> dont understand how you have got to your point of reasoning. > can you answer me this....
You said there was no proof for evolution and claimed it was not happening now.
Where do flightless birds on remote islands come from if they did not evolve there?
Do you now understand carbon dating is not used to date fossils?
Do you now recognize the fact that evolution is not proved using statistics?
Do you now understand that evolution is the only theory we have that explains the appearance first of fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, and then mammals in the fossil record? (This shows the rough pattern of how life started in the sea and gradually evolved into land-based life forms.)
Come on. At least do the other posters the courtesy of making an effort.
You are quite right Dr. Tatham. Unless Bigshufty responds and acknowledges my direct questions I will not waste any more time in answering him (assume male from now on). I recommend others do the same.
There is no point in responding to a person's posts if they just ignore your answers and come up with a completely new set of stupid questions. I also suspect Bigshufty is being deliberately difficult and has no intention of acknowledging when other posts have refuted his "challenges" to evolution, for example.
I spent some time on my posts because I knew they could be appreciated by others browsing this forum. The difference in quality and content of Bigshufty's posts and mine, for example, is meant to stand as a clear testament to the intrinsic worthlessness of your average evangelical Christian when compared to a person moderately well educated in science, philosophy, language, and rational argument.
Evangelical Christians cannot argue science or philosophy because they have assumed their conclusion and regard it as writ in stone. Everything they say is to try to make the evidence support their conclusion, instead of letting the evidence dictate which conclusions should be reached.
When faced with someone who can clearly and easily dismiss their "arguments" they invariably just ignore that person's answers and come up with a different but equally flawed "question", hence Bigshufty's dismissive nonsense, "dont understand how you have got to your point of reasoning" and the inevitable "can you answer me this...." following hard on its heels.
I mean what "point of reasoning" is been talked about here? In my post I asked direct, simple questions. There was no "point of reasoning" to understand.
Do you think the question of how flightless birds get to be on remote islands is what floored Bigshufty? It is so easy to stump an evangelical on evolution.
If Bigshufty had any smarts at all he would realize what a terrible disservice he is doing to Christians everywhere with the idiotic level of his posts. I am overjoyed he is basically doing all my work for me by setting such a great example of what your average Christian is really like. He really is setting the bar very low, isn't he? The standard of his posts is so low that I do not think anyone could even stub their little toe on it.
I mean, who would want to be so uneducated, irrational, and incapable of reasoning? Most importantly, who would want to be so closed to learning, so obdurately unmotivated to properly and honestly engage with someone in a debate and so unwilling, it seems, to recognize when they have been justly corrected?
There is a huge message being sent out to anybody reading these forums: evangelicals are uneducated, and use dishonest debating tactics. In retrospect, I do not believe this fairly reflects on Christians myself but what can one do?
Bigshufty's tactics have backfired in a big way. I could not have asked for more idiotic and damning posts from Bigshufty had I pretended to be him myself by using a friend's account! Now, there's a thought.
This is all typical reasoning from a Creationist. It matters little how completely the theory of evolution vitiates his argument. Science will always win an argument against theology as science is based on fact and theology on faith. The irony of it all is that Bigshufty used a scientist, Newton, to attempt to prove that belief in God is not delusional, and then rejected a scientific theory, evolution, that contradicts his views.
I suspect that Bigshufty has not been addressing any of the questions put to him because he has no credible response to them.
I agree that because a historical figure "believed in God" that does not prove God is real. However it is NOT true that evolution is proven - it is simply an interpretation of evidence taken from a particular wordlview. Also it does beg some questions when scientists of an evolution position ignore evidence that proves them wrong e.g dinosaur footprints alongside mans (taken from a totally non christian book by the way) Science is good - to say that all Christians think its bad is a generalisation. If you have persuaded yourself that evolution is correct then i feel sorry for you. Both Evolution or God comes down to faith - fine if you choose evolution then you have to follow that through with its consequences. Don`t be fooled in thinking that science proves evolution because it is based on interpretation of evidence. Furthermore i don`t think that Newton is in hell that`s up to God - yes some of his behaviour is sin but then so is some of mine. If you read the Bible in context properly then you will see that all sin is equal in GOds eyes and that`s not quoting out of context to prove my point unlike some others in this discussion.
Evolution is a theory that can be used to analyse such things, for instance, how animals have evolved and adapted to become whatever they have become. In that case it would be futile to deny that it has not proven something.
