My issues with Athiests.

[Defender2516]

Then there is only 1 question that would undeniably prove Evolution or prove God considering its answer.

 

 

 

Does a human have a soul?

 

 

 

If yes, then God created man.

 

If no, then evolution took place eventually leading to mans high intelligence, creating what we call today as choice.

 

 

 

It cannot be both because by a scientific standpoint, we are just "animals". So that would concur that at 1 point previous in time, we would have no choice and act purely on instinct intill the day our minds developed into a greater degree of intelligence where this choice occurs.

 

 

 

I hope I don't hear any "we always had choice" on here for those who stand with the evolution side as i'm pretty sure you know well that organisms change to develop these new features, they just don't come out of thin air.

 

 

 

We all know that apes do not have a choice but they do act somewhat intelligent. This is because I believe they lack a soul or you could say that its because evolution has yet to occur for them to gain any intelligence.

 

 

 

So then the real question is, does man have a soul?

 

 

 

If yes, Evolution could not have possibly occured because man would have choice during all this ape-to-human life. Secondly, why would God call him man first, and not ape who evolves to man? (or the name of the apparently missing link). This would all be of course, on a bible point of view.

 

 

 

If no, then by evolutions standards, it all comes from the growth and development, occuring through evolution, that we gain intelligence, eventually leading to choice. This cannot go with the Bible due to the facts stated above.

 

 

 

Now you have said that we are created in Gods spiritual image, but not his physical image, leaving evolution open. However, once again, if man has a soul, then he has always inherited choice since the day of his birth. By evolutions standards, this must be developed after generations of changes.

 

 

 

Also, by Genisis, man has inherted intelligence. He knew how to speak, and he even named all the animals whatever he so pleased. He was as we are now, alive, with choice.

 

 

 

Now why would God call him man (are current standards), and not "ape" or the name of his first stage in evolution before comming a man would probably be a good question to ask evolution theorists who say it does not conflict with the Bible.

 

 

 

However, no matter how you slice it, you cannot be God's image and a Ape at the same time.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Then there is only 1 question that would undeniably prove Evolution or prove God considering its answer.

 

 

 

Does a human have a soul?

 

 

 

If yes, then God created man.

 

If no, then evolution took place eventually leading to mans high intelligence, creating what we call today as choice.

 

Your "yes" statement is incorrect.

 

 

 

If yes, then God created evolution and guided it towards the formation of man. The fact that man has a soul, superior to all other animals, is proof that God is creator and governor of evolution.

 

 

 

It cannot be both because by a scientific standpoint, we are just "animals". So that would concur that at 1 point previous in time, we would have no choice and act purely on instinct intill the day our minds developed into a greater degree of intelligence where this choice occurs.

 

You mean our evolutionary ancestors. "We," the humans, were not around back then. Humanity is distinguished for its ability to make intelligent choices. The creatures you described who "act purely on instinct" were not human.

 

 

 

I understand that in your layman's eyes, the word "animal" denotes lower, subhuman intelligence. This is another situation where you assume that the layman and scientific definitions of a word are the same, even though they are in fact very different.

 

 

 

Science deals purely with the physical world. All beings that live and breathe are classified as animals. This classification does not carry any connotations of lower intelligence, and it does not deny humanity's superiority in biblical history.

 

 

 

 

I hope I don't hear any "we always had choice" on here for those who stand with the evolution side as i'm pretty sure you know well that organisms change to develop these new features, they just don't come out of thin air.

 

They change due to God.

 

 

 

 

We all know that apes do not have a choice but they do act somewhat intelligent. This is because I believe they lack a soul or you could say that its because evolution has yet to occur for them to gain any intelligence.

 

Apes do make intelligent choices, actually. They are definitely less intelligent than humans though. In any case, the bible never said God would only give choice to humans.

 

 

 

 

So then the real question is, does man have a soul?

 

 

 

If yes, Evolution could not have possibly occured because man would have choice during all this ape-to-human life.

 

The ape-to-human life is not considered human. Only humans are considered human.

 

 

 

 

Secondly, why would God call him man first, and not ape who evolves to man? (or the name of the apparently missing link). This would all be of course, on a bible point of view.

