These Are The 7 Evolution Assumptions With No Scientific Evidence

Submitted by: monkwarrior 2 months ago in Science


It's a 5 minute video, but you'll hear the 7 assumptions in question within the first 1.5 minutes.

There are 266 comments:
Male 5
Did you know that cutfag and uncutfag are biblical terms? And people say there is no truth in the bible. Let's take a tangent and discuss which is better.
0
Reply
Male 3,410
lol "dr" carl baugh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh

talk about assumptions and fallicies and DERP
0
Reply
Male 117
Since this had already devolved into a God / no God conversion. I'll go off topic.

If I walk by a window a see someone molesting a child I have a moral obligation to do something about it.  If I have any capability to do anything then I must do everything I can. It is the only moral position.  Your God as you say is all seeing, all knowing, all capable, and does nothing.  He is the most capable of ending all atrocities, child death from diseases, hunger, abuse.  And does nothing.  With capability comes responsibility.  He sits back and blames the innocent.  A child loses their innocence to a predator.  A child dies in pain and suffers.  All because a woman and man did wrong thousands of years ago. THAT'S NOT JUST.   If your God exists he is an asshole and does not deserve my adoration or worship. 

1
Reply
Male 5
geobas1 for one, look into Kant Theology.

If that someone adored and worshiped God, would they perform horrible crimes? would they ignore contributing society / only think of themselves? Rarely. So it greatly reduces crime. The goal is to completely eliminate crime.

And yes. You don't have to believe in God to not commit crimes. But there will always be a large group of people that isn't that way. They need religion for their moral standards.

You can't bend God's will to do what you want. But if you truely believe it. You can use it to empower others. With a backing that is thousands of years older than you.

USA has freedom of, but not freedom from, religion. Don't fake religion if you can't believe it. But also, don't discredit it.
-1
Reply
Male 2,150
I have to go wash my brain now and it's all your fault.
0
Reply
Male 8,560
***sees post by monkwarrior about evolution...expects bullshit***

***was not disappointed....bullshit***

monk, everyone here hopes that one day you have an epiphany and realize just how much ignorant bullshit you spout.

We don't expect it to happen...only hope. 
2
Reply
Male 5,475
megrendel i hope the same for you and many others
0
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior Reminds me of a joke: 

monkwarrior's girlfriend/boyfriend/brony calls him on his cell phone while he's driving home and says, "Monk, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on the Interstate, Please be careful!"

Monk replies, "It's not just one car. There’s hundreds of them!"
0
Reply
Male 5,475
megrendel that's not very good at all
0
Reply
Male 8,560
monkwarrior  that's not very good at all 

You are correct, your reveling in your ignorance is not very good at all.

The joke, on the other hand, is very appropriate representation.
0
Reply
Male 3,649
This video is pure western media delusions, and nothing else.
1
Reply
56
0:30  Stopped right there.  He doesn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evilution, or is purposely conflating them, so why should I waste any time on him?

Though I wonder if later on he says "If we done come from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?  Gotcha!"
2
Reply
Female 8,058
what utter tosh..... REALLY. It's 2017....
1
Reply
Male 7,834
1. Evolution has no answer for the beginning of life, and doesn't claim to have one.  It only focuses on how we got from the first creature to the array of living organisms we have now.

2. Again, this kind of focuses on the beginning with which evolutionary biology gives no answers.  Though based on most evidence it would appear that all current living organisms today to seem to share a common ancestor is known as the LUCA or Last Universal Common Ancestor.  Evolutionary Biology states that this should not be assumed to be the first living organism on Earth.

3. The studying of the genome of living creatures here on Earth is what shows the relation between all living things.  DNA segments that are found within all living creatures and how certain creatures share more DNA than others which shows closer relations.

4. @ Already covered this one by bringing up Volvox.  Look in to it, it is quite interesting.

5. Vertebrates and non-vertebrates are related.  Again, when comparing genomes it is quite easy to see the the relations.

6. Same basic argument as 5.  So I can really only give the same answer back.

7.  His line of speciation is off, but this is common among people who are not educated in the subject.  While we do have evidence that fish like species gave rise to tetrapods (lungfish are one of the cornerstones as a very important intermediate species that happened to have stuck around) but the rest are not necessarily in that order.

For instance Birds did not evolve in to mammals, and our species evolving to man was not the end of the line.  We are not done, and we were not the last species to arise on Earth.
2
Reply
Male 595
And now, miles of comments where grown men and women discuss the idiotic ramblings of a undereducated teenager: 
2
Reply
Male 5,475
thething911 fallacious much?
0
Reply
Male 327
I spent years in high school + university learning the basics that he and you are missing, and I won't teach you in a single comment post. Educate yourself. Even wikipedia is a good start.

1- this is not an assumption. Even the bible says that at a point there was no life, then there was life.

2- There is actually two distinct seeds of life (bacteria and archaea). False claim, next.

3- There is evidence to support that claim, a lot and from different fields of science, as illustrated by a video posted here a few days back. Mr X threatens to kill Mr Y publicly one day. A few hours later, we hear arguments in an ally between X and Y and when we rush, we find Y dead with multiple stab wounds. X is here to, with his favorite knife that perfectly matches Y's wounds. X and the knife are covered with Y's blood. X has scratch marks on his face, that matches Y's fingers. X's skin cells are found under Y's nails. No I assume you would tell me that since we have no eye witness, X is innocent?

4- Actually, this is even witnessed. "Missing links" can be found today (like Volvox colonies)

5- this actually is 3.
6- this actually is 3.
7- this actually is 3.

2
Reply
Male 1,739
Evolution is impossible but an invisible man who is also his son created the entire universe in 6 days. That the entirety of the human race began with just a single couple...twice...that he (the man/son) gave us free will and then punishes us for using that free will...sacrificed his son/himself to save us from the sin that he/man/son created. 
And he/man/son loves us but if we don't love him/man/son back, we'll burn for eternity.
All of that is not only possible but, to many people, it's a reality.  And their proof is a single book written by goat herders centuries ago when they had no idea where the sun went at night and most likely freaked out during an eclipse.

I really could go on and on but it's too fucking ridiculous. 
4
Reply
Male 12
oobaka hahahahaha. That was beautifully put.
2
Reply
Male 7,942
0
Reply
Male 4,153
Are we still evolving? Do we all evolve at the same rate? 
0
Reply
Male 18
Here's my two cents: No matter what you believe, we won't really know the answers 100%.  I'm a believer in the current theory of evolution, but there are still grey areas like how organic matter came from inorganic matter, how everything in existence came from a single point of singularity all the sudden, etc.

We have reasons to be skeptical about these seemingly supernatural phenomena that aren't yet explained by modern science.  Could it have been a supernatural being, maybe?  Could it have been "scientific phenomena that I'm not an expert in?" Sure.  Could it be a giant spaghetti monster that shaved off a leg that turned into our universe?  Not probable but possible.

Until we have more definitive evidence, this debate will go on forever when you could have been spending your time watching Patton Oswalt making fun of it. :)

https://youtu.be/9YLzlIsrU4o


1
Reply
Male 20,917
Awyoung I've always agreed with your first statement -- we don't know 100%. People with degrees and decades worth of studying the topic act and talk like they're sure they know how evolution played out, but when it comes down to it, no one knows and it's all theory.
-1
Reply
Male 318
fancylad Most people think the wrong thing when they use the word theory. Unfortunately in general use theory has come to mean guess. A scientific theory is not a guess, a hypothesis would be closer to how most people use theory. https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
0
Reply
Male 3,410
we should all feel good we gave monk something to endlessly drone on about for the next 3 days.
4
Reply
Male 3,410
saw the person who posted this, saw the headline. yeah Derp Vortex warning.
2
Reply
Male 6,158
What took you humans so long to evolve into  intelligent (by human standards) land dwelling creatures? We did it in only 30 thousand of Terran years, It took us only 30,000 Sol Gamma years to go from fish like beings to us. It took you Ape decedents hundreds of thousands of years to reach your current state. 

it's called Selective breeding :-)
2
Reply
Male 3,492
What could ACTUALLY serve to prove evolution to creationists beyond a reasonable doubt?

