Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

Originally posted by Aermacchi
As I said truth, all that is answered exhaustively in the links I provided. If you just want to argue I suppose I could copy paste it over here.

It's really not answered in the links you provided...
I just debunked one of the views in the links you provided - a serious misunderstanding of free-will and causality.
I've read up on this enough and despite some great efforts, there is no good answer.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You are condemning the infromation without investigation.

I did investigate.
But a flawed argument is a flawed argument, even if you quote it from another site.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You say you have heard what others have thought, well what makes you think yours are all that original?

Nothing's original, and I never said it was.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I have seen everyone of those arguments before and all of them can be answsered at that site.

You think they can be answered because you're willing to accept them.
You can't argue against my assertion because there's no good answer - there really isn't.

If my argument was flawed then I would love to see a good counter-argument. I have yet to see one.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
No it isn't laughable, unless it was a bigoted advocate of religion but if you want to be as guilty of bigotry as those advocates of religion by being a bigot yourself, I guess that makes you a hypocrite AND a bigot

Now THAT is funny.

I was merely pointing out that I was being accused of being a bigot towards a society of people who are notorious of bigotry. It's ironic. The pot calling the kettle black, you know.

Mick, All I really KNOW about you are your "views" and even if i DID want to attack you "personally" I wouldn't know where to start. I don't know if your fat, skinny, bald, short, tall, talk with a lisp, have a cleft pallet, wear funny lookin shoes etc.

What I look like is of no consequence, though I do believe I posted a picture up in BTS not long ago. However, I don't think you know as much about my viewpoints as you think, since I am mostly defending myself against attacks.

I have, however, changed my viewpoint as of recently, and will no longer walk on egg shells in the face of religion.

Nothing has ever been shown about Natural Selection that wouldn't make me laugh because like you say of Religion, NS doesn't have a leg to stand on, much less a vestigil nub

Oh right, you mean the scientific theory proposed around how things have come to the way they are juxtaposed against the idea that some bearded guy in the sky made everything, reads our thoughts, and performs miracles.

Yeah, I am the fool...

[edit on 1/2/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Adding more assumptions about God in no way changes the point I was making.
How about I take evil out of the equation?
God judges us for how he made us.
That's backwards to how it should be. If he created a flawed race than he should judge himself for making a flawed race.
Eternal torment in Hell is hardly "righteous judgement" when he knew that the way he made humans, most would ultimately spend eternity in Hell.
Just broaden your scope and think about it.
Judgement of any kind, laws of any kind, tests of any kind, are irrelevant when dealing with such a limitless being - because he already knows the end result from the way he made us and would have created it to be exactly that.

Now about the link you gave me...
It says that God could not know our choices because they are neither true nor false but are made by us.
He uses an example of the sun rising - in which there are causes which enable us to know that the sun will rise - but with our choices there are no such causes because of free-will.
This is, if anything, a lack of understanding of free-will and causality. Our actions ARE caused by multiple things. Variables that we can not see, and some that we can - but they are all involved in our mental process non-the less.
Now, to us this would indeed be unknowable, and the author is right there.
However, to an all knowing God, he would know the variables that affect us all, and moreover would have created them in that exact order. Knowing all the causes means he knows all the reactions, as you can't have a reaction without a cause.
There's no way around it.

But by all means hit me up with a counter-argument.
I've read what others have thought, but what do you think?

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Adding more assumptions about God in no way changes the point I was making.
How about I take evil out of the equation?
God judges us for how he made us.
That's backwards to how it should be. If he created a flawed race than he should judge himself for making a flawed race.
Eternal torment in Hell is hardly "righteous judgement" when he knew that the way he made humans, most would ultimately spend eternity in Hell.
Just broaden your scope and think about it.
Judgement of any kind, laws of any kind, tests of any kind, are irrelevant when dealing with such a limitless being - because he already knows the end result from the way he made us and would have created it to be exactly that.