 

Because Man is God's ultimate goal. Man is made in God's image. That is why Man can read the bible but his predecessors on the evolutionary tree could not. That is why the bible was given to Man.

 

 

 

 

If no, then by evolutions standards, it all comes from the growth and development, occuring through evolution, that we gain intelligence, eventually leading to choice. This cannot go with the Bible due to the facts stated above.

 

And I have countered all of your facts, as stated above.

 

 

 

 

Now you have said that we are created in Gods spiritual image, but not his physical image, leaving evolution open. However, once again, if man has a soul, then he has always inherited choice since the day of his birth. By evolutions standards, this must be developed after generations of changes.

 

You don't seem to understand evolution. Generations of changes created humans. The very first humans were able to have choice. That is why they are called humans. There were no humans without the ability to make choice. Those who were before humanity on the evolutionary tree are called predecessors for a reason. They were not humans. They were before humans.

 

 

 

So humans inherited choice from God the moment they evolved from their predecessor, who is not considered human.

 

 

 

Remember, humanity was created on the sixth day, not the first day. There was plenty of time for evolution to occur.

 

 

 

 

Also, by Genisis, man has inherted intelligence. He knew how to speak, and he even named all the animals whatever he so pleased. He was as we are now, alive, with choice.

 

Yes. Humans are alive, with choice. That is why they are called humans.

 

 

 

 

Now why would God call him man (are current standards), and not "ape" or the name of his first stage in evolution before comming a man would probably be a good question to ask evolution theorists who say it does not conflict with the Bible.

 

Because Man is made in God's image but ape isn't. Just because apes came earlier than humans doesn't mean that God made apes in his image. He obviously didn't, because he went on to make humans and he specifically told humans that we are made in his image.

 

 

 

 

However, no matter how you slice it, you cannot be God's image and a Ape at the same time.

 

I agree. I have never said apes are God's image.

[Sartre]

Surley these abstract questions of whether we have a soul or not will lead us nowhere, can anyone give us a factor which actually distinguishes us as humans from the animal kingdom. Which does not require us to dwell on whether we believe it to be true or not, just for the sake of this discussion, since it always seems to end in the soul debate.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Surley these abstract questions of whether we have a soul or not will lead us nowhere, can anyone give us a factor which actually distinguishes us as humans from the animal kingdom. Which does not require us to dwell on whether we believe it to be true or not, just for the sake of this discussion, since it always seems to end in the soul debate.

 

In science, we are not distinguished from the animal kingdom. We are the most intelligent member of the animal kingdom.

 

 

 

In religion. we are distinguished from the animal kingdom because we are God's chosen creatures.

[Sartre]

What is the general difference between the essence of human and the essence of animal? The distinction is that we as humans are always transcending our situation. Do chimps live differently now than they did one hundred years ago? They walk around different areas of jungles and so on, but their general existence is the same. Humans move forward all the time so it is reasonable for me to say that, that factor in itself is what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. We are beings who create our purpose and our essence, animals do not. Animals are static in that sense, and that is how we differ.

 

 

 

If I may quote Ortega:

 

 

 

"Dante would have likened him [the human] to a boat drawn up on the beach with one end of its keel in the water and the other on the sand".

 

 

 

In this the distinction is made between animal and human through saying it is true, we have similarities with the animal kingdom but on the other hand there is much more to us that make us human. There is this whole difference in our existence and therefore essence that makes humans ontologically different.

 

 

 

You can call that a higher evolved intellect or something handed to us by a divine creator. I just thought it would be useful to point out that the difference in animal and human is not completely down to abstract questioning and reasoning.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

You can call that a higher evolved intellect or something handed to us by a divine creator. I just thought it would be useful to point out that the difference in animal and human is not completely down to abstract questioning and reasoning.

 

You are making the mistake of thinking that the scientific and religious explanations represent different paths. From a viewpoint that merges both science and religion (and, in fact, combines your own words), humans have higher evolved intellect handed to us by a divine creator. That is intelligent design, and that is what should be taught in theology.

