The debate over Darwin 150 years on

November 24, 2009

Debate continues to swirl around the theory of evolution Charles Darwin proposed 150 years ago in his groundbreaking book, “On the Origin of Species,” despite its universal acceptance among scientists.

Before Darwin’s discovery, the world was generally thought to have remained more or less the same since its creation. This belief, based on Biblical interpretations, was contested through fossil studies showing that species change over time.

Darwin’s legendary round-the-world 1831-1836 voyage aboard the HMS Beagle generated his most significant observations and discoveries, inspiring his work on natural selection.

Although Darwin first used the term “natural selection” in a paper in 1842, it wasn’t until 1859 that he published his controversial theory that all living beings share a common ancestry — a discovery that remains vital to modern biology.

Author Nick Spencer, director of studies at Theos, a research organisation launched in 2006 with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, explained why the debate persists to this day.

“People are encountering evolution not so much as a science but as a philosophy,” he told Reuters ahead of a Nov. 24 lecture at Westminster Abbey to mark the anniversary of the exact date on which Darwin’s book was first published.

Comments

Haha““The predictable question which would then come from creationist lips would be “if they have the capability to evolve further, why have they not done so already, why do they show no signs of doing so now?” The answer is simple. We killed their chances.””If they are not observed to do it or don’t show any sign of doing it (may be due to we killed the chances or whatsoever the reason may be…) then upon what basis you believe that it happened before or will happen in future?? Only assumption!All that you described happens only in words not in practical life…that is why like all evolutionists you have to describe everything either in past tense or future tense….not in present tense…..Forming communities, using tools, communicating with each other etc are not specific to Monkeys, all these has long been happening in lower class species as well…such as Bee. And these do not prove they are evolving to other species.Michael hamWell, I am not advocating for God of any particular religion here. I just want to point out that after going over facts you will find no evidence to conclude that matters can created or designed by themselves nor can they evolve themselves from one stage to another, nor can they change their situation themselves (as like in your example fire couldn’t burn the house without that man’s initiative…the reason the man was guilty for.)Rather from close observation we can find out that any kind of material object has to be created or designed by someone…..that is why the material world we observe has been created by someone……..you can give any name to this ‘someone’….God/Deity/Creator/X/Y/Z ….not necessarily a christian God.

Posted by Vista | Report as abusive
 

Vista,You denying the big bang theory is fine, that’s not the subject here we’ll leave that for another blog.It always goes right back to the original point, the #1 objective here is to get you guys to realize it’s natural selection. Much like how a woman will choose a good looking guy who’s tall and muscular over a short ugly guy.

Posted by Michael Ham | Report as abusive
 

Evolution is based on evidence, observation, testable predictions and assumptions.Science is based on evidence, observation, testable predictions and assumptions.Religion is based on assumptions. Nothing more.You mention that evolution has gaps in evidence. Religion is based on no evidence. It is nothing but one huge gap in evidence and logic.But evolution is based on real evidence. And whether you deny this evidence is conclusive, religion has no evidence whatsoever.You claim that gaps in evidence mean that evolution should be dismissed. So according to your own logic, religion must be even less credible then evolution is.

Posted by Haha | Report as abusive
 

To Noah Idea…If someone doesn’t know how a computer works or what do computers do then, according to you, it is not logical for him to accept the computer is manufactured by someone!! Well, than we have to be expert on naval science and ship engineering to decide whether the ship is prepared by someone or not, we have to be expert on leather technology to decide whether any leather goods (wallets, belts, shoes etc) is manufactured by someone or not, we have to be pharmacologists to know that medicines are prepared by pharmaceutical companies????!!!!! So an electrical engineer or computer scientist is an illogical person to think Panenza Vaccine is manufactured by Sanofi-Aventis as long as he doesn’t know how Panenza works in his body, likewise a medical scientist is an illogical person if he thinks airplane is manufactured by Boeing Company as long as he doesn’t acquire knowledge on aeronautical science???? Really funny!! As every individual person can not be expert on every aspect of knowledge and science then no body on earth, according to your logic, is a rational being.Come on to the reality!As I told before one of most fundamental observations on matter is every form of MATTER is created or manufactured or designed by someone. You are overlooking this observation unintentionally or intentionally (probably to save your evolution dogma). Otherwise it is not hard to realize if we take into account that computer as a combination of matters and matters can not be combined itself if someone doesn’t do it….anyone who has a workable brain can recognize that computer is manufactured by someone. To know its origin it is not mandatory to know its detail working mechanism….its existence is enough to know it… and it is based on established fact about matter…that is why after going back to home if you find out a cane of coca cola on your desk you become sure that someone had come and put it there (even if you don’t know the formula of coke, don’t know how it acts in your body).Same thing with broken house!!Can you tell me in that example of broken house…which evidence that can best explains your observations within the rules of logic and natural laws would make you think that the door was broken by itself or goods were vanished itself?? None!According to your logic, if your ‘missing goods’ included gold, silver or diamond then after finding out those missing you had to be in rush to go into a library to get the knowledge on metallurgy before going to inform the police. After all if you don’t have knowledge on physical, chemical properties, mechanisms, all possible uses etc of gold, silver and diamonds you couldn’t prove the burglar guilty!! (Because you can’t claim that someone did it as long as you don’t have this knowledge on gold, silver, diamond). A very bad joke indeed.The reality is ‘Broken door’ or ‘missing goods’ are themselves prove that someone broke and taken away….you can call this someone as bugler or thief or anything you want. If such thing happens you or police will never try to find out ‘whether it is done by someone or happen by the doors or goods themselves?’ rather you or police will try to find out ‘who did it?’ (Means that ‘someone has done it’ is established fact). The reason is simple (but hard to accept for evolutionists) matter cannot be placed or displaced, or created, designed or changed themselves. Someone must be there to make it to happen. This is the fact about material worlds….the fact we in our real life act upon.

