Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[Jack]

Since you disdain sources other than the poster's own I have to believe that your statements are your own opinion. By your own rules you cannot provide evidence that anyone else in the world agrees with you.
So to debate you, all I have to say is that I disagree, you're wrong. That's the sum of my reasoning.
Gloating, even over nonsense, is not debating.

[KillerArgument]

Atheistic evolution is held by faith. It is unprovable and scientifically impossible.

Want absolute proof?


Atheism:

1) Unprovable statements can only be held by faith.

2) "There is no God" (Strong Atheism) is an unprovable statement.

3) Therefore, atheism can only be held by faith.



Evolutionary Origins:

1)Life from non-life (spontaneous generation) is a scientific impossibility. (Louis Pasteur)

2) Evolutionary origins demand life from non-life.

3) Therefore, evolutionary origins are scientifically impossible.


Here are my unassailable, irrefutable simple arguments.

Prove me wrong, or I keep winning--forever.

KILLER ARGUMENT

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood Since you disdain sources other than the poster's own I have to believe that your statements are your own opinion. By your own rules you cannot provide evidence that anyone else in the world agrees with you. So to debate you, all I have to say is that I disagree, you're wrong. That's the sum of my reasoning. Gloating, even over nonsense, is not debating.

My arguments are based on absolute, irrefutable logic. The arguments are correct and cannot be refuted. You can give up your "certain of nothing" motto, for I have given you certainty that cannot and has not been refuted on this or any other debate forum. It is the absolute truth, the killer argument. We all have the same evidence, but we do not all have the same presuppositions. (faiths) Evolution and atheism (as well as theism and creationism) are all presuppositions--faiths. That is my only point. I can't force you to believe in God or Jesus, but I can force you to see that atheistic evolution is a scientifically impossible FAITH. That is all I intended to do.

Truth does not demand that anyone else in the world agree with it--truth is not detemined by popularity contest.

[Jack]

Prove me wrong, or I keep winning--forever.

Try for a more juvenile and immature approach.

"There is no God" (Strong Atheism) is an unprovable statement.

Of course it is. That's why that is not the meaning of atheism. Just because you say something exists doesn't mean it does in fact exist. You say god exists. How can I tell? You have nothing that convinces me. Why should I believe in your god? It's a poorly conceived story that none of you can tell sufficiently well to even make me want it to be true, let alone convince me it is.

Here are my unassailable, irrefutable simple arguments.

Don't stop there. Try for informed and intelligent next time.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood Try for a more juvenile and immature approach. Of course it is. That's why that is not the meaning of atheism. Just because you say something exists doesn't mean it does in fact exist. You say god exists. How can I tell? You have nothing that convinces me. Why should I believe in your god? It's a poorly conceived story that none of you can tell sufficiently well to even make me want it to be true, let alone convince me it is. Don't stop there. Try for informed and intelligent next time.

What I have put forth certainly IS the definition of strong "atheism," given by many atheists I have debated, and on atheist websites and in atheist books, Are you going to straight-out lie about simple facts now, too?

What would convince you of God's existence? Give Him the opportunity to falsify your unbelief by specifically declaring your criteria for believing in Him.

My arguments are informed and intelligent. Merely saying that they are not does not make them otherwise--that's called a "bluff."

You cannot refute my simple arguments, so you resort to insults.

You lose.

I win.

Thanks for the debate.

[KillerArgument]

WHAT THE UNSAVED HAVE

The Bible lists several things that unsaved people definitely have. As we read through the list, we discover that these are not the best things to have. However, at the end we have God’s offer.

The unsaved person has:

NO LIFE (I John 5:12). A person may have education, culture, refinement, wealth, influence, everything else, but all these together can neither merit nor purchase life. He who has not Jesus, whatever else he may have, has not the one thing essential, life, life now, life eternal. God counts him dead (Eph. 2:1). The way to have real life is to have Jesus; and the way to have Jesus is to receive Him (John 1:12).

NO PEACE (Isa. 57:2). “There is no peace, saith my God to the wicked.” People will travel the world, indulge in everything and do everything to find peace, and yet their lives are a constant testimony to the truth of the Word, “No peace for the wicked.” “He is our peace” (Eph. 2:14).

NO STRENGTH (Rom. 5:6). The unsaved man is helpless, either to save himself or to make himself better. There is no hope for him anywhere; Jesus came and died for his sins. His sacrifice avails for the sinner now.

NO CHRIST (Eph. 2:12). How terrifying for you to have no Christ, no Saviour, no one to bear your punishment, no blood to cover you on Judgment Day.

NO HOPE (Eph. 2:12). “Hope lost, all’s lost.” What is a man without hope? What an awful thing to go into eternity without hope!

NO GOD (Eph. 2:12). The blackness of despair: No God.

NO REMEDY (Prov. 29:1). It is dangerous to resist God when He speaks by His Spirit. Every time the sinner does this his heart becomes harder, and he becomes bolder in his refusals.

NO EXCUSE (Rom. 1:20). “So that they are without excuse.” Having rejected all warnings and invitations, what excuse has the non-Christian?

A JUDGE (John 12:48). The rejected Word of God, with its faithful descriptions of sin, its warnings and its invitations, will be an awful judge.

AN INVITATION FOR SALVATION “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13).


You have just read a list of things unsaved people have according to God’s Word. The twelfth item, “An Invitation for Salvation,” is good only for one day at a time (II Cor. 6:2) because tomorrow may never come--for you. To be saved means to receive Jesus Christ as personal Saviour. To become saved, all you need to do is believe in Jesus. According to Hebrews 9:26; 10:12, Jesus Christ has already paid the penalty for our sins by shedding His blood (Heb. 9:11-14). Will you confess your sins to God and be forgiven (I John 1:9), and receive His gift of eternal life (Ephesians 2:8)? If you will do this, believing in your heart that God has raised Christ from the dead (Romans 10:9; I Peter 1:3), then according to God’s Word you will be saved for all eternity (John 3:16; I John 5:11-13).

Unsaved person, until you have definitely accepted Jesus Christ as personal Saviour, you have definitely rejected Him. I plead with you, for the sake of your soul, receive Jesus Christ now,

[RickSp]

Quote by: KillerArgument Unsaved person, until you have definitely accepted Jesus Christ as personal Saviour, you have definitely rejected Him. I plead with you, for the sake of your soul, receive Jesus Christ now,

So it comes down to this.

Reminds me of the fundies who handed out tracts on the street corners when I was growing up in the Bible Belt. No rational argument, just mindless and condescending repetition. Accept Jesus or be damned.

When confronted by such, best just to walk on, perhaps saying, "Have a Nice Day" in passing, leaving them to spew their verses and their nonsense to the empty air.

[Zhavric]

Putting a hyper-link in is a waste of time.

I'm sorry, KA, but your assertion is intellectually bankrupt. I have NEVER seen anyone... neither theist nor non-theist.... make such a bizarre demand. Part of debate is evidence and on the internet evidence takes the form of external links.

Also, I can only marvel at your argument's hypocracy:

NO LIFE (I John 5:12). A person may have education, culture, refinement, wealth, influence, everything else, but all these together can neither merit nor purchase life. He who has not Jesus, whatever else he may have, has not the one thing essential, life, life now, life eternal. God counts him dead (Eph. 2:1). The way to have real life is to have Jesus; and the way to have Jesus is to receive Him (John 1:12). NO PEACE (Isa. 57:2). “There is no peace, saith my God to the wicked.” People will travel the world, indulge in everything and do everything to find peace, and yet their lives are a constant testimony to the truth of the Word, “No peace for the wicked.” “He is our peace” (Eph. 2:14). NO STRENGTH (Rom. 5:6). The unsaved man is helpless, either to save himself or to make himself better. There is no hope for him anywhere; Jesus came and died for his sins. His sacrifice avails for the sinner now. NO CHRIST (Eph. 2:12). How terrifying for you to have no Christ, no Saviour, no one to bear your punishment, no blood to cover you on Judgment Day. NO HOPE (Eph. 2:12). “Hope lost, all’s lost.” What is a man without hope? What an awful thing to go into eternity without hope! NO GOD (Eph. 2:12). The blackness of despair: No God. NO REMEDY (Prov. 29:1). It is dangerous to resist God when He speaks by His Spirit. Every time the sinner does this his heart becomes harder, and he becomes bolder in his refusals. NO EXCUSE (Rom. 1:20). “So that they are without excuse.” Having rejected all warnings and invitations, what excuse has the non-Christian? A JUDGE (John 12:48). The rejected Word of God, with its faithful descriptions of sin, its warnings and its invitations, will be an awful judge. AN INVITATION FOR SALVATION “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13).

All of that means nothing because YOU said:

"Slapping a huge chunk of someone else's writing on a debate site proves absolutely nothing, no matter what it says."

[pikatore]

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

Firstly, atheism has different forms. Strong athiesm says that gods do not exist, while weak atheism is a denial of the claim that a god exists. slight but important difference.

Athiesm is much more rational than other faiths, as it is not simply just a faith 'in faith', but a faith in reality and logic.

No 'body' had to 'put' the first organism on earth btw, there are plenty of ways life could have evolved.

[Jack]

What I have put forth certainly IS the definition of strong "atheism," given by many atheists I have debated, and on atheist websites and in atheist books

Thanks for the debate.

You don't debate, you preach. When you understand enough about atheism or evolution to actually debate the topics, I'll consider debating you.

[Osborn F Enready]

This has been a more sad, than funny thread.

Can I have the time back I wasted reading it?

What was the point? Where was the "argument"?

[pahl]

@KillerArgument

Is not "There is no pink unicorns" just as much a faith as "There is no God"?

Besides most atheists would agree that God could exist, but dont belive it for the same reasons that you dont belive in pink unicorns.
It is an unsupported and ridiculous claim. If there is something that created life and everything then the chances that the guess that is christianity is right about it is infinitly small. Just like there might be pink unicorns but untill there is some evidence the idea is just preposterous.

And dont declare yourself the winner and everyone else losers in every post, it is immature and not the way you debate. Please answer my fist question.

[Jack]

See, all kinds of different interpretations of what atheists think. Atheism is simply not believing in gods. You can believe in pink unicorns and still be an atheist. You can reject evolution and still be an atheist. Atheism is a point of view that does not include god. What people do with their non-belief in gods is as unique as they are. There is no creed for atheists.

[Kuroko]

I am going to present an argument on this forum separate to this one but, I need to clear some thing up.

Even if CLEAR evidence of god were presented, would it even matter. To me it would seem as though Atheists are more then without religion, the majority we have seen here on Volconvo have demonstrated an almost focused disdain for god, an almost anti-god mentality. From one extreme to the other in my books.

I think people should acknowledge that having read the large amount of "Atheist" proclaimed direct of a lot of posts their mentality (presented within the frame work of the post) isn't simply a reason why they do not believe in any form of religion, but instead why any form of religion should not be believed in period.

This is the type of action more closely seen by religious folk, who more often then not attempt to pass on the merits of their belief.

Evolution does not present a case against god, it presents a case against creationists. When the bible is taken literally in a literal set without any depth of perception, this is where creationists fail on their argument.

I have to ask, I really do, Evolution, by now surely have had a presentable argument. By now surely there should have been evidence showing where specific families and species diverged from one another.

Example: Where are there any fossils of the intermediate transitions from one species to the next? We have found species which clearly are related to another, directly so perhaps, but there is a sudden difference in the two, no intermediate changing between them, it's like, here is a fish.. and here is a land dwelling creature which evolved from that fish, and this line has been made over and over and over again.

Where evolution is failing right now, is that after the countless (the number is still rising daily) fossils and bones being unearthed there has yet to be ONE where the distinction between the pre-evolved and pro-evolved forms tie in.

The best argument to this may very well be, that evolution sticks to designs that work, survival of the fittest and all that jazz, so after a successful change is made it takes over, there are a number of problems with this, the changes made wouldn't be so fast, I mean the fly for instance has hardly seen a single change in 40 million years, this is evident by the rather famous "40 million year old fly" piece written up by I believe new science magazine, a successful design change would still have the changed design mating with the "inferior" design, even if each and every new born after which were of the new design the problem then arises that if this design change is a major one (which is all we have seen to date) where then went the intermediate change?