Using dinosaur footprints proves what exactly? I think that you'll find that every so often some geologist or scientist will make a remarkable discovery and various aspects of something or other will have to be re-analysed and corrected. That's the beauty of science, it's always moving forwards and it's always ready to be challenged.
Whereas the simple mention of 'god's existence has not been proven yet', and the foundations of christianity sees it as an attack on humanity!
The simple conclusion is that you don't understand science or evolution but are quite willing to accept something that isn't real. Quite baffling really!
I've just followed this debate with real interest. It seems likely to me that Bigshufty is just trying to get a rise out of people- it's hard to believe that anyone genuinely that dense would be able to master the process of turning on a computer and connecting to the internet. I suspect a wind-up by a person far more literate and educated than his postings would suggest. If that *is* the case, then his postings are sheer parodic genius.
Not sure about Mrs S. Wright, though. I mean, she's clearly been following the debate; yet, after CitizenX and P Dillon's patient, clear and thoughtful posts, all she can suggest is that they were somehow to blame for spending their time trying to explain their thinking to her and her fellow believers. Classic. Not a word addressed to their arguments. Just the equivalent of the "hands over the ears and singing the loud song" method of debate that proved so useful to me when I was five.
Anyway, Mrs S. Wright, I do hope the authors I have mentioned above spend a bit more time "writing essays on the internet", even if that means they can't get in as much prayer as they might otherwise. After all, a good essay is always pleasant to read, no matter where it is found.
Sorry 'The man who would be King', but your reasoning is flawed, as is many others on this blog. It seems you imply that as science is based on facts, it therefore follows that we know things from scientific method (for example, from the facts, we know that the theory of evolution is correct.) Scientific method however, is based on the methods of induction and deduction. These methods only prove things beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore it can be said (a la bigshifty), that evolution is related to statistics; it's a game of probability. The facts show it is probably correct but we can never say that we know evolution is currently taking (or has) taken place for that matter. Perhaps many will see this point as nit picking, but in this discussion it is extremely important that we are careful with our words and consequently the definitions of these words. Else we will be simply be forming arguments which contain language traps. Oh but i do support your cause; bigshifty it making ambiguous points and not acknowloging defeat!
I thought defying god was the only unforgivable sin? I could be wrong.
Edit * I should have read this entire discussion before making that point*
I'v enjoyed reading this thouroughly.
'I am overjoyed he is basically doing all my work for me by setting such a great example of what your average Christian is really like'
That sentence really did it for me. Good work for putting so much time in to explain. I wish I was clever enough to join in this arguement at the level at which you guys are speaking, but I would just be agreeing with citizenX because your every word sounds jusitified. But is that a reason to agree? I don't know.
One day I'll be clever enough to figure it all out in my own head, then maybe i'll help with these debates.
P.S. On this occasion I would personally give up trying to explain.
That's ridiculous - the quotes, not your words. It'd be ok for me to go out and commit all manner of heinous crimes but if I question the existance of a supposed entity who hasn't done anything for at least a millenium, I'm subjected to eternal damnation? I wouldn't turn to faith now because I think God has delusions of grandeur.
- He said rainbows have 7 colours because he didn't think that their having 6 colours was religiously sound(7 is a holy number in Christianity), therefore we still claim that Indigo(or Violet perhaps?) can be seen in a rainbow, and we fool ourselves into believing it. - He stared at the Sun for hours to see what effect it would have on his eyes, he was blinded temporarily and had to spend a week in a darkened room for his vision to be restored. - He was a Mathematician before any idea of multiple universes was around, Godditit was his only possible awnser... - His work in Alchemy may not have been so stupid, it was after all the precursor to modern fields of science, he was better that an Doctor who referred to Humour's...
It is inaccurate to describe faith as "not in any way based on evidence" and then oppose it to evolution. This is the old caricature that Huxley et al foisted on us in order to 'sell' Darwin's theory to us. So we had the artificial dichotomy between 'woolly, subjective, emotional' faith and the 'forensic, empirical' way of science. Biblical faith may well in the end go beyond the evidence, but it is never inconsistent with the data that we have. In fact all of us live by faith every day, every time we get in our car, or walk out the front door, or believe that our partner loves us. Yes, we have access to some evidence that supports our beliefs, but we don't have it all - so we take a leap of practical faith. Without it, we simply would not function. Biblical faith in the God who revealed himself empirically through Christ is like that.
