I sent you a myspace friends request in addition to this.

First of all- all reality is percieved through the senses. If our senses are wrong, how do we know that anything is real? Your belief that the computer screen you are seeing right now is real is purely faith. Without faith we would believe absolutely nothing. We still have faith anyway though. I see your point too about faith not being faith at all- but purely knowledge based. But like i said- our knowledge is faulty because we have no proof that our senses are real. So knowledge and faith in fact go hand in hand- like you said.

If our senses are wrong (which is possible), then everything you believe to be knowledge is wrong. You're criticizing Christians for their imitation of knowledge, but that is the most any of us are able to do- imitate knowledge. For all we know a turtle could have farted the world into existense. We don't know. We don't know our friends are real, our families are real, anything.To me the belief in a God is no more ridiculous then believing that there is no God based off of faith-based proof (percieved through the senses).

I liked your other argument that mentioned God creating people to go to hell. It fits in with my idea that we don't have free will. There are a few inconsistensies i noted in it, but I'm not perfect either (actually, i am perfect- everybody is perfect. i saw on your page that you liked Hitchhiker's Guide. I have a similiar belief about the world, I believe it to basically be a giant preset equation working itself out). It's good to find other free thinkers in the world. I adimire you a lot. Anyway-

take care,
Michael

That is a worthless hypothesis. We trust our senses because they are the only thing we have. To suppose every piece of information is inaccurate is a waste of time, until we have something else. There is no point in setting ourselves in a complete state of ignorance.

lol, why not? If it is a possiblility then we can't deny it. It's not ignorant to believe everything you are seeing and hearing is wrong. It is by no means ignorant to accept ignorance. What would be ignorant is for somebody to be in that state and unwilling to admit or even accept it. We don't truly know anything, all facts are worthless.

It is a possibility that the moon will explode and sprinkle candy across the surface on the earth, so we can't ignore that either. I fully expect you to be at the forefront of the Moon- Candy Collection Team.

It is ignorant to say everything is wrong, not because it is not true (though it isn't, for all practical purposes), but because you are inviting a state of ignorance. To say everything is wrong and all facts are worthless is itself a hypothesis that provides no understanding of the observable world. Thus, by Occam's Razor, it must be eliminated. The hypothesis holds no value and only complicates things.

For instance, assume that it is true, everything we observe is, in fact, false. Would that ever matter? What is truth aside from observable fact? If we can NEVER interact with the truth, how can the knowledge of the truth be relevant? We should focus on what we observe, because that is ALL WE HAVE. Don't force yourself, or anyone else, into thinking that complete ignorance is a virtue, or even valid. THAT is what is wrong with religion, and I find it repulsive that you could represent such a true form of this attitude.

Whoah.....that was harsh. Good for you! (the Moon-Candy collection team sounds like an awesome job by the way.).

Ok.....lets suppose for a second God existed and he only wanted people who had faith to go to heaven. Wouldn't he create the world in a manner in which all facts pointed away from him? That way, people would in a sense have to ignore knowledge in order to achive faith. Christianity even hints at the idea that knowledge is evil. Look at Satan's original name- Lucifer (meaning bearer of light- light being knowledge). The bible hints, through Lucifer's name, that knowledge is evil. Satan was known for decieving, so according to the bible, knowledge is decieving as well.

And also , your idea that we should accept facts because they are all we have I believe is wrong. Have you read Plato's "The allegory of the cave". In it there were prisoners who spent their entire live chained up, forced to stare at a wall filled with shadows. The shadows came from people behind them, but the prisoners didn't know that because they had only seen the shadows- to them the shadows were real and not merely projections. And every once in a while when they heard the voices echoing from the people behind them they would assume the voices came from one of the shadows, based off of what they know. If one of the prisoners had stepped forward and said that there was a possibility that the voices didn't come from the shadows, he would have been considered ignorant but he would have also been right. By ignoring what everyone interpreted as fact he came closer to the truth than anyone else did. anyway-

take care,
Michael

Okay, I hate to crush the bible- thumpin' attitude here, but if you want to argue that because a book from thousands of years ago advocates ignorance, we must admit that knowledge can be misleading, we have a problem. I think that you should do more thinking about that point, so we can agree it is a red herring.

Also, does it matter, in the slightest, if the physical bodies of people are recognized as the people, if we never see them, interact with them, or anything? That sort of ignorance is minute; It is the physical equivalent of wording problem. It seems like your argument is that truth matters outside of what we sense, but the truth we observe does not. What we sense our surroundings are is all that matters. Should car manufacturers worry that the universe we 'really' live in cannot contain cars? No one thinks in such a way, because if there is a greater knowledge available, it will not have an affect on them. So why take that into account? If it is 'reality', why should anyone care? This is the part the argument called the statement of case. And you are missing it.

Whoah....I'm a bible thumper? That was cruel. By the system somebody created a long time ago we indeed percieve it as a red herring. I will by no means say that it is a red herring, I only percieve it as one. I will confirm it's exists though because of the very fact it entered my mind (whether or not it exists physically- it at least exists as an idea.)

