Does Evolution disprove God's existence?

[Bassnare]

Might i point out though, that an all powerful God could create an earth that has layers in the soil already, or has rocks that read to be 4 billion years old by our carbon dating

I think the arguments that really convinced me to renounce belief in god were the omni paradoxes. Here's a few:
-If god is omnipotent, can he create an object that is two heavy for him to move? Can he square a circle? Can he destroy himself?
-If god is omniscient, do we have free will? Does he have free will?

I choose to make the least number of unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable assumptions and just say "I don't know." Saying "he could have created light already in transit, rocks that appear to be very old, and layers that show a consistent time scale" just requires too many leaps in logic for me to buy, not to mention the fact that there's no basis for this in any religious scripture. It's purely apologetic conjecture in response to scientific evidence.

[TVOham]

So are you saying that God is an "Evil Genius" as Decartes suggests? Because he would have to be a trickster to make things APPEAR one way and have them actually be another way.


You're jumping to quick in saying that everything in the Bible is true. The Bible was written by men. I dare say, if you've ever read it from start to finish you'd realize that there are numerous historical inconsistencies and scientific falsehoods. What else can we expect from a bunch of stone age desert wanderers?

[SnareSauce]

I'm a Protestant, Baptist Christian. I love to drum. I have common ground with everyone here.

I'd say the reason i believe in the God of the Bible over Science, (although i do believe "Science" as humans understand it is normally a dependable resource) is a simple and logical one. to me at least.

Either way, I'm choosing to believe something i read out of a book. every scientist is building a theory of how life works based on testable characteristics of our environment, and figuring out that there's enough coherence and agreement in certain places to assume 100% accuracy. obviously, "Science" is quite flawed, just as "Religion" tends to be. that's why even some of the most basic ideas about how life works have changed over time. (like, "the earth is flat")

The difference is that I know i'm just a random person. and on the whole, people make mistakes frequently and repeatedly. Scientists base their efforts and conjectures knowingly off of their own knowledge, which they understand is limited. at least at some point, the Bible claims to be inspired by a higher entity. Knowing how flawed I am as a human makes me much more comfortable trusting that there's someone smarter than me, (like the God in the Bible) who actually is responsible for the existence of everything, than trusting that my peers (who have the same pervasive human flaws as me, albeit with slightly more training) have finally figured it out THIS time and that the current theory of "whereeverythingcamefrom" is accurate enough to stand on.

Let me summarize this.
"Humans are too flawed for me to believe, so instead I'll believe a book that humans wrote about an entity that is not human and has no evidence whatsoever in support of its existence."

close, but not quite. considering humanity's track record of being wrong about science, i'd rather believe a book written by humans appealing to something not human, than believe a book written by humans appealing to themselves.

and since ULTIMATELY, neither of us nor anyone ever will actually provide unarguable proof for either side, it's all a big game of "what gives you the most security" anyways.

[ottomagne]

I'm a Protestant, Baptist Christian. I love to drum. I have common ground with everyone here.

I'd say the reason i believe in the God of the Bible over Science, (although i do believe "Science" as humans understand it is normally a dependable resource) is a simple and logical one. to me at least.

Either way, I'm choosing to believe something i read out of a book. every scientist is building a theory of how life works based on testable characteristics of our environment, and figuring out that there's enough coherence and agreement in certain places to assume 100% accuracy. obviously, "Science" is quite flawed, just as "Religion" tends to be. that's why even some of the most basic ideas about how life works have changed over time. (like, "the earth is flat")

The difference is that I know i'm just a random person. and on the whole, people make mistakes frequently and repeatedly. Scientists base their efforts and conjectures knowingly off of their own knowledge, which they understand is limited. at least at some point, the Bible claims to be inspired by a higher entity. Knowing how flawed I am as a human makes me much more comfortable trusting that there's someone smarter than me, (like the God in the Bible) who actually is responsible for the existence of everything, than trusting that my peers (who have the same pervasive human flaws as me, albeit with slightly more training) have finally figured it out THIS time and that the current theory of "whereeverythingcamefrom" is accurate enough to stand on.

Let me summarize this.
"Humans are too flawed for me to believe, so instead I'll believe a book that humans wrote about an entity that is not human and has no evidence whatsoever in support of its existence."

close, but not quite. considering humanity's track record of being wrong about science, i'd rather believe a book written by humans appealing to something not human, than believe a book written by humans appealing to themselves.

and since ULTIMATELY, neither of us nor anyone ever will actually provide unarguable proof for either side, it's all a big game of "what gives you the most security" anyways.