Posted by Straight Talk | Report as abusive
 

The reason your argument fails is because you equate logic to making bad analogies. When we look at the matter which makes up the universe, we can clearly observe and identify the physical forces which act on them such as gravity, magnetism, energy and physics. We can see the natural processes by which matter changes. But looking at the same matter, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that a deity is involved in their creation or process. When we look at the development of life, the result is the exactly the same. The natural forces in the development of life (evolution, natural selection and genetics) can be clearly identified, but once again no actual evidence of deity can be found no matter how hard you look. When you conclude that all matter requires an intelligent force behind it, you reach a conclusion for which you have no evidence. You assume that the universe must be designed because it is complex. You assume a designer exists because you assume the universe is designed. You assume that the universe is complex because it was made by a designer. Your entire argument is based on circular reasoning, spinning endlessly around with no logic or evidence in sight. This is something which you, and all other creationists, simply cannot accept. There is a reason for why you continue to make poor analogies and attack the gaps in evolution’s evidence. Because you are trying to hide the fact that creationism itself is nothing but a huge gap in evidence. And because you can never justify creationism in any evidentiary or logical manner, or feel you have no need to do so, your only approach is to attack evolution. But no matter how much you do so, you can never overcome the failings of creationism. And it is these failings which prevent it from being taken seriously by anyone with even a passing understanding of the scientific method (or indeed, the rules of logic).

Posted by Noah Idea | Report as abusive
 

A teacher gave a white blank paper to his student and instructed him to draw a picture on it. After sometimes the student declared that he has finished his drawing.
Teacher : What did you portrayed?
Student : Sir, I portrayed a cow eating grass in a field.
The student gave back the paper to his teacher. Amid anger & astonishment the teacher noticed that the paper was blank, nothing is being drawn on the paper.
Teacher : Hey, it’s blank. What did you do? Didn’t you tell me that you have portrayed a cow eating grass? Where’s that, where’s that cow and where’s the grass?
Student : Oh! Sir, the cow has eaten all the grasses in the field so you can’t see the grass.
Teacher : I see!!! Then, how about the cow?? Where it is?
Student : After eating grass the cow went back to home…its living place, so you can’t see the cow here either.
‘The cow eats grass” or “Cows go back to home after grazing” these are some observations which are generally correct. But what the boy concluded based on these observations is a pure deception and whole story becomes a joke. The story of evolution is just like that. Based on some usually correct observations, evolutionists put some funny arguments to draw a conclusion which doesn’t fit with the reality and makes the whole thing a joke if not an intentional deception.

Posted by one2one | Report as abusive
 

Situation A

“A person walks into their house. They notices the door broken open, and several items missing.”

Evolutionist: The door was locked, and has been broken open. I had items, now they are missing. It is likely that some real entity was involved. So I conclude based on the evidence that another human has robbed me.

Creationist: I think a God exists. I have no evidence to base this on, but this doesn’t matter because evidence is not relevent to me. So I conclude that God opened my house and made my items disappear.

Situation B

“A person sees a computer in the middle of the ground”

Evolutionist: A computer is an artificial device. It does not occur in nature, so a human engineer was involved. Computers are made by a process known as engineering. So I conclude that a human engineer was responsible for making the computer.

Creationist: I say that God made this computer. And I will believe this until someone can prove there is no God.

Situation C

“A person looks at the evidence for the development of life and is asked to make a conclusion”

Evolutionist: Based on life as it exists today, it appears that current life has common ancestors. This is backed up by thousands of fossil forms which confirm gradual development in the species of the past. Through genetics and natural selection, we have a process by which species can change over time. Looking at all the information, I conclude that evolution is the manner in which life developed on this planet. I will support this conclusion, but will alter my position if further evidence arises.

Creationist: Even though Evolution is based on a massive amount of evidence, I still think there are some gaps in the evidence presented. So I will choose instead to follow religion, which is based on absolutely no evidence at all. This is because of my religious upbringing, which taught me to associate believability with a complete lack of evidence. As my belief in religion does not rely on any evidence, evidence means nothing to me. As a result, my position will never change regardless of what evidence has been or will be discovered.

Posted by Haha | Report as abusive
 

A teacher gave a white blank paper to his student and instructed him to draw a picture on it. After sometimes the student declared that he has finished his drawing.

Teacher : What did you portrayed?

Student : Sir, I portrayed a cow eating grass in a field.

The student gave back the paper to his teacher. Amid anger & astonishment the teacher noticed that the paper was blank, nothing is being drawn on the paper.

