Show me the scientific prove for evolution that has been observed independent of the original evolutionary speculator.

I have gotten tired of going round and round in circles trying to explain that evolution cannot be true based on its faulty foundation.

Once again i ask:

[b]How did life begin at the very very beginning.

How did the universe begin.

How did the planets begin.

How come comets have not disappeared assuming they were remnants of something that happened billion of years ago.

Where did the energy and matter of the big bang come from, did it come from nothing or was it always there before big bang.

How did life develop from non-living matter.

Where are the transitional forms between non-living things and living things.

Why was Lucy, Piltdown man etc heralded as missing links and then discarded after being found out to be frauds.

Where are the missing links.

Where is the physical evidence for the speculated oort cloud.

Has evolution ever being scientifically observed and replicated in the laboratory, just like physics, mathematics, biology and chemistry have been replicated in the lab.

How come an evolutionist discovered blood in a T-Rex bone that is supposed to be million of years old, considering that blood cannot last that long.

How come human artefacts and metal works where found in coal that is supposed to be millions of years old.

How come a supposedly accurate evolutionary dating method was scandalously wrong when used to date a volcanic rock who age was actually 100% known.

How come one can actually petrify a shoe or tree without needing to wait for millions of years. Yet evolution assumes all fossils (i.e. petrified bones) became petrified over a duration of million of years.
|
|
|
and the list goes on and on
[/b]

No2Atheism, o.k let me confess i have no answers to your questions above. It's only a matter of time before science comes up with better answers,remember not long ago we thought diseases were caused by evil spirits,rainbows were god's covenant and even thunder was the voice of god not until it was shown to be caused by +ve and -ve charges.
I agree,i don't have all the answers as to the origins of our world. However since you're SURE god created all,kindly answer these;
Who created god,how did he start?
Where was god before he created the heavens and the earth?

How did god create the billions of planets and galaxies?
Why did he choose earth amongst the zillions to create life?
. . . .more questions to follow if you satisfactorily answer these.

William_C:

Hello Every body, I am new here, I have been through this debate and I can see the tension it has already generated, dalaman who is a good friend was kind of speaking for me. When I first saw him going through the post of the OP I just gave out some talking points to him and he wrote some of them and posted them here. I have been looking forward to the weekend when I will be less busy so that I can register and speak for myself. Religion and faith are very sensitive issues so I want to be very civil and make sure that I don't offend any body. I know that I can't make any body see things my way but I just want to state my case for why I disbelieve in God. I have already stated this on another forum which I am a frequent member but I will also state it here again.

Hello William_C, a warm welcome to Nairaland.  We trust you would enjoy the discussions that drew you to register and participate, and thank you for a cordial start.

Indeed, religion and faith are very sensitive issues which people are seeking to understand. It so happens that those who self-identify as 'non-religious' often tend to regard the contents of the various worldviews and belief systems in a simplistic fashion, which leads to huge misunderstandings. To offer a tidy reply, I'd rather assume the essence of your 'disbelief' instead of treating every single line in your post. Then sometime later as needs be, I'd come back to address the underlying presumption of your type of atheism by seeking to understand how atheism is defined by several atheist thinkers. So enjoy.

William_C:

I am not a believer when I take into account.

* he unnecessary suffering around the world
* the stupidity of religious wars
* how science has to work so hard to uncover the knowledge we need for progress and to relieve suffering
* what our collective scientific ignorance is doing to the planet - while religions are mostly silent on sustainability
* the ways science explains nature more adequately than any religion
* that science has proved religion wrong, over and over through history
* the fact that many gods and religions have come and gone
* the fact that greatly differing religious affiliations and beliefs depend more on geography and cultural heritage than content
* all the nutty things wrapped in religion - including how quite similar sects differ irreconcilably over petty issues
* the absolute whackjobs telling me to believe, and what will happen if I don't
* the evangelists exposed as fraudsters
* the child molestation and coverups that go on within the "walls" of religion
* the flaws in the bible, and all other written accounts of god I bothered to read
* the contorted reasoning of religions to maintain discrimination against women and homosexuals
* all the good works of secular charities and NGOs that waste no resources on evangelizing
* my own experience as a christian compared with the real views of close friends who have eventually had the courage to be totally honest about their "faith" - they are going along with religion because others around them do - they are effectively conning each other through superficial behaviors covering up inner disbelief.

One is tempted to offer terse answers to each concern above and still come back to the basic point: you haven't "proven" anything for your disbelief. At best, your concerns are typically polarised towards atheism and reveal huge gaps which may lead one to believe that you haven't really studied issues objectively. Suffering, wars, frauds, irreconcilable differences, fundamentalism, child abuses, flaws in disbeliefs, discrimination, wasteful of resources in secular evangelism, one's subjective experiences - all these and more can be well-articulated in atheism as well; and then what do you do? At the end of the day, you'd discover you made a case that is no case at all; and what you'd have left is an utter non-starter.

Take the quip in yours that: "science has proved religion wrong". Such statements are made out-of-hand because one is not asking the right questions and merely flirting with a huge presumption. The typical trend you've followed here is what I regard as one among the many fallacious logic that springs from the "need to disprove" the worldviews of others. This type of logic tends to point accusing fingers at other beliefs as the basis for one's own 'disbelief'. The funny thing is that we all use this type of logic in common debates - Christians against Muslims; atheists against theists; democrats against republicans; liberals against conservatives; etc.

The hard truth behind all these is that such fallacious logicum do not actually "disprove" anything. Its basic weakness is that it is intellectually lazy, as it really has no concrete outlook at the reality of issues which disturb one's disbelief. My style here is to move on beyond this trend of fallacious logic (and the "need to disprove" and take this type of atheistic assumption to the cleaners, so I'd need readers to put on their thinking caps.

William_C:

I have no option but to say that if there was a god who loved me in a way that is relevant to me, then that god would find a way to communicate more effectively with me. So far, I've heard nothing but silence from god, instead everything else I experience points directly away from god.

I can well bear with you; however, this again is not sufficient evidence or proof for the non-existence of God or gods. It even does not constitute evidence for a "lack of" or non-existence of God's love for humanity. At best, it presupposes only one thing: you simply have not experienced that love for yourself.

William_C:

I've given a long list (by no means exhaustive) of reasons I don't believe in god. On the other side of the equation there are some statements in the bible saying that I must believe to achieve salvation. But the bible quite clearly does not make any sense in so many ways , I cannot trust it.

I very much doubt your distrust is based on reason or objectivity. I would refer to this as typically a case where someone is operating from the bias of a need to disbelieve than of open, objective enquiry.

William_C:

I have no choice if I'm to be honest with myself, I must say: There is no god.

Now, now. . . where's dalaman?!?    Although he'd said earlier that atheists "do not say that there is no God(I can speak for my atheist friends here)"; yet I'd contested that the basic typical argument of many self-identified 'atheists' is the very claim that "there is NO God".