I can't even begin to comprehend how you can think this is accurate. Our "track record" with being wrong with science is miniscule at best when compared to our track record of being correct, not to mention our wrong "track record" was mostly inspired by religion.

[TVOham]

I'm a Protestant, Baptist Christian. I love to drum. I have common ground with everyone here.

I'd say the reason i believe in the God of the Bible over Science, (although i do believe "Science" as humans understand it is normally a dependable resource) is a simple and logical one. to me at least.

Either way, I'm choosing to believe something i read out of a book. every scientist is building a theory of how life works based on testable characteristics of our environment, and figuring out that there's enough coherence and agreement in certain places to assume 100% accuracy. obviously, "Science" is quite flawed, just as "Religion" tends to be. that's why even some of the most basic ideas about how life works have changed over time. (like, "the earth is flat")

The difference is that I know i'm just a random person. and on the whole, people make mistakes frequently and repeatedly. Scientists base their efforts and conjectures knowingly off of their own knowledge, which they understand is limited. at least at some point, the Bible claims to be inspired by a higher entity. Knowing how flawed I am as a human makes me much more comfortable trusting that there's someone smarter than me, (like the God in the Bible) who actually is responsible for the existence of everything, than trusting that my peers (who have the same pervasive human flaws as me, albeit with slightly more training) have finally figured it out THIS time and that the current theory of "whereeverythingcamefrom" is accurate enough to stand on.

Let me summarize this.
"Humans are too flawed for me to believe, so instead I'll believe a book that humans wrote about an entity that is not human and has no evidence whatsoever in support of its existence."

close, but not quite. considering humanity's track record of being wrong about science, i'd rather believe a book written by humans appealing to something not human, than believe a book written by humans appealing to themselves.

and since ULTIMATELY, neither of us nor anyone ever will actually provide unarguable proof for either side, it's all a big game of "what gives you the most security" anyways.

We aren't appealing to ourselves. For example, if I'm doing an experiment in the lab I hold no personal stake in the results. I'm just doing it to see what happens and document. That's how science works. You run an experiment or a test, and document the results. Then you run the test again, and then others run the same test and if everyone is getting the same results as you you make a theory. That is how MODERN science works. There is no "track record" of modern science. They didn't have peer-review until the late 1900's. Notice most advancements in mankind were made in the 1900's. You must realize how illogical you sound, especially when you consider that christianity isn't even original in itself. Half of the Bible is plagerism (we had a thread here discussing the origins of the stories in the Bible, I'll let you look it up). I will never understand the "I think religion and science should be equal!" mentality. They are not equal. One is based on blind faith and the other is based on evidence/proof.

It isn't Science vs Religion, so there is no "proof for a side". There's no proof for "science". Science is what we use FOR proof. Religion is used for nothing other than comforting old women and making yourself feel better (as you just admitted). There's a reason that everyone who opposes scientific advancement is also extremely religious. Honestly, I'm a little bit appalled at your line of logic (or lack of).

[SnareSauce]

We aren't appealing to ourselves. For example, if I'm doing an experiment in the lab I hold no personal stake in the results. I'm just doing it to see what happens and document. That's how science works. You run an experiment or a test, and document the results. Then you run the test again, and then others run the same test and if everyone is getting the same results as you you make a theory. That is how MODERN science works. There is no "track record" of modern science. They didn't have peer-review until the late 1900's. Notice most advancements in mankind were made in the 1900's. You must realize how illogical you sound, especially when you consider that christianity isn't even original in itself. Half of the Bible is plagerism (we had a thread here discussing the origins of the stories in the Bible, I'll let you look it up). I will never understand the "I think religion and science should be equal!" mentality. They are not equal. One is based on blind faith and the other is based on evidence/proof.

It isn't Science vs Religion, so there is no "proof for a side". There's no proof for "science". Science is what we use FOR proof. Religion is used for nothing other than comforting old women and making yourself feel better (as you just admitted). There's a reason that everyone who opposes scientific advancement is also extremely religious. Honestly, I'm a little bit appalled at your line of logic (or lack of).

that isn't true though... belief in the bible is only a blind faith if you don't research it. have you actually read the book? the archaeological and chronological accuracy of the bible have been debunked and resubstantiated over and over again, and it has survived the test of time for more than 1000 years longer than any current alternative theories about the origin of the planet.

also, the claim that half of the bible is plagerism is i would say either very exaggerated or very unsubstantiated. if you're willing to throw out half of a book that's been around 500 times longer than i have or you have, doesn't it seem weak to hang your whole argument on the results of a (practically) anonymous discussion board? even if that WAS true, the way it was stated makes it sound completely asinine.