Teacher : Hey, it’s blank. What did you do? Didn’t you tell me that you have portrayed a cow eating grass? Where’s that, where’s that cow and where’s the grass?
Student : Oh! Sir, the grass is invisible.
Teacher : I see!!! Then, how about the cow?? Where it is?
Student : The cow is divine and also invisible, so you can’t see the cow either.
Teacher : There is no cow or grass on this page.
Student : Yes there is!
Teacher : Cows are not invisible.
Student : Yes they are!
Teacher : There is nothing on this page. There is no evidence of a cow anywhere.
Student : It doesn’t matter.

The teacher wonders why the student is acting so silly. He askes the child why he was acting this way.

Student : My parents taught that there is an invisible cow that takes care of us.
Teacher : Based on what evidence?
Student : My parents told me that evidence doesn’t matter. Because they know the cow is true.
Teacher : That is illogical.
Student : My parents told me that logic doesn’t matter. Because they know the cow exists.
Teacher : Believing something without evidence is irrational.
Student : My parents told me that when you believe something is true, it is true.

Now when a person believes something based on no evidence, and dismisses direct evidence which proves them wrong, the whole story becomes a joke. The story of religion is just taking the word ‘cow’ and replacing it with the word ‘God’. Based on no evidence at all, creationists make silly arguments which have no basis in reality. And because there are so many of them, they look at the way in which they deceive themselves, and think it is perfectly normal. But because their arguments are illogical, they become a joke to anyone they try to justify their beliefs to.

Posted by Holy Cow | Report as abusive
 

Situation A
“A person walks into their house. They notice the door broken open, and several items missing.”
Evolutionist: The door has been broken under some physical laws. Some pressure was involved and the door couldn’t withstand the pressure involved so it’s been BROKEN ITSELF. All under the rules of science, no need to think of someone here to initiate the process. Several items were there but have GONE THEMSELVES as NO ONE SEEN to take it away. So no need to think of someone got involved here.
Rational thinker/Creationist: As the matters can not be placed or displaced or changed its situation themselves so there must be someone who broke the door and took away the goods.
Situation B
“A person sees a computer in the middle of the ground”
Evolutionist: Different types of materials were scattered on the ground, than in course of time they themselves combined and get into a computer. We can explain how a computer works; its all parts are in harmony with others and bound to some physical and electronics laws. Electrical energy is responsible to keep it running. Everything is done by ITSELF. So no need to think of the existence of a manufacturer for it.
Rational Thinker/Creationist: Computer is material device which is built and maintained by some physical and electronic rules which the matter themselves can not create. So a mastermind is there to make, accumulate such a nice structure.
Situation C
“A person looks at the evidence for the development of life and is asked to make a conclusion”
Evolutionist: Somehow some matters get into life and started to develop THEMSELVES. Over the time they evolve themselves from one stage to another. We can see easily that there are lots of animals which are similar in structures. So we can say they evolved one from another. There are lots of fossil records where we can find in past also there were many animals of similar structures. So surely they have come into existence from some other animals having similar structures. Everything is done by matters THEMSELVES and we CAN NOT SEE ANYONE to make it happen so no need to think of a creator (as like examples of broken house and computer).
Rational Thinker/Creationist: Everything we see around like stars, planets, trees, mountains, animals, waters etc are different forms of matters. On the basis of evidence that every material action needs an initiator and there must be someone behind every material form to be built, we can conclude there must be someone behind this well balanced material world.

Posted by one2one | Report as abusive
 

To Noah Idea…
As you said,
“When we look at the matter which makes up the universe, we can clearly observe and identify the physical forces which act on them such as gravity, magnetism, energy and physics. We can see the natural processes by which matter changes. But looking at the same matter, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that a deity is involved in their creation or process.”
It same as saying
“When we look at the matter which makes up the computer, we can clearly observe and identify the physical forces which act on them such as electricity, magnetism, energy and physics. We can see the electrical processes by which matter changes in a computer. Looking at the matter, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that a manufacturer is involved in the creation or process of computer.” “The electromagnetic forces in the running of programs (playing songs in winamp, virus detection by antivirus, games) can be clearly identified, but once again no actual evidence of a manufacturer can be found no matter how hard and how deep you look into a computer.”
The first one is illogical or irrational as much as like the second one!
“You assume a designer exists because you assume the universe is designed.”…just reverse, as we see the universe is a well designed combination of matters, any sincere person observing the reality “matters can not be designed or combined itself” has to admit that there is a designer who has set this material world. Evolutionists’ main aim is to deny the existence of a creator. That is why they invent some poor assumptions so that they can hide the fact of the rational understanding of the existence of a creator.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive
 

Holy Cow…..
Here is your parody:
Teacher : What did you portrayed?
Student : Sir, I portrayed a cow eating grass in a field.
The student gave back the paper to his teacher. Amid anger & astonishment the teacher noticed that the paper was blank, nothing is being drawn on the paper.
Teacher : Hey, it’s blank. What did you do? Didn’t you tell me that you have portrayed a cow eating grass? Where’s that, where’s that cow and where’s the grass?
Student : Oh! Sir, the grass has gone itself vanished.
Teacher : I see!!! Then, how about the cow?? Where it is?
Student : The cow also went vanished, so you can’t see the cow either.
Teacher : Well, how a portrayed cow and grass went vanished??? Aren’t they inert matters….drawing is none but the sort of particles (mostly carbon powders) dissolved in solvent?? Do you think that inert matters gone themselves???
Student : Yes they are!
Teacher : They gone themselves?????
Student : Yes they are!
Teacher : Do you see any material objects act themselves, changed themselves without the initiative of others???.
Student : It doesn’t matter.
The teacher wonders why the student is acting so silly. He asked the child why he was acting this way.
Student : I believe in evolution theory. Evolution theory taught that matters changed itself. All things have come into existence through changing from others by themselves.
Teacher : Based on what evidence? Did you see any matters change itself into another without other’s initiative?
Student : Evolutionists told me that evidence doesn’t matter. It does occur too slowly to observe. Though we can’t observe we have to believe in it.
Teacher : That is irrational.
Student : Evolutionists told me that rationality doesn’t matter. We have to deny the existence of a creator. That is our main point.
Teacher : Believing something without evidence is irrational.
Student : Evolutionists told me that as the evolution story help us to reject the existence of a creator, we have to believe in this story whether it is based on evidence or not.
Now when a person believes something based on no evidence, and dismisses direct evidence which proves them wrong, the whole story becomes a joke. Based on no evidence at all, evolutionists make silly arguments which have no basis in reality. As because their arguments are illogical, they become a joke to anyone they try to justify their beliefs to.

Posted by one2one | Report as abusive
 

St8talk, your analogy is flawed in two main ways.

1. Creationist arguments are rarely rational or logical, so referring to a ‘rationalist/creationist’ is silly. Rationalism is associated with logic, science and evolution, because these things follow a rational process of deduction based on actual observation and evidence. Creationism does not reach conclusions based on observations or evidence, so the term ‘rationalist’ has little connection to the term ‘creationist’.

2. Saying that a creationist would look at a broken-into house or computer and conclude a human influence was responsible is amusing, because that would involve the creationist reaching a logical conclusion based on actual evidence. Amusing because if a person reached conclusions based on evidence and logic they would not be a creationist.

3. If your analogy had made the creationist reach an absurd conclusion based on no evidence at all, and in breach of the rules of logic, your analogy would be more truthful. Because that is what creationists actually do. As it is, your analogy is dishonest.

4. Your main issue with evolution seems to be the fact that it didn’t witness the evolutionary process, and uses massive amounts of evidence and logic to conclude how species evolved. Yet you place the creationist in the same situation, concluding that the house was robbed even though they didn’t see it happen. You find it absurd for the evolutionist to conclude evolution based on overwhelming evidence and logic. But you find it rational that the creationist conclude burglary based on overwhelming evidence and logic. This indicates that you have a double standard, and represents a massive falure in your analogy and personal logic.

Based on these four critical failings, I find no further worth in debating your analogies. You can consider your argument dismissed.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

One2One.

An interesting version of my parody.

The only problem is that evolution
-is based on evidence (observation and positive evidence)
-follows rational process (the scientific method)
-follows logical process (the rules of logic)

But religion is not based on evidence, does not follow rational process, and frequently breaks the rules of logic. So my parody, I think, is more accurate then yours is.

You also claim that it is ridiculous to believe that matter can change itself without the initiative of others.

But chemistry, physics and biology proves that your claim is wrong. A teacher would know that and you should as well. Assuming, of course, you are educated.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

Defcon86…

In fact, creationism is based on:

Oservation: matters are inert and can not be created, changed, placed, displaced itself.

Rational conclusion: As universe is the combination of different forms of matters, so there must be someone who created and set this material world.

Evolution is not based on evidence, does not follow rational process and basic doctrines are based only on assumptions.

Let alone being highly educated, any being with a brain of thinking capability can easily understand that matters can not changed, created, placed, displaced itself. Behind every material action there is someone who initiates or sets up it. You can see a clock is running itself, but don’t forget a clock maker made it and set it first so that it can run automatically.
According to evolutionists and/or atheists if we believe in that matters itself can change and matters itself is responsible for every material actions then there will be no need to hunt for terrorists after there is a bomb blast. Because they believe bomb can be blast itself without anyone’s initiative.

Any person who can’t still understand this very basic nature of matters should not go to get formally admitted into a school of science like physics, chemistry, biology etc which all deal with rules, mechanisms of matters. Rather he or she can read fairy tales or watch tom and jerry…where no rational processes are taken into account for amusement.

Posted by one2one | Report as abusive
 

To defcon86,

1. Evolutionists arguments are rarely rational or logical. Creationism is associated with logic, reality, because this thing follows a rational process of deduction based on actual observation and evidence. Evolutionism does not reach conclusions based on evidence, so the term ‘rationalist’ is best suit with creationists and has little connection to the term ‘evolutionism’.
2. “If a person reached conclusions based on evidence and logic they would not be a creationist.”…this is your blind faith. So when you see a creationist look at a broken-into house or computer and conclude a human influence was responsible you should be amused. Because like all other evolutionists you are also brain washed with the propaganda that is only evolutionists are rational beings. In reality if someone deduces the conclusion regarding the origin of material world upon factual evidences and in a rational process that is what a creationist is, not an evolutionist whose observation follows only blind assumptions.
3. My analogy will help any sincere person to reach a rational conclusion which may seem ‘absurd’ to an evolutionist as it disproves their blind assumptions and no wonder the analogy itself seems ‘dishonest’ to evolutionists as it necessarily gives cold shoulder to their blind believes.
4. My main issue with evolution is it has actually no evidences at all. All that’s called ‘massive amount of overwhelming evidences’ is nothing but the descriptions of similarities among different past and present species of the world. But similarities don’t conclusively prove the evolution process. With the creationism I find ‘the proof of existence of a creator of material worlds’ as rational as the burglary is proved with the observation and logical conclusion in broken house. You are less interested to show any proof in support of your theory and are busier with proposing statement and showing your dogmatic conviction in believing evolutionists being only rational beings on earth (though they are really not). That is why you could not get my real standard and it seems to you as doubled. With the notion “You can consider your argument dismissed”, you can be self satisfied but it doesn’t solve the problems that evolution theory faces on a rational ground and surely your massive failure to counter my reality based logics has made further debate worthless.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive
 

You believe that it is rational to take all the positive evidence which exists in a damaged house, and conclude a burgler was to blame.

But you also believe that it is rational to conclude that a god exists, based on no positive evidence at all.

You clearly have double standards, and possess a massive flaw in your logic and the manner in which you view the world.

The only way for me to counter your ‘reality based logic’ is to point out that your argument is neither logical or based in the evidence of reality. There is nothing more I can do.

I agree that further debate seems pointless. As your arguments are illogical, there is no reason for me continue to debate you. Because any argument I could make would be based on evidence and logic. And these things seem to mean nothing to you.

If religion is based on positive evidence, then what evidence is that? Can you provide that positive evidence? If not, then religion is not rational. It is not rational to believe things without evidence.

But we already know evolution is based on fossils, genetics, biology and science, even if you disagree with that evidence.

If evolution is illogical, then what rule of logic does it break? Can you point that rule out? If not, then evolution is logical.

But we already know that religion breaks many rules of logic. The rule of ‘onus of proof’, the rule of ‘negative proof’, the rule of ‘circular argument’, the rule of ‘groundless belief’. The list goes on.

So when you argue that religion is logical and rational, and that evolution is illogical and irrational, I think you are being highly dishonest.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

You believe that it is rational to take all the positive evidence which exists in a damaged house, and conclude a burgler was to blame.
Why a burglar was to blame?? Because if someone (means burglar here) didn’t do that the matters (damaged doors, lost goods) were not got changed itself.
Same way it is rational to conclude someone (you can give it name ‘God’ or anything you like) has to be responsible to set up this material world.
Why someone has to be responsible?? Because if someone (means God or any given name) didn’t do that the matters (different forms of matter in the universe like star, planet, satellites etc) couldn’t be set up or placed itself.
You agreed with first one but not second one (though both are based on same rational ground). So it you who showed double standard in similar arguments.

I agree that further debate seems pointless. As you don’t want to accept logical arguments, there is no reason for me continued to debate you. The discussion here is not subjective to any particular religion. It is all about the existence of a creator for this material universe. I already showed you rational logics with several easily comprehendible analogies to prove the existence of a creator for this material world. But these things seem to mean nothing to you as because my arguments and logic did not favor evolution dogma.
Evolution is based on observation on fossils records, genetic variations, biological similarities followed by blind assumptions. As because the observations of evolutionists ultimately rest on a false assumption, a rational mind can not agree with it.
“If evolution is illogical, then what rule of logic does it break? Can you point that rule out? If not, then evolution is logical” …….Evolution is illogical because it does not follow the rule of logic. Thing which doesn’t follow rational logics is not worthy enough to keep under experimentation of pointing out what rule it breaks. So your proposed list of rule breaking rules that really has potential to go on further is quite justifiable with evolution.
When I prove that creationism is logical and rational, and that evolution is illogical and irrational, I have nothing to do if you think me as dishonest…for a participant of a debate following rules of logic this type of thinking can be considered as a very much passive way to declare “I don’t have any counter argument.” Thats it.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive
 

Your ‘rational logics’ are flawed. When a house is damaged and items are missing, it might be a burgler. Or it could be the results of a natural storm or flood. The correct conclusion on what happened depends on the positive evidence available to reach a conclusion.

Matter reacts and changes in chemicals, fire and physics. So when you base your entire argument on the idea that “matter cannot change by itself” your logic is again flawed.

There is a reason why scientists argue with positive evidence and logic, and do not use stories about burglers and computers. Because a story is only as good as the logic used in it. And your logic is bad.

Now my counter argument was simple.

You claimed religion was logical and rational. So I asked you to provide positive evidence that a deity exists.

You claimed evolution was illogical and irrational. So I asked you to point out which rule of logic you think evolution breaks.

These were simple requests. Instead, you made excuses and provided no answers. Does this mean that you have no evidence? Does this mean that you do not know what the rules of logic are?