Now, the simple question theists are asking is this: HOW do you know? You'd have to provide "scientific" evidence and proof for your extraordinary claim that "there is no god". That claim does not stand simply because an atheist asserts it repeatedly and proceeds to offer "arguments" as substitutes for his 'evidence or proof'.

William_C:

To say anything else would lack integrity. It would lack courage. I'd be kidding myself. How could I be at ease with myself if I believed in god with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary?

We are eagerly awaiting the so-called 'mountain of evidence' for your claim. Mere assertions from arguments of fallacious logic will not do.

William_C:

If facts turn up that contradict my conclusion, I will reconsider. But they'll have to be really amazing facts to reverse my certainty.

This is what amazes me. How could one conclude with a tone of finality that "there is no god" and then wait for 'really amazing facts' to contradict his conclusion(s)? This attitude has often been intelligently challenged; and that's why I wondered if anyone has thought about the revisionism of Dawkins' "there is no God" to the now terse "there is probably no God"?

William_C:

Meanwhile I'm more than sufficiently convinced that there is no god, and quite happy about the mental freedom that conclusion brings.

Lol, I don't think there's mental freedom expressed there. Trust me. You're happy to assert your convictions only in terms of the non-proof of your claim; and that in itself does not consititute hard evidence for the non-existence of God or the supernatural.

William_C:

Please I just want to know if you have any examples or evidence of telepathy at work. Personally I have never heard of anybody that talks about having experienced it but that doesn't mean that there are people out there who haven't, all I am saying is that this it self is not an evidence for the supernatural.

As regards telepathy at work, some researchers like the British biologist (or biochemist and plant physiologist), Dr. Sheldrake Rupert (Ph.D) has some credit in this field. Interestingly, he sees his research  on telepathy as a paranormal phenomenon (see his website). In other cases of evidences presented on phenomena which are inexplicable by naturalism, it does not appear that naturalists have been able to provide satisfactory counter-claims.

However, in subsequent discourses (I hope to engage you in many more), I'd be looking at how atheists tend to define atheism and also how they react to evidence for what is beyond their worldview of naturalism.  Thank you for sharing, and once again welcome to Nairaland.

Tùdor:

No2Atheism, o.k let me confess i have no answers to your questions above. It's only a matter of time before science comes up with better answers,remember not long ago we thought diseases were caused by evil spirits,rainbows were god's covenant and even thunder was the voice of god not until it was shown to be caused by +ve and -ve charges.
I agree,i don't have all the answers as to the origins of our world. However since you're SURE god created all,kindly answer these;
Who created god,how did he start?
Where was god before he created the heavens and the earth?

How did god create the billions of planets and galaxies?
Why did he choose earth amongst the zillions to create life?
. . . .more questions to follow if you satisfactorily answer these.

Hi Tùdor,

I'm not trying to be nosy, since you were directing your enquiry to No2Atheism. But I think the question highlighted in yours is basic to all other questions. The first point then would be for your to show first if God indeed was created and how He started - before we can move on to other things. I don't think anyone has tried to claim that God was created by anyone; often, we hear atheists making the claim that God was created - so we'd like them first to show us how He was indeed created.

Tùdor:

No2Atheism, o.k let me confess i have no answers to your questions above. It's only a matter of time before science comes up with better answers,remember not long ago we thought diseases were caused by evil spirits,rainbows were god's covenant and even thunder was the voice of god not until it was shown to be caused by +ve and -ve charges.
I agree,i don't have all the answers as to the origins of our world. However since you're SURE god created all,kindly answer these;
Who created god,how did he start?
Where was god before he created the heavens and the earth?

How did god create the billions of planets and galaxies?
Why did he choose earth amongst the zillions to create life?
. . . .more questions to follow if you satisfactorily answer these.

Before I proceed, i always like to start from the very foundation of issues. Now the foundation of issues is that:

Option 1: Everything was created out of nothing by a Creator.

                                    OR

Option 2: Nothing was created, but instead everything evolved from out of nothing or something via Evolution.



Now back to your response.

1. Thank you for openly admitting something.

2. Most of the questions i asked earlier (here) are not time dependent and infact on the contrary they are time-critical questions (because people whose life and eternity depend on such answers don't have eternity to wait for the answers), hence it is not a matter of whether there would be more science in the future to answer such questions. The answer to such questions are already available for those that are scientifically inclined. The problem with evolution and evolutionists however is that the scientific answers provided by science to such questions do not support evolution, hence evolutionists keep hoping and looking to the future for answers that would support them, hence the reason why you claim that science would have answers in the future.

- What if science does not have answers in the future
- Does that not leave you in a win-lose scenario, instead of a win-win scenario
- If you know you do not have answers right now, why then do you make statements that make people wrongly assume that you do.


3. Does it not disturb you that you yourself claim not to know the answers, yet you are basing your worldview and decisions about the bible on answers that you yourself claim not to know (although real science already provide answers that you do not like sha).


4. Please note that i myself do not claim to know everything, however my own assurances comes from the conviction that i have come to have that came about:

 - a. First by faith.
 - b. Then by the confirmation of my faith by evidence obtained from science in via submissions by both evolutionary and creationists scientists.

Thus you can easily say that i have come around to completely trust the Bible. I completely trust the Bible and believe every word said in the bible, simply because personal experience, my own scientific background in engineering and science makes it easy for me to see some physical evidence of certain things that the bible is talking about.

Yes the English Bible has a few translation problems, nevertheless it does not bother me, because i know that the original manuscripts were not written in english and that the english translators did not have word processors to crosscheck each and every translations that they might have made from the original languages to english, latin, greek or whatever other languages it was translated to in our present time and age. Crosschecking of the original manuscripts in comparison to the english translations continually helps us to spot and correct any errors in our english translation of the bible.



5. Now to answer your questions:

Who created god - Nobody created Him (He Himself said so through the Bible and I believe Him as He as always been right all along)

How did he start? - He started creating everything at the beginning of the time of this our physical world just like He said in the Bible (Genesis 1 and 2)

Where was god before he created the heavens and the earth? - I do not know (the Bible does not tell me this, and i am not one to speculate)

How did god create the billions of planets and galaxies? - He spoke them into existence, by the power of His Word alone (Gen 1, Gen 2, John 1)

Why did he choose earth amongst the zillions to create life? - I do not know (all I know is that He decided to create Man in His own Image on Earth)




6. Finally please note that a scientific mind would immediately raise a red flag and an alarm when it considers that:

Atheists claim that there is no Creator, yet cannot prove it and at the same time try to explain without prove how they think everything began. Despite that time and time again, real practical science shows that most if not all of evolutionary hypothesis and statements are simply not true and possible.

Bible believers are faith based people that ultimately see physical and scientific evidences that justify their faith, hence since they openly claim to be faith based, then it means they are under no obligation to scientifically prove their point of view despite that science still invariably provides solicited and unsolicited evidences that justify their faith.