Is there some ONE thing that you could ever be shown?  What would would it be?  Is it simply impossible to ever convince you?  What would constitute proof in your eyes?  

I honestly have no idea.
2
Reply
Male 941
daegog That's actually a really good question; one worth thinking about.  It's a really hard question to answer...

See, I don't object to evolution for strictly religious reasons.  I honestly just don't see evolution as fact because I don't see anything definitive in the evidence.  I admit that there are scientific facts that can be interpreted to support evolution, but I also think that the same facts can be explained by other views as well.  People with different world views will interpret those facts according to that world view, which makes it belief on both sides, in my opinion.  But that's not really answering your question...

I suppose that what it would take there being absolutely no other explanation for an observable fact.  There seems to me to be too many gaps in the evolutionary chain, such as in the video in the other evolution post that talked about the different stages of the nostrils on the whales.  I'm just going by memory here, but it talked about the one animal having the nostrils at the front of the head, then another midway, and a third all the way back as the blowhole.  To me it is an assumption that these are evolutionary descendants.  I get that the evolutionary model makes room for evolutionary leaps--sudden drastic changes--but I think for me to begin to accept it we would have to see far, far more of the stages inbetween.  There are just too many gaps.

I don't mind offering more than this if you want to discuss that further, but I'd also like to turn that question around... what would it take for you to reject evolution as truth?
-1
Reply
Male 341
cjeffblanchr So it sounds like quantity of evidence rather than quality of evidence is the issue here. Fair point. 

What about looking from different perspective: focus on utility rather than truth. Would you agree that theory of evolution is USEFUL to understanding animal kingdom, even if it turns out to be false (like aether)? 
My main problem with Creationism is that it seems pointless in terms of utility. It basically substitutes gaps that evolution fails to fill with "God did it." How has Creationism advanced our understanding of the book of nature? 
0
Reply
Male 941
boredhuman I don't think I would say that evolution is useful to understanding the animal kingdom... I mean, we could easily classify animals in the same way we do (or an any other way) without evolution really playing a part.  They can be classified based on shared characteristics, genetic code, etc.  and that is very useful.  Now, if it is evolution that has given us this classification system, then sure, it was useful for that; but we could have come to a system without it.

As to your objection with Creationism, I think you're looking at it wrong--by wrong I mean differently that I look at it.  I totally understand the point often made about the god of the gaps, and I of course have to admit that historically (and even in the present) it is a reasonable claim.  But that doesn't mean that there is no God.  It's hard to answer your last question though, because I'm not sure how you're meaning "creationism".  If we're talking about Intelligen Design, then I think we can discuss it as differing interpretations of scientific data--in other words, we can talk about them on equal ground.  But if you are just generally talking about Christianity, then they don't compare.  The book of nature is the physical world around us, while religion deals with the spiritual world.  Two different books for two different reasons.

0
Reply
Male 341
cjeffblanchr Here's a response to: "The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application."
"Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. ... Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it. This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research."

There is a list of practical applications and it concludes with:

"Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application."

That is my concern. By Creationism I meant Creation Science and Intelligent Design, not Christianity in general. Their main utility seems to be bridging the gap between scripture and our current understanding of the book of nature. I agree that a different interpretation of scientific data could hold value, and eventually might even lead to applications.

What are your thoughts on the value of other religions bridging the gap with science? For example Hindu views on evolution or Buddhism and Science
0
Reply
Male 941
boredhuman That's kind of difficult to answer because I'm not Hindu or Buddhist.  As such, I think Christianity covers it all well enough.  I think there's value and some truth to be found in all religions, but as a Christian I don't think there is any reason really to delve into Hinduism or Buddhism.  The book of nature and the book of God cover it all pretty well.  But of course that's the answer one would expect from a Christian, right?

Admittedly, Creation Science does attempt to create a bridge between these two book.  I think there is great value and application for studying Intelligent Design, because it does offer alternative explanations for the data uncovered in science.  But it is too often dismissed, not because of its merit, but because of its link to religion.  It is true enough that Creation Scientists probably do the same thing, though, rejecting the typical anti-theist claims  because it conflicts with their beliefs.  It works both ways.  Everyone has an agenda, or rather preconceptions when the look at the data.  It's just like politics--everyone fights to prove their points and to make themselves right instead of being open enough to view all possibilities.  
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Religious people:

I hate to break it to you but if the baseline for something being true is that it must be "duplicated or observed in the laboratory" or "found in field studies" then I can't think of a single thing in the bible that is true.

I don't understand how you can have such a vastly different evidence threshold for your acceptance of certain things.

You won't believe in evolution if you can't recreate spontaneous life in a lab?

However, you will believe that a man was able to slay an entire army using only the jaw bone of a donkey as long as his hair remained long based solely off a mistranslated book of millenium old folk tales passed down verbally over a dozen generations?

Does that not seem inconsistent?

monkwarrior , you won't believe we went to the moon unless we physically send you to the moon to see the remnants of the mission. Videos? Photos? Thousands of eye witness accounts? The testimony of the still living people who actually went there? Nope. Yet you believe the bible because why? What "evidence" do you require there?
4
Reply
Male 406
holygod Even then they will tell you that the moon landing was faked on the moon, but it's important to not remain quiet while letting them teach everybody else about BS.

PS: Since it's impossible to prove, believing there MUST NOT be a creator is as much religion as believing there MUST be one.
0
Reply
Male 941
holygod You seem to be forgetting that religion relies on faith, not proof.  I've always admitted that my faith is a belief.  
0
Reply
Male 3,410
cjeffblanchr same kinda thoughts that make islamic terrorist blow themselves up. to them its a pathway to heaven. are they wrong cjeff?
0
Reply
Male 941
rumham I believe they are wrong, yes.  Christianity is set apart from Islam in that it does not teach killing and hatred.  It has been used to justify such things, yes, but that is not justified in scripture according to any reasonable interpretation.  There is no correlation between Islamic terrorism and the faith of Christianity.
0
Reply
Male 406
rumham You can also have faith that due to the lack of a god, your existence is insignificant enough to be allowed to do whatever you please. Been there seen that.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr The difference is that you readily admit that your faith is just that; faith. The Idiot Monk claims that his "faith" is based on incontrovertible PROOF, yet, he is unable to provide this proof.
0
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat I have not seen monk say that his faith is incontrovertible proof.  I don't see everything, of course, but I have seen him frequently say that his beliefs are just that--beliefs.  He's talked about faith plenty.  
0
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr I've been involved in many more arguments with him than you. Trust me, he claims all kinds of absolute proof of God's existence. He hasn't, to my knowledge, claimed that his faith is proof, just that his faith is based on proof, which he is yet to provide.
0
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat Just guessing, since I haven't specifically seen that, but he probably means proof to him, on a personal level.  As I said somewhere else in one of these threads, for a spiritual person, personal experience is enough to convict them.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr If he means proof to him, on a personal level, then why does he continuously spout off about how there is "irrefutable proof", instead of how, "this is proof to me"? His claim is that there is absolute proof, and anyone who doesn't believe it is a deluded idiot. Yet, he is unable to provide this absolute proof. Instead, all he does is refer to a book, written by man, and translated a few times over. I've read several books that offer "proof" of a religion. Try The Sillmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien. It goes into as much detail as the Christian Bible does about the "religion" of Middle Earth, complete with a creation story that makes just as much sense as, and is as believable as, the one in the Bible. Now, I'm not trying to say that the story set forth in The Sillamarillion is true; its just an example of how a book is not proof of anything. Strangely, The Idiot Monk refuses to even debate this point, which makes him a total failure as a supposed "Christian", as it is supposed to be his "job" to try to convert poor, lost souls like me back into the fold. Yet, he won't even try. In case you didn't already know, I'm an Atheist. Yet, I like to debate religion, as it is interesting to know other people's take on the matter. Personally, I find it quite amusing that religious nutjobs like The Idiot Monk leave no room for the possibility that the Theory of Evolution is correct, due to the fact that this could be how God chose to "create" various creatures. The Bible clearly states that there is a HUGE discrepancy in the way we humans figure time, and the way that God does, leaving thousands of years for the Christian "creation story" to have taken place. Who's to say that God didn't evolve "monkeys" to make man? Unless there is some proof to the contrary, it makes just as much sense as any other theory.
0
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat I used to consider the possibility that God simply used evolution as the means of creation.  Then I started seeing all of the assumptions and gaps in evolution and realized that, IMO, there's just not enough solid evidence for me to think that.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr While ignoring all the assumptions and gaps in the creation story in the Bible?
0
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat What gaps are you referring to?
0
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr "God created the Heavens and the Earth, and all manner of beasts to populate the Earth." That kind of leaves out a few (million) steps, doesn't it?
0
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat Only if you're viewing it through the eyes of evolution.  Otherwise it's a pretty short statement that covers everything.  It's an account to tell what happened, not every detail of how it happened.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr And yet, you want every single detail for the theory of evolution. Why do we need every detail of one, but can skip over parts of the other?
0
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat Well, this was a post about evolution.  But we only need every detail of evolution if we're going to accept it as fact rather than as a belief.  If you're willing to accept that evolution is a belief or an assumption, or a single interpretation of the scientific data, then we can consider religious faith and evolution equally--simply as two different ways of interpreting the facts around us.  

However, if you and others are going to continue claiming that evolution is a fact, then asking for all of the details is entirely warranted in a discussion.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr As I've already had to explain to The Idiot Monk, we are talking about the THEORY of evolution here. THEORY, as in "an unproven idea". You and The Idiot Monk are the ones trying to claim that the existence of God is an absolute FACT.
0
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat Well, at least you have you're definition of the word "Theory" right.  Most of your kind often tries to claim the word means something different in science, and that evolution is proven.  Still, you're starting to lose your credibility, as nowhere did I claim that God is anything but a belief.  Making things up because you have ran out of defenses doesn't make any else look like an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
cjeffblanchr I'm sorry, you are correct. You haven't spoken about God as anything other than "faith". I was a bit hasty in typing that last statement that you replied to. The Idiot Monk is the only one trying to claim that God is an absolute, proven FACT. Apologies, and thanks for pointing out my error!
0
Reply
Male 941
whosaidwhat Not a problem.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
cjeffblanchr He talks about god's existence as absolute irrefutable fact.
-1
Reply
Male 9,769
cjeffblanchr Yes you do say that. You are much less militant in your beliefs than others. The concept is just so foreign to me. I don't understand how anyone can let faith override their common sense or need for evidence.
-1
Reply
Male 941
holygod I've seen you say that before--that the concept is so foreign to you...  I am guessing you were raised by atheist parents and just never had the religious influence around you.  Am I assuming correctly?


For me, it runs much more deeply than letting faith override common sense.  In fact, I don't think that's what happens at all, speaking from my own experience.  It's actually kind of the opposite.  People sometimes have experiences that cannot be explained by anything in the normal world or by anything science can describe.  Religious experiences do happen, and I think it's hard to dismiss them all simply as hallucinations, because many of them go beyond anything the mind should be able to do.  I have personally had enough of them that it would defy common sense for me to just pretend they didn't happen and not to ascribe them to a power greater than myself.  At the times in my life where I was furthest away from God, living a more worldly life, and not studying the Bible, these experiences were non-existent.  When I was closest to God, they have happened.

See, these experiences ARE the evidence, and when the coincide with deep spiritiual lessons learned in religious writings, it serves as proof enough--on a personal level--to believe.  This is not an experience that can be shared with anyone else, and this is why I don't claim it as fact.  
0
Reply
Male 406
cjeffblanchr Same here, and knowing a scientific explanation doesn't change a thing. It's how we are wired: If that ape, when in doubt, did not see a tiger in a bush, it wasn't our ancestor. OTOH, if you believe that an angry mountain god (thunderstorm) sends a flood, you'll flee from the village and survive.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
cjeffblanchr My parents were non practicing Christians who believed in a higher power. They have gotten closer to agnosticism over time.

It isn't as if I'm trying to dissuade your faith, nor do I think I could. I respect the way in which you handle your beliefs so I don't mean this, or anything else I say to be offensive.

You say you only had these experiences when you were thinking about and studying and attempting to be closer to god. Have you ever considered that these are merely the result of 1 of 2 tricks that your mind has played on you to give you what you want? 1. They were hallucinations or 2. They are false memories that you never actually experienced.

The human mind is capable of a great many things. If we think we are sick we can cause our immune system to ramp up and cause physical manifestations of sickness. People who go through traumatic experiences are able to wipe the memory away or replace it with an alternative that they believe to be the truth. Who knows what our minds are capable of? Maybe your subconscious knows your conscious wants to feel closer to go so it manifests it?


0
Reply
Male 941
holygod I have considered the possibility that it is my own mind playing tricks.  While some experiences have been physical manifestations that might  be explained by the capabilities of the mind, there are others that most might call coincidence, things that occur outside of self.  But at some point, with many re-occurrences, it becomes less likely that it is just mere chance. I realize that it's in our nature to see things where we want or need to see them.  None of this stands a proof of course, but when combined with what I regard as spiritual truths, reinforces my belief that it is not simply mind tricks.  I could absolutely be wrong, of course, but I think if I am wrong, then I'm probably clinically insane.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
cjeffblanchr If you don't mind my asking or if it isn't too personal would you be willing to briefly describe a couple experiences?
0
Reply
Male 941
holygod After sleeping on it, I realized something...  No matter what my experiences were, either or external or internal, one will argue that they are merely products of the mind.  If I tell you of times of deep conviction of certain spiritual matters, you can say that it was made up by the mind.  If I tell you that I somehow knew the right thing to say or do in a situation because of a "voice in my head" you can say that I was experiencing temporary insanity.  If I tell you of a time when a complete and random stranger approached me with comforting words when my mother was dying, and she attributed it God, you can say I hallucinated it all.

The problem is that there is no definitive, scientific proof from matters that are not scientific.  Could you be right, that these experiences were just constructed in my own mind?  Possibly.  But being of sound mind, I don't believe this to be the case.   It all comes back to the same thing--belief.  Faith cannot be understood by science, yet it is a very real experience that more than a few have been a part of.  It can be rejected or explained as mind tricks, perhaps on scientific grounds, but everything in the world is not science.  There's a deeper spiritual level to existence, and I say this not based on faith, but on the countless experiences of many, many people.
0
Reply
Male 941
holygod I don't mind at all,but twice now my laptop has died on me while I was typing the experiences out.  If you don't mind, I'll have to do it tomorrow.  Getting pretty tired.
0
Reply
Male 3,410
cjeffblanchr maybe thats the super being telling you to stfu, and gather your thoughts, and have a rum and coke. and eat more fiber.
0
Reply
Male 941
rumham I'd prefer straight whiskey.  And a bowl of grapenuts sounds pretty good right now.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod As was told to you many times, the evidence of testimony is quite sufficient, the evidence of God's word and His power can be plainly seen by those who seek Him.  Unfortunately people more humble than you have taken the time to study the scripture to find out the truths it holds, and have found many things in scripture that are true.  You say you can't think of a single thing, yet "love one another" is true, showing us all your bias again.

As for the moon, even you admitted there is a small possibility that we didn't go.
-2
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior I'm not talking about god's existence or belief in god. That is not the discussion. Let's say he exists for the sake of this conversation. 

I'm talking about the bible specifically. Let's say the story of Sampson specifically. Why do you believe that? Surely you acquiesce that there is no concrete evidence of it and there is no testimony that it happened.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod I believe it to be a story that can teach of how faith in God can help you succeed over your enemies, but there are much more deeper lessons in it for the more advanced of faith.  Granted, i wasn't there when Sampson was around, yet the lessons his story provides still compliments the rest of scripture that urges people to find God, and be loving and holy as He asks.  Who knows, maybe there is other testimony of it outside of scripture, but we both know that a lot of records have been lost to time for various reasons.
-2
Reply
Male 9,769
monkwarrior Well now you are speaking of it as if it's possible it is merely an allegory, which I have always found to be a reasonable and rational position. I don't deny that the bible, and the stories within, can be a great tool to understand human behavior and teach a way of life. 

I'm not talking about the message. I'm talking about the events themselves. Are you certain that a man existed and he defeated an army using a donkey's jawbone, and he was super strong until his hair was cut? 
1
Reply
Male 1,798
holygod Do you actually expect a coherent response?
0
Reply
Male 9,769
0
Reply
Male 5,475
holygod What i believe about what Sampson did is irrelevent, but i have no reason to not believe he did what was said. Scripture teaches people of faith in God and provides them with the lessons they need to find that, including the life of Sampson, and many others.   When you understand that God's word is in the Holy Bible, and that His word is true, you will be able to see how things are possible, and how the story of Sampson's life teaches valuable true lessons, you're simply trying to make a bee-line to justify your own personal assumption of it being impossible.
1
Reply
Male 7,834
HOLYGOD So, yeah.  No coherent response.  Just more 'the bible says so' mumbo jumbo.

I believe all of the bible is stories to teach lessons, and none of it is to be taken as a word for word historical document.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
cobrakiller such a comment is to be expected from someone who rejects a valid tool without fully understanding it, but being prejudiced against it.
0
Reply
Male 7,834
monkwarrior It doesn't matter how much you call it a "valid tool", that doesn't make it so.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
cobrakiller it doesn't matter how many times you say religion isn't a valid tool, it doesn't make it so.  Even Einstein puts you to shame.
0
Reply
Male 7,834
monkwarrior Though I am assuming you mean this quote "...science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein, 1941)

Which is thrown around a lot. So, here is the full quote "But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941) 

So, as you can see, he wasn't talking about a specific religion you were probably thinking.  The faith he is speaking of is one that keeps them searching for answers.

Einstein stated that the only of Earths religions that could coincide with science was Buddhism.
0
Reply
Male 7,834
monkwarrior "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Yeah, Einstein definitely puts me to shame.  He is much better with his words than I am.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
cobrakiller "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - Einstein.
0
Reply
Male 7,834
monkwarrior Ha, I was right.  Except you forgot to put the ellipses before the start of the quote.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
cobrakiller Actually you don't understand it, as he was saying both are valid tools.  I agree with the quote because i found out the same thing on my own before i even heard his quote.
0
Reply
Male 7,834
monkwarrior "To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason..."

He utterly disagrees with you within this quote.  He isn't speaking about faith and religion in the same way you are.  Einstein commonly spoke against organized religion and belief in an almighty deity.

What he is speaking of in this quote which I didn't think needed to be spelled out for you was the faith in the rationality and science.  For someone who has pulled out a quote of his, you don't seem to know much about Einstein.

0
Reply
Male 5,475
cobrakiller yet his quote: "science without religion is lame, and religion without science" remains true.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Only when you chose to cherry-pick the parts that suit you.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat unfortunately for you both co-exist now, and will continue to do so, since it's only ridiculous people who reject a valid tool emotionally.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Great, we are making progress! You finally admit that you are ridiculous!
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat unfortunately i accept both science and religion as valid tools, do you also accept both as valid tools? If you agree, will you twist your answer and express bias against one you don't like?
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior No, I don't accept both. I find religion to be quite ridiculous. A bunch of anecdotal stories, with absolutely nothing to back them up, spouted off by people like you as fact.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
He will never admit it, but by The Idiot Monk's own logic, the creation story in the Bible is an assumption. After all, there was no one around to see it happen. Good luck explaining that one away, genius.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat well, 'genius', if you weren't so ignorant and emotionally desperate to take a swing at me, you might have realized that i have previously said i don't know, but that have faith God created it.  For th stories of 'the evolution of the eye' and 'the evolution of the whale' which were posted here earlier this week, people are claiming the assumptions as fact, so ultimately it is simply their faith.  They have faith (not fact) that the things written before any human was around was true.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Yes, you have been quite insistent, many times, that your "faith" is "fact".
0
Reply
Male 3,410
whosaidwhat kinda like the holocaust. he wasnt there so hes not sure it happened
1
Reply
Male 5,475
rumham more lies from the scared troll?
0
Reply
Male 1,798
rumham Exactly. Now he's claiming that there aren't fossil records to show examples of evolution. I guess that all of those that we have are actually fakes, made by the Devil to mislead us poor, misguided souls... Then, he want's to go on about "faith". I have very strong faith that he is an idiot, and will continue to have that faith, until he proves me wrong. He's certainly not heading in the correct direction to do that.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat There is no record to show the transitions, simply assumptions.  You have faith it is true, but not fact.  Deal with it.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior As you only have faith that the Christian creation story is true, not fact like you continuously try to claim. Deal with it.
0
Reply
Male 4,153
whosaidwhat I actually had a nun in grade school tell us the Devil put the dinosaur bones in place to fool us, test our faith.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
trimble Exactly my point. BTW, I really like your avatar. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat and your point is flawed.  Emotional, yet flawed.  Enjoy your 'faith' in the 'assumption' that the stories people tell of evolution (that no one witnessed, or can prove mind you), is 'true'.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior And you, on the other hand, are so stupid that you choose to ignore the FACT that we are discussing the THEORY of Evolution. Do you not understand the word THEORY? Obviously not. Perhaps you should go look it up? Also, your point is also flawed. Based strictly on emotion, and flawed. Enjoy your "faith" in the "assumption" that the stories people tell of Biblical events (that no one witnessed, or can prove, mind you), are true. Before you reply, consider carefully. You may want to find someone who actually witnessed these supposed events to back you up.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat yes, people are assuming that the stories told of evolution, which no one witnessed, are fact, when really they have faith in the theory, which is not factual at this point..
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior And this is why it is called a THEORY, a FACT which seems to escape you.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat So you agree it's not a fact.  Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior I never said that it was. Neither has anyone else. You are the one who keeps trying to act like people are claiming that it is. Everyone but you seems to understand what a theory is.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat many people have been saying it's a fact, so your claim is wrong, but it's good you agree that the assumptions and stories of evolution about what happened before anyone witnessed it is a theory taken on faith.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Exactly like the Bible.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat The bible does urge people to have faith in God, in fact that's one of its main lessons, didn't you know that?  At any rate the evidence of testimony it provides has allowed many people to find the truth, and as it has also stated, those who reject it won't, as you show.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Yes, how shocking. I reject a bunch of anecdotal "evidence" as unproven stories. I can state to you that florescent light bulbs don't actually give off light, they suck up darkness (ever notice how the ends of a florescent tube turn darker when they go out? Its because they are full of darkness.....), and you can't prove otherwise. Would you accept that as a fact, just because you can't prove otherwise? Look deep down inside, and perhaps you will finally realize that this is EXACTLY what you are doing with the Bible. I doubt you will, but perhaps. Oh, and before you start trying to pick apart the florescent bulb thing, its a joke.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat Unfortunately, what others believe doesn't bother me as nearly as much as how it apparently bothers you.  This alone, your juvenile desperation, should alert you to how wrong you actually are.  Too bad it doesn't.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Nope, it doesn't bother me a bit what you believe. Whats really telling is that I have enough confidence in my position to actively debate it, while you obviously don't. 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat unforunately for you i have more, which is why you resort to the fallacies and juvenile desperation.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior What do your fallacies and juvenile desperation have to do with me? Again, if you had as much confidence as you claim, you would engage in debate about it, instead of responding like a child, as you repeatedly do.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat projecting again?
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior I don't know, are you?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat i'm not, but it's clear you are.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior So, by trying to get you to actively debate me, I'm "projecting"? How, exactly, does that work? What do you feel me to be "projecting"?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat you had nothing to debate, just echoing your misunderstanding.  That's a dime a dozen these days, and so are the rebuttals.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior You do realize that all of that applies equally to you, right?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat The assumptions of evolution are clear.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Again, what part of THEORY do you not understand?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat exactly, not facts, but faith based assertions.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Exactly, the same way you spout off faith-based assertions, and present them as proven fact.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat unforunately for you there is evidence to back it up, whereas with evolutions and the stories they make, there is nothing.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior I ask you again: WHAT EVIDENCE? A book, written by man thousands of years ago, and re-translated several times over? Circumstantial here-say? You know that things like that can't even be used as evidence in a court of law, right? Are you also aware that they can't be used for a very good reason? There is actually very good evidence for the THEORY (perhaps you should look up that word?) of Evolution. For example, if you wish to disprove it, kindly start with the fact that MAN HIMSELF is still "evolving". Were you aware that, on average, mankind was considerably shorter in past centuries? How do you explain this?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat the evidence you ignore:
  • evidence of testimony
  • corroborated evidence
  • evidence of scripture
  • evidence of lives changed
  • evidence of the positive things our society has based on them

Want to use personal incredulity or cherry picking to ignore it again?  If so, that's your loss, and why you won't become effective at debating in such topics.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Evidence, you say. Lets break this down, shall we?