Now about the link you gave me...
It says that God could not know our choices because they are neither true nor false but are made by us.
He uses an example of the sun rising - in which there are causes which enable us to know that the sun will rise - but with our choices there are no such causes because of free-will.
This is, if anything, a lack of understanding of free-will and causality. Our actions ARE caused by multiple things. Variables that we can not see, and some that we can - but they are all involved in our mental process non-the less.
Now, to us this would indeed be unknowable, and the author is right there.
However, to an all knowing God, he would know the variables that affect us all, and moreover would have created them in that exact order. Knowing all the causes means he knows all the reactions, as you can't have a reaction without a cause.
There's no way around it.

But by all means hit me up with a counter-argument.
I've read what others have thought, but what do you think?

A Father buys his son a brand new shiny automobile with all the bells and whistles. The father advises his son that if he drives it responsibly, takes good care of it; it will last him and serve him well for many years.

He also teaches his son that we are all the sum total of the choices we make and for some of us, we are our own compromise. He tells his son that if he intends to be able to get through college he will need a car and he had better take care of this one. For if he does not, he will not be able to get back to school and his father says he would have no choice but to stop paying his tuition.

The son doesn't heed his fathers wise advice and takes the car out burning up his tires in drag races, he gets drunk one night and smashes it into a tree messing the front grill up terrible. He loses interest in the car now that it is all flawed looking and lets it sit out to rust.

His father quits paying for his tuition and is sad for the consequences his son has forced on himself. The Father says, "did you get the insurance I advised you to get?” The son said to his Father, "no that it was all his dads fault for giving him a flawed car and that the Father was being unfair" That a truly righteous father who is supposed to love his son would have him suffer losing his college and well this is just not fair.

Therefore, the father loved his son so much that he decided he would give him HIS own car sacrificing the only thing he had to drive and that if the son would only accept this car and repent of his lousy driving habits he could have the car with a lifetime warranty lasting an eternity.

The son chose to reject his fathers offer and went out using the old car that lasted only a few short weeks and he was unable to get through college and unable to get a job and could never afford one as nice as the one he had been given in its pristine condition by his Father.

A Father knows his son and knew he might not listen to his father as children often do not but he wanted to give him the opportunity to define his own sense of responsibility so that when that day came where he would falter by his own volition, he would be without excuse.

Even then, he gave his son a way to avoid impending poverty and loss of a great life and opportunity by again sacrificing his only car and although the Father new he may not choose him over his own way again.

That father loved him enough to offer so that in the end and of his own free will a father has to let his son make his own mistakes offering what he can to thwart a dead end, he does it NOT because intellectually he knows he is right about his son making another wrong choice again.

But emotionally out of love with an undying hope

That he won’t

reply to post by Aermacchi


You have yet to make a counter-argument.
That story is flawed in respects to this discussion because the father is not omnipotent and omniscient - meaning the father did not create the son to refuse his offer.
You're completely derailing the point I made - as you can not counter it.
An omnipotent and omniscient being would have MADE us the way we are - with every action we take being his will.
You can not say otherwise if he truly is all powerful and all knowing.
Argue the points I'm making or don't bother at all.
As I said, there is no good answer.

Originally posted by Clearskies
I didn't say that wasn't the case,.................. however most people I know don't consider The book of Jasher Biblical.
If it IS fake, it doesn't matter to the Bible proper.

but higllights yet another fake used for the glory of god

At most a ten year difference when considering age capacity.

and now you see the absurdity of the old age for all principle, reaching 80 was rediculously rare but hitting 110 is absurd. and we have 3 people hitting 70+ and one hitting 100+

Again I give you the Luke excerpt you ignored;

nope didnt ignore it, it was and in some cases still is an act of ambaguity

refer to luke as the apostle or the disciple and not differenciate between jesus's apostles and pauls to allow people to put 1+1 together and reach 3 then not correct them on it

the same is done for mark as well

the same is done with the kings of the nativity, the king of ethiopia at the time of jesus's birth had nothing to do with christianity and appears to have had no knowledge of it (no christian symbols anywhere in any of his buildings or his tomb) but his name is rather similar to the 5th century ethiopian king who did bring christainity to the country, so the names are used to sets up a situation where 1+1=3 and appears to be correct, and an ethiopian king turned up at jesus birth carrying murrh

the 3 kings gained names and countries of origin between the 5th and 10th century

after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it. It is said that the entire colosseum were converted to Christianity upon witnessing this miracle.

