Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood Physical and chemical interactions, especially those in the brain. There are several thousand reasons why I fail to agree with this. They're called scientists.

Yes, physical and chemical interactions are part of the picture, obviously.

But there are several thousand reasons why I fail to agree with you. They're called the pages of Holy Scripture, written by God.

These are philosophical, not scientific, questions.

Saying, "look at all my scientists" doesn't prove anything. Some Muslim terrorists are scientists, that doesn't prove their theology right.

Everybody appeals to authority in the end.

My authority is God.

Your authority is deluded scientists who are out of their area of expertise. This is about as valuable as listening to the opinion of a Hollywood actor on foreign policy.

Worthless, right?

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood I was trying to make a point. It's too easy to kid someone who believes "Big Bang> Primordial soup + Electricity> Protein chains> Amoebas> Fish with legs> Chimpanzees> Man." From now on I'll confine my comments to those who have actually learned what evolution is about.

Oooooh, I must have hit a nerve with Mr. Isherwood.

Everybody is calm and superior until you get their family jewels in a vise, right?

"Confining your comments" to those who agree with you, and all. How brave.

With all your posts, you wouldn't think little ol' me could come up with anything new, but I guess I have, huh?

You are the people who have been telling me what evolution is about. Did I make a mistake from amoebas to chimps, or what?

The utter idiocy of evolutionary theory is beyond words.

When you see it presented simply, you see how stupid it really is.

Or did I miss something?

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument Yes, physical and chemical interactions are part of the picture, obviously. But there are several thousand reasons why I fail to agree with you. They're called the pages of Holy Scripture, written by God.

Sure, claim empirical and quanititative evidence to be loony illogical and wrong. But yes, HOLD tight to those thousands of pages that some dude wrote and claimed to be the word of God(essentially).

How can you compare words and thoughts written and recorded by humans that of which could be completely fictional to fair scientific, observed, testable, experimented and systematized knowledge of the physical and material world.

Go address my posts for this point on the previous page at the bottom for this stuff.

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument Oooooh, I must have hit a nerve with Mr. Isherwood. Everybody is calm and superior until you get their family jewels in a vise, right? "Confining your comments" to those who agree with you, and all. How brave. With all your posts, you wouldn't think little ol' me could come up with anything new, but I guess I have, huh? You are the people who have been telling me what evolution is about. Did I make a mistake from amoebas to chimps, or what? The utter idiocy of evolutionary theory is beyond words. When you see it presented simply, you see how stupid it really is. Or did I miss something?

Why is it idiotic? In which post was it presented simply and by which professional? Have you read any in depth texts on the subject or related topics? I think you did miss something, a pretty big something. Or are you just going to continue rocking the high horse making these absurd insulting claims (just kiddin', but seriously I was enjoying the discussion before you two went off on this insult tangent).

Please go and address my previous four posts, if you can not return with a respectful, reasonable argument then don't post.

Quote by: KillerArgument Everybody is calm and superior until you get their family jewels in a vise, right?

LOL!!!!!

[Zhavric]

Criminy... LEARN HOW TO USE THE censored QUOTE FEATURE.

KA So, "healthy" would be believing in God, and believing in groundless fantasies like, "There is no God" would be a form of disease...agreed, go on, please...

Straw man and a poor one at that.

Mischaracterizing my argument and attacking the mischaracterization doesn't refute my claim in the slightest.

Healthy is the absences of disease. "Healthy" is not another form of disease. This is analogous to... Atheism is the absence of religious belief. The absence of religious belief is not a religious belief.

If you need further assistance understanding this metaphor, please PM me.

beyond claims without logical support or linked evidence so there's little need to go into great detail. KA Touche.

Interesting. Let's tuck that away for later.

2) Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is an existing proven claim. KA Right. Unless God, who created M & E, intervenes.

Fonceai doesn't want me to say his name in threads, but he and Captain Chaos hit the same stumbling block here. Hypothetically, even if god existed (which he doesn't) and even if god is omnipotent & able to create matter and energy science has still proven that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Creating matter and energy, regardless of whether or not it can be done by anything, still contradicts existing proven claims.

KA You lost me in the garbled mess in the paragraph above. Would you restate that using clarity and reason this time?

O_o

Uhm... ooookkkaaayyyy...

A different version:

1) Claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true.
2) Matter and energy creation is a requirement for god.
3) Matter and energy creation whether possible or not contradicts the law of conservation of matter & energy.
Thus, god defaults to "false until proven true".