Atheist are also faith based people (though they refuse to accept they are faith based) who ultimately cannot find a single evidence that justify their faith , and yet still go around claiming there is no Creator, despite that they cannot prove it to be so from a scientific point of view even as they love to claim that their reasoning and logic is based on science, which it is clearly not.


7. The more i dig deeper into the world of evolution and science the more i realise that it is virtually impossible for evolution to be true.


8. As a science oriented individual, a Physics enthusiast and a PhD student in Engineering, I would rather prefer to believe and trust only science that can be proved now (which does not support evolution) rather than assume that there would be another science in the future that would support evolution. It is the most logical and faith based decision that a sound mind can make under the circumstance.

No2atheism
the fact our hypotheis is wrong doesn't make yours right.
kindly list the scientific evidences you claim support your faith.

@William_C,

As promised earlier:

pilgrim.1:

To offer a tidy reply, I'd rather assume the essence of your 'disbelief' instead of treating every single line in your post. Then sometime later as needs be, I'd come back to address the underlying presumption of your type of atheism by seeking to understand how atheism is defined by several atheist thinkers. . .

>snip<

However, in subsequent discourses (I hope to engage you in many more), I'd be looking at how atheists tend to define atheism and also how they react to evidence for what is beyond their worldview of naturalism.

As I hinted earlier, my style is to move on beyond the trend of fallacious logic (and the "need to disprove" and take this type of atheistic assumption to its logical ends. For starters, let me draw from an atheist forum (excuse my snooping) - the 'Rapid Response Squad'. In context of what we're discussing being basically between two worldviews (naturalism and supernaturalism), it so happens that quite often, we read many atheists assume a hardline naturalism that rejects any and all phenomena that are outside its ambit. Here's a typical example:

[list]

Question: Do atheists believe in ghosts, spirits, karma etc.?

Atheist Answer:
No. Atheism by strict definition is the lack of a belief in gods, but it's generally extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity or substance. That includes ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, vampires, elves, boogeymen, unicorns, phoenixes and the energies of karma, chi, the Holy Spirit, life-force or The Force.
source: (Rapid Response Squad)

[/list]

This hardline atheistic attitude is no less as dogmatic and hardheaded as what they accuse in beliefs or worldviews inclined to the supernatural. The problem for these gentlemen, of course, is that they try to narrow just about everything to one convenient 'clap' - so that anything that points to a reality beyond naturalism seems to be a huge discomfort to them.

However, not all atheists take to that hardheadedness. There are indeed quite a growing number of atheists who are are honest enough to acknowledge the reality of a world beyond their own naturalism. Here's an example of an honest atheist's submission in this regard:

[list]

. . . but often times there is evidence that can skimpily not be explained.
does this make me not an atheist for accepting the existence of ghosts?
to that question i don't have an answer. maybe there is a scientific explanation
behind it.

but there have been specific times when the evidence theyve come up with is
unbelievable, and i strongly doubt that the show is a fraud. they caught an EVP
(electronic voice phenomenon, where you catch a "ghosts" voice on tape)
that was incredible. it was clear as day, and the "ghost hunter" was asking some
questions in an empty room while recording. he said "where are you? are you here"
and he didnt hear a response, but when the tape played back you could clearly hear
a woman respond "why of course i'm here in this room, where are you?" there were
several other responses to questions asked. how can this be explained?
i really don't know, and its sad that a television show can bring evidence forth that
questions my "faith" in atheism.
source: as above.

[/list]

Now, dear friends, the response that a 'resident' atheist gave to the above is puzzling, if not amusing:

[list]

"You still fit the strict definition of an atheist by the nature of the word;
you don't believe in any gods. That might change later, if your belief in ghosts
leads you to think something more powerful is making them possible.
As it is, you're a spiritualist apart from being an atheist.
I'll swallow that combination if you will."
source: ibid.

[/list]

If anything, it affirms what I sometime stated, that we could be genial enough to allow atheists to hold views which best describe their worldviews and outlook. However, here on Nairaland, how many atheists assume such a combination of "a spiritualist" that roles in with a "strict definition of an atheist"? How does this resident atheist even begin to understand what he was asserting if he already extended atheism to "the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity or substance", including ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, etc?? How does he even define such entities (eg., 'spirits') before combining them with the very things that his own atheism rejects in the first place?

Of course, the 'resident' atheist does not even offer a "rational" response, but quickly tried to characteristically (and lazily) dismiss such phenomena by suggesting emptily that "The show doesn't have to be a fraud; perhaps the person who made the tape is." It's the typical answer you get from an armchair atheist who never bothers to objectively evaluate an event before drawing very prejudiced conclusions. His closing remarks is almost incredulous:

[list]

'Don't sit there and be a Mulder. Go out and be a Scully. Even Scully became
a believer in the end because she uncovered the evidence herself. It was
the right thing, because in her universe aliens, ghosts and gods really do exist.
Find out for yourself whether you live in that universe.'

[/list]

How many atheists (taking a poll on Nairaland) would be inclined to affirm that "aliens, ghosts and gods really do exist"? I guess not even a handful - perhaps, just perhaps, it's because the default position of such atheists is to sit back and just make comments and never seek to investigate these phenomena for themselves. If that won't do, they often make for the gaps by recycling the arguments of others who themselves have never tried to conduct a proper research about such things.

Tùdor:

No2atheism
the fact our hypotheis is wrong doesn't make yours right.
kindly list the scientific evidences you claim support your faith.

First example

Since records and civilisations began every kind of animal has always being reproducing after its kind.

Bible verse
------------------
Genesis 1: 24 And Elohim said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.  

Genesis 1: 25 And Elohim made the[b] beast of the earth after his kind[/b], and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and Elohim saw that it was good.


Evidence
-------------------
Dog produces Dog
Cow produces Cow
Crocodile produces Crocodile
Monkey produces Monkey

All attempts to change this evidence of how the bible is true in terms of creation of kinds of animals has only been possible via the use of human intelligence. The use of human intelligence to produce a mixture of two animals does not support evolution, infact it contradicts evolution, simply because the foundation of evolution requires there to be no intelligence directing or controlling the natural process.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Example:

Bible verse:
------------------------
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.


Evidence:
----------------------
It was after invention of ancient astrology, modern telescopes, stargazing, spacecrafts, algebra, mathematics and other things that man was actually able to understand that the Bible was actually talking about the fact that the Earth was hanging on nothing in Space



-------------------------------------------------------------

@pilgrim.1 can you please take over, i sincerely do not have the desire for this any longer. I want to go and do something else.

No2Atheism:

@pilgrim.1 can you please take over, i sincerely do not have the stomach for this any longer. I want to go and do something else.

@No2Atheism,

Will gladly do. Inbetween my busy schedules today (quite relaxing, though), I'll be on hand to dialogue with them. I think you've held a good ground in reasoning out your points thus far. My approach will be from the other end, which is to meet the typical atheist one-on-one on the very ground he cherishes the most. If they haven't figured that as yet, it won't be long before they do. Enjoy plenty.