yeah just like pilot

No. He didn't 'add' anything.

so he doesnt have a zombie army descending on jerusalem? which isnt mentioned anywhere else ...

thats kind of a big thing dont you think someone else might have mentioned it

so anyone saying the bible are first hand accounts of jesus life found in the gospels is mistaken

like Mark or Luke and at least the second 3rd of john

Jesus was ALWAYS a Hebrew!
He is called their 'Brother'.
What other 'differences'?

in the bible it differenciates between the vaired sects of judaism and use's thier title, even near the start of john jesus is asked if he is jewish and he replies yes

skip two thirds of the way and suddenly it doesnt become the pharisee are doing so and so, it becomes the jews wanted jesus dead the jews said this the jews said that

the writting style is very different and so is the referencing of jew

I've never even heard of it, much less it being used as proof.[/uote]

its a very old claim that goes back to around 300AD him bieng executed becasue he became a christian, in several orthodox churches he is a saint, in the roman church his wife is

www.explorefaith.org...
www.bibleprobe.com...

june 25th is pontious pilate day

I still don't know much about it, but you know a credo of the jesuits is that the ends justifies the means, NOT A CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

its certainly gods doctrine

why fix evil when you can just kill them. sodom and gemorah, noahs flood, egyptian plagues

numerous instance of villification of other religeons(and some times violent action) to remove them as a threat to christianity ..

No, Jesus NEVER advocates Lying, you need to read the entire chapter again.

jesus didnt paul did

Why is it that I can't find Anything concrete on that?

what that its a series of letters between two well known historical figures?

becasue you didnt translate the title into english then search for the names of the poeple involved both are famous historical figures, both are linked directly to Luther on friendly terms

i dont beleive they have been digitised(the volumes) as tehre are 18 of them and theya re rather old, looks like atrip to a decent library to disprove that quote

I just added Sahelanthropus to that.
I was talking about Haekel, and the horse chart.

well the embryo images were at a time when we didnt have the ability to photograph them very well, and like i say it was scientists that first pointed out the incaccuracy and asked for them to be replaced

the cart horse was omthing they thought to be right it later turned out not to be so they stopped using it, your critical of science becasue it admits its mistakes and improves?

source doesn't censor quickly enough to keep out FACTS!

science doesnt censor

those are from published scientific studies the facts are that quote you gave is wrong outdated and a missquote, yes its a miss quote of her words as she didnt say its just an old gorilla skull, what she actually proposed was it is one of the earlier ancestors of gorilla that had already split with human/chimp common ancestry

but after examining it she isnt sure where it goes and gives several possible, gorilla ancestor, chimp ancestor, human/chimp common ancestor. but that was before the skull was more accuratley reconstructed in 2005, now it is almost certainly within our ancestor lineage probabily before the human/chimp split which only makes it even more interesting, and still hominid

sci.waikato.ac.nz...


www.pnas.org... ill give the link again to the 7 newer papers, if you click full text (not the full text pdf) then you can read the papers in none pdf format




[edit on 2/1/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

You have yet to make a counter-argument.
That story is flawed in respects to this discussion because the father is not omnipotent and omniscient - meaning the father did not create the son to refuse his offer.
You're completely derailing the point I made - as you can not counter it.
An omnipotent and omniscient being would have MADE us the way we are - with every action we take being his will.
You can not say otherwise if he truly is all powerful and all knowing.
Argue the points I'm making or don't bother at all.
As I said, there is no good answer.

Was the car flawed when the father gave it to his son?

NO

Were WE in the begining?

NO

Did the father FORCE his will on the son

NO

Does that make the father have less authority, or lessen him in anyway?

