2 Tenets of Atheism

[John317]

Concluding that we have descended from apes is not a belief. It is based on a lot of evidence that creationists tend to ignore.

Present your strongest evidence that you came from an ape.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Scientists don't read some book and then decide that it is god telling them the truth.

No, but they read some book and decide it must be true because it is written by Charles Darwin and other evolutionists.

Many scientists also look at evidence and read it like a book written by evolutionists. In other words, they read the evidence on the basis of preconceptions and assumptions.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Evolution is based on years and years of study and research. IT IS NOT A BELIEF. It is a theory that has a lot of evidence.

Evolution is a belief in the sense that some people believe the theory explains the origin of all life-forms, something for which there is no demonstrable proof.

Quote:

That means that it will change as we have new information, unlike belief.

Beliefs also change as we learn more.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Concluding that we have descended from apes is not a belief. It is based on a lot of evidence that creationists tend to ignore.

Present your strongest evidence that you came from an ape.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The evidence of DNA tell us that we do come from apes. .... What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor? (LUCA)

There's this line: "That the genetic code is universal to all life tells us that everything is related."

Yes, everything in life on earth is related: everything was made by God, and God used the same basic genetic code. There's no reason for God to invent a different genetic code for every living thing or animal.

[John317]

...I would say there is no scientific proof at all for creation by the god of the Bible. Mainly because there is no experiment or test you can design to demonstrate creation.

I agree with you here, except for the proof there is that the Bible is reliable in those parts which have been proved.

I don't see the issue of creationism/evolution as all that important because I realize that the evidence can be read either way. Both creationists and evolutionists are dealing with the same facts, but they are interpretating the facts differently. No one can prove either side. All we have is the weight of evidence. It's like circumstantial evidence in the court-- the jury must decide, and society will stand by their decision, but their decision is based on interpretation of the facts, and juries have been known to be wrong. So it is with the question of origins. No one was there to see it happen, except for God.

Therefore, I view other evidence as more important because it is evidence that can be objectively proven, such as historical and archeological evidence. Then there's prophecy. Also the manuscript evidence. There's the changed lives that result from the Bible's teachings. There's the conviction of the Holy Spirit. There's also the history of the Christian church, which may be compared to the prphecies. I think one strong piece of evidence is that the Bible teaches what I find to be true in my own experience and in what I see in the world. The greatest evidence for me, however, is Christ in my life day by day. This is a subjective evidence, but it is direct and undeniable. It can't be proven in a scientific labratory, so if one is waitng for that kind of proof before he believes, he will never believe.

[LifeHiscost]

Therefore, I view other evidence as more important because it is evidence that can be objectively proven, such as historical and archeological evidence. Then there's prophecy.

One of the best, if not the best, evidences of a Supreme Being Who is concerned about the welfare of man is the fore-telling and fore-knowledge, many hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before the events occurred, with pinpoint accuracy. Something one does not have to assume.

However all the evidence in the world will not be sufficient to convince one who is more desirous of proving themself right by how much comfort they exist in, than in seeking the truth.

"...he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

God blesses!

[Gary K]

Interesting discussion.

On another site, populated by users who think they are much smarter than the average Joe because of the fields of work they have chosen, I've seen these same pro-evolution arguments. I've countered them with a very simple argument.

I was watching a Science Channel program on the Universe a few months ago and one of the scientists featured in the documentary said that we have most likely accumulated 1% of the available data in the Universe. Well, in any large scientific study I've ever seen 1% of the data is nothing from which to draw solid conclusions, let alone consider those conclusions to be unassailable fact. These conclusions must be seen as assumptions. Therefore, to take the preliminary assumptions drawn from that first 1% of the data to be absolute fact can only be done by faith that those assumptions are correct, as there is not enough data to support them being hard facts.

Some one countered that argument, an evolutionist, by saying that we know so little about the universe it's impossible to even estimate how much we don't know. It was an interesting argument for it solidified my position. If we are so ignorant about the universe that we can't even estimate what we don't know, how can anyone claim evolution is based on fact?

The amount of knowledge we, as humans, have is large and growing rapidly, but since our ignorance is even greater, then it behooves those who worship science over God's revelation to be far less dogmatic about their position for they have no more "proof" than creationists. We both believe in what we believe by faith.

[cardw]

I was watching a Science Channel program on the Universe a few months ago and one of the scientists featured in the documentary said that we have most likely accumulated 1% of the available data in the Universe. Well, in any large scientific study I've ever seen 1% of the data is nothing from which to draw solid conclusions, let alone consider those conclusions to be unassailable fact.