"Evidence of testimony" I've already been over this. This is called "here-say". "I got this new job, because I prayed about it." This is an opinion, based on emotion. Nothing more. You actually got the job because you had a good resume, and the skills they were looking for

"Corroborated evidence" Well, now, bigfoot, the Yeti, and the Loch Ness Monster must all be real, for there is much "corroborated evidence" to support that. Right?

"Evidence of scripture" Again, we are talking about a book, written by man, which is thousands of years old, and has been altered several times over over the course of centuries. Try getting such evidence admitted into a court of law. I wish you luck.

"Evidence of lives changed" See my response to "evidence of testimony".

"Evidence of the positive things our society has based on them"  What? What does that even mean? Are you trying to imply that our society couldn't survive without religion? I'm sorry, but your statement is not very clear.

What "personal incredulity" am I using? What have I "cherry picked"? You are the one who isn't effective at debating, because you can't see past the nose on your own face. You keep making the same tired old rebuttals, with no actual proof but a questionable book, and here-say "evidence", while totally ignoring the ACTUAL proof that I keep giving you. I ask again: what about the FACT that mankind is STILL evolving? On average, man has gained almost a foot of height over the last few centuries. Women's breast sizes have, on average, been steadily increasing over the last few centuries. How do you explain these things, if not "evolution"? Why is evolution so impossible? Is it not possible that God used evolution to create man, as well as other animals? After all, the Bible only says that God "created" them; it doesn't say anything about "how".
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat You've cherry picked by calling evidence of testimony hearsay, and your personal incredulity was used to back it up.  I understand it's valid to you, but unfortunately in the grand scheme of things, it's not very intelligent.

As for the 'fact' you claim of evolution in humans, it's still your faith, and could be easily explained by selective breeding.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Its not "cherry picking"; "evidence of testimony" IS here-say. Again, "I got that job, because I prayed real hard about it" is NOT PROVABLE, therefore, here-say.

As to selective breeding, exactly what do you think "evolution" is, you moron?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat yes, not provable to you with your mindset, yet provable to people who can follow the procedures outlined in scripture, that testimony points to.  If you can line up your mindset with what it teaches, to seek the empirical evidence of God, im sure you might take a different stance.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Ah, you have enlightened me, and I finally understand. All I have to do is drink the Kool-Aid, and all will be revealed to me! Its going to be really hilarious if someone finds proof that the Bible was written all those years ago as a work of pure fiction, for the sole purpose of entertainment!
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat and so your appeal to ignorance and ridicule will ensure you never find out the truth.  Thank you for your fine examples.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior And you still haven't addressed my point about how you have absolutely no clue how evolution actually works (in theory, of course). Now who's ignorant, and can't find the truth?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat I do understand it, i've heard many of the stories.  They're still just that, stories taken on faith, with no evidence (not even a fraction of evidence than there is for God) to back it up.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior You keep telling yourself that. Maybe, just maybe, you'll grow up one day, and realize the truth. I used to believe in God, until I started to look around, and think for myself, and start asking questions. Questions that no one can give a satisfactory answer to. Questions that I have asked you, that you were unwilling to even attempt to answer. Lying to others is bad, but lying to yourself is just plain out dumb. I'll leave you with one final thought, before resuming ignoring your stupidity.

Christians hold Jesus up as "the only perfect man", and claim that he never sinned. Lets examine this, shall we? First, we have to establish what "faith" Jesus was. Simply put, he was a Jew. There was no such thing as "Christianity" yet at that time. There were two "conditions" to be in: Jewish, or not a worshiper of God. So, either Jesus was a Jew, or he didn't worship his own Father. Second, consider the fact that, in Jesus's time, it was considered a sin for a man to not be married before his mid twenties. Does the Bible mention Jesus being married? Does it mention a wife? Does it mention a wedding? No, it does not. In fact, the woman that many scholars consider most likely to have been the wife of Jesus is named as a whore in the Bible. So, with that in mind, according to the Bible, Jesus was NOT married. Now, you have a serious question to ask yourself. Was Jesus the only perfect man, and never committed a sin, and the Bible lies about Him not being married, or was Jesus never married, and thus a sinner? Either way, you lose. Either your "perfect man" never existed and Jesus sinned, or the Bible lied to you. Which is it?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat yep, keep telling yourself that, it's why you'll continue to fail at debates on the topic (as previously noted).
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior I've failed? And yet, you're the one who refuses to even attempt to defend your position. That kind of makes you the failure, when you refuse to defend your beliefs with anything more than hear-say and circumstantial evidence. I have given you evidence and examples numerous times before, while you continue to spout off a lot of repeats of the same unprovable garbage, with absolutely nothing to back you up. The fact that you think this situation makes ME a failure is truly hilarious. You just keep drinking your Kool-Aid, and repeating the lies to yourself until you believe them.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat I'm sorry, if you want to  ignore:
  • evidence of testimony
  • corroborated evidence
  • evidence of scripture
  • evidence of lives changed
  • evidence of the positive things our society has based on them
That's really just you putting yourself at a wilful disadvantage.  Throwing a tantrum about it won't help you.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior <sigh> Why do I bother? Here you go again, doing EXACTLY what I was just talking about you doing. Way to acknowledge that I am right, you idiot. Don't bother replying again, I am done with you, and won't even read it.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat Sure, it still doesn't resolve the fact that you cherry pick against evidence due to your own personal incredulity, and that is why you will continue to fail in such debates.  You've closed yourself off to a wealth of information you judged, pettily, to be unworthy.  Even though most of our history is based heavily on testimony, corroborated evidence, evidence written in books, evidence of lives changed for the better, etc.
0
Reply
Male 341
whosaidwhat You have no chance. Give it up!
Your fallacious reasoning is clouded with anger. You're burning up and about to crash!

