onceforgivennowfree

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I think it's interesting - and, perhaps, not surprising - that a engineer would see "design" in Nature.

Perhaps the difference between him and yourself, Master_Ghost_Knight, is a religious upbringing on his part as against yourself?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I had a religious upbringing. I was a catholic up until my 18th birthday. And not one of those cultural Catholics who had never attended church. I was an active member, prayed everyday and even assisted the celebration of mass. However I didn't had a fundamental religious upbringing. Instead I had a rather more healthy idea that if something was real then ultimately it would be impossible to prove them wrong, because proof could only come about trough my mirroring the actual state of affairs then nothing to the contrary which would be valid could ever surface. And given that I had God as a certainty, I didn't need to make excuses or lie to defend my faith because ultimately the truth of God would be vindicated because God was real. Which led my open to question several matter in theology, because questioning theology would not make God not real and it could lead you to a better understanding of it. Unknowingly this open approach would latter lead me to become an atheist, my scientific training did a play a little part in it, sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one, and in a snap everything became crystal clear, every single problem that once nagged me simply evaporated, everything was explained and since then I'm no longer a believer. This whoever was not a one step process, and my deconversion story my need thread on its one, and I can share it later if you want.
However I would be lying if I said that my open approach to religion had an impact in my success in scientific understanding, they simple had nothing to do with each other. One does not need to not have religious dogmas the see the power of a guess about the real world which has consequences in the real world, and make predictions about something that was never observed before and it is counter intuitive to the point that you would think that it had to be wrong, yet then we later find out that those guesses were right. And it is in this simple process that lays the heart of science. If someone does not understand the importance of rigor, of distancing themselves from the experiment, of computing consequences from models of reality (in advance) and verifying those consequences against experiment and what that implies, then they do not understand science. And after you have seen many times what good science looks like and what bad science looks like, its is hard not to see what is wrong with OFNF's interpretation of what science looks like. And religion does not and can not play a part in it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Perhaps I should have been clearer - I should have said "overly-religious", aka fundamentalist/creationist.

Like yourself, I was a RC and in Ireland science and religion don't clash - theistic evolution (where God caused the Big Bang and Nature did the rest without divine intervention (except for healing miracles, like Lourdes, etc)) was the norm in school. In school, no-one thought that there might be a contradiction between the two.

I think OnceForgivenNowFree is more of the fundamentalist variety rather than "mainstream" Christian.

But it does seem to me that engineers and their thinking processes - in conjunction with fundamentalism - tends to lead to their seeing "design" in Nature.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[scalyblue]

I haven't been here in a while, it seems.

I have a few things to add to this discussion

First is this, which boils down to the crux of the issue at hand.

Then what I'm going to do is make an analogy about mutations.

When you understand the process by which this cashmere shawl

turned into this internet

then you might understand the process of how an evidently unrelated or unbeneficial mutation can contribute to complexity.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Evolution is never proven because it can't be proven.We see this in every debate including this debate.AronRa cannot demonstrate that evolution is true and so he mostly just attacks God and the bible while overlooking his faith in evolution. The only way the evidence for evolution confirms evolution is if you already accept it.But evolution cannot be proven or demonstrated by any scientist,it is believed by faith.Go ahead and demonstrate a dinosaur evolving into a bird,you believe it is true and happened yet no matter how much you believe it you cannot demonstrate it,therefore it is believed by faith no matter how much you try to deny it.Evolution is based on faith and assumptions.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Welcome to the forum abelcainsbrother!

Got something new to add? Maybe some information? Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh......zing!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, abelcainsbrother!

Evolution is never proven because it can't be proven.

In order to say that, you'd have to know more than anyone else does about the subject.

The empiric evidence is the reason why the scientific community accepts that evolution has, and does, occur. It is this same empiric evidence that underlies their acceptance of the theory of evolution - the explanation behind the how and why it occurs.

We see this in every debate including this debate.AronRa cannot demonstrate that evolution is true and so he mostly just attacks God and the bible while overlooking his faith in evolution.

The problem he has is that he's dealing with people whose world-view precludes the possibility of evolution as a solely naturalistic phenomenon without some intervention by a creator-entity - which is based on faith alone.

Almost by default, he's having to disprove their faith in a creator-entity first before attempting to prove evolution as a purely naturalistic phenomenon.

The only way the evidence for evolution confirms evolution is if you already accept it.

You're making the same mistake most creationists make.

The evidence is why scientists accept (the theory of) evolution - once one has a sound explanation for what's occurring in Nature, further data fits the explanation.

This is why creationists believe that evolution is a religion - because they start with the explanation ("God did it") and then everything fits into place.

They assume that scientists are doing the same thinġ.

They're not!

