pieces we already have make such a clear picture, and every new piece we find fits in with the tree, and there aren't any that don't fit in. What you're saying is that you want ignore the clear picture that the pieces are making, and to smush the pieces together where they don't fit to force them into the rough, approximate shape of the magic lamp, because that's what your magic book says.

[madog]

 

 It's like we're making a puzzle and we don't know what the picture is, but we've put together about 95 out of 100 pieces. Now, there are still a couple of gaps but if we look at it we can see that all the pieces we have put together go to make a clear, beautiful picture of a tree, to the point where it would be ridiculous to find out that it's actually a magic lamp because the pieces we already have make such a clear picture, and every new piece we find fits in with the tree, and there aren't any that don't fit in. What you're saying is that you want ignore the clear picture that the pieces are making, and to smush the pieces together where they don't fit to force them into the rough, approximate shape of the magic lamp, because that's what your magic book says.

Great analogy, I would hope, but doubt Steve11 will deal with it 

[Mister Agenda]

Flexibility Lol. You mean when something is proven wrong just change your story to fit in with it?

Isn't that pretty much how scientific theories work?

All scientific theories include the presumption that new evidence may require them to be altered or replaced. They presume human fallibility. Are you saying your position is scientific in that sense?

[Mister Agenda]

ID, that is just creationism on a labcoat trying to portray knowledge is nothing of the sort. Many biological facts falsify it.

Every prediction made by an 'ID scientist' has been falsified, without exception. One of the criteria of a good theory is that it's fruitful. ID is completely barren.

[Mister Agenda]

I think you got two lists I gave confused: The things I said were mandated by the Bible are those I listed above and gave chapter and verse for. That list, as it says, are evils caused directly by religion, but I think you got the lists confused. 

Your definition of a Christian may be clearly laid out to you, but from an outside perspective there are so many hundreds of denominations and sects as to make it really, really hazy. 

Why would anyone only care about just the New Testament? Jesus clearly states that "not one jot or tittle of the law can change until all has come to pass" and "I have not come to replace the law but to fulfill it" - IE If you throw out the Old Testament you lose Biblical authority. and you're just picking a la carte from the Bible, plus you loose the 10 commandments and the prophecy that makes Jesus the Messiah in the first place, so I find your exclusive focus on the New Testament odd. You can't have the new Testament without the old without going against what Jesus explicitly instructed in the New. "He does not observe the law shall be considered least in the kingdom of heaven."

ID is creationism in a cheep suit, it's the same pseudoscientific unfounded rubbish than runs contrary to ALL of science. The harm is that there are teachers who talk about Evolution as though it's some conspiracy, when it is scientific fact, stultifying the minds of thousands of children. They might as well be teaching children in Geography class that the world may in fact be flat.

Sorry if I was confused with your lists.

Differences among denominations are not necessarily weaknesses. Differences come from cultural, social, and doctrinal variations but you are going to have to adhere to the basic NT teachings to be called Christian. Anything added on top of that is man-made.

The reason I mention the NT most is because it is 1) evidence that God exists, 2) provides everything you need to live worthy of God and 3) is what the entire OT was looking forward to and preparing for. 

You seem convinced that evolution has answered everything. It has big gaping holes that you can drive a truck through but it is your only option since it is the best naturalistic explanation. Theism has the flexibility to go where the science leads us no matter what and I think that is the far better position to be in.

If you shared one of these holes and it was shown not to exist, would you then accept evolution? Or would you just move on to the next hole? And the next one, and the next one, until you're back to the first one, pretending you weren't there the day it was refuted?

Lay out what you think is the biggest flaw in the theory of evolution. And when we carefully explain it to you, please have the grace to accept as a result that you don't understand the theory well enough for us to have any intellectual obligation to go through the same process with you again on a different 'flaw'.

If, on the other hand, you school us by demonstrating that there is a flaw in the theory that is so significant that it can be reasonably described as 'a hole big enough to drive a truck through', I will start a thread solely for the purpose of promoting awareness of that flaw. Deal?

[Mister Agenda]

For an atheist, evolution is all or nothing. The problem is "evolution" can have multiple meanings that you can use at will to make sentences like "Evolution isn't true because it disproves creationism, it's true because is based on observed facts and many types of evidence"

What observed facts prove the mechanism that went from single cell to complex systems? 

What observed facts prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor?

Don't spout theories, you said there were observable facts that prove evolution.

You can be a real shit about telling us 'what things are for an atheist'. I'd think more highly of you if you didn't think you had us all figured out. What meaning do you think evolution has in the sentence you quoted? You're accusing Veritas of equivocation, show your work.  I don't see it. To me, it seems plain that by 'evolution' he means 'biological evolution, natural selection among variations in living organisms that leads to speciation'. What are you claiming he meant by it?

1. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...vered.html 

2. Not that common descent is necessary to the theory, since life could have originated more than once giving us multiple lines of descent, and it wouldn't affect the principles of the theory a whit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent 

But you would have known all that already if you cared to know. Not  wanting to know is much, much worse than being ignorant.

[SteveII]

Isn't that pretty much how scientific theories work?

All scientific theories include the presumption that new evidence may require them to be altered or replaced. They presume human fallibility. Are you saying your position is scientific in that sense?

My position is that I will go to where the science leads. However, I will not buy into theories because they are the only game in town (presumption of naturalism). I am not a literal 7-day creationist.

[robvalue]

Science leads to theories. End of story. If you reject theories, you're rejecting science.

If you think something gets to be a theory easily, you don't understand what it means.

Evolution happens. That's obvious. To suggest otherwise is to say that offspring are either (a) identical to their parents or (b) not based on their parents. Natural selection takes care of the rest.

All that remains is to model it as best we can. Challenging evolution and challenging the theory of evolution are two different things. Challenging evolution is like... I don't even know what that's like. Plugging up your eyes and ears I guess.