What I'm trying to get across is that if God did exist then I believe he would exist outside of physical perception. So yeah, according to our view of reality he doesn't exist. But it is possible that he exists outside of what our senses tell us.

And yes.....thinking outside of our senses should matter. Though nothing directly affects us, by considering the idea that everything we percieve is small, mediocre- we open ourselves up to truth (Nietzsche would shoot me if he heard me say that). I don't desire to remain chained to a wall staring at shadows all of my life while accepting those shadows as reality. So it is in my best interest to look for reality elsewhere. That is simply why it matters- because it matters to me.

You are no less than clinically retarded if you think something makes any logical sense merely because you thought of it. Pointing out what a non- scientific book says about knowledge is a complete waste of time, unless you are introducing a new theory. You aren't. You are using the bible as evidence.

I won't overly concern myself with such a folly, but I will point out what you are using the bible (and nothing else, keep in mind) to support. You say that we somehow have an obligation to assume that things that never interact with us, not only matter immensely, but must be explored actively. Perhaps you think I am absolutely retarded, but yes, I can tell you are a bible fanatic. Religions are the groups of people that have answers to these questions. The thing with such questions is that they have no plausible answer.This is simply impossible! If there is no source of such knowledge, any hypothesis you have has absolutely NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT. No matter what it is, this will apply. By the very definition, if we never get any knowledge of this alternate reality, we will never know what it is.

This may be important to you. I am sure it is, because this is a big issue to all people in this Jesus fan club. But when you propose something as true, and fail to accept argument or reason against it, you are actively demeaning the value of truth. Fact is not something you choose because it feels good, or because it is what everyone else thinks is fact. Fact is fact, and there are people out there trying to find what is really going on in this universe. You are not one of them. Nobody has fact isolated inside themselves, subject to change. You only have ignorance, because that is the only thing that can be changed any way you want. It is the only way to stand impervious to thought. Fact involves a lot of work, and real discussion, because we don't yet know exactly what is going on. But when you advocate a position, and crawl back into the 'matters to me' state of being, you are hurting the thought process. You are not trying to find truth, you are avoiding it. This slows down understanding incredibly, because every scientist tries to see if what people are saying is true. But this doesn't lead to more understanding. It consumes time and effort that is used looking for the real truths, and is disgusting.

"Retarded...oohh, that was cruel."

Jk. :-p

First of all, how do the things we DO interact with on a regular basis really matter at all?

Secondly, I am by no means a bible thumper and/or fanatic. I believe in an infinite amount of possibilities that exist outside of our understanding.You're claiming that we should label things based off of what we know. Doing this would be like the cave man labeling the world as flat looking over the horizon. There are new things we are discovering all of the time. To label the things that we believe to be fact as fact is to shut ourselves off to other possibilities. Religions truly only have a small possiblility of being right but i won't deny the idea that they might be.

I see we're about to go in circles....

You said what our senses tell us is all that we have so we should assume that it is right (because it is the only thing that matters, but it really doesn't matter to some people, especially the early nihilists). But us assuming our senses are right is putting ourselves on the same level as the religions that assume that they are right. Neither of them truly have facts to back them up. By seeing things and acting on them you are simply acting because it "feels right", the same thing you are claiming that I am doing.

I'm going to have to take a seperate position here-

The "matters to me" state of being is existentialism at it's finest. If it matters to me why do i really care what else is going on. This is also an extremely intelligent position

nihilism is only supported if you believe nothing we do matters. Even if what we do has little effect on the majority of the mass in the universe, isn't the mass in our little area the most important, because we are here? It is important to me, and I see that as the basis of compassion.

This is completely pointless, beyond a certain point. What we know is all of what we know. There are an infinite set of realities that are possible if we say everything we know is wrong, and even if it weren't, what we know doesn't matter. Christianity is one of this infinite set. The chances are all equal, by the definition, and spending any effort to figure out anything that you can never know is pointless. Why do anything without a point, and why invest in theories with an infinitely small chance of being correct?

Even though there are an infinite amount of possibilities out there the fact that we're completely right is one of those possibilities. Everything we know has an infinite chance of being correct or incorrect, considering we don't know. Both Christianity being right and us being right have about equal possibilities. You can't really blame the Christians. If we're right nothing happens and if they're right we go to hell. If you wanted to save your own butt which end of the stick would you take?

The basis of compassion thingy confused me a little bit. Compassion is caring about the people around us rather than the world? Why is this? Isn't just focusing on the people WE interact with selfishness? Because they directly affect us ? I believe every conscious action to be selfish anyway so I can link practically everything to it.

I am not sure if you have heard about it, but Enlightened Self Interest is the new craze! That is where, if properly enlightened, acting in a completely selfish manner is the best option for the group. This is how the world works. We operate seeing the value of a standard social contract.

Only a handful of people have understood the compassion thing. Let me elaborate. I meant to say, with it not mattering at all which 'truth' exists outside of human perview, the best thing to do is assume it is all correct, and focus on what matters to other people, the world we are in right now.

