Why I believe in God?

[Virgil]

From the time of Hume to the present day, the Argument of Design has been repeatedly shown to be nonsensical. You may be unaware of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and that's why people like Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe can sell so many books. However, that's no excuse for dragging this argument out after it's been refuted so many times.

For the millionth time, you can't use your conclusion as the validation for your major premise. That is, using "only intelligent design could account for the such-and-such natural phenomenon" as your major premise assumes what you're trying to prove. Since Darwin, humans have discovered many natural mechanisms that could account for such-and-such natural phenomenon that don't involve the intentional activity of an intelligent designer. Even if logic hadn't already gutted the Argument from Design, what we've discovered about the biosphere would have made it obsolete.

Get lost. The argument sticks because it has validity. Argue with Einstein and Newton.

The problem I have with you personally Babbalanja (or whatever your name is) is that you refuse to give resoect to other people's opinions. It has not been shown to be nonsensical.

Every scientist discovering any scientific revelation is affirming the consequence. Using the "affirming the consequence" as a de facto fallacy rules out by definition any cause. And not just as a proof of God but for any event. If I were to trip over a wire and found me dead on the floor beside it, you would have to rule out my tripping over that wire as a consequence by affirmation, even though the overwhelming probablility shows it to be the fact.. Your argument is in itself a fallacy. You're argument is the fallacious one.

[BienvenuJDC]

Get lost. The argument sticks because it has validity. Argue with Einstein and Newton.

The problem I have with you personally Babbalanja (or whatever your name is) is that you refuse to give resoect to other people's opinions. It has not been shown to be nonsensical.

Every scientist discovering any scientific revelation is affirming the consequence. Using the "affirming the consequence" as a de facto fallacy rules out by definition any cause. And not just as a proof of God but for any event. If I were to trip over a wire and found me dead on the floor beside it, you would have to rule out my tripping over that wire as a consequence by affirmation, even though the overwhelming probablility shows it to be the fact.. Your argument is in itself a fallacy. You're argument is the fallacious one.

Hear, hear!!

I'm looking for the uprave button, but I didn't see one!!

[DanielBenoit]

Get lost. The argument sticks because it has validity. Argue with Einstein and Newton.

Man, I really dislike it when either sides of the theist/atheist spectrum use what these men said as spokesmen for their own beliefs. But what I dislike even more is when they use these men's personal beliefs as arguments against a certain scientific theory they happen to dislike.

First off, Newton did not believe in evolution because he lived almost 200 years before Darwin, and thus is a meaningless point. I having read Einstein's biography can state as a clear fact that he most obviously accepted the theory of evolution as almost any reasonable scientist did. Also, based on Einstein's personal and philosophical writings, he was most likely somewhere between an agnostic and a pantheist (the latter very definite in his later years), and though he was no longer an observant Jew, he greatly respected and embraced the culture in his later life.

Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?

Every scientist discovering any scientific revelation is affirming the consequence. Using the "affirming the consequence" as a de facto fallacy rules out by definition any cause. And not just as a proof of God but for any event. If I were to trip over a wire and found me dead on the floor beside it, you would have to rule out my tripping over that wire as a consequence by affirmation, even though the overwhelming probablility shows it to be the fact.. Your argument is in itself a fallacy. You're argument is the fallacious one.

Leaving aside criticisms of causality itself in both philosophy and quantum physics, I would like to simple point out that in your analogy of the dead body and the wire, you forcibly inject God into it. If I were a police officer at a crime scene, I would conclude that the dead body was caused by the wire because I saw it right there and made inductive conclusions. This example is ridiculous when compared to the existence of a supernatural entity. No one is denying the existence of the wire because it is perceivable through the senses. The unmoved mover (to use the Aristililean term) is no where in the picture in scientific revelation, He is merely semantically injected into it as the definition of the cause of the revelation a priori. To summarize it, you are assuming that God is even there, and thus the cause. The wire is there and thus can reasonably be concluded to be the cause.

Now I'm not even an empiricist when it comes to these deep philosophical questions of the universe, but I am as almost everyone else is when it comes to everyday life. This is why I've disliked these analogies which are so simplistic and hardly match the question at hand.

[Drkshadow03]

Besides, what ever happened to faith? Why must the existence of God come down to a little puzzle so that it can compete with evolution?

You know, anything and everything that has ever needed to be said about the debate between atheists and theists has already been said by South Park.

[BienvenuJDC]

as almost any reasonable scientist did.

Why the generalization that ALL scientist accept the hypothesis of evolution? And for those scientist who may not....well, they must just be 'unreasonable'?

There are many scientists...as well as doctors...who do not buy into the sketchy evidences that are forced together to create the illusion that one species could possible change so much as to become something else. The only thing that we can observe is viruses and simple adaptations. Why are there not primates that are continuing to 'evolve'? It's not the LINK that is missing, it is the whole chain. But evolutionists look at ME as the absurd one...really, I tire of the arrogance that is used that drives people to diminish believers of faith, when they themselves have their own faith in their 'so-called' science. It is NOT science, it is speculation. Nothing more...