[warri0r45]

Then there is only 1 question that would undeniably prove Evolution or prove God considering its answer.

 

 

 

Does a human have a soul?

 

 

 

(1) If yes, then God created man.

 

If no, then evolution took place eventually leading to mans high intelligence, creating what we call today as choice.

 

 

 

(2) It cannot be both because by a scientific standpoint, we are just "animals". So that would concur that at 1 point previous in time, we would have no choice and act purely on instinct intill the day our minds developed into a greater degree of intelligence where this choice occurs.

 

 

 

I hope I don't hear any "we always had choice" on here for those who stand with the evolution side as i'm pretty sure you know well that organisms change to develop these new features, they just don't come out of thin air.

 

 

 

We all know that apes do not have a choice but they do act somewhat intelligent. This is because I believe they lack a soul or you could say that its because evolution has yet to occur for them to gain any intelligence.

 

 

 

So then the real question is, does man have a soul?

 

 

 

(3) If yes, Evolution could not have possibly occured because man would have choice during all this ape-to-human life. (4) Secondly, why would God call him man first, and not ape who evolves to man? (or the name of the apparently missing link). This would all be of course, on a bible point of view.

 

 

 

(5) If no, then by evolutions standards, it all comes from the growth and development, occuring through evolution, that we gain intelligence, eventually leading to choice. This cannot go with the Bible due to the facts stated above.

 

 

 

Now you have said that we are created in Gods spiritual image, but not his physical image, leaving evolution open. However, once again, if man has a soul, then he has always inherited choice since the day of his birth. By evolutions standards, this must be developed after generations of changes.

 

 

 

Also, by Genisis, man has inherted intelligence. He knew how to speak, and he even named all the animals whatever he so pleased. He was as we are now, alive, with choice.

 

 

 

(6) Now why would God call him man (are current standards), and not "ape" or the name of his first stage in evolution before comming a man would probably be a good question to ask evolution theorists who say it does not conflict with the Bible.

 

 

 

However, no matter how you slice it, you cannot be God's image and a Ape at the same time.

 

 

 

(1) This is a flase dichotomy. If we have a soul, this goes no way to proving the biblical god, disproving evolution, disproving the biblical god or proving evolution.

 

 

 

(2) You mean it can't be both from the scientific standpoint? What's to say we didn't evolve and god gave us a soul during this process?

 

 

 

(3) I'm stuck here. How does this disprove evolution? What's to say god didn't give us a soul during our evolution? Again, a flase dichotomy. If we have a soul, this goes no way to disproving evolution. You're limiting an all powerful being.

 

 

 

(4) Have you ever though (watch out, dissenting opinion) that the men who wrote the bible believed man to be a special creation from god and had no knowlege of evolution or the overwhelming evidence in favour of it? So yes, this is down to your bible point of view.

 

 

 

(5) Again, this has nothing to do with any objective standpiont and is down to a rigid view of biblical teachings. I'd be happy to actually talk about the science of evolution.

 

 

 

(6) Ahh, I see a point coming out of this. You've made your case for why evolution conflicts with the bible but I don't think anyone would disagree with you here. The literal reading of genesis, special creation, and the scientific story, evolution from common ancestors over billions of years, are obviously at a degree of contradiction. The idea, however, that evolution is somehow purposed to be against the bible is nonsense, if anyone here thinks that. It's the empirical evidence which is against special creation, not science.

 

 

 

So basically, I deny your undeniable swing on which this issue rests. The only reliable, falsifiable or remotely demonstrable way to prove one of the two (evolution) is through the empirical evidence, which I'll gladly dispose if you so desire or want to learn an interesting thing or two about comparative genomics.

[StrOwez]

When atheists start baptising babies and chanting in unison, when they have their own television and radio stations, schools, universities and qualifications in atheist study, when they claim that people who believe in God will be tortured for eternity, then you can accuse them of forcing their view point.

 

But until then, do not claim that they are similar in the way they operate.

Just found this interesting quote.

[Guest]

When atheists start baptising babies and chanting in unison, when they have their own television and radio stations, schools, universities and qualifications in atheist study, when they claim that people who believe in God will be tortured for eternity, then you can accuse them of forcing their view point.