[Gary K]

You're missing the point. When our scientific ignorance is greater than our scientific knowledge, which includes the theories scientists use to study the universe, much of what we accept as true we must acknowledge that we are accepting it as true by faith. Faith that further increases in knowledge won't then declare what we once thought true to be found to be false.

That's no different than acceptance of the Bible. We accept it as true by faith that is based upon experience with God. I've found the God of the Bible to be so much more reliable, honest, powerful than any human being I've ever met that there is no comparison. His power has made what are "proven facts" to the world, false in my life. So, my faith in His word is based upon the evidence of experience. I've tried Him as He has asked us to do, and He's proven true to His word.

The difference I've found between the creationist and evolutionist is that the creationist honestly admits he believes in creation through faith. The evolutionist mocks the creationist for his faith, and says his own belief in evolution is due to empirical fact, when, in fact, his point of view is no more provable than the creationist's. He accepts his point of view as true because he interprets the evidence in a way that supports his belief, while mocking the creationist for doing the very same thing.

The biggest difference between the two camps is the paradigms through which they view the world. One paradigm says God couldn't have done what He said He did, so interprets everything they see as evidence of that. The other paradigm accepts God at His word and views the evidence through that paradigm. The paradigms are at opposing ends of the spectrum so of course each side will reject what the other side says. Someone who rejects the idea of creation must reject the way a creationist views the evidence for it makes no sense from his point of view. The reason being is that his starting point for his logic admits of no other way to view the evidence. It rejects creationism out of hand.

Look at Hubbel after whom the telescope is named as an example. He outright said that he couldn't accept the logical way of looking at the evidence because of what the end conclusion would be. That's with respect to all objects moving away from the earth no matter from where on earth you view the sky. He had to find another theory because common sense said his observations supported creation and he couldn't accept that. It's clearly bias and an effort to suppress the most logical conclusion because it disagreed with his paradigm of viewing the world.

[LifeHiscost]

The evidence of DNA tell us that we do come from apes.

It is also a fact that we, the humanoid, have a 60% DNA similarity to the banana. I would be inclined to be biased toward the side of our similarity to the banana, judging the brain capacity. On the other hand I haven't seen any evidence of harmful behavior on the side of the banana, so it would be rather insulting to the banana to be so biased.

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

it behooves those who worship science over God's revelation to be far less dogmatic about their position for they have no more "proof" than creationists. We both believe in what we believe by faith.

You're whole post was very logical recognizes reality. However I have somewhat to say about the above.

The multiplied trillions of individual operations of the human body necessary to keep us alive and healthy, goes so far beyond the mere chance that we might be designed by the Master Designer, we are talking, walking proof of the existence, not only of a god, but of the God Who is Love.

Even scientists who remain consistent in their personal principle evidence to determine facts, admit it is impossible for that many coordinated events necessary to accomplish a certain end, to happen just by chance, no matter how many millions of years might pass by.

And that is a fact, dogmatic or not.

God blesses!

[John317]

No credible scientist is claiming that these are unassailable facts. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. This is clearly understood. It is only creationists that don't seem to understand this.

Glad to hear you say this, that evolution is not a fact. It is a theory, you are exactly right. And that is all it is, and all it ever will be.

But you are wrong to say that creationists don't understand this. Of course they do. They have been saying it for many years, and still say it. On the other hand, I've heard some evolutionists claim that evolution is no longer a theory but it's a fact. Have you never heard anyone claiming that evolution is a fact? If its not being a fact is so clearly understood, why do some evolutionists make the claim? I've never heard any creationists claim evolution is a fact and not a theory.

[cardw]

You're missing the point. When our scientific ignorance is greater than our scientific knowledge, which includes the theories scientists use to study the universe, much of what we accept as true we must acknowledge that we are accepting it as true by faith.

[Gary K]

I agree with your deductions about the human organism.

However, creation and God will always be believed in by faith as God will never remove all possibility of doubt. Yes, you and I see your logic as unassailable, but an atheist will not because of their basic world view premise: God doesn't exist and therefore cannot have created the world.

No amount of arguing will change their mind. The only thing that will change the atheist's mind is a change of their basic paradigm brought about by the Holy Spirit.