[DanielBenoit]

Why the generalization that ALL scientist accept the hypothesis of evolution? And for those scientist who may not....well, they must just be 'unreasonable'?

I like how you ignored my entire argument and focused on only one unimportant aspect.

Yes they would be, because of the mounds of evidence presented in the past one-hundred years. Also, I find it funny that you have stopped using the word 'theory' and lowered it down to 'hypothesis.'

There are many scientists...as well as doctors...who do not buy into the sketchy evidences that are forced together to create the illusion that one species could possible change so much as to become something else. The only thing that we can observe is viruses and simple adaptations. Why are there not primates that are continuing to 'evolve'? It's not the LINK that is missing, it is the whole chain. But evolutionists look at ME as the absurd one...really, I tire of the arrogance that is used that drives people to diminish believers of faith, when they themselves have their own faith in their 'so-called' science. It is NOT science, it is speculation. Nothing more...

I think the reasons for most of the opposition to evolution by the general public (besides its supposed incompatibility with religion) is because of the many misconceptions, misunderstandings, and just plain ignorance of the theory.

A primate didn't just give birth to a human and volla we have homo sapiens! It took many conditions in the environment (changes in climate, natural disasters, etc.) for natural selection to even come about. And then, slow, at first hardly noticable changes happened over long periods of time. Please, I beg you to at least have some understanding of evolution and the history of the theory before engaging in a debate. Sketchy evidence? Come on. In all the fields of science, evolution is the theory in the past 100 some years which has probably recieved the greatest amount of evidence.

If you want to start arguing evidence, then present us with some evidence on your side of the matter. Why is it that you are allowed to make the claim to reason when criticizing evolution, but then run into the safe-hold of faith when your beliefs are criticized?

[OrphanPip]

Why the generalization that ALL scientist accept the hypothesis of evolution? And for those scientist who may not....well, they must just be 'unreasonable'?

There are many scientists...as well as doctors...who do not buy into the sketchy evidences that are forced together to create the illusion that one species could possible change so much as to become something else. The only thing that we can observe is viruses and simple adaptations. Why are there not primates that are continuing to 'evolve'? It's not the LINK that is missing, it is the whole chain. But evolutionists look at ME as the absurd one...really, I tire of the arrogance that is used that drives people to diminish believers of faith, when they themselves have their own faith in their 'so-called' science. It is NOT science, it is speculation. Nothing more...

The vast majority do accept the THEORY of evolution, not the hypothesis. You display several misunderstanding of evolutionary theory in your post alone.

For one, if simple adaptations aren't evolution, what do you suppose they are?

Secondly, apes are continuing to evolve, no life is static and there is continual change in frequency of alleles within populations.

It is nonsense to dismiss all the evidence for evolution as "speculation". There is phylogenetic evidence, geographical genetic difference, comparative anatomy, fossil record, comparative genetics, embryology, genetics, it all supports evolution.

Let's take a single example like snakes. From the fossil records and comparative examination of the skeleton scientist first concluded that they evolved from a family of lizards. Then we found that genetically it seemed there were two mutations that resulted in the loss of the limbs at two separate points. Finally, after we found the genetic evidence pointing to loss of the front and back limbs at different periods we found a transitional fossil of a species of proto-snake which had two limbs. This is just one of several examples of clear evolutionary progression due to progressive genetic change we know of.

Then we have things like ring species which point to how species diversification can occur.

I can't even begin to scratch the surface of the evidence that exists for evolution. If I exhausted every bit of evidence I know of, I could go out and find twice as much.

"Evolutionist" look at you like you're absurd, because when you say things like this about evolution, you look absurd.

Seriously, if you think no species can change into something else, what do you think of fossils. I'm honestly bewildered by that.

[BienvenuJDC]

I find it funny that you have stopped using the word 'theory' and lowered it down to 'hypothesis.'

It is what it is...

A primate didn't just give birth to a human

At what point did the ape become a human? Heavy question...so then, where are all the species that you speak about in the chain that no longer exists? You speak about ignoring arguments....answer that simple question.

And stop insulting my intelligence...

[DanielBenoit]

It is what it is...



At what point did the ape become a human? Heavy question...so then, where are all the species that you speak about in the chain that no longer exists? You speak about ignoring arguments....answer that simple question.

Was about to reply, but thankfully OrphanPip supplied a lucid and intelligent answer.

And stop insulting my intelligence...

Stop insulting the scientist's.

End-note: I find it funny how creationists when engaging in a debate, always seem to have very little understanding of the simple basics of evolution.

[OrphanPip]

At what point did the ape become a human? Heavy question...so then, where are all the species that you speak about in the chain that no longer exists? You speak about ignoring arguments....answer that simple question.

And stop insulting my intelligence...

They went extinct...

None of the contemporaries of the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans are alive either.

There are around 15 species of hominid identified in the fossil record that lie between us and the MRCA of chimps and humans.

Greater than 99.9% of species found in the fossil record are extinct.

[BienvenuJDC]

The vast majority do accept the THEORY of evolution, not the hypothesis.