[lesterroyer]

We aren't appealing to ourselves. For example, if I'm doing an experiment in the lab I hold no personal stake in the results. I'm just doing it to see what happens and document. That's how science works. You run an experiment or a test, and document the results. Then you run the test again, and then others run the same test and if everyone is getting the same results as you you make a theory. That is how MODERN science works. There is no "track record" of modern science. They didn't have peer-review until the late 1900's. Notice most advancements in mankind were made in the 1900's. You must realize how illogical you sound, especially when you consider that christianity isn't even original in itself. Half of the Bible is plagerism (we had a thread here discussing the origins of the stories in the Bible, I'll let you look it up). I will never understand the "I think religion and science should be equal!" mentality. They are not equal. One is based on blind faith and the other is based on evidence/proof.

It isn't Science vs Religion, so there is no "proof for a side". There's no proof for "science". Science is what we use FOR proof. Religion is used for nothing other than comforting old women and making yourself feel better (as you just admitted). There's a reason that everyone who opposes scientific advancement is also extremely religious. Honestly, I'm a little bit appalled at your line of logic (or lack of).

that isn't true though... belief in the bible is only a blind faith if you don't research it. have you actually read the book? the archaeological and chronological accuracy of the bible have been debunked and resubstantiated over and over again, and it has survived the test of time for more than 1000 years longer than any current alternative theories about the origin of the planet.

also, the claim that half of the bible is plagerism is i would say either very exaggerated or very unsubstantiated. if you're willing to throw out half of a book that's been around 500 times longer than i have or you have, doesn't it seem weak to hang your whole argument on the results of a (practically) anonymous discussion board? even if that WAS true, the way it was stated makes it sound completely asinine.

Actually... if you google it... you'll see that there are some inconsistencies. It was written by several different people. It's bound to have some inconsistencies. The concept of Christianity theoretically still be true, but saying the bible itself is concrete is not.

[billc36]

He can't do any independent research...they frown on that at Liberty University. You know, the school founded by Jerry Falwell in 1971.

Yep, this kids really going to get his eyes opened soon.

[TVOham]

We aren't appealing to ourselves. For example, if I'm doing an experiment in the lab I hold no personal stake in the results. I'm just doing it to see what happens and document. That's how science works. You run an experiment or a test, and document the results. Then you run the test again, and then others run the same test and if everyone is getting the same results as you you make a theory. That is how MODERN science works. There is no "track record" of modern science. They didn't have peer-review until the late 1900's. Notice most advancements in mankind were made in the 1900's. You must realize how illogical you sound, especially when you consider that christianity isn't even original in itself. Half of the Bible is plagerism (we had a thread here discussing the origins of the stories in the Bible, I'll let you look it up). I will never understand the "I think religion and science should be equal!" mentality. They are not equal. One is based on blind faith and the other is based on evidence/proof.

It isn't Science vs Religion, so there is no "proof for a side". There's no proof for "science". Science is what we use FOR proof. Religion is used for nothing other than comforting old women and making yourself feel better (as you just admitted). There's a reason that everyone who opposes scientific advancement is also extremely religious. Honestly, I'm a little bit appalled at your line of logic (or lack of).

that isn't true though... belief in the bible is only a blind faith if you don't research it. have you actually read the book? the archaeological and chronological accuracy of the bible have been debunked and resubstantiated over and over again, and it has survived the test of time for more than 1000 years longer than any current alternative theories about the origin of the planet.

also, the claim that half of the bible is plagerism is i would say either very exaggerated or very unsubstantiated. if you're willing to throw out half of a book that's been around 500 times longer than i have or you have, doesn't it seem weak to hang your whole argument on the results of a (practically) anonymous discussion board? even if that WAS true, the way it was stated makes it sound completely asinine.