 

But until then, do not claim that they are similar in the way they operate.

Just found this interesting quote.

 

 

 

I just read a stupid quote.

 

 

 

Onto the explanation:

 

 

 

Baptising Babies: Its a ritual the parents choose - its got nothing to do with forcing a viewpoint from a Christians perspective. Parents aren't forced to do that.

 

 

 

Chanting in Unison: What? :roll: How are they pushing their viewpoint on others by singing in unison in their Christian Churches we're only people go there willingly (who want to be there). Stupid really.

 

 

 

Television and Radio Stations: Are you made to go to their Christian radio and tv channels? No. Its just like having a church though it operates usually 24/7 and during the week. Its got nothing to do with pushing their viewpoint on other people.

 

 

 

Schools: Once again a place for people of the like faith to choose to go. Has absolutely nothing to do with pushing other's of a different faith into the school to convert them. Infact the parallel is quite pathetic seeing as Athiest wouldn't have Schools of Athiest belief since all Government run school represent an Athiest outlook on life regardless.

 

 

 

when they claim that people who believe in God will be tortured for eternity

 

Should we reject our beliefs because the person who wrote the quote can handle another persons beliefs? Its our beliefs, just like Athiest believing in the fact that their is no God. We'll teach and preach it like you guys teach and preach your Athiest beliefs.

 

 

 

I couldn't be bothered going on, I'm sure you get my point.

[Stone69_Eyes]

I'm Atheist, I don't ever see Atheists ever preach their ways to anyone. Neigther do I see christians preach their bible. What really pisses me off but is the Jahova Witnesses and the Mormans. Those are the religions who preach at my door.

[warri0r45]

Its our beliefs, just like Athiest believing in the fact that their is no God. We'll teach and preach it like you guys teach and preach your Athiest beliefs.

 

 

 

You kind of just grossly misrepresented all atheism as strong atheism there. Weak atheists don't believe that there is no god and thus have nothing to preach. Yep, figure that one out. Clue: break the word atheism down into it's constituent parts.

 

 

 

a - being without, not or lacking

 

theism - the belief that a god or gods exist

 

 

 

Being without or lacking positive belief for an idea is not negative belief against. Very important difference.

 

 

 

This, weak atheism, a position of lacking belief, is the basis for all atheism. The next step up is strong atheism, or the belief that there is no god or that no god exists.

[Korskin]

Warning: Incoming philosophical example.

 

 

 

If I have a tennisball 50m from where I have a needle, and wanted to throw the tennisball is amanner so that when it lands, it is impaled by the needle in the exact center, so the needle is left standing exactly where it is, I could throw it til I die and I'd never manage. The feat is theoretically possible, but practically impossible.

 

 

 

However, assume I could keep track of all the wind changes, air pressure, heck, even the movements of the individual atoms in the space between me and the needle, as well as control my muscle fibres for delivering the throw in a perfect manner, I could do it. I could even do it repeatedly, because as long as I know enough about the system in which I do the feat and have the control neccesary to do that which has to be done, it's perfectly possible. In fact, ignoring the quirks of quantum mechanics (yes, I'm sorry about the "quirk" pun - We're assuming the entity who designed quantum mechanics knows a few more string theory tricks than humanity has as of yet uncovered, possible even of such multidimensional order that we never will) if I knew enough about the system - henceforth refered to as the "universe" - I could do a whole lot of interesting stuff. I mean really, with perfect knowledge of the starting conditions - from which all stems, unless we get deep into the aforementioned quantum mechanics - I could predict everything. If I also happened to be the entity - henceforth refered to as "God" - that decided how those starting conditions were going to be, and had the raw mental processing power required to calculate billions of years in advance how various changes would influence development within the universe... Done right, and the omnipotent way is the right way, God would only need to start the Big bang and then he could lean back and watch as this cosmic event starting on a particle scale works it's way to a primordial soup of acid that forms DNA on this ball of interstellar dust, and eventually leads out to a being with the fabled Free Will. Because the way God set up this originial event, everything else would unfold exactly how God willed it. Like the example with the tennisball, once the grip on the ball has been released in the perfect throw, no further adjustments would be neccesary as it flies along the path towards the needle, the intended target.