At one time, the vast majority of the world actually believed that the world was flat. At one time, the vast majority believed that the earth of the center of the universe. All of this under the authority of THE CHURCH. Well, this current hypothesis is CALLED a theory, so therefore, everyone just accepts it.

I'm not going to address every little point of your arguments, because they are diversionary in nature.

Where is the chain of evolution? Don't tell me that every link has died off. I don't buy that. We aren't just talking about every link from primate to human, but also in every species on the earth. We witness all species only reproducing within its own species. Nothing is crawling up onto the shore. No one is walking around dragging their knuckles. Please don't open up any new arguments until you answer this one.

[BienvenuJDC]

They went extinct...

.........

Greater than 99.9% of species found in the fossil record are extinct.

Oh...really! THAT is a new one...

Then there should be PLENTY of WHOLE fossils......but we never find WHOLE fossils of the evolutionary links. The evidence doesn't exist. Show me pictures that are not just drawings.

[DanielBenoit]

At one time, the vast majority of the world actually believed that the world was flat. At one time, the vast majority believed that the earth of the center of the universe. All of this under the authority of THE CHURCH. Well, this current hypothesis is CALLED a theory, so therefore, everyone just accepts it.

That's because they were indoctrinated by religious dogma. As a matter of fact, the ancient Greek mathematically proved that the earth was round over 2500 years before Columbus. People just didn't buy it because of religious dogma set up by the church. I wonder if that still happens today?

Science changes dude. We don't have all the answers nor do we pretend to. Science does not present itself as the absolute truth as religion does. Evolution is merely the best theory we have right now. Understand, science has no way at coming to absolute conclusions. That does not discredit evolution, because right now we have every reason to believe that it is true, just as we have every reason to believe in Copernicean astronomy.

I'm not going to address every little point of your arguments, because they are diversionary in nature.

If you refuse to engage us, we refuse to engage back. Address our points and we will address yours

[BienvenuJDC]

That's because they were indoctrinated by religious dogma. As a matter of fact, the ancient Greek mathematically proved that the earth was round over 2500 years before Columbus. People just didn't buy it because of religious dogma set up by the church. I wonder if that still happens today?

Yes...but now it's called scientific dogma...

I only wish that you would STOP engaging my statements of faith and truth. But you seem to love to try to prove my thoughts and opinions to be wrong. If you wish to have faith the the hypothesis and 'theories' of those who advocate evolutionary processes, you are more than welcome to do that. If you wish to believe that all things just came about with no direction or guidance, by forces that came from no where, and that all things are an accident...that is your prerogative.


I wish to believe the evidence that the earth is about 6,000 years old and designed by a supernatural Being that is greater and more intelligent that what we see around us.

[OrphanPip]

Where is the chain of evolution? Don't tell me that every link has died off. I don't buy that. We aren't just talking about every link from primate to human, but also in every species on the earth. We witness all species only reproducing within its own species. Nothing is crawling up onto the shore. No one is walking around dragging their knuckles. Please don't open up any new arguments until you answer this one.

This notion of a chain is a bit misleading to begin with. Evolution is better thought of in terms of clades, with branches.

I can address every one of these points.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by having a problem with every species on Earth. We have transitional fossils and species from all sorts of genuses and orders. It is just a fact of life that the species extant in one period are not the same as those extant in others, for one genetic drift alone would result in new structures and breeding isolation if geographic isolation occured.

The problem with why one may think they observe that species only breed within themselves is mostly because the common public is only familiar with the "biological species" definition of species. This is the definition of a species based on breeding isolation. However, if one looks closely at living things you'll find this isn't really an adequate definition of species. Lion and tigers can breed, but aren't the same species. So can horses and donkeys. Interbreeding amongst different plant species is even more common.

Although, the reason why different looking organisms so often can't breed with each other is because breeding isolation is often a major cause for evolutionary diversification. Genetic drift in isolated population results in significant enough change in the receptors of the sperm, eggs, and chemoattractants that two populations geographically separated can become breeding isolates. This can be seen in ring species.



In this example of Atlantic sea gulls arrows represent populations capable of interbreeding. You can see how geographical isolation and genetic drift can result in breeding isolation.

As to why we don't often see fish evolving into amphibians as must of happened once in the past. Well for one the niche is now sadly filled by an abundance of land animals that it would not be evolutionarily advantageous. Moreover, we do see fish species that are on this cusp. There are air breathing fish in low oxygen rivers like the Amazon.

I don't see why you would expect people to be dragging their arms. You seem not to understand how gradual speciesation occurs. It doesn't happen with just a single individual, an entire isolated population changes gradually over time.

Oh...really! THAT is a new one...

Then there should be PLENTY of WHOLE fossils......but we never find WHOLE fossils of the evolutionary links. The evidence doesn't exist. Show me pictures that are not just drawings.

Fossilization is a very rare event, most species that have existed only ever existed in populations of a couple hundred at a time, we will likely never know of every species that ever existed.

Besides that point, there are complete fossils of H. erectus (dear old lucy) as well as ergaster, habilis, heidelbergensis.