Youngman, lion and tigers have been cross bred to form LIGER, horse and zebra have also been interbred. It might not support evolution,it doesn't support your theory either
And i'm pretty sure the koran,torah and verdas also mention the earth hanging.

@William_C,

Continuing from here. However, before I go on, here's another frank submission from the same Rapid Response Squad page that may be helpful to bear in mind:

[list]

'actualy many athiests such as myself consider atheism not denying the existince of god(s) but completely lacking belief in god(s), but anything other than that such as ghosts, paranormal activity, demons, boogeymen unicorns etc is individualy chosen by that one person what to believe in or lack (not deny but lack) belief for.

'[/list]

. . . and another atheist poster made this remark a few replies down:

          'I know atheists who still believe in spirits.
           I guess they're not card-carrying atheists, yet.'

Yet, at the bottom of the same page (at the time of my writing this), the 'resident' atheist remarks:

[list]

'As I said early on in this thread, the strict definition of atheism does not preclude beliefs in supernatural entities and/or phenomena unrelated to deities. "Atheism" is merely generalised in common usage to mean a lack of belief in anything supernatural.'

[/list]

Okay, we may deal with both sides of the coin: "a denial" and "a lack of belief - in the supernatural. The point in my observations in posting this is to help several atheists (no less yourself included) to see that -

1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

4. we haven't found any 'proof' or 'evidence' for most atheist assertions

5. atheism means more than the simplistic definition held by the average typical atheist

6. atheism does not "disprove" theistic claims

7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our knon world

8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue

10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments.

The above and more are the basic underlying points of my approach in this discourse with typical atheist arguments on Nairaland. Do I therefore have an edge over them? No, I don't believe so. On the contrary, I think not many atheists have realized that they're wasting their time flailing and self-defeating their own arguments when they resort to fallacious logicum. This weak tool is used by even many religious and non-religious folks in debating, and it does not constitute "proof" or "evidence" one way or the other. If the typical atheist on NL keeps chanting his cherished song of naturalism on such fallacious logicum, he had better be prepared to smart up for issues that might make his arguments limp.

Cheers.

@pilgrim.1   please let me respond to this before returning to my sabbatical

Tùdor:

Youngman, lion and tigers have been cross bred to form LIGER, horse and zebra have also been interbred. It might not support evolution,it doesn't support your theory either
And i'm pretty sure the koran,torah and verdas also mention the earth hanging.

1. First and foremost, am not a young man. its an insult to call a 29yrs dude a young man.

2. I am not here to defend the Koran or verdas or buddah or whatever, I am here to defend the Bible and show you via the bible that evolution is wrong. So pls don't change the subject to an issue of religion versus religion. This is an issue of Bible versus Evolution.

3.  i intentionally did not mention the issue of the Liger considering that its obvious that my subsequent explanation covers that issue. Hence it is obvious that my quotation shown below already explains why it is possible for Lions and Tigers to mate and create another animal under a controlled environment or use of biological manipulation through the use of the intelligence of man.

- Lions and Tigers are basically animals of the same[b] KIND [/b]i.e. they are CAT KIND OR CAT FAMILY.

-  LIGER is still basically an animal of the same KIND i.e. CAT KIND OR CAT FAMILY.

- Horses and Zebra and Donkeys are also basically animals of the same kind e.g. HORSE FAMILY thus any animal obtain via their mixture would still be a member of the HORSE KIND or HORSE FAMILY

So please note that under natural conditions, all animals always reproduce according to their kind, it is only via the use of human intelligence that grotesque animals like Monkey-Lion, Human-Tiger, Monkey-Dragon , Crouching-Tiger   could either be obtained or imagined.

4. Hence your response actually went ahead to provide more evidence to my former statement quoted below. Thus you have actually without knowing it gone ahead to support creation against evolution  ( men it is wonderful to disuss issues without insults).

No2Atheism:

First example

Since records and civilisations began every kind of animal has always being reproducing after its kind.

Bible verse
------------------
Genesis 1: 24 And Elohim said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.  

Genesis 1: 25 And Elohim made the[b] beast of the earth after his kind[/b], and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and Elohim saw that it was good.


Evidence
-------------------
Dog produces Dog
Cow produces Cow
Crocodile produces Crocodile
Monkey produces Monkey

All attempts to change this evidence of how the bible is true in terms of creation of kinds of animals has only been possible via the use of human intelligence. The use of human intelligence to produce a mixture of two animals does not support evolution, infact it contradicts evolution, simply because the foundation of evolution requires there to be no intelligence directing or controlling the natural process.

Have a good day @Tudor, nice discussing with you at least KAG now has another reasonable allie who does not go around hauling insults when reasonable discussions are required.

Tùdor:

Youngman, lion and tigers have been cross bred to form LIGER, horse and zebra have also been interbred. It might not support evolution,it doesn't support your theory either
And i'm pretty sure the koran,torah and verdas also mention the earth hanging.

That's a good and honest point, Tùdor. The remarkable thing in your premise is that you may not be aware that cross-breeding was not unknown in Biblical times. However, the idea does not in itself "disprove" basic theistic claims one way or the other, or even "prove" atheistic assumptions.

No2Atheism:

@pilgrim.1 please let me respond to this before returning to my sabbatical

No wahala.

No2Atheism:

Have a good day @Tudor, nice discussing with you at least KAG now has another reasonable allie who does not go around hauling insults when reasonable discussions are required.

I may cast my vote to that, for I've noticed that he's more cautious and seeks a good debate more than distractions.

Pilgrim,
I actually was about typing my answers a good look at your supposed answer. ''I don't believe but don't deny the existence''- what the hell is that?
That was a smart but cowardly approach to a simple yes or no question. Typical isn't it? Just trying to stay on both side of the fence.
You fail to realise that for your own god to be the ultimate creator,the concept of an allah( the supposed creator according to the islamists) should be non-existent. Your religion stands based on the fact theres no OTHER god except yours. If allah hypothesis does exist (since you don't deny its existence) ,it means your god is bullshit coz we can't have two creators,two most powerful and all loving beings.your faith makes no room for that possibility.
Similar to what you stated,my atheistic views aren't based on the need to disprove your god hypothesis rather i weigh your postulations to see if they hold water,are logical and try to make sure contradictions to xteristcs of your entity like the ones found in your bible don't exist. Since your religion fails to meet my criteria,well. . . . .
I'm very glad you agree with my point ''you don't expect me to provide evidence for the hypothesis of others'' -i think you should be given an award for this.
But i find it funny though you expecting me to provide evidence for the islamic hypothesis and in essense yours.
We've seen it time and time again with you religionists who fail to provide evidences to support your claims yet you expect us to show contrary,what'd you expect us to work with?

No2atheism
i think you're wrong,this isn't a debate about the bible against evolution but your religion against my atheistic disbelief.
Personally i believe evolution hasn't all the answers yet. . .
The bible might have made some good scientific calls however there're not so accurate ones. For example we now know you cant produce spotted goats by breeding them over stripped sticks. . .
There's research going on with animal and human embryo,it's only a matter of time before human organs are cultured from them.