Where does this leave us?

It leaves us with the burden of proving god resting squarely on your shoulders. Problem is you explained that god cannot be proven with logic.

Thus, you're going to have to accept my argument or recant much of your own.

KA I'm not hungry, sorry. And I have the killer argument, remember? Tough break.

I'm sorry... did you just try to offer your screen name as a defense?

KA The claim "There is no God" is a faith-based assertion that requires the atheist to shoulder the burden of proof for his assertion, withdraw his claim, or accept the fact that he is a man of faith.

See above. I've already explained that an omnipotent being contradicts existing proven claims and is false until proven true (which you said yourself is impossible to do).

The rest of your post was you attempting to sound clever and not really addressing much of what I stated. Take a deep breath, have some egg-nog, pm me if you need to about the quote feature and try to refute the logical argument I posted above.

[Zinkovich]

Here is what will likely happen to this thread:

1.) Someone will post something from a site like talkorigins, or a equivalent thereof to demonstrate to killerargument how evolution is actually based on observable data.
2.) He will demand further proof, as if we could just show him every fossil in the world and every experimental record with the click of a post button. Possible citing of discovery institute on his part is also possible.
3.) Every previous "argument" in this thread will be repeated a thousand times over, until dead.

I want to be surprised, and see someone accept the evidence and arguments for evolution for once, but that's probably not going to happen. That's also why I'm not going to put any further effort into this thread, because every argument I've gotten into with a creationist has ended with them either reasserting their already addressed "problems" with evolution or ignoring the data I compile for them altogether.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: KillerArgument If life is nonlife, does that mean that I am undead? Or that I will never die because I never was alive? Fascinating or stupid? We report, you decide.

There's a quote from a film called "Shortbus" that I'm reminded of here: "You're so far behind you think you're first."

When I first heard it, I thought it was an insult, but really it's not. A person lagging so far behind in a foot race that they cannot see anyone may actually reasonably conclude that they're in first place depending on the circumstances of the race.

Where it relates to your argument is your lack of awareness of just how untenable and weak your arguments are. You've already agreed that god cannot be argued for logically, yet I've presented you a logical argument that leaves god as "false until proven true". Also, when I pointed out that you haven't evidenced or provided any proof, you again agreed with me. Instead of amending this gaping deficiency, you simply offered "touche".

If this were a contest to see who could offer the most emotionally charged trollish unevidenced assertions, I'd gladly concede to you. This is, however, a debate where logic and reason govern. You're going to need to raise the bar on your argument if you want it to gain any credibility.

At the moment, it has zero and you are doing little more than trolling.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. As evolution is at the core of all modern biology and most other natural sciences you are calling virtually all living natural scientists "ignorant". Very amusing. Got any other wild and unsupported claims to keep us chuckling?

Big deal. Are you calling all brilliant theologians ignorant? Touche.

The theory of evolutionary origins is easily excised from scientific data and thrown away--it's a philosophy pasted onto other, scientifically provable facts. Nothing more. No substantiation or necessity or logic. No experiments that prove it. NONE. Just lots of faith and belief and fantasy and imagination and theories and ideas and notions.

They found a dinosaur foot and leg the other day, and almost immediately they had a full-size painting of a new wonderful creature of evolution. More proof for their desperately-held faith, which is crumbling at its foundations. Wow, that really seems scientific. Why don't these guys go to work for Disney Animation? What great imaginations.

People who don't want to give account to the God they know exists, cling to unproven and unscientific evolutionary orgin fantasies and try, nervously, to refute the Bible. (Which cannot be done.)

Micro-evolution is fact--it's called adaptation--God built it into all creatures..

Macro-evolution has NEVER been shown to occur. Adaptation has NEVER crossed species lines. (They say never to say never in a debate, but hey, there are exceptions to every rule, right?

Spontaneous generation has NEVER been shown to occur. (It would be a MIRACLE if it were shown to occur. But it NEVER has been demonstrated.)

Atheism is FAITH in the statement: "There is no God."

Atheism is a FAITH.

Evolutionary origin of life, abiogenesis or spontaneous generation, is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (Louis Pasteur), UNTESTABLE AND UNPROVEN.

What do the God-less great-grandsons of chimpanzees have to say to that?