Compassion is caring about people a hell of a lot more than you care about the dirt. Compassion comes into play, because when real scientists try to figure out what is going on (in reality, you know, that thing we interact with), you are not. People do valuable things (like inventing devices to purify water cheaply for the people who can't), but it seems you are determined not to be one of them. All the things that have helped humanity have come from an understanding of this reality. This is what we need to focus on, by its definition, it is the only thing that will ever yield results.

At one point you said that it makes you feel good, so even if it is a waste of time, it is your waste of time. And I completely agree. If something will make you happy, that is more than enough reason to do it. Significantly more. But if you want to be happy while not caring if you are wasting your time, maybe you should go with Heroin. It is stronger.

Yeah, enlightened self interest- I heard about it in a movie once. "A Beautiful Mind" i think....

It isn't the best move to make for all people though....just for most people. And my point hasn't been that we should neglect this reality completely. My point is that there exists a lot beyond our understanding and Christianity is by no means a more idiotic choice than atheism. The fact that it has existed for so long yields the possiblility that some of it is based off of things that really happened. It would definitley have a stronger base than any religion we could invent now. Okay....ummm....here's a thesis statement (that means if i was writing a paper this would be in the beginning)

"Because we don't truly understand anything, Christianity is possible"

Our very existence itself is faith based. Christians having faith that somebody died for their sins 2000 years ago has just as strong of a base as the idea that trees exist. And you can't say Christianity is counter-productive because it isn't (not always anyway). It presents a solid foundation for the definitions of "good" and "evil" (allowing society to function) . Not to mention all the work Christians often do helping people.

oh yeah- and your argument that we should focus on this reality because it is the only one that affects us is instable. If we go to hell i'm pretty sure that that would affect us.

When you go to Hell, we can theorize about how that matters. Until you can show any way that it has affected one person, one particle, we will assume that it in fact does not affect anything. The burden of proof is on you, because you are making the positive claim that Hell affects us, or more generally, that things that don't affect us, and cannot affect us, in fact do. A contradiction by any reasoning.

Christianity is a answer to questions. These are the right questions, but due to the very nature of some of them, they will never be answered. Why are we here has been answered. That was one of the big questions people feel compelled to make up answers for. Then there was would did everything else get here, which is getting solved by real physicists. Since we have no reason to advocate Christianity as a valid scientific conclusion, we don't advocate it. That is all. Grasping at straws and making up answers only hurts the people trying to find the real answers. Christianity has nothing to do with the collective generous acts of the world. People are naturally inclined to be nice, you know with the whole Enlightened self- interest thing. Perhaps if the best selling book of all time was actually about that, we would be even nicer, seeing how much violence is depicted in the old testament and such.

Wow... a strawman argument right at the beginning...

[quote]What is faith, exactly? Christians say it is their belief in God and Jesus, etc. Faith is the belief in something that is unproven by logic or evidence. [/quote]

May I ask where you got that defination of Christian faith and why I should accept it?

Terror

Doesn't everyone have a certain type of faith? You, ironically, have faith that there is no God. And no, you cannot say it is knowledge because, by your definition of faith, since you cannot prove it with evidence or logic, it is not knowledge.

You also have faith that there are no fairies, right?

[quote]You also have faith that there are no fairies, right?[/quote]

I'm not sure I understand your point ... I admit that I have faith. I was pointing out that even though he says faith is a bad thing ... he still has it.

My point is that I don't have faith that there is no god. I have no faith in anything if you're going by non-contingent faith (a belief without proof).

You're saying that you have faith that fairies don't exist?

Also the essay talks about non contingent faith. [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/doesnt_everyone_take_things_on_faith]Read something about it[/url]

And you can proove by logic and evidence that there is not God then?

How about you learn some logic: the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist.

If no proof of a god has been brought forward, the atheist position still does not require faith. It's reasonable to not believe in something that hasn't been proven.

Doesn't it seem to take much more faith to believe that this universe just came into being instead of being created by a divine power and that something so complex as a cell could be formed at random? And that these complex cells turned into complex organs which turned into complex systems which turned into complex and functioning organisms also by random interaction of cells. Even if there was some primitive self-replicating ribozyme, how could it replicate in such a path as to form an organism. What could direct it in such a way that it would "evolve" into an organism other than God. So you see it is not unreasonable to believe in God; in fact it is more logical than not believing in God. No one can "prove" that God exists, just as no one can prove that he does not exist. The difference is that one can provide evidence for his existence in intelligent design, whereas there is no evidence that God does not exist.

[quote]Doesn't it seem to take much more faith to belief that this universe just came into being instead of being created by a divine power[/quote]

No. There is plenty of proof for the scientific view of the universe, please study cosmology. For example, the Doppler effect is when a wave's frequency decreases as the source moves farther away. Measuring the Doppler effect on far away galaxies shows us that the galaxies are expanding. Scientists have used redshifts and general relativity to conclude that the universe was once all together in a singularity. So far there has never been any similar proof of a skydaddy.

[quote] and that something so complex as a cell could be formed at random?[/quote]

It took time for one-celled organisms to evolve from molecules. There were probably a million other early forms of life that failed to develop into cells. (And no, evolution is not random chance.)

[quote] And that these complex cells turned into complex organs which turned into complex systems which turned into complex and functioning organisms also by random interaction of cells.[/quote]

If my lottery ticket is the winning one out of one million others, is it a miracle that I won?

And it's not random interaction. Molecules attach to only a few kinds and don't with the rest.

[quote] Even if there was some primitive self-replicating ribozyme, how could it replicate in such a path as to form an organism.[/quote]

They interact with others and form combinations and some of those combinations are suitable for life. There were probably a million that didn't.

[quote] What could direct it in such a way that it would "evolve" into an organism other than God.[/quote]

Again, "I don't know how it happened, so God did it."

[quote] So you see it is not unreasonable to believe in God; in fact it is more logical than not believing in God.[/quote]

No. God does not have to be the only explanation as to how we came about.

[quote] No one can "prove" that God exists, just as no one can prove that he does not exist. The difference is that one can provide evidence for his existence in intelligent design, whereas there is no evidence that God does not exist.[/quote]

If you're going to talk about intelligent design, then check these out:

[url=http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm]God's Greatest Mistakes[/url] and [url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/woolsey_teller/atheism_of_astronomy.html]The Atheism of Astronomy: A Refutation Of The Theory That The Universe Is Governed By Intelligence[/url]

[quote]It took time for one-celled organisms to evolve from molecules. There were probably a million other early forms of life that failed to develop into cells. (And no, evolution is not random chance.)

They interact with others and form combinations and some of those combinations are suitable for life. There were probably a million that didn't.
[/quote]

I'm sure it would've taken time ... but how did they evolve? Do you follow Oparin's Theory of the Origin of Life?

[quote]And it's not random interaction. Molecules attach to only a few kinds and don't with the rest.[/quote]

I know they are only compatible with a few kinds. That's why it would be nearly impossible for life to form from molecules. Even if it did form life, the life would be so weak that it would be instantly destroyed by intense radiation that would pass through the non-existent ozone layer that was never formed due to a lack of free oxygen.

[quote]Again, "I don't know how it happened, so God did it."[/quote]

It's not that i don't know how it happened ... I know it couldn't have happened without divine power. But hey let's play your game: "I don't know how it happened, it just evolved."

[quote]No. God does not have to be the only explanation as to how we came about.[/quote]

How did we come about then? Did we just sorta evolve from apes? No. We are a result of intelligent design. And if we did evolve from a common ancestor why isn't there any evidence of recent evolution? Why isn't there a species more advanced than us?

(on origional topic)
Have you ever studied epistomology?

Epistomology studies the way we know what we know.
It includes the criteria for what is truth.

Basically, one must have certian presuppositions, the basic, unsupported beliefs by which we understand the world.

You have faith in many such presuppositions. We all do.

For example, both of us believe, without proof, the usefulness of reason. We accept the material world and use it as evidence to prove our theories and conjectures.

Faith is not pseudoknowledge, it is the only way to have knowledge. It is the only way to make any statement about reality. We must start somewhere, we must all have faith in something.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Jesus Christ his only Son, and the Holy Spirit. I have a reason to live, breathe, and argue on this topic.
You believe in the sole existance of the material world. Life is meaningless to you, a complex interaction of many randomly formed molecules.

Please, allow meaning into your life.

Good points. I agree with you.

Okay, now your assertions are incredibly ridiculous. And also, you skipped over half of my points.

[quote]I'm sure it would've taken time ... but how did they evolve? Do you follow Oparin's Theory of the Origin of Life?[/quote]

Natural selection was what guided evolution; according to genetics, when two parents mate, genes for a certain trait are passed down to different offspring, resulting in offspring with different traits. The offspring with, i.e. intelligent genes, are therefore enabled to survive better and outlive the others. The less intelligent creatures die out while the more intelligent ones live and mate, creating more intelligent offspring. That is a basic explanation of how natural selection works.

Why don't you try and debunk [url=http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/4880]this[/url] also?

[quote]I know they are only compatible with a few kinds. That's why it would be nearly impossible for life to form from molecules. Even if it did form life, the life would be so weak that it would be instantly destroyed by intense radiation that would pass through the non-existent ozone layer that was never formed due to a lack of free oxygen.[/quote]

Nearly impossible. You've completely ignored my question about the lottery ticket point. If my lottery ticket is the winning one, does there have to be some intelligence behind it?

[quote]It's not that i don't know how it happened ... I know it couldn't have happened without divine power. But hey let's play your game: "I don't know how it happened, it just evolved."[/quote]

Oh, so now you're trying to bring my view down to your level.

What is Science?

Still not sure what science is? This talks more about physics.

And again, what exactly is science?

What is the scientific method? Be sure to read the big green statement.

More about the scientific method

Check these transitional fossils out

A new one!

Orbulina

Look at this too.

Reptiles to mammals

Dino-birds

This looks great.

Evolution of the human brain.

Introduction to human emotions.

Composition of the brain.

Personality psychology on Wikipedia.

Personality theories.

Charles Darwin!

The good book.

Evolution for beginners.

God says this is what God says.

Let’s look at the foolish people!

