Over the past few years, I have endeavored to locate, examine, and critique every piece of evidentiary material I could get my hands on…..both from an evolutionary standpoint and a creationist standpoint. It has been an obsession that consumes hours of thought and contemplation each and every day of my life. I’ve carefully reviewed both sides of the argument with respect to topics such as abiogenesis, speciation, evolution, the methods used to date the earth and the universe, the fossil record, Intelligent Design, etc. I’ve read and listened to countless point and counter-point arguments. Despite what some may think, I have truly approached this as objectively as I can. I am not afraid of discovering something that would turn my Christian beliefs upside down and leave me with no choice but to abandon them. I do not accept arguments simply because the person making it claims to be a lifelong biologist or an accredited theologian or a high profile geologist or a creationist historian. Those credentials certainly add credibility but the facts are the facts regardless of who is interpreting them.
I call bullshit. There is nothing in your posts that indicate that this has ever been the case. You have consistently ignored evidence that is presented that demonstrates that creationism/ID is non-scientific and evidence that demonstrates that evolutionary theory is indeed a fact and a theory with much evidence supporting it. *If* you have actually put so many hours into studying these issues, one thing you would have noticed is that there is indeed no scientific evidence for creationism/ID. That you don’t realize this, and *still* use a wrong definition of evolutionary theory, is potent evidence that you have not done as you claim.
I was not brought up in the Christian environment that so many believe indoctrinated people like me to the point where we are willing to live a life of self imposed lies and deceit in order to preserve those beliefs. It wasn’t until I was 16 years old that I became a Christian. My parents were not the devout Christians the non-theists would like to think. Regardless, I did have to admit that if I was going to be fair to myself when approaching the theist vs. non-theist debate that I would have to make a determined effort to shackle my faith for the purpose of seeing if the alleged ‘gaps’ could be filled.
You were brought up in the US, correct? Where there is a church on every corner. Your parents were Christians, I’m guessing, since you went out of your way to call them not “devout”. I suspect that you are using the usual “no true scotsman” argument to determine if you are a Christian.
There is plenty of evidence that people like you are indeed willing and do live lives full of willfully ignored lies and who use that willful ignorance to spread those lies in order to cling to their belief that they know something special about the universe and that the creator of the universe will give them a magical present after they die.
As it stands, I feel better than I can ever remember feeling about the reality of God that I have encountered through all of this.
That’s sad but expected, and more evidence that you have never actually done what you have claimed, since you are in effect saying that no matter what, you will refuse to accept anything that shows that you are wrong. You have also failed in producing any of the evidence you have promised.
To repeat something I have said in another thread, Christianity logically satisfies my need to understand: How we got here. Why we’re here. Where we’re going.
How the universe and ‘life’ came to be.
Again, you claim logic, but again you have yet to show how this works with real logic, rather than your attempts to redefine that word. Your reasons are the same as every other theist. You want to believe you are right, and you have decided that your baseless claims are true, no matter what. Any Muslim, Hindu, Shintoist, Wicca, etc, makes the same claims; that they *know* how we’re here, why we’re her and where we’re going. Why aren’t they as right as you if we can go only personal unsupported opinion as the basis of supposed “reality”?
Your “bible” claims are not supported. There was no “creation” event that made a man out of mud. There was no flood. Nothing about your religion is supported by reality. How we got here isn’t by gods and mud or gods and cosmic eggs or a cow licking giants who created humanity from their armpits. Why we’re here isn’t that we’re made to give your god love, or to feed gods our hearts, etc. And where we’re going, well, you Christians have been claiming that your god will be back “real soon now” and failed for millennia. Zoroasterians claim that we’re here to fight in the last battle, etc. No evidence that any of you are right and no reason to think you will be in the future.
In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe point to an Intelligent Designer. The TOE and the various hypotheses about abiogenesis attempts to explain this but comes up way too short to convince me. There are so many assumptions and floating variables behind crucial areas of it. In addition, I see very little, if any, benefit derived from phylogenetics. In fact, it only demonstrates that different species have similar DNA which could point to an Intelligent Designer just as easily as it could to a common ancestor. Convincing evidence of beneficial random mutation is virtually non-existent. Why has evolution not eliminated schizophrenia? Evolution cannot explain ourdesire to create things like art and music. Evolution cannot explain why animals have been known to flee an area just before a tsunami occurs. The TOE cannot account for why or how sexual reproduction evolved.. .and on and on I could go. These may seem like trivial issues but attempts to explain how the processes of evolution would/could account for them does not fit. Also, I could add dozens and dozens of more unanswerable questions to the list. And this says nothing of the BIG blank that alleged abiogenesis creates. Do I think the ToE is a complete farce? No, I do not….and I have said this numerous times. What I do take exception to is the manner in which it is used to convey untruths about various aspects of evolution through the ages.
And you don’t even understand them to claim that they “come up to short”. What willfully ignorant arrogance, BS. You have been repeatedly asked to show how you understand these supposed “many assumptions and floating variables” and you can’t even show that they exist. You throw around words like “phylogenetics” but you can’t show any reason why to think tht they are wrong. And of course, you have yet to show any evidence for creationism. Where are those aliens, BS? Oh yes, you don’t actually believe that, it’s your Christian God and it *is* creationism. Your god, or aliens, must be idiots considering how screwed up organisms can be.
You have lied repeatedly about there not being evidence that there is beneficial random mutation. I do love how you decide, as ignorant as you are, that you are arbitrator of what is “convincing”. and again, you show you haven’t a clue about evolutionary theory. Evolutionary hasn’t yet eliminated schizophrenia. There could be an advantage that we haven’t found yet, or it simply might have not had enough time. And ROFL, oooh, animals can react to earthquakes and tsunamis. Golly, BS, we already know they have better senses than us and we know that earthquakes sent out vibrations that humans can’t sense without equipment. Oh and quick, BS, hide your eyes from the research that is working out how sexual reproduction evolved. I do like to see the desperation you show when you bring up such pure ridiculousness. You could indeed go on and on and I’d be happy to show how pathetic your arguments are everytime. Poor BS, when we do figure out abiogenesis and it seems just as likely, as oh, JC coming back
, poor thing will have to find something else to claim is wrong. And BS, with your lack of comprehension about the ToE, who cares what you think of what you’ve made up with the help of your creationist friends? It makes no difference since it doesn’t address the real theory of evolution at all.
As for the Intelligent Design argument, all I was trying to convey is that it deserves consideration. I realize the approach being taken is a bit of a different scientific angle but that is a very poor reason to just dismiss it. When someone can demonstrate to me that confining the scientific method to naturalistic causes can provide absolute truths and an irrefutable explanation for our reality, I will stand down. Until then, I will continue to maintain a willingness to seek and find answers with an open mind.
Sorry, don’t buy it for a moment. All I have seen you try to do is to convince us that intelligent design is real and that your religion is the answer on who the designer is, both amazingly poorly. You have shown no evidence for consideration, BS and you have clung to your lie that it is scientific in any way in the face of evidence to the contrary. That is a perfect reason to dismiss it, there is nothing to support it at all. And finally you return to your vomit by trying to claim that the scientific method can be used to show non-naturalistic causes. Well, BS, if you can use the scientific method to demonstrate the existence of ID, or your god’s existence, etc, we’re still waiting for someone to do so. Where is the hypothesis that says your god exists? Then where is the observation and evidence for this god? Where is the evidence for a unique creation event? The flood? the magical arising of new animals *poof*? Magical healing from prayer? That last one would be easy to do with the scientific method but gee, no theist has done so.
So, BS, make the claim that you are still “looking”. You sure still are since you’ve failed to present anything that shows that evolutionary theory is wrong or that your religion is right. Your open mind is anything but, since you can’t even force the real theory of evolution into it.