@Tùdor,

Tùdor:

Pilgrim,
I actually was about typing my answers a good look at your supposed answer. ''I don't believe but don't deny the existence''- what the hell is that?
That was a smart but cowardly approach to a simple yes or no question. Typical isn't it? Just trying to stay on both side of the fence.

No, that was neither cowardly, non-committal nor straddling the fence in my reply. I already demonstrated my position on such matters and have pointed you to them. I observe you diplomatically never referred to them and just made postulations about Allah in uppercase. Since I'm not in the habit of repeating myself ad infinitum, it was only after offering my answers that I asked you a pointed question. You neither answered that question and have been sitting on the fence ever since.

Tùdor:

You fail to realise that for your own god to be the ultimate creator,the concept of an allah( the supposed creator according to the islamists) should be non-existent. Your religion stands based on the fact theres no OTHER god except yours. If allah hypothesis does exist (since you don't deny its existence) ,it means your god is bullshit coz we can't have two creators,two most powerful and all loving beings.your faith makes no room for that possibility.

Edit:
You are self-disappointing, and I'm not surprised. You don't seem to care about calmly reasoning out issues here but just resorted to the usual cowardly language of many people to hide the gaps in your presumptions - how does that make you rational? Look, Tùdor, my approach is going to be no-nonsense, and the language of "bullshit" is the limp man's excuse often resorted to by intellectually lazy folks. Don't try to impress me with such drama if you want to discuss.

Now my answer: I've already shown that my Christian faith does not have to resort to the atheistic "need to disprove" fallacious logic, which was why it's not my prerogative to "deny" such entities - it is the presumptive atheist that has this "need" and defeats his own worldview thereby. I quoted 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 to show my persuasion. Verse 15 already addresses this issue precisely -

        For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth
        --as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--

For us as Christians, verse 6 defines our worldview - our devotion is to One, not many. We don't start out with placards shouting about "non-existence" of this, that or the other - that is the mantra sung by typical atheists who have never taken the time to settle down and reason with their thinking caps. When this self-defeating assumptions fail them, they resort to unethical language of "bullshit" to hide the gaps in their misplaced ideas. Sorry sir, it's not my prerogative to "deny" this or that; and since it is your forté, please adduce your own "proof" and "evidence" for your proclamation of Allah. That is not a hard thing to do instead of falling below unreasonable lingo.

Tùdor:

Similar to what you stated,my atheistic views aren't based on the need to disprove your god hypothesis rather i weigh your postulations to see if they hold water,are logical and try to make sure contradictions to xteristcs of your entity like the ones found in your bible don't exist. Since your religion fails to meet my criteria,well. . . . .

Nope, my theistic view does not have to meet your criteria.  You're only trying to arrogate that prerogative to yourself. And sorry, if you go through this thread carefully, you'd see that the first to speak about a "need to disprove" was an atheist, so I don't know what exactly you mean by your atheistic views aren't based on the "need to disprove". I'm willing to allow you assume it is so, if it works well for you; but that does not say anything comforting in defence of your own position. This is why one needs to also weigh your own postulations and call you address your presumptions in precisely the way you demand of others.

Tùdor:

I'm very glad you agree with my point ''you don't expect me to provide evidence for the hypothesis of others'' -i think you should be given an award for this.

Lol, I still agree with your point there. I honestly do.  The thing that may surprise you is when I apply it in precisely the same way as you tend to do to others. And no, it's not disarming or unnerving for me to apply that to my worldview. The remarkable thing is that if you make a hypothesis, I may be the first to knock on your door and ask you for evidence for your postulations - any such postulations.

Tùdor:

But i find it funny though you expecting me to provide evidence for the islamic hypothesis and in essense yours.

My apologies. Perhaps you may not have understood me. Let me recap: As in the quote above (1 Cor. 8:15), it is not in mine court to hold a "non-existence" of this, that or the other. This again does not mean that I affirm their existence. The point is that, while I'm not in any position to affirm the deities of anyone's worldview or belief system, I can well hold onto the claims of my worldview. If, therefore, an atheist asks me to defend the deities proclaimed by other worldviews, I might tap on his shoulders and ask him to first defend the views of atheists who believe in SPIRITS and GHOSTS. As in my earlier response to William_C, I've shown that there are such atheists who honestly believe such things exist.

So, since I'm not a Muslim (formerly was), it's not my prerogative to defend anything for them - let them come here and rattle on as much as they can and sensibly adduce such evidence as you may be requesting. On the other hand, my approach is quite different - and I won't lose sight of that: which is, to take the fallacious logicum among NL atheist to its logical ends. In other words, I'm meeting the typical atheist one-on-one on his own presumptions and switching on the lightbulb in his room. This is why I summarised this approach earlier to make it tidy:

1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

4. we haven't found any 'proof' or 'evidence' for most atheist assertions

5. atheism means more than the simplistic definition held by the average typical atheist

6. atheism does not "disprove" theistic claims

7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our known world

8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue

10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments.

Particularly numbers 10 and 6 are my foci.

Tùdor:

We've seen it time and time again with you religionists who fail to provide evidences to support your claims yet you expect us to show contrary,what'd you expect us to work with?

Aha!!  What indeed have you been working with? Let's break this down, Tùdor. The basic or underlying premise of the typical atheist on NL is simply "naturalism". On the other hand, most 'believers' that lean towards theistic views are inclined to the supernatural. As you can see from my observations in posting quotes from the Rapid Response Squad, you find that most atheists honest hold that there are reasons (indeed, 'evidence') that cannot be dismissed regarding realities that test their naturalism. Thus, to make this a neat discussion, I'm asking the NL atheists to come forward and show us that there is NO such thing as the supernatural - which includes God, gods, ghosts, spirits, angels, the paranormal, etc, etc.  

The response is always the same: "what do you want us to work with?" And my response is the same: "work with the same tool you have always cherished: naturalsim!!"    The cry returns: "But that is almost impossible!" And I answer: "who says it's impossible - is it not the atheist who has always boasted that he knows there is NO supernatural world?"

Now, as has been indicated, several atheists are wondering if there are pointers to such occurences; and apart from the hints I gave earlier, I'm eagerly waiting for the atheist to proffer a naturalistic hard evidence for his claim about all realities of our known world. The excuse that "science will one day discover it" is limp and another resort to fallacious logicum. You cannot arrogate to yourself the brithright to make postulations (positive - "there IS" or negative "there IS NOT" and expect to draw conclusive answers from other people for your own assumptions. That is where I want to meet the atheist - come forward and let's talk beyond the usual retired song.

Tùdor:

No2atheism
i think you're wrong,this isn't a debate about the bible against evolution but your religion against my atheistic disbelief.
Personally i believe evolution hasn't all the answers yet. . .
The bible might have made some good scientific calls however there're not so accurate ones. For example we now know you cant produce spotted goats by breeding them over stripped sticks. . .
There's research going on with animal and human embryo,it's only a matter of time before human organs are cultured from them.

