sort by best latest
But they'll swallow the Theory of Evolution and other such bunk hook, line and sinker :)
It is said that ignorance has a voice and it is spoken louly here.
Joseph is simply demonstrating his lack of scientific knowledge. Some people who have studied evolution may not agree with all conclusions scientists make, but informed people do not call it "bunk." It just doesn't fit his little religious book.
Except for the reality that the myth “that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" is shorn of any demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, testable or replicable evidence.
Joseph, your ignorance shines brightly again. Evolution has not proven that life came from inorganic matter. The origin of life is not proven. The evolution of lower life forms to higher life forms, however, is well documented.
"Evolution has not proven that life came from inorganic matter."
Which necessarily means that the Theory of Evolution is bunk ...
Joseph, the problem is that you are confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis. The honest position would be that "we don't know how life began" - Your position merely parrots the view of ancient men, who knew almost nothing compared to modern science.
As getitrite said, you are confused. No one knows just how life began, but what happened to that life (evolution) is well documented. Again Joseph, please read a science textbook.
People have evolved over time. but the evolution theory says that chemical and macro evolution has taken place, which means chemicals formed from nothing to form things, and species has formed into totally different species <<---- Balogna lol =
You are equivocating. The General Theory of Evolution is "The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."- Gerald Kerkut - ”Implications of Evolution"
No equivocating here. No one claims to know absolutely how life began. For you to keep claiming so does not change the fact. Hypothesis have been made as extensions of our reasoning.
Can you really not see what is right in front of you? I just quoted a scientist who does!
Joseph, if you pursued the veracity of your illogical beliefs with 1/10 the dogged determination that you scrutinize the Theory of Evolution, you'd be an atheist in a few minutes.Give it a try? You can be an atheist...and not believe in evolution
“Science is agnostic when it comes to God - not atheistic, as some people prefer to read that laden word wrongly - just agnostic.”
― Eric Chaisson
Science should be Agnostic but today's scientific establishment rules out supernatural & scientific "conclusions" are not the same as fact. They are educated guesses, scientific conclusions have been changed over years based on new facts.
It was proven that life can come from inorganic matter by Miller-Urey experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_e...
It seems that fighting against ignorance is like fighting against windmills.
No one claims he Miller Urey experiments prove that abiogenesis happened, what they show is that complex organic molecules can form in natural conditions.no scientist is publishing that the question of abiogenesis is solved nor did Urey Miller.
It proves that life can rise from inorganic matter, for organic molecules are life in its starting form.
Organic molecules are in no way life - life requires non organic elements and compounds too - I suppose you think minerals are life? Keep living a lie, educated people know better.
Jospeh, like many religious believers you've absolutely contorted Gerald Kerkut's words. The quote that you've used is demonstrable of this fact. In "The Implication of Evolution", he is clarifying the differences between evolution and abiogenesis.
Very eloquent. Evidence that isn't scientific isn't really evidence, it's beliefs, conjectures, and opinions which only serve as evidence for the existence of beliefs, conjectures, and opinions and not their subject matter.
Very well put Dremer. If I may ask, does this mean you reject historical, legal, experiential, Bayesian and/or rational evidence?
I would say all of those, except experiential, qualify as scientific evidence. So I would consider them. I don't reject personal experience, but since it can't be verified, it can't be proven and, therefore, isn't evidence, in the literal sense.
I don't follow. How is historical evidence, for instance, scientific in nature?
History is our knowledge of the past. It's compiled from our experience, observations and recordings. The same principles science uses. Science is the reason we have history, because advancements led to better recording methods.
But how is history quantifiable, empirical, falsifiable, testable or replicable?
History is compiled from what we can find, (various recordings). Others can use the same information to come to similar conclusions of what happened. We then form a conclusion until more information comes to light. That's science in a nutshell.
Thank you for sharing that! :)
Now, can you explain how historical evidence is quantifiable, empirical, falsifiable, testable and replicable?
Not adequately with limited characters. History is not static, it changes constantly. Events get verified or falsified based on new, repeatable research. Their data is compiled from multiple sources and compared to draw a logical conclusion.
So your answer to my question would beeee? :)
I'd consider any evidence that did not rely on opinions or beliefs. For example, the Bible is not acceptable evidence of God's existence because it requires existing belief in God's reality to think it so.
I don't follow. How does reading the Bible demand a prerequisite belief in God?
Believing the Bible was written by God requires belief in God. Otherwise, it's just a book, written by people with sincere beliefs and heavily edited by extremely powerful and dangerous men.
Actually believing the Bible was written by God is based on evidence that it actually was: http://bit.ly/1d0Y82v
In order to believe that as evidence you have to already think God is real and ignore all internal inconsistencies in the Bible, the unfulfilled prophecies, and all the other people who were just people who've made correct guesses about the future.
Joseph, I've studied the supposed evidence that the Bible is from "God." But upon closer examination of the argument the "evidence" falls flat. You can't use a verse from one book to prove a verse in another. That's circular reasoning.
You're engaging in equivocation, a deceitful rhetorical tactic. You do realize that the Bible is a compilation of 66 distinct works recorded by 40 amanuensis over the span of some one thousand six hundred years, right?
Yes. I venture to say I know the Bible at least as well as you, seeing I have a degree in it. The difference between us is that you are willing to ignore all the problems with the Bible...I am not.
What problem(s) are you referring to?
Contradictions, inconsistencies, and moral debauchery on the part of the Hebrew god for one thing. There are many instances and other men have listed them quite thoroughly.
Have you ever read the Bible in full? I only ask because I have but I've never come across any of the purported "problems" you claim exist.
Yes, I have. There was a time when I didn't see the problems either---when I falsely believe the Bible was perfect. When I left this intenable, unprovable, and illogical position, I could then see what had ALWAYS BEEN THERE.
If you'd like I can provide you with tenable and logical answers to any apparent contradictions you've found in the Bible. Would you like me to? :)
I've read many "rebuttals" to Bible problems. Some of them were explained, but many of them were ignored or given a superficial explanation. So no, I've no interest in superficial apologetics from a cult.
"A mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open." -Frank Zappa
Precisely why I'm no longer a Christian, Joseph. I decided an open mind was more important than tradition. You should try it.
I'm a Christian, not because of tradition, but because the Bible is proven to be the Inspired Word of our Creator, Jehovah God. You should try reading it in full sometime :)
I have read it in full. And what you accept as "proof" cannot be called solid, objective evidence. I've asked you through email to provide facts that prove the existance of your Canaanite god Yahweh. But you never do...
I did supply you with the evidence you requested. That you ignored it is on you, not me.
Thanks for sharing Christin! Does this mean you only accept scientific evidence or do you readily accept all types of evidence? :)
I thought I clarified that with my answer - proof = solid evidence which would by default mean you need scientific evidence.
Does this mean you reject historical, legal, experiential, Bayesian and/or rational evidence?
of course not, there is scientific evidence that dinosaurs existed for example. legal evidence I used in my example. experiential is scientific observation. "belief" is not scientific - bayesian is probability - all tie into science - faith doesn't.
Sure it is. When you say "science" you're referring to a specific epistemology of truth; the belief that all that which is demonstrable, quantifiable, empirical, falsifiable, testable and replicable must necessarily be true.
I'm not going to get baited into an argument - there is no scientific or any concrete evidence of any type for the existence of a deity period. If there is produce it, otherwise it's merely your faith.
If exceptional intellect is required to merely duplicate designs and systems present in nature (Biomimetics) then much more the original being replicated. Creation is thus proof of a Creator. There's tons more evidence: http://bit.ly/1197U6R
Joseph, whether there exists a supernatural "force" or your God Yahweh are entirely different things. History tells us that Yahweh was a Canaanite god which the Jews adopted as their own. There's no verifiable evidence that Yahweh/Jehovah exists.
Check your sources. Abel, Enoc, Noah and Abraham weren't Canaanites.
There's no evidence other than the Hebrew writings that those men even existed. And still, ancient documents and artifacts show that Yahweh was a tribal diety which the Jews took. Oh and Yahweh was married too. Look it up.
The worship of Asherah became a part of Israel's worship of Jehovah but this was a later apostatizing by unfaithful Israelites. Israel was originally monotheistic. See Jg 3:7; 1 Kings 18:19; 2 Kings 21:7; 2 Chr 33:11-13, 15, 21-23; 2 Kings 23:4-7.
The Old Testament was written by the Jews. They were free to embellish the stories as much as they wanted and to make themselves look good. Other ancient documents tell a different story from the Hebrew account.
Or they could have just been telling the truth. Moses was, after all, quite self-deprecating.
Joseph, there's no evidence for the fantastic stories of the OT, like the Red Sea parting, Sun standing still, etc. Those who wrote about these events were obviously lying. How then could you know what IS true about what they wrote?
Prove they were lying.
I don't need to prove they were lying. Just like we don't need to prove that Hercules and Zeus were gods who did miracles. It's up to the believer to prove that those impossible things actually happened. So far no one can.
You made a claim. You claimed that the Bible amanuensis were lying. All I'm asking is for you to substantiate your outlandish claim with some actual evidence. Can you?
The simple fact that the "miracles" that supposedly occurred throughout the OT cannot be confirmed and HAVE NEVER BEEN REPEATED is a strong indicator that they took some liberty with their writings.
"the "miracles" that supposedly occurred [in] the OT  HAVE NEVER BEEN REPEATED is a strong indicator that they took some liberty ."