But evolution cannot be proven or demonstrated by any scientist,it is believed by faith.

It can - to those who base their understanding of Nature on empiric evidence.

With creationists, once one gets past their religiously-biased world-view, they do accept evolution. Indeed, some creationists - like Prof. Ken Miller - already do.

Go ahead and demonstrate a dinosaur evolving into a bird,you believe it is true and happened yet no matter how much you believe it you cannot demonstrate it,therefore it is believed by faith no matter how much you try to deny it.

We can demonstrate it to someone who is open-minded to the empiric evidence and the scientific method.

To someone who is close-minded with a world-view which precludes naturalistic phenomena, empiric evidence, critical thinking, etc., it is extremely difficult if not impossible.

You could start your reading here.

Evolution is based on faith and assumptions.

The theory of evolution is based on empiric evidence and certain assumptions founded on that evidence, which form the basis for the theory.

Everything we think - and here I'm talking in general about any "thinking" creature, human or not - is based on assumptions about what our senses are telling us. If creatures didn't make such assumptions, none of them could survive - never mind live.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings,
Welcome to LoR, abelcainsbrother!

Thanks for the welcome.

Evolution is never proven because it can't be proven.

In order to say that, you'd have to know more than anyone else does about the subject.
The empiric evidence is the reason why the scientific community accepts that evolution has, and does, occur. It is this same empiric evidence that underlies their acceptance of the theory of evolution - the explanation behind the how and why it occurs.



But not to the degree that they say,they stretch their own evidence to assume life evolves like a dinosaur evolving over time into a bird.None of the evidene I've seen demonstrates this,yet they assume without knowing and without being able to demonstrate it.This is like believing in God whom we can't see yet,they can't see one kind of life evolve into another kind like a dinosaur to a bird.

We see this in every debate including this debate.AronRa cannot demonstrate that evolution is true and so he mostly just attacks God and the bible while overlooking his faith in evolution.

The problem he has is that he's dealing with people whose world-view precludes the possibility of evolution as a solely naturalistic phenomenon without some intervention by a creator-entity - which is based on faith alone.



Not true there is no reason based on science to reject God and there is not one scientist who can demonstrate the matter of the universe coming together on its own and forming itself into the things that make up the universe and especially fully functional living life and it is a cop-out of science to reject at the bare minimum a higher power because te things that make up the universe and life do not create themselves and it would be impossible for a scientist to demonstrate it,he'd have to stand there without touching the matter in any way and demonstrate that matter forming itself into fully functional living life,which will never be done and is science fiction.There is no reason to reject "God did it" based on science,not science fiction being proposed.
Almost by default, he's having to disprove their faith in a creator-entity first before attempting to prove evolution as a purely naturalistic phenomenon.




He will never be able to demonstrate evolution through purely naturalistic means and has somehow bought into science fiction.

The only way the evidence for evolution confirms evolution is if you already accept it.

You're making the same mistake most creationists make.
The evidence is why scientists accept (the theory of) evolution - once one has a sound explanation for what's occurring in Nature, further data fits the explanation.
This is why creationists believe that evolution is a religion - because they start with the explanation ("God did it") and then everything fits into place.



Science cannot come along after a measly 150 years and remove God from the creation of the universe and life when religions have been around much much longer until they can demonastrate it and they can't despite the propaganda in our society to accept this naturalistic world view.
They assume that scientists are doing the same thinġ.



Man has been wrong many times in the past whether he was religious or not it makes no difference so it is not wise to believe man over God.Man can be so sincere and yet be totally wrong and whole societies are effected when it happens.People just get it wrong plus there is a drive to keep evolution going which is why it is defended so vehemently.


They're not!



They can be wrong.

But evolution cannot be proven or demonstrated by any scientist,it is believed by faith.

It can - to those who base their understanding of Nature on empiric evidence.

With creationists, once one gets past their religiously-biased world-view, they do accept evolution. Indeed, some creationists - like Prof. Ken Miller - already do.

Go ahead and demonstrate a dinosaur evolving into a bird,you believe it is true and happened yet no matter how much you believe it you cannot demonstrate it,therefore it is believed by faith no matter how much you try to deny it.

We can demonstrate it to someone who is open-minded to the empiric evidence and the scientific method.



You cannot demonstrate it because no scientist can because it happened so long ago,you must believe it by faith.



To someone who is close-minded with a world-view which precludes naturalistic phenomena, empiric evidence, critical thinking, etc., it is extremely difficult if not impossible.

You could start your reading here.


Thanks for the link.

Evolution is based on faith and assumptions.

The theory of evolution is based on empiric evidence and certain assumptions founded on that evidence, which form the basis for the theory.