I hope not. Or it would seem the debate is finished to my satisfaction.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

In the context of our discussion “Matter reacts and changes in chemicals, fire and physics.” is half-true. The full truth is ‘with the help of some external force matter reacts and changes in chemicals, fire and physics’. That is why after finding the damaged house you have to find out whether it is happened by a ‘burglar’ or a ‘storm’ or ‘flood’. According to your logic if ‘matter can change by itself’ you should say the door was broken by itself and goods were gone by themselves…no burglar/storm/flood. But in reality that is not the case. As MATTER CANNOT CHANGE BY ITSELF you are finding out the force behind the damaged house in terms of either burglar or storm or flood. This is the positive evidence for external someone/deity/god/force behind the setting up this material world.
Again, evolution doesn’t follow rules of logic, it is based on assumption. So which rule of logic evolution breaks is an irrelevant question. If you tell me that after running for ten years your wrist watch gradually changed into a wall clock and asked me ‘what rules of logic this incidence breaks?’ I will request you think yourself….you will find the answer.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive
 

You claimed religion was rational and logical.

You have again failed to provided evidence a deity exists. I will not ask a third time. So I will conclude that religion is not based on evidence, so cannot be said to be rational.

Regarding your claim that evolution breaks the rules of logic, you claim that evolution is illogical because it is based on assumption.

All science is based on assumptions as well as evidence. Chemstry is based on assumptions and evidence. Nuclear theory is based on assumptions and evidence. Physics is based on assumptions and evidence. Evolution is based on assumptions and evidence.

If you believe that evolution is illogical because it involves assumptions, then you must also believe physics and chemistry are illogical. Or you only believe evolution is illogical, and thus your rational standards are flawed.

Not to mention that even as you claim evolution is illogical because it combines evidence with assumption, you support a religion based on assumptions and no evidence at all. Your own actions fail to conform to your own logic.

Regarding your burgler story. YOU were the one who claimed that the house MUST have been changed by an intelligent entity.

But now you have admitted that a damaged house might be the result of a storm or other event, and not always an intelligent force like a burgler. Hence we have found that the correct decision on what damaged the house is based on positive evidence, not an assumption that intelligence was behind it. Your own logical story has fallen apart.

And I noticed you once again failed to say which rule of logic evolution breaks. I will not ask again. So either you don’t know what the laws are, or you cannot find which one evolution breaks.

But for your benefit, I will mention the rules of logic that religion breaks. The rule of negative proof. The rule of onus of proof. The rule of circular reasoning. The rule of conclusion based on no evidence. The rule of occam’s razor.

When people say religion is illogical, it isn’t an insult. It is just pointing out that religion actually breaks established rules of logic, and is thus illogical.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

“If you tell me that after running for ten years your wrist watch gradually changed into a wall clock and asked me ‘what rules of logic this incidence breaks?”

I will tell you why your story is illogical:

1. Clocks and watches are not alive.
2. This means they do not change by themselves.
3. So your story has no connection to living things which do change over time (birth, growth, breeding, death, ect).
4. As a result, your story about clocks has no relevence to living things.

It is the same reason why your other stories about computers, houses and other things are irrelevent.

I should not have to point these things out to you. Use evidence and logic please. If you continue to argue in illogical manner, the debate must stop.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

I showed the proof of the existence of a creator in a rational way for several times but you failed to accept it or intentionally ignored it. I also showed why evolution theory doesn’t follow rules of logic (that’s why which rules it breaks is quite irrelevant) but again you ignored it. Because you didn’t find the name of any of your memorized theories in my evidence and also because you believe in evolution theory blindly and that’s why you do not want to accept any logical argument which may disprove evolution dogma. However, I didn’t surprise as it is the way for any person who has some sort of blind faith in any dogma. I have doubt whether you really read my post carefully or not. Because in my post I again and again told you the discussion is about the existence of creator and not about any religion. You presumed me as an advocate of religion. But in none of my post I used the term religion to make it proved logical or illogical. The discussion of existence of creator is different from that of religion (Of curse the existence of god is a fundamental idea for most of the religions but this is not all about religion and we know some religion in fact deny the existence of any kind of god, such as Buddhism.). Here the discussion is all about existence of creator and evolution.

I know, all sciences are based on assumptions as well as evidence. Chemistry is based on assumptions and evidence. Nuclear theory is based on assumptions and evidence. Physics is based on assumptions and evidence. But evolution is based only on assumptions and no evidence.

“But now you have admitted that a damaged house might be the result of a storm or other event,”
I not just admitted but trying hard to make you admit that the damaged house was not damaged by itself, it must be caused by some external one, this external one may be burglar or storm or flood. Whether it is an intelligent one or dull one or something like storm depends on the nature of the work done but its EXISTENCE is obvious from the observation of changed matters. (Well, I told you before about the existence of intellectual entity behind this material universe by the observation of this well planned and well designed universe. If you find only your valuable goods are missing in broken door house but all other things are there as it is then you can say it’s a burglar, not a storm. However,if you think the one who has set up this material world is not an intellectual entity, rather he is a dumb one it’s up to you, that is not the discussion here). Here the discussion is about the existence of creator for material world not about the characteristics of creator.