The same can be said of the Theory of Evolution but that doesn't stop you from swallowing it as truth ..
Not the same, Jo. There's no reason for the Big Bang to be repeated now. It goes against science. But miracles of Biblical proportions also go against science. Is your god out of the miracle business?
How do the miracles of the Bible violate any scientific laws?
Joseph, now I know you're scientifically ignorant (or just a troll). You don't understand how parting the Red Sea or a donkey talking is scientifically impossible? Maybe you should ask a group of high school students.
Actually you're the one suffering from scientific benightedness: http://bit.ly/1wsmmGJ
As the end of the article says, "there's many assumptions here." Even if the wind can drive away water, the Bible says the Egyptians drowned in it. That would take more water than the wind could blow away. Facts win again, Joseph.
The fact remains that there is, in fact, a scientific explanation for the parting of the Red Sea. You stand refuted ...
As usual, you ignore a lot of important details. It would have taken more water to drown the Egyptians. Also, you can't ignore all the other tales of fantasy that the Bible contains. Explain all of those away if you can.
Pick any purported fantasy and I'll be more than happy to explain to you how it's anything but.
I can't believe I need to say this but can treat others with dignity and ask your question(s) respectfully?
Great response, what if the explanation that Christians provide is evidence beyond reasonable based on the impossibility of the contrary. I believe the explanation that Christians give is amazing, Much better than the atheistic worldview.
Thanks for sharing :)
Simply stated, ceb. It's sad that more people do not (or will not?) understand what EVIDENCE is. Evidence must be compiled and analyzed in order to come to a conclusion. But most people operate on what they "feel" is true.
This is a valid point. What someone "feels" is true can easily be mistaken as fact.
So intuition is always 100% wrong?
Unless proof is available, then intuition is never 100% correct. @Joseph
Really? Can you give some examples of this?
Christian scientists are good at falsifying info. You have to ignore mountains of evidence in order to say that evolution is baloney. There's a good reason more than 99% of scientists accept evolution. Also, evolution can be compatible with a god.
What purported evidence are you referring to for Molecules-To-Man evolution?
Joseph, it's not so simple as "molecules to man." There are innumerable steps in between. For that info I refer you to any college-level biology book for starters. If you are openminded you just may learn something.
I have studied the Theory of Evolution at length and have not found any evidence for the purported evolution of man or animal from the supposed primordial ooze which was the spark of life.
I'm assuming you have mostly studied from a Christian or Creaionist perspective? If so, then of course you found no evidence. Christian "scientists" are notorious for ignoring what is right before their eyes.
What's the scientific evidence, then, for Molecules-to-Man evolution?
If you did know anything about evolution, you would know how extensive the theory is. It can't be explained in these short spaces. Again, I must refer you to credible scientists who have done the work. Try "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr.
@ Mr. Polanco - I'd suggest auditing some college classes on chemistry, biology, & biochemistry & then auditing some evolutionary biology courses. You are asking for a blurb explanation of something that is an entire field of study.
Then feel free to email me :)
How do you explain, then, all the Chemists, Biologists, Biochemists and other scientists who abjure Molecules-to-Man Evolution?
A troll is a commentator with a stand-point you discover is compelling but nevertheless detest. I've obliged these to tackle important and unnerving truths they’re too overweening to admit to.
IOW, thanks and you’re welcome! : )
JOP, I know I don't have to tell YOU this but if you research most claims RthB makes you'll find they are lies or distortions, he trolls the hub pages solely to bash Christians, prove he's wrong he'll delete A-star style giving a false reason.
Oh so he has a history of this. Thanks for the heads up! :)
Tsad, you always resort to personal attacks because you can't defend your supposed beliefs. For being a Christian, you sure tell a lot of lies. Why don't you prove wrong my arguments instead of trying to discredit me (ad hominem fallacy)?
The 1st time I did that you deleted my comments later falsely claiming they were nasty that was all I needed to have your number, your arguments are transparently false anyway. You troll up here as usual disparaging Joseph & me, I tell no lies.
@ Mr. Polanco - Overall, only 5% of American scientists do not accept evolution. The percentage drops below 1% when only scientists with degrees in the biological sciences are surveyed. Why must I explain a fraction of a percent who are creationists?
"Why must I explain a fraction of a percent who are creationists?"
Because they're scientists. Just because most accept anything doesn't make it true ...
Why? Because they're scientists.
Evaluate theory of evolution itself-not the people who believe it, or the reasonthey believe it. many people have been taught that evolution is true by non-scientists(teachers who don’t know what they are talking about The 5%figure's 23 yrs old
Perhaps the scientists who believe in young earth creationism are able to hold two or more opposing beliefs at the same time?