Yes there seems to be so much evidence for evolution,layers and layers and layers of evidence piled on top of a theory they cannot really demonstrate but it is still believed by faith and assumptions.It seems like they've got the cart before the horse,they should've already proved and demonstrated that life evolves and then built evidence around it,but they keep piling more and more evidence on a theory they'll never be able to demonstrate and prove scientifically.




Everything we think - and here I'm talking in general about any "thinking" creature, human or not - is based on assumptions about what our senses are telling us. If creatures didn't make such assumptions, none of them could survive - never mind live.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Frenger]

Evolution is never proven because it can't be proven.

You'll have to be more specific here, do you mean the theory of evolution, or the fact of evolution? In other words, are you claiming that a part of the theory is incorrect, or that the fact, (that being the change in alleles in a population over generations) is incorrect? If it's the latter, I'm afraid you are wrong.

The only way the evidence for evolution confirms evolution is if you already accept it.

Can you be more specific? Which evidence are you talking about here? The evidence from biogeograpy, cladistics, genetics, the fossil record, what?

Go ahead and demonstrate a dinosaur evolving into a bird

Evolution doesn't work like pokemon, however, we can show that modern birds likely evolved from species of dinosaurs, species such as microraptors.

you believe it is true and happened yet no matter how much you believe it you cannot demonstrate it,therefore it is believed by faith no matter how much you try to deny it.Evolution is based on faith and assumptions.

What part of evolution theory would you like to be shown? Because most on this forum will be happy to help.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Abelcainsbrother, could you please not put your responses in the quote itself? It's very difficult to read when there's nothing separating what you're responding to from your own words.

 

[AronRa]

OnceDeceivedNowDeceiven', you have demonstrated that you don't understand evolution, and it is obvious that your reasons for rejecting it are not intellectual. They are not defensible either. I told you that it is not possible to defend creationism honestly.

Yes I want you to address the evidence in this thread ...IN THIS THREAD, because I'm trying to teach you something, and you were required to acknowledge your understanding of each point as we progress. That means that you discuss it HERE, NOT in a video where you can just display how much you still don't know, based on your continued misunderstanding and false assumptions. At this point, that is all you can do.

However, our process hasn't yet begun, because before we could do that, I needed to know what you already accept and what you will accept, and you won't give me a straight answer to either of those questions.

I'm sure it bothers you that were you to continue this conversation, that I would certainly prove evolution to any fence-sitters reading this, but really has you spooked is that I intend to prove evolution to YOU. That means if you participate in this discussion like a rational person would, you will not be a creationist by the end. That has you scared, and that's why you won't acknowledge my evidence nor answer my questions either. You know I can prove my point, and you're frustrated that I won't let you play your game to duck out of that.

Answer my simple prerequisite questions;
what issue do you have with the first three evolutionary facts in my list?
And what evidence would you accept in order to change your mind?

I doubt that you'll answer this because you can't. There is no reason you can cite other than your religious faith, and that is also why there is no evidence you'll accept. You won't admit that of course, because you want to pretend to be a skeptic, which you're clearly not. So instead you pretend that I'm the one playing word games. Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Rumraket]

Evolution is never proven because it can't be proven.We see this in every debate including this debate.AronRa cannot demonstrate that evolution is true and so he mostly just attacks God and the bible while overlooking his faith in evolution. The only way the evidence for evolution confirms evolution is if you already accept it.But evolution cannot be proven or demonstrated by any scientist,it is believed by faith.Go ahead and demonstrate a dinosaur evolving into a bird,you believe it is true and happened yet no matter how much you believe it you cannot demonstrate it,therefore it is believed by faith no matter how much you try to deny it.Evolution is based on faith and assumptions.

Thank you for this wholly unsubstantiated statement of opinion.

Unsubstantiated opinion, because you have referred to zero evidence in support of the proposition and produced no argument (deductive or inductive).

 

[Rumraket]

]I don't need to 'prove' what has already been proved, and which you yourself have already admitted. How could I prove something to your satisfaction if you already accept it?

In addition to your lapse of logic, we're also adding to the list of things you do not know. For example, you don't know what a presupposition is. Let me help you with that.

1. to take for granted; assume
2. to require or imply as a necessary prior condition
3. philosophy, logic, linguistics to require (a condition) to be satisfied as a precondition for a statement to be either true or false or for a speech act to be felicitous. Have you stopped beating your wife? presupposes that the person addressed has a wife and has beaten her.
-Dictionary.com.

Remember you were asked to prove that “complexity increases” this is one of you 9 “facts” that are only consistent with evolution.
In response to this you provided an article that starts the assumption that we came from simple apes. ¿do you understand why is this circular reasoning?