When you claim your discussion to be scientific and the discussion is about the objective study of the origin of matters (in its different forms) you can not differentiate the matters in terms of ‘that one is alive’, ‘this one is dead’, ‘that one has no life’. We will not be able to find out where the so called ‘life’ rests in a living being. After analyzing scientifically we will find only matters and that is some amounts of different kind of known atoms. Whether we carry out the analysis on clock or watch or chimp or monkey or human body, or computer or diamond or coal. So when you said “clocks have no relevance to living things” it reflects your philosophical concept on matters, not a scientific approach. If you think one form of matters (let’s say horse) can grow, birth, breed, die but other form of matters (let’s say clock) can not because first one is ‘living’, means that one has ‘life’ than scientific approach demands to find out what that ‘life’ is composed of? Is that made of an element out of periodic table?? Where, in a so called living body, it resides? If you don’t find that as a separate entity out of matter itself you can not differentiate scientifically a living horse from a running clock in term of having ‘life’ or being ‘living’.

Well as you agreed,

1. Clocks and watches are not alive
2. This means they do not change by themselves.

Then how about the Mars, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus, Moon, Titan, Rhea, Nix, Eros, Hydra etc. All these are not alive. Now if you don’t betray your own logic you have to admit all these planets and satellites are not changed by themselves. There must be someone (as like in case of ‘not alive’ clocks and watches) who set these so that they remain in a moving condition.

If you think you are making judgments on scientific or rational basis then arguments should be cerebral. But if you approach to justify a theory philosophically this debate must stop.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive
 

Once again you fail to provide any positive evidence showing the existance of a deity.

Once again you fail to point out a rule of logic that evolution breaks.

You try to state that a creator is not involved with religion. Even when it is obvious that the creator you propose is a supernatural one.

You use illogical stories instead of evidence. You think just because clocks cannot change by themselves, living things can’t either.

You follow creationism based on no evidence at all. You cannot show a single shred of positive proof to show a deity or any supernatural influence.

You say evolution is based on nothing but assumption. According to you, genetics, fossils, natural selection and biology simply doesn’t exist.

Your attack on my logic was weak. Under my logic planets cannot change by themselves because they are not alive. They requre some outside force which alters them, such as gravity or physics.

There is much evidence that the rules of physics change planets. But not a single piece of evidence that a deity was involved. Your logic is the flawed one.

You fail to address the fact that religion and creationism breach actual rules of logic. And you keep claiming evolution breaches rules of logic, but you refuse to say which one it breaks.

And then after all this, you go on to say that YOU are debating in a scientific and rational basis and that I am not?

There is no reason to continue this debate with you.

If you are going to pretend to argue with rules of logic and evidence, but not actually provide these things when asked, then you are not debating in good faith.

Posted by defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

I am not using any imaginary stories like ‘millions years ago some thing might be happened…..now we have to dig out the evidences….’. Rather I am using all tangible examples to prove my claim.
Genetics, fossils, natural selection and biology do exist, but that don’t prove evolution conclusively, that’s is my point.

When you said,
1. Clocks and watches are not alive
2. This means they do not change by themselves.

Did you mean clocks and watches are not made by some one rather they created and changed by some physical laws? Not bad, with the energy from battery or from mechanical sources the oscillator of a clock repeats the same motion over and over again, with a precisely constant time interval between each repetition. Attached to the oscillator is a controller device, which sustains the oscillator’s motion by replacing the energy it loses to friction, and converts its oscillations into a series of pulses. The pulses are then added up in a chain of some type of counters to express the time in convenient units, usually seconds, minutes, hours, etc. Then finally some kind of indicator displays the result in a human-readable form. EVERYTHING IS DONE BY THE CLOCK ITSELF. So due to these physical laws by which clocks work do you want to deny the existence of the manufacturer of the clock??????

You can deny but the truth is someone made the clock so that it can run maintaining with all that physical laws.

Same thing with other ‘not alive’ matters. Mars, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus, Moon, Titan, Rhea, Nix, Eros, Hydra etc all are bound to some physical laws in the space. Does that mean these are not created and set by anyone????? This is my simple question.

Posted by Str8Talk | Report as abusive
 

Sir,
Darwins theory is disputed and I personally believe in the fact that there can be no such thing as Evolution based on natural selection. It requires consious labours on the part of man and can never be mechanical as is propounded by certain popular theories which is incorrect, Thank You.

Posted by R.Rajesh | Report as abusive
 

Once again you provide no evidence for a deity, or say which rules of logic evolution breaks.

Living creatures are alive. They change by themselves, by their own actions. They are born, they breathe, they pass on genes to offspring.

We can see natural selection. We can see genetics and biology. We can investigate skeleton and organ structures of all life forms which are living and dead. These are all real things. And we can use them to reach a conclusion within the boundaries of reality on how life developed. That conclusion is evolution.

There is no evidence, not a single tiny scrap, which shows the existance of a deity or a deity’s influence on life. When you conclude a deity influences or designs life, you reach a conclusion outside the boundaries of reality, based on no positive evidence at all.

Planets are not living creatures. They are not born, they do not grow, breed or die. They do not change by themselves, they can only change through the forces of gravity and motion.