Yes, I agree with your basic point there - it's not so much about a debate between the Bible and evolution as it is between two worldviews: (Christian-) theism and atheism. You surprise me though, for you're one of the few sensible ones to hold that evolution hasn't all the answers. . "yet". Many assume that it does. And research in human embryo, whatever the results, does not "prove" anything for atheism, nor "disprove" the basic claim of theism.

Before I take another break, let me highlight something that may help set the stage for a good development towards my approach to engage NL atheists. I'd stated that:

pilgrim.1:

Now, as has been indicated, several atheists are wondering if there are pointers to such occurences; and apart from the hints I gave earlier, I'm eagerly waiting for the atheist to proffer a naturalistic hard evidence for his claim about all realities of our known world.

In due course, I'll be posting pointers to such occurences of realities beyond the naturalism espoused by many atheists. Please bear in mind that just because these phenomena occur does not "prove" anything one way or the other between claims we're eager to make for our theistic and atheistic worldviews. As time goes on, such posts beyond the ordinary will be made available; but for the moment these preliminaries would/might just help some atheists to carefully think issues through for starters, and try to see if they can come up with explanations (not excuses) from within their own worldviews of "naturalism".

Scenario 1. Here's one case I would like you to consider. Suppose you knew someone who's quite popular for making fun of belief in God. His approach is different, because not only does he have the usual satires and publicly entertaining humorous slings, he also tries to investigate if such things in his satires could have any reality behind them.

Indeed, there's such a man (and there are several similar events like this). Many of you may know him or not, but I'd like to refer you to an experience that Australian film maker John Safran recorded in encoutering televangelist and exorcist Bob Larson. The point in posting this to help the atheist carefully think things through, not because I'm pushing this as "proof" or "evidence" for my understanding of the supernatural. Here it is:

[list]

John Safran's Exorcism

In 2003, Australian film maker John Safran came to do a story on Bob Larson for John Safran vs God, a comedy/documentary series on world religions. The final episode was devoted entirely to this encounter. It lacked some of the humorous flair of the previous seven episodes, starting with a brief introduction to Bob. He talked about his past, and showed John a series of photographs of him with prominent political figures including Margaret Thatcher, George H. W. Bush, John Major, and Colin Powell, saying; "no one impresses me more as a human being than Colin Powell".

Soon after this the exorcism started with Bob ordering Safran to speak on behalf of his Jewish ancestors and forgive Adolf Hitler. Safran's behaviour seemed to change; he lost his lisp, became violent and angry, and began to speak in the characters of several of the spiritual figures he investigated in previous episodes, including the voodoo spirit Papa Gede and the Hindu god Hanuman.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Larson#John_Safran.27s_Exorcism

[/list]

[list]

John Safran vs God - Episode Eight

The eighth episode was the most controversial. Instead of its usual format of various segments, the show featured a single story: the exorcism of John's demons by Christian exorcist and fundamentalist preacher Bob Larson. There was none of the humour that characterised the preceding episodes. The exorcism was dramatic and realistic and no explanation was given at the end of the episode as to John's behaviour. On the Yahoo! "Cult of Safran" web group a stormy discussion started on whether John was actually faking - Safran's lisp is absent while allegedly possessed. Safran appeared in several radio and television plug spots for the show post-production/pre-screening and only briefly commented on the exorcism episode as a very intense segment to film. After the screening of the episode Safran appeared in an interview on ABC radio and said he didn't remember a lot of the experience. The sales pitch for the recently released DVD is "you've seen the exorcism, now buy the DVD".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran_vs_God#Episode_Eight

[/list]

Aiight, folks. Just imagine that someone was trying to ridicule your belief with satire and "prove" that it's not real. Such a man would be John Safran. The idea that this could not have been "real" or claims of fakery are non-starter; because if they were not, then one would have Safran stating clearly that he was actually faking it.

This again, is not one of the cases to "prove" or "disprove" anything (at least, not for me). Let it sort of whet the appetite of the NL atheists as we progress. From their opinions, we shall then be able to tidy discussions in context.

Cheers.

Interestingly, someone just asked offline if I was not defeating my own premise. He was referring to this part of my post:

pilgrim.1:

This again, is not one of the cases to "prove" or "disprove" anything (at least, not for me).

The point there should not be confusing to anyone, as I have no independent way of varifying the event for myself and only posted it second-hand for others to draw their own inferences. I know that the reports point to the fact that the event was "real" and "undeniable". . . but why I'm not using that to push "evidence" for anything at the moment is because I'm hoping to take the discussing with atheists on this forum to more engaging phenomena that could be examined by falsifiability. I use that term in the sense of -

         '. . . the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by
          an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable"
          does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown
          by observation or experiment.'

That is the sort of 'evidence' and/or 'proof' that is often some here might have been speaking about; and the John Safran encounter with Bob Larson could be weighed on that same basis for what it is. For pointers to the idea that the exorcism was "dramatic and realistic", let me post an interview with Safran - again the reader should draw his/her own inferences:

[list]

Rachael Kohn: Now John, I don’t know how to broach this but your last episode is a tour de force, the Devil gets his comeuppance, he meets his Nemesis, in Bob Larson the exorcist. Did you plan that right from the beginning?

John Safran: Not really. I spoke to Bob Larson on the phone and he did seem quite charismatic on the phone, and quite open to things like because I was just feeling out the waters like are we even allowed to film you, being an exorcist, and then Oh, he seems to be fine us filming him doing exorcisms, and I go Yes, what about if like I had any issues, anything that I needed to exorcise out of me, and he’s like Yeah, why not, and stuff, so like this sounds good, but I didn’t really think about it much more.

And then when we arrived on the first day and we met Bob Larson, because he’s just so charismatic and just every time he opens his mouth he says something either ridiculously offensive or unintentionally so funny and stuff. So we’re going This guy’s very good talent, and it’s like he’s pretty much one of those one-in-a-million people you kind of hear about and then we started thinking Well if he’s going to exorcise me, and he’s willing to do that, why don’t I just tell him about all the things I’ve done over the course of the series, and see what he has to say about that and then he can exorcise me of all the spirits I’ve picked up.

But he believed that, he believed, 'John, you’ve gone to Haiti in a voodoo temple; John you’ve gone to India, and hung out with Hanuman the Monkey God; and you’ve been in Mozambique, and you’ve been in a chicken blood ritual, so John, you basically, you’ve left yourself open to demonic possession'. And then he proceeds one by one to get rid of all the demons out of me that I’ve picked up during the show.

Rachael Kohn: You looked under a lot of stress.

John Safran: Yes, well I don’t know, I kind of forget what kind of happened, there’s two readings of that episode, one is Oh it’s like when they hypnotise people on the Footy Show and the footy players are going around clucking like chickens, so that’s like one reading of it, and then the other reading of it is I guess something happened.


[list]

Rachael Kohn: Do you think something happened?