 

 

 

Unless you intend to argue that God, who designed quantum physics and time itself, would have been _unable_ to do this, which is denying the omnipotence of God, evolution does not disprove God. On the contrary, accepting the idea that God willed the big bang Just So to create an evolutionary process over billions of years that would lead to Gods intended target is accepting Gods omnipotence by order of magnitude on a scale far larger than "well, he said so, and then it happened".

 

Sure, God could've triggered the Big Bang and then idly watched as things happened. When talking about a non-specific God, I have no problem with your example. However, I'm not interested in what a God could've done. I'm interested in what actually happened. The Bible claims to be the truth and the book of genesis tells us about the creation of the universe.

 

 

 

I don't think anything in genesis points toward evolution. And a lot of it is difficult to fit in with evolution. If there was no conflict or even issues whatsoever between the Bible and evolution, there wouldn't be a Creation-evolution controversy.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

Sure, God could've triggered the Big Bang and then idly watched as things happened. When talking about a non-specific God, I have no problem with your example. However, I'm not interested in what a God could've done. I'm interested in what actually happened. The Bible claims to be the truth and the book of genesis tells us about the creation of the universe.

 

 

 

I don't think anything in genesis points toward evolution. And a lot of it is difficult to fit in with evolution. If there was no conflict or even issues whatsoever between the Bible and evolution, there wouldn't be a Creation-evolution controversy.

 

Intelligent Design does not state that God "idly watched things happen." Intelligent Design is Evolution in which God is in control.

 

 

 

Creationism is a human interpretation of Genesis, where each day is thought of in terms of a human day, and each creation (of nature, land, animals, humans, etc) is thought of as God directly zapping things onto earth.

 

 

 

Intelligent Design is a much sounder interpretation of Genesis, with the acknowledgment that God's days and methods are probably grander, more complex, and over a longer period of time than previously assumed.

 

 

 

More importantly, ID and Creationism are not equally viable viewpoints: ID matches scientific experiments and observations, while Creationism does not.

 

 

 

Please address my other replies to you, Korskin. I've been waiting for your responses.

 

 

 

If there was no conflict or even issues whatsoever between the Bible and evolution, there wouldn't be a Creation-evolution controversy.

 

Please stop ignoring Intelligent Design. There is no conflict between the Bible and evolution. There is no conflict between Intelligent Design and evolution. There is a conflict between creationism and evolution, otherwise known as ignorance vs evolution.

[Korskin]

Intelligent Design does not state that God "idly watched things happen." Intelligent Design is Evolution in which God is in control.

 

 

Creationism is a human interpretation of Genesis, where each day is thought of in terms of a human day, and each creation (of nature, land, animals, humans, etc) is thought of as God directly zapping things onto earth.

 

 

 

Intelligent Design is a much sounder interpretation of Genesis, with the acknowledgment that God's days and methods are probably grander, more complex, and over a longer period of time than previously assumed.

 

 

 

More importantly, ID and Creationism are not equally viable viewpoints: ID matches scientific experiments and observations, while Creationism does not.

 

 

 

Please address my other replies to you, Korskin. I've been waiting for your responses.

 

Intelligent design is not God guided evolution. Just a hint of what it's about:

wikipedia[/url]":3dj2ou3h] Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology, which seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory.

 

I can't really understand where you get the idea to defend ID and evolution as if they were on the same page.

 

 

 

There are also many types_of_creationism.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Intelligent Design does not state that God "idly watched things happen." Intelligent Design is Evolution in which God is in control.

 

 

Creationism is a human interpretation of Genesis, where each day is thought of in terms of a human day, and each creation (of nature, land, animals, humans, etc) is thought of as God directly zapping things onto earth.

 

 

 

Intelligent Design is a much sounder interpretation of Genesis, with the acknowledgment that God's days and methods are probably grander, more complex, and over a longer period of time than previously assumed.

 

 

 

More importantly, ID and Creationism are not equally viable viewpoints: ID matches scientific experiments and observations, while Creationism does not.