monkwarrior (link): "i absolutely love it when people criticise and hate on me, it's like people willingly give me their energy to stand above them.. weird, but true.  They expend energy for me to take, and i can use it effectively to become better.  Always baffles me why people do that with their energy, i'd never give it away so foolishly." 
0
Reply
Male 1,798
boredhuman Please, tell me that you are joking, and don't support The Idiot Monk. I thought you were more intelligent than that. Was I wrong?
0
Reply
Male 341
whosaidwhat It looks like you're trying to reason with monkwarrior / trying to convince him of evolution. I'm completely serious that it's a hopeless endeavor.
I hope the recent quote gives you a little insight into how monkwarrior views these arguments.
The joke is: it doesn't matter how sound your reasoning is - no matter what, monkwarrior will view your reasoning as fallacious, because he is not constrained by objective reality like you are. 
0
Reply
Male 1,798
boredhuman Ah, sorry, I missed the sarcasm. I thought for a moment that you were trying to back that idiot up. Also, you are absolutely correct about how he operates. I don't know why I bother arguing with the troll, whos too stupid to even realize that he is a troll.
0
Reply
Male 341
whosaidwhat Alas, monks and cats do need to be argued with for the sake of the silent IAB viewer. I really do think cats and monk add valuable diversity to discourse and a good opportunity to expose bad reasoning. 
And I'll be more careful with sarcasm ... that 9/11 conspiracy theory parody failed miserably ;)
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat Since no one here today was there for creation, it is taken on faith.  In the same vein those assuming things about evolution that happened long before humankind was around are taking it on faith.  There is no evidence for this, no one has seen the transitions, in fact there isn't even a fossil record that shows this.  Many stories are made up to 'fill-in-the-gaps' of the stories of evolution that no one saw or witnessed.  However with scripture we have the evidence of testimony that has led many people to find God.  In fact, people are finding God today, just as they were yesterday, and more will do so tomorrow.  
-5
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior Scripture was written by Man.  Most of it several generations later than the actions that took place.  This is not evidence.  Additionally, finding God is not the same as knowing what took place before recorded history.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko Evidence of testimony and scripture has been found to be true in every generation since its inception.  Think of it, if it wasn't true it surely would have faded away after such a long time, like many others did.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Where's your proof? Proof that this supposed "evidence" is factual, that is. There is none. It is strictly a matter of faith.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat the evidence of lives changed by God, the evidence of testimony, the evidence of scripture, the evidence of the positive changes scripture has inspired, such as hospitals, schools, and governments.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior None of this is "evidence". It is all anecdotal, at best, and mostly based on opinion. "I got that job, because we all prayed real hard about it." We prayed for a hospital, and one got built just 5 miles away!" "I accepted the Lord into my life, and those headaches went away like magic!" Yes, you are right, these are all perfect examples of "evidence". As to the scriptures, as we have already been over several times, they are from a book, written by man, and translated a few times over. Rather poor evidence, as we have no idea if they are even true to the original any more.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior  "Evidence of testimony and scripture has been found to be true in every generation since its inception "  We have vastly different concepts of "evidence" and "true".

"Think of it, if it wasn't true it surely would have faded away after such a long time, "

And there are religions far older than Christianity that are still practiced.  Does duration of a belief system confirm truth?  Of course not.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko yes, you cherry pick against testimonial evidence.  And also denying the fact that the majority of this world believes in God, which is a statistic that is unwise to ignore.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior 
I cherry pick against testimonial evidence?  People saying they've met/seen/walked with/talked with/had beers with God is not evidence.  IS NOT EVIDENCE - IT IS BELIEF.

The vast majority of the population of the world knows the world to be round, not flat.  No one makes the argument that because it is believed by the majority it is therefore true.  Experimentation, testing, critical review, and more testing provides the irrefutable evidence that this damned planet isn't flat.  And yet, and yet, folks insist that the science is flawed because they believe differently.

As for belief in God:

Who's God?  Your God?  You write as if there is only your God. Is your God the same as Islam's God?  Is it the same as Judaism's God?  Or are you talking about belief in a Creator, which may or may not be the same as your God ?

India and China alone represent more than 2/7 of the world's population.  And those populations are mostly not monotheistic Abrahamaic Religions.  Most Aboriginal religions are not monotheistic. Throw in all the other religions on this planet, the atheists, the agnostics, are you sure that more than 50% of the people on this planet believe in the same God that you do?

0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko Sorry, you're talking from a position of ignorance so don't know what you're talking of in the slightest.  The evidence of testimony has led billions to see the empirical evidence of God.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
punko The real kicker is the fact that all religions profess to be the "One True Religion", and claim that you will go to that religion's particular version of "hell" if you don't believe in that particular religion. So, anyone who doesn't believe in ALL religions (and who does?) is going to hell anyway, so what's the point?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat actually, the real kicker is that you think you know of religions when you're talking from a position of ignorance.  You do this a lot, as you have over the last few days on other matters.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Really? So, tell me, which religion has a different viewpoint than the one I stated above?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
whosaidwhat it's your story, you tell us.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior No, you are the one who said that I was wrong. Now its your job to prove it.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko There is only one God, the one who created all things.  You'll have to get to know that yourself. and yes, most people believe in God. 
0
Reply
Male 860
thanks for playing.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko no problem, but you had no chance from the onset, as stats show.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior I don't understand your crowing.  Many people share a belief similar to yours.  You have assumed because they are similar they are the same.

In terms of government statistics, I believe you and I would be listed as having the same religion.  I think that pretty sums up the value of religious statistics.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko more than 1/2 the world believes in God
0
Reply
Male 941
These posts are hilarious!  Most of you have resorted to mockery rather than any kind of rebuttal.  You guys can do better than that.

I'm going to paste a part of a conversation between me and mrteatime (hope it's okay to do that), because it relates to assumptions in evolution.  It was in the post about Jason Lisle if you want to find it to read it all.

mrteatime 4 hours ago
cjeffblanchr I find that your comment regarding assumption hindering science is a little short sighted. Take evolution for example, we have vast amounts of data and physical evidence to support the theory of evolution. However with the timescales involved its inevitable that there will be gaps to fill in, assumption helps to fill in the gaps to create a working theory. Assumption is integral to scientific investigation and to life in general. I would also argue that assumption is pretty important to religion too.     

cjeffblanchr 16 minutes ago
mrteatime If we can equate assumption with faith then I would agree with your last statement.  And really I think we can.  They are more or less synonyms.  Which means that by your own admission, establishing working theories requires faith.

But I think you are talking about two different kinds of assumptions.  What started our conversation my my comment about assumptions hindering science.  As I explained, that comment was in regard to science assuming there is no God, no supernatural, no reason to believe that there is anything beyond what science can show us.  This isn't--at least so far as I can see--short sighted, for the reason I give in the next paragraph.

There are also assumptions that science makes in order to fill the gaps, as you said.  These aren't the same assumptions, and they are of course a necessary part of the scientific process.  You can't fully test a hypothesis unless you are making an assumptive claim.  There's nothing wrong with these assumptions, so long as they are not then claimed to be absolute proof of something, such as evolution.  For example, if we look at the DNA of say whales and hippos and see characteristics or segments that are identical, it is an assumption that this means they are evolved from a common ancestor.  I realize that is over-simplifying it, but essentially that is what happens.  This is where I have a problem--because this is just making the evidence fit a world view.  There are other possibilities for this evidence that don't include evolution.



-2
Reply
Male 4,950

General question to IAB'ers and a heads-up to fancylad and sunny:

Is anyone having issues retrieving data on here, such as your list of read notifications, or lists of other users' comments? I have and that's a bit troubling. Last month, one post's comments became inaccessible shortly after they passed 500.

This suggests something may be off with the new design vis-à-vis large numbers of records. By no means should 500 comments slow down the system, let alone break it. It could be a problem with the queries or it could be some issue with code that's executing on the page prior to the fetch of data. Tonight I'm noticing more issues with data not being retrieved.

Bottom line: This needs to be investigated ASAP since whatever's going on could grow worse as the tables get larger. Better to figure out the issue now, while the site's up, than wait until we're dead in the water.
0
Reply
Male 39,955
There's no evidence that we are related to other species?  Was this filmed before dna tests were invented? We're related to mice 90%, bananas 50% and chickens a surprising 65%. Not many human/bird relationships
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 so the assumption goes.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
0
Reply
Male 860
Well, there aren't 7 separate assumptions listed.  Several of the assumptions stated were more specific versions of a more general case.

  • 1st assumption was that non-living materials gave rise to living things

Umm, where else did they come from?  At some point we went from zero living things to multiple living things.  How exactly - well there are several theories, including panspermia (deposition of single-celled life on earth from another planet).  No one believes the "how" is settled 100%, but going from zero to zebras in one instant isn't science.

  • Relation of living things (at least a couple of assumptions stated this): All living things, from bacteria and viruses to mammals and plants are all related. 

I guess DNA being a common thread and being constructed of cells, etc, etc,  as talked about elsewhere.  There is a crap ton of evidence supporting this.  I'm not sure what level of "proof" would satisfy.  Certainly, the relationship question goes hand in hand with the evolution of species.

  • Evolution of life from simple to more complex life forms (stated several time, as separate assumptions, but really the same assumption)

Evolution of species - yeah.  I'm entirely good with this as a starting point.  Is it proved 100%?  No.  Is there clear evidence?  Hell, yes.

Overall, this speaker indicates that these assumptions are all made without any evidence. 
There is a great deal of evidence.  Scientific, rigorous work exists.

Are there questions?  Of course.  But there is a huge difference between some things being unsettled (e.g. exact mechanism(s) for various effects known) and this guys claim of "no evidence". 
3
Reply
Male 5,475
punko yep, use assumptions to assume assumptions are true.
-3
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior Please list which assumptions I used to assume which assumptions were true ?
1
Reply
Male 5,475
punko pretty much every point you assumed.
No,  every point you assumed.
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior LOL.  Please list one assumption that I made?  Here's a hint:  I didn't make one.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
punko Wrong:
  • 1st assumption was that non-living materials gave rise to living things

Umm, where else did they come from?
^One assumption, bolded

0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior There was no assumption.  I asked the question.  Where else ?  there are two possibilities given in the original question 1) life originated from non-living material 2) life came from other life.

I don't know.  Many folks are investigating if there is a possibility that life could arise from the primordial soup that existed on the early earth.  Others looks for signs of panspermia - that life came from outside the earth.

Evolution does NOT depend on the assumption that life began from non-life.  Evolution is the progression of life from simple to complex. 

As for the origins of life - at one moment there was zero life on earth.  At another point in time later than that, the first living things existed. this is not an assumption - there is no other possibility.  Billions of years passed between zero and zebra.  the oldest fossil record for bacteria are about 3.4 Billion years old (or so), according to the rigorous scientific evidence to date.  Currently, there is no evidence earlier than that.  What happened between the earth forming and those early bacteria is purely conjecture, but a billion years is a very long time.  however, scientists are posing hypotheses and attempting to either prove or disprove those hypotheses.  I hope that one day we find out - wouldn't it be wonderful to find out how life started on earth?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko nice try, but by asking your question you point to support of an assumption that non-living materials gave rise to living things. 
0
Reply
Male 860
monkwarrior Evolution does not depend on the exact origin of life on earth.  That is not an assumption.  evolution is the process of change.

It is a false claim in this video that evolution depends on this assumption. It does not.

Evolution works just fine, if life on earth was kicked off by the deposition of living cells from space.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
punko yes, you are right that evolution doesn't talk of the origin of life, but many use it to assume it does, as you did in the point noted. "how else could it be?"
0
Reply
Male 1,082
I'm not sure which IAB members these are but I'm sure these two post on this website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25r0d1MHQk
0
Reply
Male 1,082
This is taken from the Glen Rose Creationist Museum in Texas.  They have displays of dinosaurs and humans walking together.  I think they may even have one of a human riding a dinosaur -- but I could be wrong.

2
Reply
Male 39,955
lockner01 Dinosaurs died out because they didn't make it onto Noah's boat in time and drowned.  I learned that at our local Creation Museum. .... I laughed out loud
1
Reply
Male 5,027
Gerry1of1 That was a fun day.
0
Reply
Male 4,950
markust123 Markust, please send me an email at squrlz4ever(at)gmail.com. Once you've gotten my addy here, repond with an "OK" to this comment and I'll self-delete this. Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
Gerry1of1 Could you not put [Spoiler Alert] in front of you're post -- for Christ sake.
2
Reply
Male 3,410
lockner01 lol zing
0
Reply
Male 3,492
Gerry1of1 I was told they brought on BABY dinosaurs so they would all fit.
0
Reply
Male 3,492
So i watched this video and it felt like a very common "talking points" video.  These videos talk about EXTREMELY COMPLEX systems, things that can take years to learn and fully appreciate, in a very short time.

It seemed to me at least that his lack of understanding of a system or situation equaled that system being wrong or impossible.

 If you have heard a creationist talk about their beliefs before, then you probably will not get much out of this particular video, it's pretty much the same rhetoric.  I just really wish ONE of them would apply the same incredibly strict standard to science to their own actual beliefs, then they would have a shred of integrity.
2
Reply
Male 941
daegog 
What standard is it you wish to see applied to a Christian belief system?  I'll give it a shot.  Just give me some examples.
-1
Reply
Male 1,082
daegog Agreed. Even if there was someone here using basic arguements.

Let me start:

In the world we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.  -- St. Thomas Aquanis.
0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 The last sentence of this quote is admittedly assumptive. 
0
Reply
Male 1,082
cjeffblanchr I would like to ask you ask question -- tell me to screw off if you want to.  Do you believe in a god that in omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient?  I'm guessing from your other post you'll say you don't know but I would like to hear you point of view.

0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 lol, I'm not going to tell you to screw off.  I love these conversations.  

Omnipotent, yes--in the sense that what we are talking about makes sense.  For example, the old question "could God make a rock that was too heavy for him to lift" is kind of a silly question.

Omniscient, probably. I say probably only because I think the whole nature of God is beyond human comprehension.  In regard to this creation, I would say yes.  But--and this is just speculation, not even a beleif--for all I know there are other creations, other things that I can't comprehend.

Omnibenevolent--yes, absolutely.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
cjeffblanchr Jeff:  I'm quoting from a direct translation of STA (St. Thomas Aquanis) We can leave the last sentence out.  

I was starting with his 5 proofs of god.  In a modern translation he ends every proof with this statement.  

These are not my translations -- the are taken from Wiki.  
0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 Okay, so what are you getting at then?  I'm probably just not getting it; asking genuinely.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
cjeffblanchr Just trying to start a discussion:

"In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, given infinite time, this possibility would be realized and nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being."

Maybe with a question -- do we need outside force to change? 
0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 And outside force to change what?  For there to be change within our universe, our existence?  If that's what you mean, then I would say no.  But we need something to have started the ball rolling. 
0
Reply
Male 1,082
cjeffblanchr Sorry Jeff.  I'm just quoting.
0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 To what end?
0
Reply
Male 1,082
cjeffblanchr To the 5 proofs.
0
Reply
Male 941
lockner01 Okay, I'll shut up and let you continue then.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
daegog Yes, they are so full of suspicion and doubt...until it comes to the bible.
1
Reply
Male 941
marsii That statement can easily be turned around.  Evolutionists are so full of suspicion about faith...until it comes to scientism.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
cjeffblanchr You are free to question anything in science and there is at worst an expert that can explain the evidence behind the thing in question. This is the basis of science. The trouble comes when politics are used to question things we've already moved well beyond based on a desired outcome.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
daegog unforunately they were talking about the assumptions in evolution.
-2
Reply
Male 39,955
monkwarrior DNA facts are not 'assumptions'
1
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 Okay Gerry, let's talk about this.  People keep saying "DNA facts" but I've not really gotten a very clear response on what you mean by it.
0
Reply
Male 39,955
cjeffblanchr DNA shows us how closely, or how far, we are from other species.  90% like  a mouse. etc.
-1
Reply
Male 941
Gerry1of1 As in a percentage of DNA that is identical, right?  I'm just going to assume (ha! there's that word!) that's what you mean for me following statement.

I will admit that when there is any amount of identical genetic code such as the 90% like a mouse, it does in fact support the idea of evolution.  With evolution that 10% is enough of a change to demonstrate that that much of the code was transferred from a common ancestor, right?  And chimps, I believe share what is it, 97% of the same as humans?  So the more similarities, the more code is shared.  Makes sense, absolutely, when viewed from an evolutionary standpoint.

But while it does support evolution, does it really prove it?  I would say now, you of course will say yes.

It would be unreasonable of me to hold my opinion if I didn't offer another viewpoint though.  So, here it is...

If I were an intelligent designer and were to create a world such as ours, with all the various species, and I was going to use DNA to do so, I would not make entirely new and different code for each and every species.  Where possible, I would reuse identical pieces of data.  If the functions are the same, why redo it all?  Thus, a certain segment of the programming would be the same in all the creations.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything here; just pointing out how there are different interpretations of the same data.
0
Reply
Male 860
cjeffblanchr An interesting notion. However, you have indicated that a creator would reuse code.  Why?  We reuse code to minimize our efforts, as we have limitations in time & resources.  If a creator could create the universe in an entirely preconceived manner, why would there be any need to minimize efforts?  For that matter, why would a process like DNA be used, when DNA mutates over time? Why should human DNA change over time (as shown in the fossil record)? Why should plants and humans share processes? Why should humans have anything at all in common with other life on earth, when I am told that the creator set Man above all other creatures?