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions; all articles make some assumptions, an assumption is simply something that the author is not attempting to prove/disprove in that specific paper. However you can´t assume the very thing that you were asked to prove. If you were asked to prove that “complexity increases” it would be nice if you post a paper that doesn´t assumes that we came from a simple ape, but rather a paper that actually attempts to prove that premise.

For example, we've already shown that (1) most mutations are neutral, not deleterious

However it is still a fact that deleterious mutations are more frequent than beneficial mutations, this is true regardless of how you what to define “neutral” “beneficial” “deleterious” the fact is that genetic load increases as time passes, this is an observable and verifiable fact

(2) Even 'deleterious' mutations sometimes provide a positive and naturally-selectable advantage, but any mutation which causes an actual detriment will be removed by natural selection, and the more deleterious it is, the faster it will be weeded out. These are all facts which have been well-established in the course of this conversation.

Wrong, natural selection only removes the lethal mutations, it doesn´t remove the slightly deleterious mutations NS only removes a minority.

. We have only 'directly witnessed' a few dozen speciation events, but then we have only directly witnessed a few dozen extinctions too

Wrong we have witnesses a few dozen speciation events and around 1,000 extinction events since 1500, extinction is many, many times more frequent than speciation.

So you're wrong on this one point twice. (1) Because we're currently in a period of mass-extinction, and we ourselves are the cause of it -NOT "degraded genetics". THAT isn't happening anywhere, and apparently never has happened either

Let me try to read your mind…Since according to your dating methods and you interpretation of the geologic column, the average rate of extinction is around 1 specie for every 3-4 years and the current rate of extinction is about 2 species per year, then we are OBVIOULSY in a period of mass extinction right? Do you understand why is that circular reasoning ?

It´s true that humans are responsible for a lot of extinction events, however it is also true that most (if not all speciation events) are also caused by humans, the fact is that extinction is more common than speciation, this is true regardless if you remove “human intervention” from the equation or not.

(2) That while there are now several hundred species of scorpion, all evidently from a common ancestor, despite all the extinct forms in the fossil record, that one example out of millions shows that speciation must occur "hundreds of times" more often than extinction.

sure, since evolution is obviously true, and all scorpions obviously share a common ancestor, then it follows logically that speciation is more common than extinction. ¿do you understand why is this circular reasoning?

]Wrong again, as I already explained. But now you've brought a whole new subject to be wrong about. What is a transitional species? And would we determine whether any species qualifies as "transitional" or "intermediate"?

No sir, I don’t what to bring a whole new subject, the point that I was trying to make is that the majority of species found in the fossil record are evolutionary dead ends, or organisms that whent extinct without “evolving” in to something else. ¿agree?

e]As has already been pointed out by Dragan Glas, no. You're wrong about that too, like you have been about everything else.

But the fact remains that I already showed a paper that proves that genome degenerate at a ratio of 5% per generation, and none of you have provided a paper showing the opposite.

I have already responded by correcting all your misapprehensions about modern evolutionary theory and the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution. You said you would read my response, but you have not responded to it since.

You're now back making all the same mistakes again which I corrected in my response to you.

So this is how you get by, by simply outright ignoring contradictory information? Maybe you forgot to read my post? I would like for you to go back and read it and give your response, instead of coming back and blindly reasserting all your misapprehensions about molecular evolution as if you have not recieved any corrections.

To save you the trouble of looking for my previous post, here it is:
http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=156815#p156815

 

[australopithecus]

Evolution is never proven because it can't be proven.We see this in every debate including this debate.AronRa cannot demonstrate that evolution is true and so he mostly just attacks God and the bible while overlooking his faith in evolution. The only way the evidence for evolution confirms evolution is if you already accept it.But evolution cannot be proven or demonstrated by any scientist,it is believed by faith.Go ahead and demonstrate a dinosaur evolving into a bird,you believe it is true and happened yet no matter how much you believe it you cannot demonstrate it,therefore it is believed by faith no matter how much you try to deny it.Evolution is based on faith and assumptions.

We live in an age where the entirety of human knowledge is accessible on a phone, on demand. There is no excuse for this level of ignorance in the 21st Century.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I've done what I can to clear up your post in order to answer you.

In order to say that, you'd have to know more than anyone else does about the subject.

The empiric evidence is the reason why the scientific community accepts that evolution has, and does, occur. It is this same empiric evidence that underlies their acceptance of the theory of evolution - the explanation behind the how and why it occurs.

But not to the degree that they say,they stretch their own evidence to assume life evolves like a dinosaur evolving over time into a bird.None of the evidene I've seen demonstrates this,yet they assume without knowing and without being able to demonstrate it.This is like believing in God whom we can't see yet,they can't see one kind of life evolve into another kind like a dinosaur to a bird.

We have transitional fossils - feathered dinosaurs - dinosaurs with characteristics shared by both previous creatures (non-avian dinosaurs) and later ones (avian dinosaurs), which - when compared to modern birds - show that birds are clearly "modern dinosaurs".

This is empiric evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

There is very good grounds for "believing" that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.

A belief in God - which has no empiric evidence - is baseless.

The problem he has is that he's dealing with people whose world-view precludes the possibility of evolution as a solely naturalistic phenomenon without some intervention by a creator-entity - which is based on faith alone.

Not true there is no reason based on science to reject God and there is not one scientist who can demonstrate the matter of the universe coming together on its own and forming itself into the things that make up the universe and especially fully functional living life and it is a cop-out of science to reject at the bare minimum a higher power because te things that make up the universe and life do not create themselves and it would be impossible for a scientist to demonstrate it,he'd have to stand there without touching the matter in any way and demonstrate that matter forming itself into fully functional living life,which will never be done and is science fiction.There is no reason to reject "God did it" based on science,not science fiction being proposed.

There are a number of books by Barrow, Greene, Gribbin, Krauss, Rees, and Stenger, to name a few, which show how a universe can arise within a naturalistic framework.

Life is the result of the laws of Nature and, specifically, of chemistry.

There appears to be a misunderstanding in Creationists'/IDers' minds that there are two completely separate categories: non-life and life - and never the twain shall meet.

This is a fallacy.

If you did mathematics at school, you'll have covered Set Theory. Think of chemistry as a set - biochemistry, the "chemistry of life", is a sub-set of the set called chemistry.

It's as simple as that.

At some point during (inorganic) chemical reactions, an atom of carbon and an atom of hydrogen form a bond - and, thus, we have organic chemistry: the bottom of the ladder which leads to life proper because the carbon-hydrogen bond is the sine qua non of life.

Somewhere along the way, as you climb the ladder, abiogenesis - "life from non-life" - occurs.

There is no need for a super-natural cause for anything, as Carrier shows.

Almost by default, he's having to disprove their faith in a creator-entity first before attempting to prove evolution as a purely naturalistic phenomenon.

He will never be able to demonstrate evolution through purely naturalistic means and has somehow bought into science fiction.

There is no reason why he cannot do so - and there is no science fiction involved here.

Your earlier comment in conjunction with this gives the impression that you mistake evolution as some sort of "transformation" from cell to dinosaur to modern bird - as if it's a simple process like magic. It's neither simple nor magic.

You're making the same mistake most creationists make.

The evidence is why scientists accept (the theory of) evolution - once one has a sound explanation for what's occurring in Nature, further data fits the explanation.

This is why creationists believe that evolution is a religion - because they start with the explanation ("God did it") and then everything fits into place.

Science cannot come along after a measly 150 years and remove God from the creation of the universe and life when religions have been around much much longer until they can demonastrate it and they can't despite the propaganda in our society to accept this naturalistic world view.

The naturalistic world-view is older than Christianity.

The ironic thing is that religions cannot demonstrate a creator's existence - any creator of any religion - because there is no empiric evidence for such.

Every effect observed in Nature has a naturalistic cause - there has never been a observed effect with a super-natural cause.

They assume that scientists are doing the same thing.

Man has been wrong many times in the past whether he was religious or not it makes no difference so it is not wise to believe man over God.Man can be so sincere and yet be totally wrong and whole societies are effected when it happens.People just get it wrong plus there is a drive to keep evolution going which is why it is defended so vehemently.

You're assuming that "God" exists - you are guilty of the self-same error of which you accuse others.

It's ironic that most, particularly the rest of your quote - in bold - is applicable to the religious: just replace "evolution" with "religion".

They're not!

They can be wrong.

Not when the overwhelming preponderance of evidence - to use Aron's phrase - is behind their belief in the fact and theory of evolution.

Go ahead and demonstrate a dinosaur evolving into a bird,you believe it is true and happened yet no matter how much you believe it you cannot demonstrate it,therefore it is believed by faith no matter how much you try to deny it.

I have shown that we have evidence of feathered dinosaurs, both non-avian and avian, along with the evidence of modern birds that share characteristics with dinosaurs, thus showing that they are evolved from dinosaurs.

We can demonstrate it to someone who is open-minded to the empiric evidence and the scientific method.

You cannot demonstrate it because no scientist can because it happened so long ago,you must believe it by faith.

Not faith - empiric evidence and certain assumptions backed up by the A through Z of scientific fields.

The theory of evolution is based on empiric evidence and certain assumptions founded on that evidence, which form the basis for the theory.

Yes there seems to be so much evidence for evolution,layers and layers and layers of evidence piled on top of a theory they cannot really demonstrate but it is still believed by faith and assumptions.It seems like they've got the cart before the horse,they should've already proved and demonstrated that life evolves and then built evidence around it,but they keep piling more and more evidence on a theory they'll never be able to demonstrate and prove scientifically.

Actually, it is religions who have put the cart before the horse - by asserting that a creator exists/did it, and then fitting the evidence round it ("that's how God did it").

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

A interesting article, in relation to the earlier comments regarding Creationists' (and IDers') world-views, is this one - c/o Prolescum's "Mid-week links":

Understanding creationism: An insider’s guide by a former young-Earth creationist

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Isotelus]

Go ahead and demonstrate a dinosaur evolving into a bird,you believe it is true and happened yet no matter how much you believe it you cannot demonstrate it,therefore it is believed by faith no matter how much you try to deny it.Evolution is based on faith and assumptions.

Another interesting article using a creationist model, i.e. baraminology, to demonstrate that birds are dinosaurs.

Note this quote from the concluding statements:

Possibly, some creationist authors will hail this finding as evidence of special creation for those four groups. However, such enthusiasm should be tempered by the finding here that the rest of Dinosauria—including basal members of all major lineages—are joined in a continuous morphological spectrum. This confirms the genetic relatedness of a very broad taxonomic collection of animals, as evolutionary theory predicts, ironically by means of a measure endorsed and used by creation science.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

We have transitional fossils - feathered dinosaurs - dinosaurs with characteristics shared by both previous creatures (non-avian dinosaurs) and later ones (avian dinosaurs), which - when compared to modern birds - show that birds are clearly "modern dinosaurs".

This is empiric evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

There is very good grounds for "believing" that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.

A belief in God - which has no empiric evidence - is baseless.

Yes you have faith that dinosaurs evolved into birds saying we have very good reason to believe they did,this is a faith statement but I want to see it demonstrated that it can happen. Demonstrate it,would'nt you like to see it demonstrated?Should'nt scientists by now have demonstrated it if it is true?Do you just believe what they say?There are other explanations based on the evidence,it in noway proves dinosaurs evolved into birds unless you look at the evidence like that.But it cannot be demonstrated and is believed by faith and assumptions.

The problem he has is that he's dealing with people whose world-view precludes the possibility of evolution as a solely naturalistic phenomenon without some intervention by a creator-entity - which is based on faith alone.

Not true there is no reason based on science to reject God and there is not one scientist who can demonstrate the matter of the universe coming together on its own and forming itself into the things that make up the universe and especially fully functional living life and it is a cop-out of science to reject at the bare minimum a higher power because te things that make up the universe and life do not create themselves and it would be impossible for a scientist to demonstrate it,he'd have to stand there without touching the matter in any way and demonstrate that matter forming itself into fully functional living life,which will never be done and is science fiction.There is no reason to reject "God did it" based on science,not science fiction being proposed.

There are a number of books by Barrow, Greene, Gribbin, Krauss, Rees, and Stenger, to name a few, which show how a universe can arise within a naturalistic framework.

Life is the result of the laws of Nature and, specifically, of chemistry.

Do you believe everything you read?Where is the evidence and why can't they demonstrate it?I want to see a demonstration and if their books were true they could demonstrate it but they haven't.They are interesting theory books that have not and cannot be demonstrated,it is science fiction.

There appears to be a misunderstanding in Creationists'/IDers' minds that there are two completely separate categories: non-life and life - and never the twain shall meet.

This is a fallacy.

If you did mathematics at school, you'll have covered Set Theory. Think of chemistry as a set - biochemistry, the "chemistry of life", is a sub-set of the set called chemistry.

It's as simple as that.

It is not as simple as that,you can believe it all you want to but let's see a demonstration of fully functional living life without them touching the matter at all.Man cannot create something and then deny a creator is needed when he created it.And alot of times what man is able to produce is a weaker version of the original like dogs but we take care of them to compensate.Science is far from being able to demonstrate it,so there is no reason to think God is not needed.You are being tricked by science fiction and choosing to believe it by faith.

At some point during (inorganic) chemical reactions, an atom of carbon and an atom of hydrogen form a bond - and, thus, we have organic chemistry: the bottom of the ladder which leads to life proper because the carbon-hydrogen bond is the sine qua non of life.

Somewhere along the way, as you climb the ladder, abiogenesis - "life from non-life" - occurs.

There is no need for a super-natural cause for anything, as Carrier shows.

Yes there is a need for a creator as none of what you think can happen can be demonstrated by any scientist.

Almost by default, he's having to disprove their faith in a creator-entity first before attempting to prove evolution as a purely naturalistic phenomenon.