NO

Do I have to make this story finite because infinite is something you can not relate to

YES

Did the Father Buy the Car so the son would refuse it?

NO

Did God create the life in you so you could refuse it?

Life was given to you free, so it doesn't owe you a dime

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

You have yet to make a counter-argument.
That story is flawed in respects to this discussion because the father is not omnipotent and omniscient - meaning the father did not create the son to refuse his offer.
You're completely derailing the point I made - as you can not counter it.
An omnipotent and omniscient being would have MADE us the way we are - with every action we take being his will.
You can not say otherwise if he truly is all powerful and all knowing.
Argue the points I'm making or don't bother at all.
As I said, there is no good answer.

The point you made ?? HA HA what point was that! That you blame God for something? HA HA HA. That you think you can create a loaded question out of a God made in YOUR image ?

HA HA HA HA

That God made us flawed? you haven't even given the parameters!

Atheist Cliché: Great suffering proves that a loving God cannot exist!

My Rebuttal: The unstated assumption is false, that suffering can have no value or purpose.

Widespread evil proves that a righteous God cannot exist!

My Rebuttal: The two unstated assumptions are false: that love can be forced; and that some love is not worth enduring much hate

reply to post by Aermacchi


I'll be right here once you decide to make a counter-argument.
Again, the story is flawed because the father is not omnipotent/omniscient and therefore would not have created the SON to refuse his offer, unlike God who IS omnipotent/omniscient.
That was the whole argument, remember?

I'm confused as to why you replied to my post twice, but ok .

Originally posted by Aermacchi
The point you made ?? HA HA what point was that! That you blame God for something? HA HA HA. That you think you can create a loaded question out of a God made in YOUR image ?

You obviously can't read.
An omnipotent and omniscient God would have know the reactions before he created the cause, therefore everything is his will.
This negates the majority of the Bible, but most importantly free-will and judgement.

reply to post by Aermacchi


No. That is far from the "atheist claim". The atheist claim would be, "There is absolutely no reason to believe there is a God. God simply fills in the gaps that science has yet to understand."

That's the atheist claim.

God judges us for how he made us.
That's backwards to how it should be. If he created a flawed race than he should judge himself for making a flawed race

Try not assuming the anticedent guy,,

Where didyou get that idea from? How do YOU know he judges us for how he made us? No YOU got it backwards, if he made a flawed race? What are you saying here guy?? God is a RACIST! HA HA HA HA C'mon you are just talking as silly as Darwin

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I'm confused as to why you replied to my post twice, but ok

.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
The point you made ?? HA HA what point was that! That you blame God for something? HA HA HA. That you think you can create a loaded question out of a God made in YOUR image ?

You obviously can't read.
An omnipotent and omniscient God would have know the reactions before he created the cause, therefore everything is his will.
This negates the majority of the Bible, but most importantly free-will and judgement.

Your doing it AGAIN! Confusing Cause and Effect with cause and Reaction You say God would have known A before B

Yeah IF he existed in a TIMELINE he would know what comes BEFORE but things like Before and After don't really happen the same way they do with us mere mortals governed by time slick

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Try not assuming the anticedent guy,,

Where didyou get that idea from? How do YOU know he judges us for how he made us? No YOU got it backwards, if he made a flawed race? What are you saying here guy?? God is a RACIST! HA HA HA HA C'mon you are just talking as silly as Darwin

Because, as I said, being omnipotent and omniscient means he would have created everything the way it is, including our thoughts, therefore negating our free-will making everything else irrelevant.
Try making a counter-argument against that rather than going off on tangents about what I do and do not believe. I've laid it out very plain so anyone can understand.

Here, I'll help you out.
A good counter-argument may be that God is not truly all knowing and all powerful, and that the original text was just being vague.

The only other opposing argument I can think of at the moment is to say that God is so far supperior to us that we can not hope to use logic to quantify his powers... Though that's more of a cop-out, but whatever.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Your doing it AGAIN! Confusing Cause and Effect with cause and Reaction You say God would have known A before B

If he is ALL KNOWING, then he would have known the reaction before the cause.