Evolution is a fact.

Facts about Evolution.

Get acquainted with Richard Dawkins.

Talk origins never gets old.

Michael Shermer’s website

What it would be like to be Yahweh

God and Evolution

What we have to learn from Japan. Does atheism and acceptance of evolution cause bad things?

Evolution, science, religion, and facts about atheism.

An evil atheist conspiracy?

A blog about atheism

Sexual Dimorphism

Division of Labor

Early Human Phylogeny

The Evolution of Man

List of specimens

Hominid species

Prominent hominid fossils

Fossil hominids

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12836649/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html

And from another friend of mine, warriorking:

So I'm in medical school learning about the human body and all the time, I'm wondering how creationism (or ID supporters, whoever's willing to answer me) covers some of the similarities between humans and other animals that aren't like us and how they explain how poorly our bodies are designed. I wanted a thread where I could ask my questions, and anyone else who has intellectual questions for creationists, I want to hear other oddities that don't seem to be explained without common ancestry.

Let's suppose that the appendix is an intentional lymphoid tissue (it's not, and it doesn't really serve as such, but let's give Ken Hovind that). How do you explain the hair-on-end reflex to cold or fright? Our hair doesn't insulate us and it doesn't seem to scare away predators or other men in an ensuing battle. Why are our hairs innervated to do that if we have no common ancestor with other mammals? Think about it, dog showing fangs and hair-on-end...you're not going to try to pet it. My hair stands on end, I'm still cold and you'd still probably try to kick my ass. Why do our hair follicles need muscle innervation if we're created intelligently and uniquely from all other mammals?

[i]-Yellow Number Five[/i]

[b]And here are even more links about evolution.

The links debunks creationism and "intelligent design".

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

http://www.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/index.html

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/

[quote]How did we come about then? Did we just sorta evolve from apes? No. We are a result of intelligent design. [/quote]

And just what scientific evidence do you have for this preposterous claim?

[i]The following is from Yellow Number Five's "Questions for Creationists." thread at rationalresponders.com[/i]

A bit of turning the tables in the direction they should be. Feel free to add your own well thought out queries to the irrational. Evolution should NOT ever be on the defensive, when a creationist asks a ridiculously trite strawman of a question, retort with one of my personal favorites:

Here are a few questions I like to ask, and they are only the tip of the iceberg (I can formulate hundreds more, but we must start somewhere):

[b]What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?[/b]

Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well.

[b]What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?[/b]

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.

Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

[b]What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? now?[/b]

[b]How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?[/b]

An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?

You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here:

PubMed links

And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray:

[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/tail6yz.jpg[/IMG]

What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?

[quote]And if we did evolve from a common ancestor why isn't there any evidence of recent evolution?[/quote]

Yes, there is plenty of evidence. Dogs evolved from wolves fairly recently, for one.

Salamanders and Songbirds

More details on the salamanders, with additional links

London mosquitos

Another article on Himalayan song birds

Speciation by reinforcement

Lots of examples here

More examples

Speciation models

Links on examples and models

More on the London mosquitos

Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links

In Drosophila (fruit flies)

[quote]Why isn't there a species more advanced than us?[/quote]

Because man is the most advanced and developed species so far. Man will most likely evolve into a more intelligent species over time.

Re: Reason is a gift

Are you using reason in your post?

If yes, then you're refuted since you're already employing reason itself to ask your questions.

If no, then we can always ignore what you're saying.

We know that reason exists empirically, because we can infer reasoning from behaviors.

We know that reason exists, axiomatically, when we ourselves employ reason.

So we have both empirical evidence and deductive proof. Deductive proof allows us to have certain knowledge that we reason.

Speciation is more of adapting to different habitats than it is evolution. Just because two populations of birds that are warblers have different coloration and mating songs doesn't mean they evolved.

Why would his use of reason refute him?

[quote]Speciation is more of adapting to different habitats than it is evolution. Just because two populations of birds that are warblers have different coloration and mating songs doesn't mean they evolved.[/quote]

That's not the only evidence for evolution. Read the entire post thoroughly.

[quote]Why would his use of reason refute him?[/quote]

Because he's using reason to question where it came from and then concludes the source must be god.

In the biochemical similarities section it continuously states that other compounds/nucleotides/etc. would work equally as well as what life is based on. Has this been tested? Have we created life from these? As far as I know ... it hasn't been truely tested.

And even so ... if evolution is true, then why don't we see any of these "equally working combinations" used along side with the combinations we see as the basis of life today?

[quote]
Because he's using reason to question where it came from and then concludes the source must be god.[/quote]

Uhmmm .... is it just me or does it seem that he is placing a case more about faith than questioning the origin of reason. He used the fact that you share in common with him a faith in the usefulness of reason as an example that we all have some sort of faith.

[quote]In the biochemical similarities section it continuously states that other compounds/nucleotides/etc. would work equally as well as what life is based on. Has this been tested? Have we created life from these? As far as I know ... it hasn't been truely tested.

And even so ... if evolution is true, then why don't we see any of these "equally working combinations" used along side with the combinations we see as the basis of life today?[/quote]

[url=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html]Self-Replicating Molecules Reported in Lab[/url]

[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/]Abiogenesis at TalkOrigins[/url]

And by the way, I like how you're picking out one or two parts of my post to label a flaw and act like it refuted the entire rest of the post.

Sorry that I don't have time to click on all those links ... maybe I should get rid of the nice life I have and read that bologna forever.

[quote=tey][quote=noor]
Because he's using reason to question where it came from and then concludes the source must be god.[/quote]

Uhmmm .... is it just me or does it seem that he is placing a case more about faith than questioning the origin of reason. He used the fact that you share in common with him a faith in the usefulness of reason as an example that we all have some sort of faith.[/quote]

Todangst wrote this:

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

Doesn't everyone take things on faith?

You hear it from theists all the time: "Maybe I do take my beliefs on faith, but so do you!"

Leaving aside the theist's admission of what he really thinks of faith (not much, apparently!), is it true that everyone must take some beliefs on faith?

Well, here's the problem with that question: It contains a fallacy of equivocation.

A fallacy of equivocation occurs when an argument uses the same word in two different senses. And the word "faith" has at least two very distinct meanings. One has a theological sense, and the other, a colloquial sense.

And we can best understand these two general meanings by using the terms Contingent and Non Contingent faith.

Trust is experiential - theistic faith is not.

Contingent faith - is trust. It begins as an instinctual connection to our mothers in infancy, and continues on as the basic blueprint for how we interepret new situations. It is wholly experiential and open to revision.

So this sort of 'faith' is is based on some experience, an instinct, and then, a memory, an expectation. It is also open to falsification. If events occur that lead me to doubt the 'faith', I will discard my faith. If the stranger I have trusted harms me, then my willingness to trust the stranger (and perhaps other strangers) decreases.

So this is Contingent faith. Now, what is Non Contingent faith?

Non contingent faith is the classic Kierkegaardian 'leap of faith', where a belief is held despite its irrational nature. Some even go as far as to employ quia quid absurdum: I believe because it is absurd. This is theistic faith. Non contingent faith. The faith of theism.

Theistic, or non contingent faith, therefore, is the claim that one does not need any rational justification to hold a belief. It is not an epistemological position, it is a rejection of epistemology itself. Therefore theistic faith cannot stand in as a premise in a logical argument.

Here's the bible itself, to affirm these points on theistic faith:

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1.

i.e., it is belief without justification.

Furthermore:

Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV)

Here Paul makes it clear that one cannot have non contingent faith is one has facts! If one has a reason to believe, he cannot have theistic faith by definition!

This will become important as we continue.

Theistic faith is belief without justification. That's it. Period. End of story. And theistic faith must be belief without justification, as there is no way to justify a belief in the supernatural. This is precisely why theologians are diverse as Martin Luther and Soren Kierkegaard agree that a theist MUST begin with a leap of faith.

The fallacy of equivocation made clear.

Because it is hopelessly forlorn dream to grant any legitimacy to non contingent faith, people must instead seek to rip down reason by equating the foundation of reaon with theistic faith through the use of semantic fallacies.

This attempt to bring down reason to the level of theistic faith is just appalling.

So let's put this nonsense into the trashcan

1) Theistic faith is as Paul defines, above.

2) Colloquial usages of faith - i.e., are matters of generalizing basic trust experiences in infanthood, that in turn are born of instinctual, not 'faith based' processes.

These processes are not equitable with non contingent faith. They are the precise opposite of such a faith. They begin in instinct, which is not even cognitive, and they continue through experience, which, is obviously cognitive.

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. "Faith in reason" is a contradiction in terms. "Faith" is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of "faith" cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason. - N Branden

Now it should be a simple matter to expose the fallacy of equivocation that takes place when the theist cries "But you have faith too!" There is a clear difference between trust experiential matters like trust, and Paul's conceptualization of faith. Hence the theist is knowingly or unwittingly equivocating his non contingent belief with a colloquial usage of the word 'faith' that really means trust. He's taking advantage of the fact that two different concepts are expressed by using the same word.

To help remove the equivocation, you need to call these two distinct processes by different names. I suggest contingent vs non contingent faith.

- by todangst
-------------------------------------

[quote]Sorry that I don't have time to click on all those links ... maybe I should get rid of the nice life I have and read that bologna forever.[/quote]

Yeah, but you have time to come on here, right? And, you need to first learn about evolution before you claim it is false.

[quote]Todangst wrote this:

Doesn't everyone take things on faith?

[i]You hear it from theists all the time: "Maybe I do take my beliefs on faith, but so do you!"

Leaving aside the theist's admission of what he really thinks of faith (not much, apparently!), is it true that everyone must take some beliefs on faith?

Well, here's the problem with that question: It contains a fallacy of equivocation.

A fallacy of equivocation occurs when an argument uses the same word in two different senses. And the word "faith" has at least two very distinct meanings. One has a theological sense, and the other, a colloquial sense.

And we can best understand these two general meanings by using the terms Contingent and Non Contingent faith.

Trust is experiential - theistic faith is not.

Contingent faith - is trust. It begins as an instinctual connection to our mothers in infancy, and continues on as the basic blueprint for how we interepret new situations. It is wholly experiential and open to revision.

So this sort of 'faith' is is based on some experience, an instinct, and then, a memory, an expectation. It is also open to falsification. If events occur that lead me to doubt the 'faith', I will discard my faith. If the stranger I have trusted harms me, then my willingness to trust the stranger (and perhaps other strangers) decreases.

So this is Contingent faith. Now, what is Non Contingent faith?

Non contingent faith is the classic Kierkegaardian 'leap of faith', where a belief is held despite its irrational nature. Some even go as far as to employ quia quid absurdum: I believe because it is absurd. This is theistic faith. Non contingent faith. The faith of theism.

Theistic, or non contingent faith, therefore, is the claim that one does not need any rational justification to hold a belief. It is not an epistemological position, it is a rejection of epistemology itself. Therefore theistic faith cannot stand in as a premise in a logical argument.

Here's the bible itself, to affirm these points on theistic faith:

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1.

i.e., it is belief without justification.

Furthermore:

Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV)

Here Paul makes it clear that one cannot have non contingent faith is one has facts! If one has a reason to believe, he cannot have theistic faith by definition!

This will become important as we continue.

Theistic faith is belief without justification. That's it. Period. End of story. And theistic faith must be belief without justification, as there is no way to justify a belief in the supernatural. This is precisely why theologians are diverse as Martin Luther and Soren Kierkegaard agree that a theist MUST begin with a leap of faith.

The fallacy of equivocation made clear.

Because it is hopelessly forlorn dream to grant any legitimacy to non contingent faith, people must instead seek to rip down reason by equating the foundation of reaon with theistic faith through the use of semantic fallacies.

This attempt to bring down reason to the level of theistic faith is just appalling.

So let's put this nonsense into the trashcan

1) Theistic faith is as Paul defines, above.

2) Colloquial usages of faith - i.e., are matters of generalizing basic trust experiences in infanthood, that in turn are born of instinctual, not 'faith based' processes.

These processes are not equitable with non contingent faith. They are the precise opposite of such a faith. They begin in instinct, which is not even cognitive, and they continue through experience, which, is obviously cognitive.

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. "Faith in reason" is a contradiction in terms. "Faith" is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of "faith" cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason. - N Branden

Now it should be a simple matter to expose the fallacy of equivocation that takes place when the theist cries "But you have faith too!" There is a clear difference between trust experiential matters like trust, and Paul's conceptualization of faith. Hence the theist is knowingly or unwittingly equivocating his non contingent belief with a colloquial usage of the word 'faith' that really means trust. He's taking advantage of the fact that two different concepts are expressed by using the same word.

To help remove the equivocation, you need to call these two distinct processes by different names. I suggest contingent vs non contingent faith.[/i][/quote]

I already read this from a website. This is the problem with his definition of faith: He writes it assuming that the existence of God is irrational. Why can't theistic faith being experiential? We all observe the world around us, and in doing so I have concluded that God created the world; all creation and true science point back to God.

Also the use of Romans is incorrect. This verse is stating the reason that God doesn't reveal everything to us: he wants us to earnestly seek him and hope (wait patiently) for our adoption as his sons.

[quote]Yeah, but you have time to come on here, right? And, you need to first learn about evolution before you claim it is false.[/quote]

The same can be said for most on this forum. I am also here for a learning experience. There have been so many incorrect assumptions about Christianity in this forum and I have not even read half of the posts. That is the real problem with debates. We all come in with presuppositions and closed-off minds, not fully understanding the opposer's position. This whole website seems mainly focused on just bashing Christianity and proving it wrong (is this site anti-theist or anti-Christian God?). So you see this has become not freethinkingteens.com but rather christianbashingteens.com.

Oh and by the way your "burden of proof" statement is very incorrect. Since I am responding to posts in defense of my beliefs, you are more inclined to provide evidence than I am. As it is in court trials, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution not the defense.

[quote]There have been so many incorrect assumptions about Christianity in this forum and I have not even read half of the posts.[/quote]

No incorrect assumption from me, I was a Christian.

Really, now? You know it is impossible to lose salvation, right? Once saved, always saved. So either you were a Christian and still are, or you just weren't. I'm guessing the latter since you do deny the existence of God.

[quote]Really, now?[/quote]

Really.

[quote]You know it is impossible to lose salvation, right?[/quote]

I deny the holy spirit and the miracles Jesus performed were all thanks to Satan.

How about now?

[quote]Once saved, always saved.[/quote]

Then why are all these Christians still bothering to "save" me when they already know I was once a Christian.

Are you the only Christian that is taught this stuff?

[quote]So either you were a Christian and still are, or you just weren't.[/quote]

I was a Catholic first, then became a Christian.

So, uhh...yeah.

[quote]I'm guessing the latter since you do deny the existence of God.[/quote]

And the holy spirit.

[quote]Really.[/quote]

That's interesting.

[quote]I deny the holy spirit and the miracles Jesus performed were all thanks to Satan.

How about now?[/quote]

That just means u were simply never a Christian.

[quote]Then why are all these Christians still bothering to "save" me when they already know I was once a Christian.

Are you the only Christian that is taught this stuff?[/quote]

Ha, far from it. Many Christians believe that you can lose your salvation. Many don't. The arguement could go both ways. The Christians who do believe that you can lose your salvation are witnessing simply because they think of you as a sheep gone astray. Christians that believe you can't lose your salvation would witness to you simply because they would say that since you deny God now, your claims of being a Christian were false. Therefore, it wouldn't exactly matter even if I was the only Christian taught this would it?

[quote]I was a Catholic first, then became a Christian.

So, uhh...yeah.[/quote]

That doesn't make any sense as a response to the quote you put it under.

But, uhh...yeah.

[quote]

And the holy spirit.[/quote]

Can't forget the Holy Spirit, can you? Considering God and the Holy Spirit are the same.

[quote]That just means u were simply never a Christian.[/quote]

Yes I was and if you had said something like that to me back then, I would have been pissed.

[quote]Ha, far from it. Many Christians believe that you can lose your salvation. Many don't. The arguement could go both ways. The Christians who do believe that you can lose your salvation are witnessing simply because they think of you as a sheep gone astray. Christians that believe you can't lose your salvation would witness to you simply because they would say that since you deny God now, your claims of being a Christian were false. Therefore, it wouldn't exactly matter even if I was the only Christian taught this would it?[/quote]

If my claims of being a Christian were false, then I was never a Christian.

And if I was never a Christian, then I was never a sheep gone astray. So I am in danger of going to Hell right now because I'm not a Christian.

If so, then how can someone make a false claim of being a Christian, not lose his salvation, even though he was not a Christian? And how did that person achieve salvation if his false claim didn't make him a Christian?

[quote]That doesn't make any sense as a response to the quote you put it under.

But, uhh...yeah.[/quote]

Stop using the Creationist Method. I hate when you do that, you sound retarded.

[quote]
Can't forget the Holy Spirit, can you? Considering God and the Holy Spirit are the same.[/quote]

The Holy Spirit seems to be different in some unique way...

Oh yeah, you can't blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.

[quote]If my claims of being a Christian were false, then I was never a Christian.

And if I was never a Christian, then I was never a sheep gone astray. So I am in danger of going to Hell right now because I'm not a Christian.

If so, then how can someone make a false claim of being a Christian, not lose his salvation, even though he was not a Christian? And how did that person achieve salvation if his false claim didn't make him a Christian?[/quote]

I was arguing what both sides of Christianity would say in this situation. You read it wrong.

[quote]Stop using the Creationist Method. I hate when you do that, you sound retarded.[/quote]

Uhmmm ... what? haha.

[quote]The Holy Spirit seems to be different in some unique way...

Oh yeah, you can't blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

When you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit you blaspheme against God, and vice versa. Have you ever heard of the Trinity? God the Father, God the Son, and the God the Spirit? They are three seperate being combined into one. Therefore they are the same being.

[quote]The same can be said for most on this forum. I am also here for a learning experience. There have been so many incorrect assumptions about Christianity in this forum and I have not even read half of the posts.[/quote]

Many of the people here were christians who used to believe, so they can't simply be assuming things.

[quote]That is the real problem with debates. We all come in with presuppositions and closed-off minds, not fully understanding the opposer's position. This whole website seems mainly focused on just bashing Christianity and proving it wrong (is this site anti-theist or anti-Christian God?). So you see this has become not freethinkingteens.com but rather christianbashingteens.com.[/quote]

Not this again. We deal with christians because they are the dominant religion. If a muslim or hindu was to come on here, we would (as you put it) "bash" them the same.

If you visit the RRS site, you'll see that nowhere do they mention christianity anywhere on the site graphics. It's always "theism".

[quote]Oh and by the way your "burden of proof" statement is very incorrect. Since I am responding to posts in defense of my beliefs, you are more inclined to provide evidence than I am. As it is in court trials, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution not the defense.[/quote]

You're not getting what the burden of proof is about.

You and I have different beliefs. When we are both in positive positions (like creation vs. evolution) then the burden of proof is on both of us. When we debate god's existence, you're in the positive position and I'm in the negative position. The burden of proof is not on me since I'm in the negative position.

When we debate creation vs. evolution, it's different because we are both in positive positions. The burden of proof is on both of us. However, if I simply deny creation is true (without mentioning evolution) the burden of proof is on you. If I say creation is false AND evolution is true, then I also have to provide evidence for my positive (evolution).

[quote=tey]I was arguing what both sides of Christianity would say in this situation. You read it wrong.[/quote]

Yes, I understand. But I thought you were in the side that believes that once you're saved, you're always saved. Then you mentioned that my claiming to be a Christian was false, that's why I said that.

[quote]When you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit you blaspheme against God, and vice versa. Have you ever heard of the Trinity? God the Father, God the Son, and the God the Spirit? They are three seperate being combined into one. Therefore they are the same being.[/quote]

Yeah, I heard of the Trinity.

Why does there have to be three?