He will never be able to demonstrate evolution through purely naturalistic means and has somehow bought into science fiction.

There is no reason why he cannot do so - and there is no science fiction involved here.

Your earlier comment in conjunction with this gives the impression that you mistake evolution as some sort of "transformation" from cell to dinosaur to modern bird - as if it's a simple process like magic. It's neither simple nor magic.

Wrong! Evolutionists assume this but evolution teaches and has taught for years dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet when asked about it you want to try to deny it.It is up to evolutionists to demonstrate that it can even happen.I want to see a demonstration.None of the evidence I've seen they have produced demonstrates it but they still assume despite the evidence.

You're making the same mistake most creationists make.

The evidence is why scientists accept (the theory of) evolution - once one has a sound explanation for what's occurring in Nature, further data fits the explanation.

This is why creationists believe that evolution is a religion - because they start with the explanation ("God did it") and then everything fits into place.

Science cannot come along after a measly 150 years and remove God from the creation of the universe and life when religions have been around much much longer until they can demonastrate it and they can't despite the propaganda in our society to accept this naturalistic world view.

The naturalistic world-view is older than Christianity.

The ironic thing is that religions cannot demonstrate a creator's existence - any creator of any religion - because there is no empiric evidence for such.

We do not have to demonstrate "God did it" at all like you think all we've got to do is let you get up in front of a group of people and state that it can all happen without God,you'll be made to look silly with no way to demonstrate it,people will think you are crazy thinking such non-sense. God is the default position until it can be demonstrated otherwise, and it can't,and is a pipe dream that atheists will never see demonstrated.You are being played by science fiction and fail to see it.

Every effect observed in Nature has a naturalistic cause - there has never been a observed effect with a super-natural cause

.

Laws are set up by a creator,they do not just happen.You cannot teach that there is no God needed just because it rains,etc

They assume that scientists are doing the same thing.

Man has been wrong many times in the past whether he was religious or not it makes no difference so it is not wise to believe man over God.Man can be so sincere and yet be totally wrong and whole societies are effected when it happens.People just get it wrong plus there is a drive to keep evolution going which is why it is defended so vehemently.

You're assuming that "God" exists - you are guilty of the self-same error of which you accuse others.

I have no reason to reject God or the bible,they are much much easier to believe than what you do.

It's ironic that most, particularly the rest of your quote - in bold - is applicable to the religious: just replace "evolution" with "religion".

Check Mate!

They're not!

They can be wrong.

Not when the overwhelming preponderance of evidence - to use Aron's phrase - is behind their belief in the fact and theory of evolution.

Go ahead and demonstrate a dinosaur evolving into a bird,you believe it is true and happened yet no matter how much you believe it you cannot demonstrate it,therefore it is believed by faith no matter how much you try to deny it.

I

have shown that we have evidence of feathered dinosaurs, both non-avian and avian, along with the evidence of modern birds that share characteristics with dinosaurs, thus showing that they are evolved from dinosaurs.

Birds are totally different than dinosaurs yet you claim dinosaurs evolved into birds.I want to see a demonstration like you teach.

We can demonstrate it to someone who is open-minded to the empiric evidence and the scientific method.

You cannot demonstrate it because no scientist can because it happened so long ago,you must believe it by faith.

Yes we must be open minded because it is believed by faith.

Not faith - empiric evidence and certain assumptions backed up by the A through Z of scientific fields.

It is faith.Demonstrate it ,sense you have so much empiric evidence.Let's see it denmonstrated if evolution is so predictable based on that empiric evidence.They leave you hanging don't they.

The theory of evolution is based on empiric evidence and certain assumptions founded on that evidence, which form the basis for the theory.

Yes there seems to be so much evidence for evolution,layers and layers and layers of evidence piled on top of a theory they cannot really demonstrate but it is still believed by faith and assumptions.It seems like they've got the cart before the horse,they should've already proved and demonstrated that life evolves and then built evidence around it,but they keep piling more and more evidence on a theory they'll never be able to demonstrate and prove scientifically.

Actually, it is religions who have put the cart before the horse - by asserting that a creator exists/did it, and then fitting the evidence round it ("that's how God did it").

You have a lot of faith to believe that.Welcome to the world of faith because you might believe it can happen like you think but have no way to demonstrate it.Meanwhile I don't have to demonstrate God doing it at all.Because you are just choosing to put your faith in science fiction while hurting your credibility like the few who have already tried it promoting science fiction as truth.It only made them look bad.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I'll deal with the rest of your reply later, for now I want to address this:

We do not have to demonstrate "God did it" at all like you think all we've got to do is let you get up in front of a group of people and state that it can all happen without God,you'll be made to look silly with no way to demonstrate it,people will think you are crazy thinking such non-sense. God is the default position until it can be demonstrated otherwise, and it can't,and is a pipe dream that atheists will never see demonstrated.You are being played by science fiction and fail to see it.