We can observe and test the forces of the universe. Heat, light, gravity, magnatism and motion are all direct evidence. And we can see through those forces how planets can change through the natural forces of the universe. The conclusion for why planets change is physics, which once again falls within the logical boundaries of the universe.

Yet once again, there is not a single scrap of evidence that a deity was responsible for these forces or how these forces work on planets. Once again, the conclusion of a deity is an explanation which is not within the natural world.

You are free to conclude that a magic deity is involved. But it isn’t based on any evidence, is not within the limitations of the natural universe, and is not rational or logical or scientific.

Evolution has evidence. The evidence may not explain everything and you may not think that evidence is conclusive. But compared to religion which is based on no evidence and magic, evolution is the scientific rational and logical conclusion.

Now I ask you, one final time:
-Provide positive scientific EVIDENCE proving the existance of a deity, and
-Tell me what RULE OF LOGIC evolution breaks.

If you do not provide these things, I will simply not respond to your comment. If you are not going to answer polite and simple questions, then I will not waste my time debating you.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

“We can observe and test the forces of the universe. Heat, light, gravity, magnatism and motion are all direct evidence. And we can see through those forces how planets can change through the natural forces of the universe. The conclusion for why planets change is physics, which once again falls within the logical boundaries of the universe.”
This means, you agreed that a clock is not manufactured by anyone as we can explain how a clock works by some physical laws???? Isn’t it funny?

You did not answer my simple question. Whether the planets are changed by physical laws or chemical laws that was not my question….my simple question was Earth, Jupiter, Mars, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, Uranus, Moon, Titan, Rhea, Nix, Eros, Hydra are some material bodies in the space which are bound to some physical laws…….ARE THESE CREATED AND SET UP BY ANYONE OR NOT??????

I say yes. And my logic is…as matters can not created and set up by themselves these materiel bodies in the space must be created and set up by someone.
I just wanted to know what your answer is and what your logic behind your answer is.

Posted by Str8 Talk | Report as abusive
 

My answer and logic is this:

-Science explains the real world.
-Matter must come from somewhere.
-Just because matter comes from somewhere, doesn’t mean it needs to be created by magic.
-There is no positive scientific evidence that a deity exists.
-So concluding or assuming a deity exists is irrational and not logical.

Now YOU answer MY questions.

-Show me some positive scientific evidence showing that a deity exists.
-Tell me which actual RULE OF LOGIC evolution breaks.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

Again you failed or ignored to answer my simple question.
Well, matters come from somewhere….my question was whether the forms of matter that I listed in my previous post have been created and set up by somebody or not? If ‘Yes’ than that is the proof that somebody has created this material world in the universe and that somebody is called Creator/Deity/God.
If your answer is ‘No’ then it means, you agree that these matters are created and set up by themselves.
Which is your answer that you are agree with?

Posted by Str8 Talk | Report as abusive
 

Your simple question is illogical.

Your question is “do you believe matter was created by someone, or did they create themselves”

You assume that the forms of matter have to be set up by a ‘someone’.

If all matter comes from somewhere, that means there must be a source. But there is no reason to think this source is a deity or a being.

We know that gravity and dust makes planets. We know that physics shows evidence that the universe started from the big bang.

But there is no evidence of a deity existing. No evidence that a deity created the planets. So believing in a deity is irrational.

Now your refusal of answering my questions is beginning to become rude. I asked them many days ago and many times over and over. And you still make excuses and refuse to answer them.

My patience is wearing thin.

-Show me some POSITIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE showing that a deity exists.
-Tell me which actual RULE OF LOGIC evolution breaks.

If you do not answer my question, I will simply not respond.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive
 

I’ve just skimmed these posts as the non existence of god/gods is a given therefore the argument doesn’t have any validity.

What I did spot being repeatedly stated was that materials/elements do not change.

Sit long enough next to a radio active (naturally occuring) element and watch it decay to a different element with a lower atomic no.

As to how evolution works and the statement that no one has seen it, try this experiment (just a theory of course).

Make a pan of broth or several, leave them out for a few days and you may see patches of scum or mold develop.
Add a few drops of vinegar (I don’t know how much it would take). I would imagine that at some point the patches (colonies) of Bacteria or mold will decrease or disintegrate.

Scoop the surface where these are/were and put into a new broth, let it grow, start adding more vinegar and repeat ad nauseam.

Quite soon (relatively) you will have colonies of highly acid (vinegar) resistant bacteria/mold due to natural selection.

The ones that are resistant because of the normal variations in all organisms survive and breed, the non-resistant don’t.

I am still amazed at the sheer numbers of outwardly normal people who need a super being to look after them, I personally gave up on D.C comics when I was 10.

Posted by Paul Arkle | Report as abusive
 

Alas, were it so simple, Paul.

The problem is that creationism is not based on any evidence. And reaches conclusions without evidence. And dismisses any evidence which contradicts it.

Hence, your experiment will mean nothing to most creationists. Because for them, actual evidence means very little to them.

I suppose it is impossible to debate with many creationists. Particularly those with poor english skills, and little understanding of logic or the scientific method.

All you can do is point out that as their argument breaks the rules of logic and evidence, they disqualify themselves from rational debate.

Posted by Defcon86 | Report as abusive
 
  •