Well u got that right, beliefs which are all they are. Neither have been scientifically proven beyond any doubt. They both require a measure of faith to believe only it takes way more faith to believe macro evolution than believe in a creator
This is a very good comment and makes sense, unlike the atheist who don't. Atheism is a religion, which denies there is an absolute. They go against all evidence to have their wild faith in Macro Evolution, blinded to reality that contradicts them.
Excellent response! I welcome your keen insights :)
WelcomeJoseph! Yeah, don't have to look far to see an atheist living up to what I've said.Take austinstar's current hubpage, she's deleted more comments than she's approved providing totally false reasons, she thinks she's a master of deception.
Atheism isn't one religion. It is simply a lack of belief in deities. Many religions are atheistic, like Jainism and Buddhism. You can be a Buddhist or a Jain without believing in a god or gods. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe.
So what does that have to do with anything said here? Buddhists accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods, but sure it is considered an "atheist religion"So what,show me any modern atheist who buys into that!
As you pointed out the only thing that atheist have in common with each other is that we collectively do not believe in any form of higher power, god or otherwise. What you have outright ignored is where atheists got that belief from; our own logic.
Besarian there are good answers to every question you pose. I suggest you get a little less focused on yourself & a little more on the facts.Hear of the great commission? Science indicates evolution doesn't happen.Presenting truth isn't intoleran
"If  the good news we declare is veiled, it is  among those who are perishing, among whom [Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ  might not shine ." - 2 Cor. 4:4
Good science indicates in every way possible that evolution happens. If your "science" doesn't. it is based on conclusions that can not be supported by both logic and a thorough understanding of the existing evidence.
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
Does this mean you don't consider historical, legal, experiential or Bayesian or rational evidence to actually be evidence?
Like I've explained, I would accept anything as evidence that passed the test of being solid, objective, and verifiable. But the religions of the world haven't produced this kind of evidence. By the way, what is your religion, Joseph?
Thank you for that clarification Robert! :)
To answer your question, I am a member of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Does this mean you reject historical, legal, experiential, Bayesian and/or rational evidence?
Your evidence is heavily biased, Joseph. Can't you see that Christian writers would do ANYTHING to preserve the religion? For example your cult (JW) disagrees with main Christian doctrines. You can't all be right.
Biased towards the truth is no bias at all :)
Joseph, no amount of facts will convince you because cultists do not operate by facts. So enjoy your fantasy.
Give us all the facts, then, that show God does not nor cannot exist.
Answer the challenge or don't answer at all.
Joseph, I told you RtheB has lies and distortions to offer, show him wrong or stand up to him with the truth and he deletes you or if he can't he disappears. Where do Hub trolls got to hide? I wonder.
You seem to have missed the bit about atheists not thinking God is real. You know your belief is based on what you think is real. How is taking the blame and responsibility for everything you do getting off the hook?
Off the hook for what exactly?
JF, you've obviously never been an atheist. We don't simply "choose" to not believe in a god. It's a process by which we look for evidence. Belief in a specific god is not based on objective evidence. Some require solid evidence.
Ah, so that must mean your non belief of other gods is you purposely choosing to not believe in said God's to get yourself off the hook.
Thanks for the clarification that you seem to be no different from the atheists you mentioned. Good job :D
@ Bruce No I have never been an atheist or desired to be
@ Link 10103 You are exactly right!
JF, just provide some objective proof that your God (who according to history was originally a Canaanite tribal deity) exists. How about it?
Considering how I was talking about you JF, you seem to have admitted that there is no difference between you and an atheist. Makes one wonder what the point of your comment was.
@ Robert This is impossible. Prove to me God does not exist
@ Link 10103 Like I said I am no different. We are all human. Some are just lost in their own egos
So again, what was the point in singling out atheists when you do the same exact thing you think they do?
Well said, JF
So you are saying you didn't choose to believe in God based on thinking He is real? Please explain how your absence of ego allows you to believe in things you don't think are real. If you want to convert us, we'll need that bit of information.
I do not have time for this mess. It is Christmas. Merry Christmas everyone! Celebrate it for the real reason.
In other words, you believe because you think God is real because if you thought people could believe in things they don't think are real just by choosing to, you'd explain how so we could do it, too, and not go to Hell. Enjoy your holiday.
JF, as you probably know, no one can prove something doesn't exist (like Santa and elves). But why should anyone feel compelled to obey a god (Jehovah) that has no evidence of existence? Your reasons are based on feelings, not evidence.
So be it!
You don't have the time to own up to your mistake? Not really surprising, but merry Christmas to all who celebrate it.
I would be Interested to know the real reason to celebrate Xmas though...
Merry Christmas, Link!
Atheists don't "choose not to believe", we simply don't for our own reasons. Atheism is inherently a belief in definable, logical proof. There is no "problem with atheists", because as a belief atheism is far more disparate than any other.