It is the greatest hubris on Earth to believe that the universe was created just for the benefit of mankind.
0
Reply
Male 941
punko This will seem like an overly simple answer, but about why a creator would reuse the same code... why not?  I mean if there are similar or identical functions in that creature, why wouldn't they just, by the nature of the designer, be the same?  Whether plant or animal, why shouldn't the processes be of the same design?  Especially if, as you said, it was done in a preconceived matter--which would mean in a sense that it was done with planning, preparation, and intent.  It's not that efforts would need to be minimized, but rather it was just the causality of how all things were made.

DNA mutating over time is a pretty straightforward one, I think.  I don't question that there are mutations in genetic code, natural selection and microevolution.  The answer is simply adaptability.  By having flexibility in the DNA, continuance of the species are protected from environmental changes.

It's only hubris from a godless, scientific perspective.  From the Christian perspective, all of creation was for God's intent.  Mankind was set up as steward of the world.  It's not arrogance to delight in such an important position.  It would, however, be prideful to think that this position gives us authority to do whatever we want with this creation.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 yet DNA has not proven evolution, despite what people who assummed it does say.
-2
Reply
Male 39,955
monkwarrior Yes, dna has proven evolution. It hasn't answered every question, no one called it a panacea.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 People assume DNA has proven evolution, yet it still hasn't made the assumptions and stories people made up (like that video of the evolution of the eye), any more true, or anything else but an assumption.
-1
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior So the fact that we have Super Bacteria now, because of over use of anti-biotics, doesn't prove any kind of evolution?
0
Reply
Male 6,077
lockner01 Of course not! It just means God got pissed off that we killed His bacteria so he made new, stronger bacteria. *cough*cough* Right?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 It certainly doenst' prove the assumptions people made of what happened long before humankind's earliest recordings.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior How does this even make sense?  So bacteria wasn't around before humans?  broizfam
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 in other words, it doesn't make the assumptions of what people said happened when no one was around to witness it happen, and still has many missing links today, not to mention grasps at straws to make it all work.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Alright so you're an existenialist -- I think I'm starting to get this.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 no. your best bet is to not attempt classification at this point.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior it's not an attempt a classification -- it's an attempt at understanding in my damaged understanding.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 yeah well im not existenialist nor do i identify as one.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I apologize for trying to brand you.  I just thought I was getting closer.

0
Reply
Male 1,511
lockner01 'Troll' is a more accurate classification.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
squidbush most trolls would classify me as such, since i'm a troll-eater, and they can't stand it.
0
Reply
Male 3,492
Props to fancylad for giving the other side their time on the soapbox (even if in this case it's literally just that ONE guy).
 
1
Reply
Male 5,475
Bravo fancylad, i think this is the 1st time the words i posted in a submission actually came through intact, not only that, but the addition of "These are.."  actually improved it!
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Is this what we've been waiting weeks for?

1
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 by 'we've' do you mean 'i've'?  also is this video about 9/11? 
-1
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior You haven't said what the video was going to be about -- you just said that you would post one by 9/11.  And yes I'm sure we're all waiting for the video.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 have patience.
-1
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior So you're like Master Miyagi?
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 You never know!
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I know we'll never know that's what I keep telling you -- you promised 9/11 and you won't deliver.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 i'll submit it soon, it's up to fancylad to let it go through, mind you.  But if it doesn't i'll give you the links directly on 9/11/2017.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
4 simple words folks:

1. Derp
2. Herp
3. Shlerp
4. Berp

Just clear your mind of any analytical thought. Four simple words folks...
3
Reply
Male 3,410
marsii the sherp is strong in this one
0
Reply
Male 5,475
marsii fallacious much?
-1
Reply
Male 3,410
monkwarrior wait you gave up that word your new word is assumptions. its nice to see you using an old classic
1
Reply
Male 5,475
rumham if you say so
0
Reply
Male 3,410
monkwarrior baba booey
1
Reply
Male 5,475
rumham there there cupcake.
0
Reply
Male 39,955
monkwarrior I think you mean 'facetious'. 'Fallacious' means 'wrong' and Herp Derp Shlerp Berp very accurately sums up the video. 
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 no doubt it would to you, you made your reliance on assumptions quite clear over the last few days.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior But you're basing every single argument on the assumption that god is real.

1
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 not at all, the evidence of testimony, the evidence of scripture, the evidence of lives changed by God, the evidence of socitey bettered by God's lessons, and yes personal experience and the empirical evidence i've seen, not to mention heard corroborated by many others presently and through history.  Evidences you want to ignore and declare assumptions.  In other words, much more concrete evidences that can be proven to someone than the assumptions of evolution (7 shown here by this presenter), which no one has witnessed, meaning the story is continually changing, but still no closer to proving the assumptions.
0
Reply
Male 164
monkwarrior 
1. Evidence of testimony- generally considered the worst form of evidence by law enforcement due to a number of factors like cognitive bias, faulty memory, and general differences in perception based on cultural conditioning.  Many of yours will also be examples of the "person who" fallacy, wherein one person heard it from another person who...etc.

2. Evidence of scripture- the Bible is a book of allegories friend.  Only a fool would take it literally.  But that's besides the fact that considering so many different factors about the Bible, like the editing it has received for one.  That alone makes it's authenticity highly suspect.  

3.  Evidence of lives changed by God - you mean changed by belief in God.  Yes, belief has profound affects on people's ability to affect change in their life.  They can invoke aspects of "god" to change themselves, but you're kidding yourself if you think you can prove that and thus directly attribute their change to God.  But such things, imo, are better kept sacred.  Discretion is the better part of valor.

You have a faulty understanding of the word evidence.

Have a good night.
1
Reply
Male 5,475
  1. evidence of testimony in finding the living God is quite effective.  In fact testimonies have been corroborated over thousands of years.
  2. Scripture is a history of faith in God.  Most fools reject it because they can't understand it but billions do understand it and it's the most studied holy texts in the world for a reason: Those who study it find the truths it holds, and that it's lessons are true, and work.
  3. Evidence of lives changed by God, people who have turned away from a life of sin and to God.  You are simply kidding yourself if you think people who testify that God changed their life for the best are lying or not being truthful about their experiences.  In the worst case you are ignoring what people have said due to the fragility of your own world view.

So you see my understanding of testimony is not faulty, it was you who chose to find reasons to ignore it.

Yes, have a good night too.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior So you're saying your assumption is closer to a proof than other peoples' assumptions?
1
Reply
Male 5,475
lockner01 i'm saying the assumptions that are made in evolution regarding the things that happend long before anyone could witness it is just that, assumptions.  And also that what you think is assumption in relation to scirpture is merely your bias against it that you use fallacies to reject.
0
Reply
Male 39,955
monkwarrior You may be right. But you've made your blind-to-fact attitude very clear as well.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 i'm not blind to fact, but highly aware of assumptions masquerading as fact.
0
Reply
Male 39,955
monkwarrior DNA tests are not "assumptions". They are facts you chose to ignore.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
Gerry1of1 Next, The Idiot Monk will be trying to claim that humans haven't been evolving for centuries....
0
Reply
Male 5,475
Gerry1of1 i'm not calling DNA tests assumptions, i've seen how DNA can be used to find criminals.  Good job at misrepresenting my position again to push your own agenda.  Yeah, it's obvious.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
monkwarrior It's spelled fallatio
0
Reply
Male 5,475
marsii nice try, but... wrong.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
monkwarrior Correct. It's spelled "fellatio".
1
Reply
Male 5,475
broizfam nice try, but... wrong.
0
Reply
Male 6,077
monkwarrior I prefer fellatio, thank you. (Getting, not giving, that is)
0
Reply
Male 5,475
broizfam whatever
0
Reply
Male 1,018
monkwarrior If that's an OK Cupid profile, ew, no.
0
Reply
Male 5,475
marsii protip: you can hover your mouse over links and your browser should show you the link.
0
Reply