Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

  • Satanus


    The evidence cited by each side, some of it is the same. However, the way it is enterpreted is the crux of the arguement. Creationists simply take a quick look at some aspects of nature and pronounce it evidence for a creator. Scientists have taken the same evidence, and done an in depth study of it's make up and it's place in the bigger picture in the cosmos. The result of this study is that the need for a creator god is almost never there, anymore. This need is called the god of the gaps. As science learns more about nature, the god of the gaps' role has been reduced to practically zero. That means zero evidence for creationism.


  • Lion Cask
    Lion Cask

    I concur generally with what you have just said, Satanus, but I think the greater dynamic is more like incredulity than interpretation.

    When our mind is closed we accept our position as irrefutable fact. When presented with evidence that does not mesh with our irrefutable fact, we reject the evidence. It does not fit, therefore it is wrong.

  • Lion Cask
    Lion Cask

    Of course, another dynamic at play is the partially open mind. In this case, when evidence doesn't fit the fact but it is overwhelmingly logical, we simply alter the dimensions of the fact a little to accomodate the evidence. Theists believing in evolution an example.

  • bohm

    Satanus -- . in order for some observation to be evidence it must also come with some kind of argument. I see far to often that the creationists just throw out some observation --look at the complicated mammal eye!-- and no framework that somehow transform it into evidence for creation.

    And like you note, whenever you seriously begin to engage the creationists -- just asking them to explain what they mean by the arguments they themself bring up -- it all dissolve and a new observation is pulled out of the hat.

    rinse. repeat.

    I wish the creationists would start more threads like: "The (...) is evidence for creation, here is how".

  • Lion Cask
    Lion Cask

    Labels don't help, either. We are a normal distribution, aka a bell curve. On one extreme are the absolute atheists who will not under any circumstances entertain the slightest notion that there might be a God. On the other extreme are the absolute theists who will not under any circumstances entertain the slightest notion that there might not be a God. Both extremes are insufferably close minded, but the latter extreme for whatever reason is more populous than the former.

    I'm way over on the left hand side of the curve but not at the extreme. I am not so arrogant as to believe with absolute certainty that God does not exist but I am absolutely certain that I have yet to see compelling evidence of it. Show me the evidence and I will entertain it. I ask in return only that you reciprocate, otherwise just go away.

  • ziddina

    Ha, ha ha ha!!!

    Hooberus, I see you haven't addressed MY comment, at all!!!

    HOW old is the bible??? What is the oldest bit of script that can actually be traced as part of the bible??? FIND the answer to that question - using VALID archaeological evidence....

    THEN tell me how old Stonehenge is... How old the Great Pyramids of Egypt are... How old the cave paintings in the Lascaux and Chauvet Pont du' Arc caves of of France are... How old the first civilization of Crete is.... [hint - Crete had cities while the Israelites were still supposedly wandering around in the wilderness...] How old the Goddess temples on the Island of Malta are... How old the Berekhat Ram figurine - found, ironically, in Israel - is....?????

    THEN explain to me, HOW one of the YOUNGEST "deities" worshipped on the face of the planet can POSSIBLY be the "true" 'god' ?????

    Need I remind you - "Yahweh" - "Jehovah" - DIDN'T EVEN EXIST until around 4,000 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!

    It is just plain COMMON SENSE that the "true" "god"- or "goddess" - of the planet, WON'T be some "Johnny-come-Lately" deity...

    The 'TRUE' deity should be the OLDEST, NOT ONE OF THE YOUNGEST!!!!!

    And THAT little chronological problem, right there, ELIMINATES any of the "Johnny-come-lately" Middle Eastern "gods" as the "TRUE" "god".

    Which eliminates ALL the creationist mythology present in the religious writings of those false "gods".... Including Genesis...

    It's SO simple, if you just would LOOK at it!!!


  • ziddina

    That which is 'human' is FAR older than the bible...

    Whereas, if the bible were true, that which is "bible", should be at least as old as that which is 'human'....

    SO plain - SO simple - SO obvious!!!

    And yet you don't see it....


  • AGuest
    Would it not be refreshing if people just stood alone and expressed themselves rather than standing on the shoulders of others whose opinions mesh with their own?

    IMHO, it would, dear LC (peace to you!), but I notice that when someone like myself does, we are labled as "crazy" (by both those who claim to believe and those who don't). I have posted on several occasions where I feel evolution has a problem. Never... not once... in close to ten years... has anyone refuted or corrected me. To the contrary, there is either silence... or eye-rolling commentary that "suggests" I am in error, but never states it ("Your wrong, Shelby, because... well, because you're just wrong and too stupid to know it!"). I have asked, kindly, politely, sincerely... and each time been told that, "No, you really don't want to know." Which, it seems to ME... is the SAME thing "christians" say/do when they can't explain their positions.

    True faith is not blind, dear one; it really is based on evidence. That is what faith IS: the EVIDENT demonstration of REALITY, though NOT BEHELD.

    Over the years, my expressions have been similar to those of Dr. Wise, but with my reasons WHY (although our respective manner of receipt of such knowledge appers to have been different, although I am not so sure):

    "I had come to know [Jesus] Christ. I had in those years come to know Him. I had become familiar with His love and His concern for me. He had become a real friend to me. He was the reason I was even alive both physically and spiritually. I could not reject Him."

    Dr. Wise claimed a knowledge of Christ based on what he read about that One. Surely, if reading compels a person to such love and inability to reject, then literally knowing that same person might, as well. It did in my case. Now, folks will say, "Well, Christ has never spoken to ME, so I cannot believe/put my faith in him until he does." And I totally respect that. Yet, when I say he CAN... they run for the hills, totally dismissing every possibility. Wouldn't a TRUE scientist at least bother... perhaps even say, "Okay, show me?"

    On the other hand, I would say, I have never seen... or even heard that another has seen... one species evolve into an entirely different species. I know of the evolution to SUB-species, which I totally "embrace"... as I believe it is part of the entire creation process: that all life came from one source, each "kind" with variations on that source. Which is why we have the commonalities in DNA, etc., that we do. But just like one would say, "Show me Christ," I would say, "Show me evolution such that one species evolves into another." I realize that ALL species may need to adapt, icluding homo sapiens, but that is not what it appears evolution is saying it is limited to. And that's where I have to disagree.

    I am not so arrogant as to believe with absolute certainty that God does not exist but I am absolutely certain that I have yet to see compelling evidence of it. Show me the evidence and I will entertain it.

    Are you SURE? Because I would be MORE than willing to show you what it is I base my faith on. One such thing would be the origin of the physical universe itself, which I saw and would happily share with you. And it comports with science.

    I ask in return only that you reciprocate, otherwise just go away.

    And I, you... only I would also ask (1) that you answer my questions from your OWN knowledge and belief, versus, as you state "standing on the shoulders of others whose opinions mesh with your own (and you could certainly feel free to use references, but only AS references); and (2) that you not let your "argument(s)" deteriorate to include calling me... or my opinions, beliefs, references, even evidence... "ridiculous" "stupid" or othe unkind and unsavory names. Because those are... what's the term... merely ad hominens? Which, call me crazy but I believe, have no place in a truly rational discussion.

    Again, I bid you peace!

    A slave of Christ,


  • jaguarbass

    You can go back to the begining of civilization to Sumer and the story of Jehovah and Satin is there in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

    Also the story of Noah and the Flood. All the players had Sumerian names.

    These biblical stories go back to the begining of recorded history, when man just poped up and could

    do complicated math and plot the stars in the sky.

  • aligot ripounsous
    aligot ripounsous

    “There is only one greater folly than that of the fool who says in his heart there is no God, and that is the folly of the people that says with its head that it does not know whether there is a God or not”

    Otto Von Bismarck

Share this