If someone makes a claim, the onus is on them to prove it.

You're making a claim throughout your reply that "God did it" - prove it.

I have no reason to reject God or the bible,they are much much easier to believe than what you do.

This is an argument from incredulity.

Just because you find it unbelievable doesn't mean it isn't true.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

We have transitional fossils - feathered dinosaurs - dinosaurs with characteristics shared by both previous creatures (non-avian dinosaurs) and later ones (avian dinosaurs), which - when compared to modern birds - show that birds are clearly "modern dinosaurs".

This is empiric evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

There is very good grounds for "believing" that birds are evolved from dinosaurs.

A belief in God - which has no empiric evidence - is baseless.

Yes you have faith that dinosaurs evolved into birds saying we have very good reason to believe they did

No, that's not faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidential justification. That's what faith means.

Religion defines faith as a virtue, according to religions it is virtuous to believe that god exists even if you never received any evidence or personal revelation.

When he cites evidential justification as substantiation for his believing that birds evolved from dinosaurs, it simply can not be faith, because there's evidential justification.

this is a faith statement

No it isn't. Simply declaring it to be a faith statement doesn't make it so. Don't be ridiculous please.

but I want to see it demonstrated that it can happen.

Nobody gives a shit what you personally want demonstrated.

The observed patterns of shared similarities matching the predictions of modern evolutionary theory is sufficient rational justification for tentatively accepting the proposition that the evolutionary process is responsible for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. This is not a faith statement, because it refers to evidence as justification for tentatively holding a certain proposition to be a useful approximation of the truth. This is all we need.

Demonstrate it

The demonstration through reason and evidence referred to above is sufficient for rational belief. Again, that's not faith, because there's actual evidence in support of the proposition.

would'nt you like to see it demonstrated?

We all want absolute certainty, we can't get what we want. What we have is the 2nd-best thing possible given the circumstances. It is more than enough.

Should'nt scientists by now have demonstrated it if it is true?

No. Why?

Shouldn't religious nut-bags have demonstrated that instantaneous magical creation by divine magic is a concrete physical reality by now? Show me directly. Prove to me by direct empirical demonstration that god can create an entire universe, or a single, whole, fully functional living organism with his divine magical powers.

Do you just believe what they say?

No. We belive in the evidence that they produce through their research and experiments. If all they had was words and vapid claims with no supporting evidence, we wouldn't believe them. The reason we do believe them is because they do have evidence that rationally justifies believing in their claims, because that evidence probabilistically implies the conclusion that evolution took and takes place and that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

There are other explanations based on the evidence

There is no competing model that adequately explains all the data with the same degree of strength as the theory of evolution.

it in noway proves dinosaurs evolved into birds unless you look at the evidence like that.

We don't need absolute airtight proof to have sufficient rational justification for believing the proposition that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It is theoretically possible to rationalize away any data-set, but those rationalizations become ever more elaborate and uneconomical and lose their predictive power and potential falsification, the more possible phenomena you can force-fit with said rationalizations.

But it cannot be demonstrated and is believed by faith and assumptions.

The evidence we have is sufficient to rule out a need for faith and assumptions. Sorry.

The problem he has is that he's dealing with people whose world-view precludes the possibility of evolution as a solely naturalistic phenomenon without some intervention by a creator-entity - which is based on faith alone.

Not true there is no reason based on science to reject God

Science doesn't disprove god, it just makes god unnecessary to understand nature.

and there is not one scientist who can demonstrate the matter of the universe coming together on its own and forming itself into the things that make up the universe and especially fully functional living life

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

We don't need to know everything to determine that we have no rational justification for god-belief. Simply because science has not yet demonstrated something, or because we don't yet know or understand how something happened, it doesn't logically follow or imply that a god must automatically therefore exist which is responsible for the phenomenon in question.

There are millions of things we used to have no clue about how worked. For all that time, those things were not evidence that god was responsible for them, they were simply things we could not yet explain and we did not yet understand. Full stop.

There is no need to deal with the rest of your post at all. It is the same fundamental misconception of yours regurgitated over and over again. Everything you said is false. Your post also betrays a mild illiteracy. Get out of your religion-cave and experience the world. Get a fucking education.

It is tiresome to read the same shit over and over again from 5 different creotard morons (I'm thinking of no one in particular) about assumptions and faith. Where do you get this shit? Who tells you these absurd and ludicrous lies about science? Seriously, stop reading fundamentalistic religious propaganda, go talk to actual scientists without the god-filter dial turned to 11. For your own fucking good.