Why Christianity is so Persistant

Post Reply New Topic

PeterM, I usually do not argue with men in skirts but I will make an exception because I like you so well.
Just because there are similarities between animals or plants doesn't meant that they evolved into or from one another. I could take a walk in the woods and compare blades of grasses and make up an elaborate explanation based on similarities that one type of grass was the original and it came into existance so many hundred billion years ago and then this type of grass evolved...etc.. (ever so slowly, mind you, because it takes millions of years for the nursery magic to happen) Things do not turn into other things. There is a far cry between evolution and adaptation. Creatures were created with adaptations to enable them to live in different environments or under certain circumstances. They used to say that our tailbone was a vestigal organ. Okay, then, let's have them surgically removed and see if we miss them.
Take, for instance, the skulls of different races of humans and compare them to monkeys. Are you going to say that the human skulls that are more similar to monkeys are less evolved than those that are more different than monkeys? Dogs? Different breeds of dogs, fish or humans do not prove evolution at all in the same way that different kinds of rocks don't, different colors of hair, etc. The only way that anyone can make this assertion is if they already believe in the THEORY of evolution and base all of their reasoning upon that BELIEF.

Parts wrote: Do you belive in contiental drift Earth has changed by a measurale amout over the last billion years.Even since the last Ice age were I sit now was under over a mile of ice. So things do change and change drasticly.Then there is coal once plant life now fuel. Along the lines of evolution there are things we don't know but there is evidence of what the next logical step was Yes there are gaps in this but it's supported by evidence not pure theory.


Continental drift and ice melting has nothing to do with evolution. If I put water in my ice cube trays and put them in the freezer would I think that water evolved into ice? No, it just froze. The example of coal being dead plant life is an excellent example of how all things tend toward decay and non-life; not the other way around which is what scientists would have to prove to make evolution believable. Living things do not come from non-living things and things can't magically turn into other things even if a bazillion years passed by. Evolution has been more disproven than proven but it is such an ingrained idea now that no one wants to say that the emporer has no clothes.

I haven't been paying much attention to the debate here, partly because I've been busy with other things, and partly because it's been kind of meandering around and not going anywhere interesting. Evolution is something that interests me though, but I don't think this is the best place for a debate about it.

Would you like to come on over to Intensity? We can have a one-on-one debate there, no holds barred, no interruptions, no moderation, winner is voted on by the membership and bestows a custom title on the loser. It's the best chance you'll get for upholding your beliefs in public, and I bet you think I'd look good with 'Rabid Atheist' or something similar as my custom title.

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=191.msg2882#msg2882

PeterM, Intensity is downright uncivilized! I don't think that the actual rules of debate are upheld over there on the dark side.
But I do appreciate the offer. You're too kind.

You could debate PeterM at the "Pearls of Wisdom" Bland. We are Civil over there for sure.

Is debate not the language of civilisation? It was a challenge, not an offer, and a debate with me on intensity would be civilised enough, and the rules fair. I'll debate you on pearlsofwisdom if you absolutely refuse to touch intensity, but it's not a place that's geared for debate, and I've already stated why WP is unsuitable.

You keep refuting your own beliefs by arguing that evolution is an elaborate explanation, while not disputing that ID is the same thing. Everytime you say that evolution is created to explain something that cannot be explained, and thus should not be believed, you are attacking ID.
This statement, "The only way that anyone can make this assertion is if they already believe in the THEORY of evolution and base all of their reasoning upon that BELIEF." is a direct attack on ID. You have provided no arguments that attack evolution without attacking ID.

There are fossils that have been discovered that show links between species, while yes, not every link has not been discovered, there have been some. To deny this is ridiculus and one cannot be taken seriously if one chooses to deny facts in order to enhance their argument. One must logically explain opposing evidence, not deny that it exists.

I also don't understand how a creature can be 'created' with an adaptation, that is a contradiction. If it was created like that, then there was no adaptation.

Viruses mutate from being only able to live in bodily fluids to being able to live in the air. This is very similar to having a creature being only able to live in water to being able to live on land, but on a simpler scale. We also have Ligers and Mules, new species that were created by man.

Can you offer any argument which attacks evolution while not attacking ID? If not, then the debate is moot for you refute yourself at every turn.

You can also turn your argument around and claim the opposite. That if you can refute ID by showing holes in the facts than you can also refute Evolution by showing holes in the theory. Either way, you have to admit it is a belief system. A mule is not an example of evolution just because it differs somewhat from a horse any more than an Aborigine is an example of evolution because they are different than a German.

Yes you could very well turn the argument around and claim the opposite, only I have not put forth any of those arguments, so there is nothing to turn against me. I have provided no argument against ID that could attack evolution, yet those are the only types of arguments that you can provide to attack evolution. In fact, there are no arguments for ID, proponents of ID are left to attack evolution because they can provide no arguments for their own theory.

Yes, there are holes in evolution, but ID is only a hole. I repeat:

This is evolution:

som-times peo-le misunder-tand the deba-e between evol-tion and intell-gent des-gn.

This is ID:

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

There is an obvious difference here.


Everything is a belief system. There is no justification for everything, otherwise nothing could be justified. If all justification needs a justification, then there is no justification, there is only infinite regress. At the bottom of everything is belief. Even the fact that you have two hands is based on faith, not a justification.

You take the issue of faith as something standard, as if there are not different degrees of faith. The faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that you have two hands is certainly on more certain ground than the faith that you will win the lottery. ID proponents attempt to bypass the different degrees of faith and make it into an unmovable, universal standard, but, this is just not how faith works in the real world. Things can be more certain, yet based on faith. There is no universal standard of faith.

However I do agree with you in that the mule argument is probably a very bad one, but thats about all I can agree with you

jonathon 79 wrote: Everything is a belief system. There is no justification for everything, otherwise nothing could be justified. If all justification needs a justification, then there is no justification, there is only infinite regress. At the bottom of everything is belief. Even the fact that you have two hands is based on faith, not a justification.


If this is true than don't bother debating anything.

I believe you suffer from convenient selective evidence disorder my friend

The next paragraph of my post explains why we should debate things:

You take the issue of faith as something standard, as if there are not different degrees of faith. The faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that you have two hands is certainly on more certain ground than the faith that you will win the lottery. ID proponents attempt to bypass the different degrees of faith and make it into an unmovable, universal standard, but, this is just not how faith works in the real world. Things can be more certain, yet based on faith. There is no universal standard of faith.

I am done with this argument, you can have the last post....

No thanks, you can have it.

I accept, and I'll see you on pearlsofwisdom when you're ready.

At least this ended with you figuring out that I was always right and you were wrong. Ha

Could you explain this comment, Tigerfire? The Peter vs. Bland debate hasn't really begun yet, due to us both having been busy recently. Nothing's been figured out so far.

I thought I could have the last word.