Example (as it seems I have to spell it out for you):
He would have created Adam KNOWING that the way he made him, combined with the fact that he let Satan in the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil in his reach, that he would have disobeyed him.
Therefore, 'original sin' was not only planned, but CREATED by God.
As it was created by God to be exactly that, Adam turns out to be merely an actor in a play. An actor should not be judged with the script he is given.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Yeah IF he existed in a TIMELINE he would know what comes BEFORE but things like Before and After don't really happen the same way they do with us mere mortals governed by time slick

That makes no sense. If he's ALL KNOWING, then he is ALL KNOWING.
Must I now quote the verses where it says God knows everything?

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

No. That is far from the "atheist claim". The atheist claim would be, "There is absolutely no reason to believe there is a God. God simply fills in the gaps that science has yet to understand."

That's the atheist claim.

Yeah sort of like TIME fills in the gaps when ever a Christian asks an Atheist questions he can't answer to prove evolution.

Be nice if it was something tangible like ohhh say a boatload of transitional fossils that weren't manufactured in china with glued on feathers and scales or some wild speculation backed by MOUNTAINS no Galaxies! NO NO MULTIVERSES of EVIDENCE!!

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Your doing it AGAIN! Confusing Cause and Effect with cause and Reaction You say God would have known A before B

If he is ALL KNOWING, then he would have known the reaction before the cause.

Example (as it seems I have to spell it out for you):
He would have created Adam KNOWING that the way he made him, combined with the fact that he let Satan in the garden and the tree of knowledge of good and evil in his reach, that he would have disobeyed him.
Therefore, 'original sin' was not only planned, but CREATED by God.
As it was created by God to be exactly that, Adam turns out to be merely an actor in a play. An actor should not be judged with the script he is given.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Yeah IF he existed in a TIMELINE he would know what comes BEFORE but things like Before and After don't really happen the same way they do with us mere mortals governed by time slick

That makes no sense. If he's ALL KNOWING, then he is ALL KNOWING.
Must I now quote the verses where it says God knows everything?

You are saying Adam had no choice then am I correct?
Oh and by the way, the timeline makes PERFECT sense. My using that timeline to illustrate how he knows what we will do doesn't trivialize his All knowingness,, IT EXPLAINS IT


[edit on 2-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You are saying Adam had no choice then am I correct?

Ultimately he had no choice.
To say that he did have a choice would be to say that our thought process can come from no source.
But as it stands, there are sources that our thoughts and actions are based on.
Being that there are sources, and that God is all powerful and all knowing, he would have created those sources or variables to support one outcome.
It appears to us on the surface that we have free-will, but everything has a cause, and we are merely a reaction to that cause.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Oh and by the way, the timeline makes PERFECT sense. My using that timeline to illustrate how he knows what we will do doesn't trivialize his All knowingness,, IT EXPLAINS IT

So you don't believe that God can know the future?
But surely he would know that everything he created would have a reaction.
And surely he would also know what that reaction would be.

If I have a gun in my hand aimed at someone, it's safe to say that I'm a mere mortal and can't see the future. It's also safe to say that I know that if I cause that gun to fire, there will be a reaction in which someone will be hurt.
If God is all knowing, then he would know every reaction to the cause...

[edit on 2-1-2009 by TruthParadox]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Right, so I am expected to prove event by event what happened millions of years ago, but you get to make up fairy tales. That's fair I guess.

The fossil record isn't perfect, and we are talking about a science that takes millions of years (pretty hard since the Earth is only thousands of years old, right?).

What makes you say that natural selection is faulty? What part in the logic can you possibly disprove?

Originally posted by furiousracer313
Evolution has been officially debunked. Watch this series, and i promise it isnt boring cause the guy make jokes and is a great speaker. Check it out guys, no more evolution unless your ignorant and still believe we came from monkeys...


Debunking Evolution Theory

omg evolution is scientific fact. end of story.

reply to post by SlayerRock


Oh really.. Well even Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design is probably right