Funny how you evolution guys aways tell the Christians they have it wrong, but never have the facts to set the record straight. Once you give us the "new" facts, we chop those right down to size really quickly.

I got kicked off a evolution debate site recently, and had all my posts permanently erased, not for profanity or insults, but because the regulars couldn't refute God's truth, and it really made them angry.

I quote one of Jack Nicholson's characters to you also:

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Cadre Sure, claim empirical and quanititative evidence to be loony illogical and wrong. But yes, HOLD tight to those thousands of pages that some dude wrote and claimed to be the word of God(essentially). How can you compare words and thoughts written and recorded by humans that of which could be completely fictional to fair scientific, observed, testable, experimented and systematized knowledge of the physical and material world. Go address my posts for this point on the previous page at the bottom for this stuff.

Cadre,

There is NO fair, scientific, observed, testable, experimental knowledge of what happened when life first came into being. PERIOD.

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument The theory of evolutionary origins is easily excised from scientific data and thrown away--it's a philosophy pasted onto other, scientifically provable facts. Nothing more. No substantiation or necessity or logic. No experiments that prove it. NONE. Just lots of faith and belief and fantasy and imagination and theories and ideas and notions.

(CITE - "On The Origin Of Species" Darwin)
This is wrong. There was no initial philosophy or grandious ideas about life and existance that we moulded empirical data too. It is knowledge based upon facts and principles gained through systematic study. Your argument is the one that lacks logic and requires us to suspend every known proven concept natural law in order for it to be believed. Your's requires the faith and belief and fantasy.

Quote by: KillerArgument They found a dinosaur foot and leg the other day, and almost immediately they had a full-size painting of a new wonderful creature of evolution. More proof for their desperately-held faith, which is crumbling at its foundations. Wow, that really seems scientific. Why don't these guys go to work for Disney Animation. What great imaginations.

These are not imaginations, these are real lifeforms that once ruled the planet. Take a second too grasp that.

Quote by: KillerArgument People who don't want to give account to the God they know exists, cling to unproven and unscientific evolutionary orgin fantasies and try, nervously, to refute the Bible. (Which cannot be done.)

You become more fanatical sounding every post, and continue to ignore every post I made on pg4 regarding this topic.

Quote by: KillerArgument Micro-evolution is fact--it's called adaptation--God built it into all creatures..

Prove it.

Quote by: KillerArgument Macro-evolution has NEVER been shown to occur. Adaptation has NEVER crossed species lines. (They say never to say never in a debate, but hey, there are exceptions to every rule, right?

Nope, there are no absolutes. You are thinking in terms of human history in past and present, which is very bloody narrow-minded considering how minute a period of time we have been able to record and comprehend our history.

ONCE AGAIN I CITE BIOCHEMICAL PREDESTINATION, you will find occurances of macro-evolution on a cellular level. What's not to say in 100 years we will see it occur naturally in between species.

Quote by: KillerArgument Spontaneous generation has NEVER been shown to occur. (It would be a MIRACLE if it were shown to occur. But it NEVER has been demonstrated.)

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote by: KillerArgument Atheism is FAITH in the statement: "There is no God." Atheism is a FAITH.

Atheism, in actuallity, is the doctrine OR belief that there is no god. Opinion OR conviction. Ad hominem, who said I was an atheist? :confused:

Quote by: KillerArgument Evolutionary origin of life, abiogenesis or spontaneous generation, is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (Louis Pasteur), UNTESTABLE AND UNPROVEN.

It's silly to prove non-existance, especially when you can't prove existance.

Quote by: KillerArgument What do the God-less great-grandsons of chimpanzees have to say to that?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Quote by: KillerArgument Funny how you evolution guys aways tell the Christians they have it wrong, but never have the facts to set the record straight. Once you give the "new" facts, we chop those right down to size reallyquickly.

I have cited and quoted many facts and resources, outlined countless definitions... You haven't chopped anything down through logic or reason, you just say it's wrong then act like you've proved something.

Quote by: KillerArgument I got kicked off a evolution debate site recently, and had all my posts permanently erased, not for profanity or insults, but because the regulars couldn't refute God's truth.

Because one person can't argue with you, means you are right?

Thus, the smartest person in the room will always know the objective truth of everything? I guess I'm right cause I think I'm smarter than you. Oh wait, we already have a term for that, it's called CONCEIT.

Wrong, subjectivity is inherent to all humans. Perhaps you were just discussing these topics with a bunch of dimwits? I don't judge religious people after having one discussion with an ill-formed devout christian. Thats called prejudice.

You certainly have proven anything over here at Volconvo :p

I'm done, Merry Christmas KA!!

[Cadre]

Quote by: KillerArgument Cadre, There is NO fair, scientific, observed, testable, experimental knowledge of what happened when life first came into being. PERIOD.

Well then by that logic I cite a post here on this very board.

We are all gods.

Get back at me tomorrow.

P.S. Address the posts on pg4 near the bottom that you still haven't discussed, IF YOU DARE?!?!

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zhavric Criminy... LEARN HOW TO USE THE censored QUOTE FEATURE. Straw man and a poor one at that. Mischaracterizing my argument and attacking the mischaracterization doesn't refute my claim in the slightest. Healthy is the absences of disease. "Healthy" is not another form of disease. This is analogous to... Atheism is the absence of religious belief. The absence of religious belief is not a religious belief. If you need further assistance understanding this metaphor, please PM me. Interesting. Let's tuck that away for later. Fonceai doesn't want me to say his name in threads, but he and Captain Chaos hit the same stumbling block here. Hypothetically, even if god existed (which he doesn't) and even if god is omnipotent & able to create matter and energy science has still proven that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Creating matter and energy, regardless of whether or not it can be done by anything, still contradicts existing proven claims. O_o Uhm... ooookkkaaayyyy... A different version: 1) Claims which contradict existing proven claims are false until proven true. 2) Matter and energy creation is a requirement for god. 3) Matter and energy creation whether possible or not contradicts the law of conservation of matter & energy. Thus, god defaults to "false until proven true". Where does this leave us? It leaves us with the burden of proving god resting squarely on your shoulders. Problem is you explained that god cannot be proven with logic. Thus, you're going to have to accept my argument or recant much of your own. I'm sorry... did you just try to offer your screen name as a defense? See above. I've already explained that an omnipotent being contradicts existing proven claims and is false until proven true (which you said yourself is impossible to do). The rest of your post was you attempting to sound clever and not really addressing much of what I stated. Take a deep breath, have some egg-nog, pm me if you need to about the quote feature and try to refute the logical argument I posted above.

Quote by: Zinkovich Here is what will likely happen to this thread: 1.) Someone will post something from a site like talkorigins, or a equivalent thereof to demonstrate to killerargument how evolution is actually based on observable data. 2.) He will demand further proof, as if we could just show him every fossil in the world and every experimental record with the click of a post button. Possible citing of discovery institute on his part is also possible. 3.) Every previous "argument" in this thread will be repeated a thousand times over, until dead. I want to be surprised, and see someone accept the evidence and arguments for evolution for once, but that's probably not going to happen. That's also why I'm not going to put any further effort into this thread, because every argument I've gotten into with a creationist has ended with them either reasserting their already addressed "problems" with evolution or ignoring the data I compile for them altogether.

Please, I won't go to links and I don't want extended scientific treatises quoted. What I want is the simple reasons why YOU believe.

I've extensively read talkorigins.

What are the basic reasons that convince YOU?

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: KillerArgument Please, I won't go to links and I don't want extended scientific treatises quoted. What I want is the simple reasons why YOU believe. I've extensively read talkorigins. What are the basic reasons that convince YOU?

My reasons are in the links you have already retroactively refused to accept, so we're at an impasse here.

Here's something pragmatic for you to look through. Just go to pubmed and search for "Evolution" and you'll find all sorts of applicatory examples of evolution in use. Here, I'll even link to the search engine for you: Entrez PubMed

[Cadre]

He doesn't do links though brosef...

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: KillerArgument Atheism, defined as: "There is no God," is an (unprovable) faith. A negative cannot be proven. Atheism is a negative. Therefore atheism, as defined above, is unprovable. Atheism, of itself, is not necessarily any more rational than any other faith,

Very well. What about atheism, defined as "I have no evidence of, nor belief in, God?" Would that also be a negative? Can I prove that? Does it require faith to know that I have none? Do I need evidence of the fact that I have no evidence?

Quote by: KillerArgument Macro-Evolution: that life originated without God, life from non-life, is not science, but religion.

Not at all; it is an unknown. We have no particular definitive explanation for the origin of life (that I know of), but that does not mean there is a faith that is held by people who accept evolution as fact; I for one am not sure where life came from. I don't particularly care, either, but then, that's me.

Is there anyone in particular you're thinking of in describing this concatenation of ideas here? Because for me, they don't mesh quite the way you say. Here's my view on it, just as a single example:

1. I have no evidence of, nor belief in, God, so I am an atheist.
2. I accept the scientific evidence that modern complex organisms evolved from simple organisms through natural selection.
3. I don't know where those first simple organisms came from, but it seems likely to me that it was blind, dumb luck -- primordial soup + lightning, as I've seen you throw out there in this thread, seems a perfectly reasonable explanation to me. It may have been something else, but the one thing I am pretty sure of is that it wasn't god, because of point #1.

Quote by: KillerArgument Those who believe in evolution as their religion worship science and logic as their God, their supreme value, the determiner of all that is real, But the theory of God-less evolutionary *origins* is neither scientifically testable nor logical. It is not logical because every organism had a parent or parents--where did it all begin? Who (or what) put the first organism on earth?

To describe the relationship between an adherent of evolution and science and logic as "worship" is intellectually dishonest; the term is inapplicable, as is the term "religion" in relation to evolution and its adherents. I don't know who or what put the first organisms on earth, but the fact that they appeared without parents would put the lie to your statement "every organism had a parent or parents." That should read, "Every organism has had a parent or parents except the first organism(s), which did not."

Can you tell me what is the logical flaw in admitting I don't know where life came from, but I don't accept something I don't believe in (god) as a rational answer to that question?

[RickSp]

Quote by: KillerArgument Big deal. Are you calling all brilliant theologians ignorant? Touche.

No. I am not. Then again, most "brilliant" theologians would never suggest anything so foolish as to say that all of natural science is bunk, which is exactly what you are saying here. I do not, of course, include creationist crackpots in the category of "brilliant" theologians.

Quote by: KillerArgument The theory of evolutionary origins is easily excised from scientific data and thrown away--it's a philosophy pasted onto other, scientifically provable facts. Nothing more. No substantiation or necessity or logic. No experiments that prove it. NONE. Just lots of faith and belief and fantasy and imagination and theories and ideas and notions.

OK so now you have demonstrated that you do not know the first thing about evolution or even basic genetics or biology. Shall we move on?

Quote by: KillerArgument Atheism is a FAITH. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Where did you get the idea that putting absurd statements in bold makes thems any more convincing? Atheisim is faith as long as up is down or wet is dry.

Quote by: KillerArgument Funny how you evolution guys aways tell the Christians they have it wrong, but never have the facts to set the record straight. Once you give us the "new" facts, we chop those right down to size really quickly.

Funny how you fringe fundies, who do not represent most thinking Christians, never provide any facts, merely ridiculous distortions to fit your own creationist claptrap.

There has been no debate on his thread because you haven't made any arguments. You just repeat nonsense and expect someone to be impressed. I, for one, am not. If you have something to debate, offer it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: KillerArgument Please, I won't go to links and I don't want extended scientific treatises quoted. What I want is the simple reasons why YOU believe.

Oh really? This proclomation is completely absent from your opening post. In no way are you looking for personal reasonings. Instead, you made bold assertions about atheism and evolution and then failed to back them up.

Theists on this board and elsewhere sometimes argue real-world claims or make arguments that can be logically debated and then backpeddle by attempting to assert that religion is a "personal choice" or "personal issue". There's nothing personal about your opening thread, KA. I daresay your assertion is off-topic.

Kindly address the points from my last post.

I've extensively read talkorigins.

I'm highly skeptical of this claim.

[pahl]

@KillerArgument
What about all the skeletons of humans showing us as relatives of apes? The first found link between humans and our orgins: Homos Erectus (insert joke here).

Or the fact that the human DNA sequence and that of a chimpanzee is 95% identical. And the difference is 10 times less then the difference between a mouse and a rat. Or dont you belive in DNA?

And how can you say its a faith to not belive in something?

You dont belive in the flying spaghetti monster. How can you think that??? There is absolutely no proof that he doesent exist!! But there is proof that he does. I have this book that says: "i exist, worship me. Author: Flying spaghetti monster". See? The book say he exists, and its written by the omnipotent noodle-man himself. Must be true!
Saying that is the very same thing! But i know you will never acknowledge that.

And dont say you know God exist because you feel it. You are not a fine-tune piece of God-sensing equipment. You wouldent even know what time of day it was if you were locked in a room without windows.