[Gary K]

Science is a functional truth. It is only true in as much as it provides results. It has nothing to do with faith in the sense that a believer holds the Bible to be true. Science does not make assertions into areas where it had no evidence.

No one would pay any attention to evolutionary theory if research and the gathering of facts didn't provide any evidence.

You really need to provide a quote for this. This is an emotional response, not a logical one. To be considered logic, you have to provide evidence. And that evidence has to be greater than "the universe is wonderful and we simply don't know."

I will just reply to these parts of your reply right now for they go to the heart of your argument.

You're wrong in saying there is no evidence for creation. There is evidence for it and much of it is the same evidence you point to saying that creation cannot have happened. A true scientist, without any axe to grind, has to look at all possible explanations of the evidence, not just the theory that supports what he believes to be true. That just doesn't happen.

For example, as John317 pointed out earlier, common dna does not support evolution only. It also points to a common designer of all species. As both the animal and human body have much the same functionality a good engineer would have shared his design wherever possible. He would have started with basic building blocks for all animal life and moved on to the specifics for each specie from there. That's as obvious a possible explanation as evolution for the evidence, yet no scientist will even begin to study that train of evidence and thought. Why? Because of a preconceived bias towards evolution and the absolute rejection of creationism, just like your bias.

Another example is how time periods are calculated in geology. Evidence has shown that formations once thought to have been formed over millions of years were actually formed a matter of days or weeks. The Pot Holes reservoir in Eastern Washington and its surrounding geological formations are an example of this. The Missoula Flood has been proven to the cause of these formations, but it took 40 years of struggle because of the bias of geologists towards uniformitarianism, even though on its face that theory is completely bogus as we can see from everyday events in our world today. Events happen regularly that disprove its conclusions.

Here's a page dedicated to this from a creationists perspective. It's complete with footnotes so that you can research what they have to say for yourself.

As to the quote from Hubble, I'll try and get it for you. I read it some months back, but unfortunately I cannot remember the source, and am having to use a 3rd party to help me find it, so I am at the mercy of someone else's schedule and time constraints.

[Gary K]

Oops. I forgot to copy and paste the link I promised.

http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/missoulaflood.htm

[John317]

Very worth while link. Thanks much for posting this.

[phkrause]

Oops. I forgot to copy and paste the link I promised.

http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/missoulaflood.htm

Great article , I think I've read this a while ago. Thanks for the link though, its always good to read great stuff like this.

[phkrause]

You're missing the point. When our scientific ignorance is greater than our scientific knowledge, which includes the theories scientists use to study the universe, much of what we accept as true we must acknowledge that we are accepting it as true by faith. Faith that further increases in knowledge won't then declare what we once thought true to be found to be false.

That's no different than acceptance of the Bible. We accept it as true by faith that is based upon experience with God. I've found the God of the Bible to be so much more reliable, honest, powerful than any human being I've ever met that there is no comparison. His power has made what are "proven facts" to the world, false in my life. So, my faith in His word is based upon the evidence of experience. I've tried Him as He has asked us to do, and He's proven true to His word.

The difference I've found between the creationist and evolutionist is that the creationist honestly admits he believes in creation through faith. The evolutionist mocks the creationist for his faith, and says his own belief in evolution is due to empirical fact, when, in fact, his point of view is no more provable than the creationist's. He accepts his point of view as true because he interprets the evidence in a way that supports his belief, while mocking the creationist for doing the very same thing.

The biggest difference between the two camps is the paradigms through which they view the world. One paradigm says God couldn't have done what He said He did, so interprets everything they see as evidence of that. The other paradigm accepts God at His word and views the evidence through that paradigm. The paradigms are at opposing ends of the spectrum so of course each side will reject what the other side says. Someone who rejects the idea of creation must reject the way a creationist views the evidence for it makes no sense from his point of view. The reason being is that his starting point for his logic admits of no other way to view the evidence. It rejects creationism out of hand.

Look at Hubbel after whom the telescope is named as an example. He outright said that he couldn't accept the logical way of looking at the evidence because of what the end conclusion would be. That's with respect to all objects moving away from the earth no matter from where on earth you view the sky. He had to find another theory because common sense said his observations supported creation and he couldn't accept that. It's clearly bias and an effort to suppress the most logical conclusion because it disagreed with his paradigm of viewing the world.

Excellent post Gary K. for me personally I have no problem with accepting creation by faith, with or without any evidence. God's given us much evidence of himself in the Bible and today. especially in archeology.

[cardw]

I agree with your deductions about the human organism.