Resubstantiated by whom? Answersingenesis.com??????
Lets get one thing straight here. The Bible is not a "theory" in Science on the origin of the planet. You seemed to throw the Bible in the category of other SCIENTIFIC theories about the origins of the Universe. It isn't in there because it isn't scientific. I HAVE read the Bible. Seriously, Google "historical inaccuracies in the Bible" and you'll see hundreds of things.

The Iliad has been around longer than the Bible. I guess that means I'm going to use it as my new holy text. I honestly cannot understand your line of thinking or how people could possibly be so illogical.

[sxetnrdrmr]

read the book "Misquoting Jesus"...you will find MANY documented instances of where biblical texts have been changed to meet the needs of whichever group was going to exploit it.

AND, the Bible is just another take on, or combinations of most of the pre-biblical times religions stories. Christianity, and Judaism in some ways, has Pagan DNA. By claiming Christianity, you are actually just another Pagan, but with the distortion of Patriarchal Western societal views....

[SnareSauce]

Actually... if you google it... you'll see that there are some inconsistencies. It was written by several different people. It's bound to have some inconsistencies. The concept of Christianity theoretically still be true, but saying the bible itself is concrete is not.

I mean, yes, it was written by different people, which is definitely cause for suspect. but i'm trying to get at specific instances where the bible is claimed to be in error.

if the thread topic is "Does Evolution disprove God's existence?" and your answer is "yes", then why? if the extent of your argument is "google says the bible is wrong", then what was the point in having a forum to discuss it anyways?

like, I'm sure you're a really smart person, so i'm wondering on what factual evidence you're basing your claims off of, that's all. is that so bad?

[SnareSauce]

He can't do any independent research...they frown on that at Liberty University. You know, the school founded by Jerry Falwell in 1971.

Yep, this kids really going to get his eyes opened soon.

how did that help? I mean, if you're a forum moderator, what good did a sarcastic jab at my school really do you? thanks for that.

[SnareSauce]

Resubstantiated by whom? Answersingenesis.com??????
The Iliad has been around longer than the Bible. I guess that means I'm going to use it as my new holy text. I honestly cannot understand your line of thinking or how people could possibly be so illogical.

I mean, you could if you wanted to, i suppose, no one's stopping you. I think that would end up being a pretty vague religion though. there aren't a whole lot of spiritual tenets in the Illiad.

[TVOham]

Resubstantiated by whom? Answersingenesis.com??????
The Iliad has been around longer than the Bible. I guess that means I'm going to use it as my new holy text. I honestly cannot understand your line of thinking or how people could possibly be so illogical.

I mean, you could if you wanted to, i suppose, no one's stopping you. I think that would end up being a pretty vague religion though. there aren't a whole lot of spiritual tenets in the Illiad.

It was simply in refutation to your claim that "The Bible is old and therefore true".


We already decided that evolution doesn't prove that God exists. It does, however, disprove biblical christianity.

What exactly do you want to know? You just suddenly out of the blue started saying you wanted "specific examples" of something. What do you want to know? It seems like you're looking in a mirror right now in saying that "oh you only believe it because Google says so". Just a minute ago you admitted that if science proves something you'll dismiss it if it goes against your age-old, written by sand-wanderers, debunked time and time holy book.

and I didn't notice that you attended Liberty University. He wasn't jabbing at your University more than he was telling the truth. It's no wonder you think the way that you do. You go to a school that teaches young-Earth Creationism instead of science. A school that has dinosaur fossils that they're claiming are "3000 years old".

[billc36]

Snare, according to you and your teachings, how old is the earth?

[TVOham]

Snare, according to you and your teachings, how old is the earth?

Bingo
+1

[billc36]

I wish I could find Ryan's post spelling out all the inconsistencies in the bible to show Snare.

Anyone remember that one?

[ottomagne]

I do Bill

Good times.

[lij2015]

I do Bill

Good times.

Nice!
While it was a long one, it was the most "worth it" post I've ever read.

[ottomagne]

I do Bill

Good times.

Nice!
While it was a long one, it was the most "worth it" post I've ever read.

Ryan was really good for posts like that. He still comes around once in awhile, though he's much more active on the RudimentalDrumming forums than he is here. The butthurt ran him out.

[dallasfan12]

Wait why am I always told evolution is just a theory rather than fact? In science we always call it the theory of evolution, not the 'law' of evolution.

Because you, like most other people don't put any effort into learning the differences in scientific hypothesis, theory and law.