John Safran: Well definitely like when I look back at it, I don’t remember a lot of it, and also anyone who knows me, indeed anyone who watches the show can just look at my face, and there’s just all this stuff that just doesn’t go on in any other stories, in like every other story you can see me being a bit more like conscious or pulling, you know, there’s some subtle expression on my face where you kind of know I’m being a bit whacky, and this one it’s like I just can’t act that well, basically is what I’m getting at, there’s no way I can act that well. So who knows?

I know a Christian journalist tell me that she was going John, you did all this stuff over the show and you know, it all looks like you’re mucking around and there’s one thing with this Christian Evangelical person and it looked pretty right on, so John, why don’t you connect two and two and become a Christian, which I thought was an interesting way for the interview to go. You’re not going to pull that on me are you? Pick up some pamphlets somewhere.

[/list]


Rachael Kohn: Well I was going to ask you whether you were cleansed and converted?

John Safran: I don’t know if I was converted, I think I can accept what happened there as being true and not necessarily have to say Well therefore I have to go to his branch of Christianity because like all the major faiths all go Oh, you know, the Christian god is the Jewish god is the Muslim god, and definitely his strand of Christianity believed that Jews were an important part of their roots and stuff, so I’m not sure, he did put a bit of pressure on me over the half hour, we didn’t put all that in to it, but basically, yes, pretty much every 25 minutes he was leaning on me to kind of You know, John, have you ever thought about Christianity?


AND SO ON, EXORCISM CONTINUES

Source:  http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1193306.htm

[/list]

Like I said earlier, the idea that this could not have been "real" or claims of fakery are non-starters. Reading the above, one can see that even Safran himself could directly "accept what happened there as being true". I hope this helps to put things in a bit more perspective.

Regards.

pilgrim.1:

Yes, I agree with your basic point there - it's not so much about a debate between the Bible and evolution as it is between two worldviews: (Christian-) theism and atheism. You surprise me though, for you're one of the few sensible ones to hold that evolution hasn't all the answers. . "yet". Many assume that it does. And research in human embryo, whatever the results, does not "prove" anything for atheism, nor "disprove" the basic claim of theism.

What do you mean by this? Evolution has all the answers to what?

@Tudor

You fail to realise that for your own god to be the ultimate creator,the concept of an allah( the supposed creator according to the islamists) should be non-existent. Your religion stands based on the fact theres no OTHER god except yours. If allah hypothesis does exist (since you don't deny its existence) ,it means your god is bullshit coz we can't have two creators,[/b]two most powerful and all loving beings.your faith makes no room for that possibility.

But i find it funny though you expecting me to [b]provide evidence for the islamic hypothesis and in essense yours.

Someone's response made me to come and I dont have the intnetion of doing that, so pardon me for coming to this section.You have Islam section to tender whatever you have. You should know the stand of Muslims with regard to Allah, God, Trinity etc

Just passing by

Hallo huxley2,

huxley2:

pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3985750#msg3985750 date=1244282396:

Yes, I agree with your basic point there - it's not so much about a debate between the Bible and evolution as it is between two worldviews: (Christian-) theism and atheism. You surprise me though, for you're one of the few sensible ones to hold that evolution hasn't all the answers. . "yet". Many assume that it does. And research in human embryo, whatever the results, does not "prove" anything for atheism, nor "disprove" the basic claim of theism.

What do you mean by this? Evolution has all the answers to what?

I don't know what those who assert such may mean by "evolution has all the answers"; rather, I made the point that not all atheists make such claims about evolution having answers to all possible such questions as they may discuss. I think, however, that some of those I've come across who make such assertions have taken Richard Dawkins' statement to far-reaching conclusions:

Question:
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?


Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist, Oxford University.

I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe,
is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes
late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution
and therefore cannot underlie the universe.'

That was Dawkins' featured response to the question above from the Edge Annual Question—2005 (World Question Center). Often in discussions, I've read some atheists making the kind of assertions (perhaps unwittingly) that evolution has all the answers to the questions of our world. I gladly noted that Tùdor is not one of those making such assertions.

pilgrim.1:

Hallo huxley2,

What do you mean by this? Evolution has all the answers to what?

I don't know what those who assert such may mean by "evolution has all the answers"; rather, I made the point that not all atheists make such claims about evolution having answers to all possible such questions as they may discuss. I think, however, that some of those I've come across who make such assertions have taken Richard Dawkins' statement to far-reaching conclusions:

             Question:
             WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?

             
             Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist, Oxford University.

              I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe,
              is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes
              late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution
              and therefore cannot underlie the universe.'

That was Dawkins' featured response to the question above from the Edge Annual Question—2005 (World Question Center). Often in discussions, I've read some atheists making the kind of assertions (perhaps unwittingly) that evolution has all the answers to the questions of our world. I gladly noted that Tùdor is not one of those making such assertions.

Hello Pilgrim,

I see your point but I think you are overstretching the point.  The point Dawkins is making here is that wherever humans have looked and found complexity, it is generally explained in terms of evolution.  In biological systems, Darwinian evolution explains the development of complex biological system.  In cosmic system, humans have also detected complexity arising from simple non-complex systems.  So in the strict scientific sense, what we observe in our universe is explained in terms of evolutionary mechanism rather than one-off design.

Now to extend such observation to other universes is a purely valid scientific approach (call induction reasoning), albeit a less accurate approach. If you feel that such inductive reasoning is a danger, consider the following question:

Would a "world" that did not come about by slow "evolutionary" means be any different from a world that arose through "evolution"?  (Note, I use the term "evolution" here to mean slow and gradual trend towards complexity, as oppose from Darwin evolution,  which is a subclass of "evolution".

If a Designed World and an Evolutionary World are indistinguishable, what reason have we got for positing a Designed World when we have plenty of evidence for an evolutionary one?

huxley2:

Hello Pilgrim,

I see your point but I think you are overstretching the point. The point Dawkins is making here is that wherever humans have looked and found complexity, it is generally explained in terms of evolution. In biological systems, Darwinian evolution explains the development of complex biological system. In cosmic system, humans have also detected complexity arising from simple non-complex systems. So in the strict scientific sense, what we observe in our universe is explained in terms of evolutionary mechanism rather than one-off design.

Hi again huxley2,

While I appreciate your reply in context, you'd observe that I haven't given Dawkins' statement my own personal interpretation. This was why I clearly stated:

I think, however, that some of those I've come across who make such assertions
have taken Richard Dawkins' statement to far-reaching conclusions.

What followed was not my own interpretation of what he said, just simply pointing out that others have possibly taken his statement to far-reaching conclusions that may not be warranted in the consideration of all possible worlds.