The in between has yet to be found, the changes and I must highlight this point, the changes have just occurred with no evidence of "trial and error".
The burden is on the evolutionists here to provide evidence other wise.

I also have to highlight Darwin as being skeptical of many area's of his own theory. The biggest I can think of is the beginning of life itself.

Of the 100 amino acids which exist, twenty are of use to life.. now, I want you to imagine this, in a primordial soup of sorts, with amino acids (which have a HARD time of their own which I will highlight in my own post) being the key part of life in this scenario, only 20 are used, of those twenty not ONE is a right handed amino acid...

Grab fifty white jelly beans and fifty black ones and you tell me the odds of pulling out twenty which are all one color.

I'll do you one better, if any other amino acid were to be used the entire lot would be unstable as genetic material.

In fact, if one knows a lot about the process of life, even the simplest and most basic things require such a high level of mathematic probability that 'God' suddenly begins to be a feasible concept.

[Jack]

the majority we have seen here on Volconvo have demonstrated an almost focused disdain for god, an almost anti-god mentality

How can I have disdain for or be against something I maintain is fiction? That's just silly. You might as well say I have disdain for and am against Superman. What a convoluted concept.

By now surely there should have been evidence showing where specific families and species diverged from one another.

I referenced a site a while ago that illustrated transitional forms. Here's another.
Stephen Jay Gould :

The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons — geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.

In fact, if one knows a lot about the process of life, even the simplest and most basic things require such a high level of mathematic probability that 'God' suddenly begins to be a feasible concept.

Perhaps to non-scientists or those who prefer to accept god-did-it as an easier answer than one that requires study and testing. Yes, the odds of life are great. Otherwise, this part of the solar system would be teaming with life on every planet. We may well be the one-in-a-million chance that life had to take hold. Why is this so hard for many to accept?
God is always the easier answer. I don't require easy answers. I don't require absolute answers. I'd prefer what answers are found to be logical and scientifically consistent.

[pahl]

@Kuroko

First, let me thank you for presenting your arguments in a more civil maner then some others.

To me it would seem as though Atheists are more then without religion, the majority we have seen here on Volconvo have demonstrated an almost focused disdain for god, an almost anti-god mentality.

It might seem so, but if God acctually came down on earth an showed himself. And then performed a few tricks to show he is the real deal i would happily follow him. Eternal happines? Sign me up.

The burden is on the evolutionists here to provide evidence other wise.

Yes, wich is why i find it preposterous when creationists claim the evulotion-theory lacks evidence and then present the even more lacking argument that God created life.
I belive in evulotion because it seems as the best theory anyone has come up with so far. It might be wrong, but there is a lot of evidence that supports it.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zhavric I'm sorry, KA, but your assertion is intellectually bankrupt. I have NEVER seen anyone... neither theist nor non-theist.... make such a bizarre demand. Part of debate is evidence and on the internet evidence takes the form of external links. Also, I can only marvel at your argument's hypocracy: All of that means nothing because YOU said: "Slapping a huge chunk of someone else's writing on a debate site proves absolutely nothing, no matter what it says."

Right, if it is someone else's writing...

[Jack]

What Z's saying is that either you wrote those passages from the Bible you posted, or you were posting someone else's writing.

The point we're trying to make is that both in debate and on this forum, it's perfectly normal and often required to post external sources to support your point-of-view. You do it with the Bible, we do it with writer's who articulate our position. It's a good thing to link to external sources. It's what the internet was created to do. Link.

If you don't like the practice, too bad. It's perfectly OK in a debate. The rest of us will continue to link to sources and you won't, I guess.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Isherwood We may well be the one-in-a-million chance that life had to take hold. Why is this so hard for many to accept?

It shouldn't be hard to accept; we are here. ( Just to use a Christian argument, for once.)

[Jack]

That would be a fair question for theists to ask. Why, if humans were such a good idea, are they not everywhere through the galaxy? Why doesn't every planet support a human population? What possible purpose do lifeless planets serve to gods?