"Theory" as a scientific term doesn't mean what you think it does. An overly simplified version of theory vs. law is that a law is what happens and a theory is how it happens. There are plenty of theories that you probably believe in such as germ theory and the theory of gravity.

Actually, gravity can be both. http://thehappyscientist.com/science-ex ... ory-or-law
That being said, they aren't interchangeable. You cant say "String Law" or "The theory Of conservation of mass".

The science community needs to do something to clear this up :p

Or you could just learn the difference.

Actually the theory of gravity is just why we stay planted on the ground
its a fact we stay planted on the ground

its a theory because its not testable

ACTUALLY you just gave the perfect definition for a law. It tells us something happens and not "why" it happens.

You can't be serious right now
Do you not know what "theory" means? please go back to third grade
also, this is a thread about a religious question

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS RIGHT NOW, SIR. You have misused the term theory on every turn and on top of it are trying (and failing) to correct people. In third grade they teach you theory = guess. Then SOME of us go on past third grade and are taught the accepted definitions in the scientific community and don't seem to have a problem replacing our "third grade learnins'"




Here's that list of inconsistencies.

viewtopic.php?t=9374

[SnareSauce]

I do Bill

Good times.

I guess this is going to end in a rough standoff. that ^^ is pretty much what i was hoping for, specific instances where the bible is accused of contradicting itself.

however, a great many of these (the ones i've read so far) are SIGNIFICANTLY out of context. like, grossly. bad enough that even casual atheists would be sheepish standing behind. however, i have neither the time nor the energy to go through a list dedicating the time to explaining each and every one of them. Someone else did a reasonable job in the post directly below his, and i applaud that person for having stamina that i don't.

i would encourage you [though i know you probably won't, because i probably wouldn't either, *thanks, apathy*] to actually look up some of the passages to read the contradictions for yourselves, if only to strengthen your beliefs. context can open your eyes pretty wide. he even admits himself that most of them cant be taken as directly contrary facts framed next to each other, only problem areas that could or could not be resolved in separate translations and further reading of the context. [read, he isn't claiming any of them as factual contradictions].

On a separate note, you should visit liberty's campus. I'm not personally offended, but i thought the same thing you do about it until i got onto campus. There are sheltered christian kids everywhere, not just liberty. but by no means do they discourage their students from external research; just the opposite, in fact. i don't know where that came from.

[ottomagne]

I do Bill

Good times.

I guess this is going to end in a rough standoff. that ^^ is pretty much what i was hoping for, specific instances where the bible is accused of contradicting itself.

however, a great many of these (the ones i've read so far) are SIGNIFICANTLY out of context. like, grossly. bad enough that even casual atheists would be sheepish standing behind. however, i have neither the time nor the energy to go through a list dedicating the time to explaining each and every one of them. Someone else did a reasonable job in the post directly below his, and i applaud that person for having stamina that i don't.

i would encourage you [though i know you probably won't, because i probably wouldn't either, *thanks, apathy*] to actually look up some of the passages to read the contradictions for yourselves, if only to strengthen your beliefs. context can open your eyes pretty wide. he even admits himself that most of them cant be taken as directly contrary facts framed next to each other, only problem areas that could or could not be resolved in separate translations and further reading of the context. [read, he isn't claiming any of them as factual contradictions].

On a separate note, you should visit liberty's campus. I'm not personally offended, but i thought the same thing you do about it until i got onto campus. There are sheltered christian kids everywhere, not just liberty. but by no means do they discourage their students from external research; just the opposite, in fact. i don't know where that came from.

You should read the entirety of the thread, since we already had multiple arguments about context and its standing as a tired, useless argument that does absolutely nothing to debunk any of the inconsistencies and provides nothing to the overall debate except stand as a cop out for people who don't feel like actually changing their minds on the subject being debated.

[TVOham]

It sounds like he's just dismissing it as "taken out of context" so he won't have to provide a response to the specific examples which HE asked for.

He also ignored literally everything about his "University", probably because you can't defend the indefensible.

[SnareSauce]

It sounds like he's just dismissing it as "taken out of context" so he won't have to provide a response to the specific examples which HE asked for.

He also ignored literally everything about his "University", probably because you can't defend the indefensible.

sounds great. message me if you want to go any further. i'm not interested in a 5 on 1 bash the religious nutjob session. I do have factual evidence on which i base my beliefs, i would like to hear yours, and if you care to learn more about why i believe that, then cool. otherwise, i'm done here.