However, I may not be a fan of Darwinian evolution, but this statement in yours: ("what we observe in our universe is explained in terms of evolutionary mechanism " simply does not hold grounds at the moment in the discussions we're having thus far between two worldviews: theism and atheism. Like I said, I'd not like to lose sight of my basic approach so that the gist of our discussion does not get lost in unrelated matters. To this end, I've taken time to offer a "scenario 1" for starters, to the end that those who deny evidence for the supernatural may take a step back and observe phenomena that are clearly beyond their worldview of naturalism. I'd be happy to see views expressed in that regard presently.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:



[b]However, I may not be a fan of Darwinian evolution, but this statement in yours: ("what we observe in our universe is explained in terms of evolutionary mechanism " simply does not hold grounds at the moment in the discussions we're having thus far between two worldviews: theism and atheism. [/b]Like I said, I'd not like to lose sight of my basic approach so that the gist of our discussion does not get lost in unrelated matters. To this end, I've taken time to offer a "scenario 1" for starters, to the end that those who deny evidence for the supernatural may take a step back and observe phenomena that are clearly beyond their worldview of naturalism. I'd be happy to see views expressed in that regard presently.

Cheers.

Did you read this to imply that I think "evolution" explains theism or atheism?

huxley2:

Did you read this to imply that I think "evolution" explains theism or atheism?

No, not at all. Rather, the point was that I don't see how Darwinism comes into the discussion between the two worldviews.

I couldn't care less if people were hearing ghost recordings or whatever. It doesn't prove or disprove anything- it just means one more thing to find natural answers for.
I'm pretty sure if you travel back in time to father abraham with two magnets,he'd probably think its ''supernatural''. Electricity was ever existent till itwas discovered by faraday. Different phenomena might be present,the fact we don't know what they are doesnt scream 'supernatural'
crop circles have been found supposedly made by aliens,there're well documented reports of UFO sightings with radar operators sighting supersonic crafts. . .we still haven't declared extra terrestrial existent.
So calm down,strange or unknown isn't equal to supernatural.

I couldn't care less if people were hearing ghost recordings or whatever. It doesn't prove or disprove anything- it just means one more thing to find natural answers for.
I'm pretty sure if you travel back in time to father abraham with two magnets,he'd probably think its ''supernatural''. Electricity was ever existent till itwas discovered by faraday. Different phenomena might be present,the fact we don't know what they are doesnt scream 'supernatural'
crop circles have been found supposedly made by aliens,there're well documented reports of UFO sightings with radar operators sighting supersonic crafts. . .we still haven't declared extra terrestrial existent.
So calm down,strange or unknown isn't equal to supernatural.

Argument between theists and atheist cannot get anywhere same for between christianity and islam and between anyother religion. When i was at university my born again room mates and i would argue for days without out getting anywhere. Each person is dug into his/her mind set and belief system, changing that mindset is almost an impossible task. I know for sure that a person is ready to defend his belief system with every thing they have both rational and irrational, and attacking a person's belief system is taken as an act of war - figuratively and sometimes physically.

Becoming an atheist is a slow and gradual (and sometimes painful) proccess.  I do not subscribe to atheists trying to convince theists to give up their religion or rediculing any of the theist religions and putting themselves on a high pedestal. Atheists should be contented they have found the truth just like the religionist should be contended they have found the truth.  it should be left at that as they both live in seperate worlds like fish and birds.

@Tùdor,

Tùdor:

I couldn't care less if people were hearing ghost recordings or whatever. It doesn't prove or disprove anything- it just means one more thing to find natural answers for.

You may not care enough for such phenomena, but that attitude does not demonstrate an open, honest mind to serious enquiry. I've been deliberately selective in the posts because I wanted some of you to see that there are atheists honest enough to admit that these occurences actually do take place, and they even admit that it affects them in such a way as to reconsider their naturalism. Certainly it proves the very fact that naturalism has no answers to such realities - and I'd go so far as to state that naturalism stands limp in the face of such hard evidence. If the atheist who's committed to his naturalism would be honest, he either would have found satisfactory answers for such phenomena - in which case it would be contingent upon him/her to replicate them precisely in their manner and achieve the same results. You cannot just dismiss them out-of-hand and claim they don't prove or disprove anything.

Tùdor:

I'm pretty sure if you travel back in time to father abraham with two magnets,he'd probably think its ''supernatural''. Electricity was ever existent till itwas discovered by faraday. Different phenomena might be present,the fact we don't know what they are doesnt scream 'supernatural'

Your presumption is quite revealing, because it indicates that you probably may not quite understand what you may want to qualify as 'supernatural'. Again, I've been selective for one reason: to show that when hard evidence is presented firsthand to the atheist, he would have to make some more informed statement - not excuses, prevarications or careless dismissals. This is why John Safran's case is one such interesting 'soft' case considered here, because at least we know that he was not acting or faking his own experience in that encounter.

Tùdor:

crop circles have been found supposedly made by aliens,there're well documented reports of UFO sightings with radar operators sighting supersonic crafts. . .we still haven't declared extra terrestrial existent.

I'm quite familiar with crop circles and UFO phenomena - which was again one reason why I first started the thread "Our Orphic World". These could be determined and explicated by natural means. However, how do you explain ghost phenomena and exorcism (in the case of Safran) by naturalism?

Tùdor:

So calm down,strange or unknown isn't equal to supernatural.

I haven't made the claim that 'strange or unknown' = 'supernatural'. certainly, there are so many categories of 'strange' which do not qualify as 'supernatural' in this discussion. However, I'd be quite interested in well-informed reasoning on what have been proffered already where atheists believe in ghosts and the exorcism that Safran experienced. Mere armchair aruments characteristic of fallacious logicum will not cut the cookie at this point.

More examples to come after you deal with the previous two cases.

@wirinet,

wirinet:

Argument between theists and atheist cannot get anywhere same for between christianity and islam and between anyother religion. When i was at university my born again room mates and i would argue for days without out getting anywhere. Each person is dug into his/her mind set and belief system, changing that mindset is almost an impossible task. I know for sure that a person is ready to defend his belief system with every thing they have both rational and irrational, and attacking a person's belief system is taken as an act of war - figuratively and sometimes physically.

I used to be inclined to your idea that arguments between theists and atheists could not get anywhere. Not anymore - I'm convinced this is getting somewhere, and it should. The reason why many people still hold that idea is because they've been asking simplistic questions and dragging on to too many unrelated issues until the gist of the argument gets lost somewhere. This time around, all such unrelated arguments will be kept to the background as much as possible, while we take a different approach - that of presenting occurences within the atheist community that atheists cannot easily dismiss out-of-hand.

wirinet:

Becoming an atheist is a slow and gradual (and sometimes painful) proccess. I do not subscribe to atheists trying to convince theists to give up their religion or rediculing any of the theist religions and putting themselves on a high pedestal. Atheists should be contented they have found the truth just like the religionist should be contended they have found the truth. it should be left at that as they both live in seperate worlds like fish and birds.

We all live in a single world with varied experiences. The atheist who assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview must also be prepared to replicate phenomena that are well-attested to occur outside the ambit of his naturalism. This is not about the usual tireless 'prove' this and that about Christianity. No; rather, I'm asking the typical NL atheist to understand that his naturalism is a weak tool for explicating the realities of our world.