The precise nature of Newton's beliefs actually does not matter one jot. The fact is that he was a theist. Most scientists of his era, and a surprising number up to the present day, were also theists. They did science because of their belief in God - they investigated a universe which behaved in predictable, mathematical ways, and which could be investigated in the lab, because they presupposed that it behaved according to governing laws which were established by an intelligent lawgiver. To have assumed otherwise would have negated the whole basis for science. Dawkins is, in fact, wholly wrong when he intimates that 'religious people' (all tarred with same brush) have no inquisitiveness about the universe. In fact, all or most of our scientists historically (I accept the present day shows a different picture) were driven by their goal of discovering more about God through His universe. Newton is far from being a noteworthy case to be singled out, and his views on the Trinity or sexuality are irrelevant to the central consideration of what drove him to experiment.
K. Moss: "Biblical faith may well in the end go beyond the evidence, but it is never inconsistent with the data that we have."
Biblical faith includes millions of people who believe the Earth was created six thousand to ten thousand years ago, and this is egregiously inconsistent with the data we have. That is merely one example among countless.
Also, I would like to see on what evidential grounds you reject the Islamic faith (among others). There are a billion Muslims out there whose faith determines that Christ was not divine and is not the path to salvation: Muhammad is God's only true prophet, and the only true path to salvation. Your simple defence of your Biblical faith can be used to defend Islamic faith, which results in an unavoidable paradox, hence your premise and original argument that faith is somehow evidence-based or "practical" in the same way evolution is, must be flawed. Sorry.
Is big shufty feigning stupidity to get attention, or just another hopelessly ignorant creationist? these days are i'm more interested in the psychology of people who persist in fooling themselves with fairytales, because science destroyed most of the biblical claims years ago. It is beyond doubt that evolution happened, so there is very little reason to debate it.
Perhaps a more relevant point might be that, for newton, his science came after his religious and alchemical interests. Without his religious passion and alchemical pursuits there would have been no production of his work the Principia. He says so himself. Many other prominent figures have said the same thing. Their mystical or religious passion is the driving force which pushes them forward in their intellectual researches. In literature many critics will acclaim the work of the poet Yeats whilst ignoring or decrying his magical and mystical interests. This is despite him on record saying that there would never have been any poetry without his magical practice.
This does not mean that their convictions are 'correct' in the same way their scientific researches might have been. But it SHOULD give us pause for thought. That is rather than instantly sidelining the aspects of these great figures that we don't like. There may be more to the matter than meets the eye.
Newton was also a religious Radical, not holding with the popular beliefs of the time due to his extensive reading and thought upon the subject in addition to his scientific interests. True, he was a monotheist, but of a very different stripe to many of his contemporaries. Though you say that atheism in Newtons era would have been a serious career hindrance, it would have been no worse than been a heretic, both amounting in the eyes of authority and the then establishment as near enough the same thing, with heresy being potentially worse. Further you say that his beliefs had no bearing on his scientific work? Is this perhaps in the same way that Ghandi's religious convictions had no bearing on his political motivations and beliefs? Newton, due to his informed, thought-out nontrinitarian monotheism states that one of his reasons for writing the Principia was having "an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity" (Newton to Richard Bentley 10 December 1692, in Turnbull et al. (1959-77), vol 3, p. 233.). It seems unfair and narrow minded to look at a persons life and say that their heartfelt beliefs were not motivations in other areas. Surely a persons actions are the manifestation of their beliefs? If a person says they believe in kindness then proceed to act in a cruel or callous manner, then either they are a hypocrite or have a skewed understanding of kindness. In a similar way when a person claims to be religious but fails to abide by the central tennets of their faith, or decide to follow leaders who promote distorted readings then that says a great deal about that persons actual beliefs or lack of self examination and self awareness rather than what is professesd. Radicalisation and bigotry with all of the attendant constriction of vision and removal of personal responsibility to a leader figure are not the sole domain of religions but exist within all sects, tribes, groups and fellowships. Atheists have had their monsters as much as those that espouse faith. Great good has also come from both atheism and religion. Perhaps it is enough for these two paradigms to coexist and challenge each other, stirring each other to be better, kinder and more truthful?
You state that the earth was created in the same way as the stars, etc, from hot gases, (I presume you are referring to the Big Bang Theory, with which,incidentally I have no problem). But you conclude your argument with " But who made the creator, or was he just there by chance?" Would it be illogical of me to ask who made the gases? Or were they just there by chance?
Newton believed in Astrology, what do you think of that? Was he delusional? Yes, at least as far as astrology was concerned. Perhaps we should judge a persons ideas on their merit rather than any preconceived notions about their superior intellect.