However, creation and God will always be believed in by faith as God will never remove all possibility of doubt. Yes, you and I see your logic as unassailable, but an atheist will not because of their basic world view premise: God doesn't exist and therefore cannot have created the world.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

No credible scientist is claiming that these are unassailable facts. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. This is clearly understood. It is only creationists that don't seem to understand this.

Glad to hear you say this, that evolution is not a fact. It is a theory, you are exactly right. And that is all it is, and all it ever will be.

But you are wrong to say that creationists don't understand this. Of course they do. They have been saying it for many years, and still say it. On the other hand, I've heard some evolutionists claim that evolution is no longer a theory but it's a fact. Have you never heard anyone claiming that evolution is a fact? If its not being a fact is so clearly understood, why do some evolutionists make the claim? I've never heard any creationists claim evolution is a fact and not a theory.

Evolution is based on facts. Creationism doesn't even have a working theory. It only has claims. The reason it doesn't have a working theory is because there is no way, at this point, to test for a creator.

There are many tests for evolution and more evidence is being gathered all the time.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Science is a functional truth. It is only true in as much as it provides results. It has nothing to do with faith in the sense that a believer holds the Bible to be true. Science does not make assertions into areas where it had no evidence.

No one would pay any attention to evolutionary theory if research and the gathering of facts didn't provide any evidence.

You really need to provide a quote for this. This is an emotional response, not a logical one. To be considered logic, you have to provide evidence. And that evidence has to be greater than "the universe is wonderful and we simply don't know."

You're wrong in saying there is no evidence for creation. There is evidence for it and much of it is the same evidence you point to saying that creation cannot have happened. A true scientist, without any axe to grind, has to look at all possible explanations of the evidence, not just the theory that supports what he believes to be true. That just doesn't happen.

[Overaged]

Well Sir; how on earth does the evolutionist explain the existence of that very first one-celled animal from which all life forms allegedly "evolved?" For years, the medieval idea of spontaneous generation has been the accepted explanation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past, to produce that very first spark of life, then it must be assumed that the laws which governed life then had to be completely different than what they are now.

But wait a minute! How would that work too? The whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that the conditions of the Earth have remained uniform throughout the ages. In order to sustain such a humanistic explanation of the origin of life, people must accept the exploded, unscientific theory of spontaneous regeneration.

And an even bigger question is this: why are evolutionists so aggressively opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible? A miracle of God would be required in either case. Either God did it by divine fiat,and created ; or, blind, unintelligent "nature" produced the impossible evolutionary act of chance life. Chance life is a ridiculous improbability.

[LifeHiscost]

I agree with your deductions about the human organism.

However, creation and God will always be believed in by faith as God will never remove all possibility of doubt. Yes, you and I see your logic as unassailable, but an atheist will not because of their basic world view premise: God doesn't exist and therefore cannot have created the world.

No amount of arguing will change their mind. The only thing that will change the atheist's mind is a change of their basic paradigm brought about by the Holy Spirit.

I think the term here is debating. And it is done on the premise of win/lose as opposed to what/Who is truth. And that can only be gained by submission and/or seeking.

"And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart."Jeremiah 29:13 NKJV

"You didn’t choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name."

John 15:16 NLT

God blesses!

[cardw]

This article explains one of the most severe problems with creation and a flood. When we count all the animal fossils found at the Karroo Formation [in Africa] and distribute them over the earth there would be 21 animals per acre of land. If we include a conservative estimate of all the fossils found on the earth we would be looking at 2100 animals per acre of land. The earth clearly could not sustain that animal density and humans.

Rather the evidence indicates fossil beds being formed with animals put down over millions of years, not all at once with a world wide flood.

Too many fossils to be alive all at once.

[Overaged]

This article explains one of the most severe problems with creation and a flood. When we count all the animal fossils found at the Karroo Formation [in Africa] and distribute them over the earth there would be 21 animals per acre of land. If we include a conservative estimate of all the fossils found on the earth we would be looking at 2100 animals per acre of land. The earth clearly could not sustain that animal density and humans.

Rather the evidence indicates fossil beds being formed with animals put down over millions of years, not all at once with a world wide flood.

Too many fossils to be alive all at once.

There are many reasons why it is impossible to believe what you say here. Many of the "fossils" so found are only the size of a dime so that alone kind of casts a shadow of lies over your theory. I am not saying you are a liar, just that this kind of fossil mantra is a lie.