 

 

 

Please address my other replies to you, Korskin. I've been waiting for your responses.

 

Intelligent design is not God guided evolution. Just a hint of what it's about:

wikipedia[/url]":35th35r1] Intelligent design in the late 20th century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology, which seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory.

 

I can't really understand where you get the idea to defend ID and evolution as if they were on the same page.

 

Yeah, it seems I've been using the wrong term all this time. Very embarrassing -.-

 

The correct name is Theistic Evolution. Here's something about how I got confused because I forgot that American fundies had taken over the name Intelligent Design:

 

 

 

Some adherents of theistic evolution hold that the deity both designed the universe and has a continuing part in its development, and feel that a term they favour has been hijacked by the proponents of the viewpoint called "Intelligent design".

 

 

 

So replace ID with Theistic Evolution and everything I said still makes sense. There is no conflict between Genesis and Theistic Evolution, and thus no conflict between the bible and evolution.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

There are also many types_of_creationism.

 

And only some of them agree with scientific experiments, observations, and artifacts. It's your choice whether to accept or ignore science.

[warri0r45]

Warning: Incoming philosophical example.

 

 

 

If I have a tennisball 50m from where I have a needle, and wanted to throw the tennisball is amanner so that when it lands, it is impaled by the needle in the exact center, so the needle is left standing exactly where it is, I could throw it til I die and I'd never manage. The feat is theoretically possible, but practically impossible.

 

 

 

However, assume I could keep track of all the wind changes, air pressure, heck, even the movements of the individual atoms in the space between me and the needle, as well as control my muscle fibres for delivering the throw in a perfect manner, I could do it. I could even do it repeatedly, because as long as I know enough about the system in which I do the feat and have the control neccesary to do that which has to be done, it's perfectly possible. In fact, ignoring the quirks of quantum mechanics (yes, I'm sorry about the "quirk" pun - We're assuming the entity who designed quantum mechanics knows a few more string theory tricks than humanity has as of yet uncovered, possible even of such multidimensional order that we never will) if I knew enough about the system - henceforth refered to as the "universe" - I could do a whole lot of interesting stuff. I mean really, with perfect knowledge of the starting conditions - from which all stems, unless we get deep into the aforementioned quantum mechanics - I could predict everything. If I also happened to be the entity - henceforth refered to as "God" - that decided how those starting conditions were going to be, and had the raw mental processing power required to calculate billions of years in advance how various changes would influence development within the universe... Done right, and the omnipotent way is the right way, God would only need to start the Big bang and then he could lean back and watch as this cosmic event starting on a particle scale works it's way to a primordial soup of acid that forms DNA on this ball of interstellar dust, and eventually leads out to a being with the fabled Free Will. Because the way God set up this originial event, everything else would unfold exactly how God willed it. Like the example with the tennisball, once the grip on the ball has been released in the perfect throw, no further adjustments would be neccesary as it flies along the path towards the needle, the intended target.

 

 

 

Unless you intend to argue that God, who designed quantum physics and time itself, would have been _unable_ to do this, which is denying the omnipotence of God, evolution does not disprove God. On the contrary, accepting the idea that God willed the big bang Just So to create an evolutionary process over billions of years that would lead to Gods intended target is accepting Gods omnipotence by order of magnitude on a scale far larger than "well, he said so, and then it happened".

 

Sure, God could've triggered the Big Bang and then idly watched as things happened. When talking about a non-specific God, I have no problem with your example. However, I'm not interested in what a God could've done. I'm interested in what actually happened. The Bible claims to be the truth and the book of genesis tells us about the creation of the universe.

 

 

 

I don't think anything in genesis points toward evolution. And a lot of it is difficult to fit in with evolution. If there was no conflict or even issues whatsoever between the Bible and evolution, there wouldn't be a Creation-evolution controversy.

 

 

 

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

 

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

 

 

The key here is "let the earth bring forth". Abiogenesis leading into an evolutionary process where by god plans for the requirements to drive the plants and animals into "his kind"? There's something to think about.

 

 

 

Oh and @ Paperclips, I was wondering why you were speaking so highly of ID. :lol: