10. The apologist projects qualities that apply to them onto you in hopes that it will equate all parties involved. They figure that they can’t lose the argument they are in fact losing because every one is relying on, say, faith. This ultimately ends the argument in a tie...if it were true, which it’s not.
9. Questions are worded as double or triple negatives in hopes that you agree to something that could easily be misread to mean the opposite. If you discover that you’ve made an error and correct it, the apologist labels you an inconsistent flip-flopper for the rest of your debate and/or life.
8. The apologist ignores common meanings of words and applies definitions that only other apologists accept as valid. They do this without telling you what their unorthodox definitions are until pressured. This method allows them to think atheists don’t know what we are talking about because, well, we don’t know what we are talking about. It's a breach of common vernacular in favor of coded, theological jargon.
7. The Gish Gallop tactic is used in which the apologist throws out as many different lines of argument or crack-pot studies as possible. This is an admission that they are unable to rationally discuss any one topic. It’s especially apparent after you ask them to contain the conversation to a particular set of ideas and they refuse.
6. The apologist, fully aware that you don’t believe in their holy book, quotes passages from their holy book.
5. When arguing in a public forum, the apologist responds to other people’s points but ignores yours. Chances are, this is because your points are the most difficult to address and therefore those with the least flaws to exploit.
4. The apologist plays dumb about the topic of debate when you explain how it might help your argument then suddenly becomes an expert when the same topic can possibly help their argument.
3. Instead of hashing out their own ideas and beliefs, they send links in the hopes that freshly Googled internet content can do the debating for them. (Protip: if an apologist hits you with a particularly well-worded argument, search a couple sentences in Google using quotation marks. I’ve found theists copy and pasting other people’s barely relevant arguments as their own. Talk about debating by syndication.)
2. The apologist gets defensive, flustered or angry. When ad hominems start flying from someone who normally preaches “turn the other cheek” you know that you’ve struck upon something unsettling to the apologist. Cognitive dissonance can be very frustrating.
1. You’re debating from a position founded on reality against someone who relies on assumptions of magic, the supernatural, and the divine.
"The apologist, fully aware that you don’t believe in their holy book, quotes passages from their holy book."
ReplyDeleteI wish I had a nickel for every time a Christian has tried this with me.
"The apologist plays dumb about the topic of debate when you explain how it might help your argument then suddenly becomes an expert when the same topic can possibly help their argument."
I've noticed this with anti-abortion fundamentalists who will argue passionately against reproductive freedom, then claim "oh, I'm just not as smart as you" when confronted with sound counterarguments. Very annoying.
I had to look up Gish Gallop. I've seen it before and nicknamed it "machine gun preaching", but I didn't realize it had a name. Thanks!
Glad it's not just me. :-) Its better to spread the frustration around, IMHO.
DeleteHeh. If they quote the Bibble at you, then give them a course on what evidence is, and how the Book isn't it. Particularly with a trip through the Pentateuch and the stories we know not only aren't supported by evidence, but are in fact demolished by the evidence to hand.
DeleteGreat post. I've also learned to look for these kinds of soft victories. It's rare to find people who can get past their ego's enough to actually admit they have been bested, even on minor points.
ReplyDeleteI try to say something that is obvious and in no way hurts their larger argument just to see if we can agree on something, usually no go.
DeleteSeems to me like 1 is quite different than 2-10. I agree with it, but I think that the content of 1 is exactly what is at issue. Even granted that your material is better material than the theist's, you can lose the debate if he is a good debater and you are a poor debater.
ReplyDeleteLeading up to: What we may need here is a debater rater.
Ok, ok, I'm going!
That's why it's number 1, I agree it is different. I'd love to have an objective fallacy detector if not a debater rater with me at all times.
DeleteI'm euphoric about this. I will be able to pwn fundies everytime now. I can never get past the fedoras and neckbeards when I debate them.
ReplyDeleteI've experienced all of these multiple times. Hey, do you debate on debate.org?
ReplyDeleteNo. I debate so many places already, but usually informally. I'll give it a shot if you think there is value to it.
DeleteIt depends on the perspective you take. From the perspective of the rationalist, if you say one word, you're winning because the apologist is so absurdly laughable to begin with. From the perspective of the apologist or the true believer, you can never win because their invisible friend in the sky says so.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I've had all of those things happen many times and unfortunately, not much ever comes from directing a theist directly.
True. There is a community of Google Plus that looks at debates and lets you know how you did...but they are all atheist, so they are never gonna say you completely sucked if you are arguing for atheism.
Delete10.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a man of chance or wishing aka faith, but of facts, I have OCD, something must be proven 5x more to me than the average man,
if the atheist provides no observable facts to prove God doesn't exist, then I have no reason to be an atheist.
9.
I don't make questions that misread, I use questions which trap(not in a mean way!) the opponent into admitting a fact, for example,
Since Quantum Physics is true and every piece of matter is made up of Separate Individual Atoms, how if you are your brain, can you feel your hand? when the hand is as distinct to the brain, as the brain is to the wall(which is a scientific fact, everything isn't "one" but made up of individual cells)
In which they'll have to admit an Immaterial Connection or that the mind is not the brain, because if it was it would be incapable of sensing/knowing how the hand feels, for example when your hand gets hurt, do you feel the pain in your hand or your brain?
Obviously your hand, so a part of You, your Conscious, your mind is in your hand, that makes it possible for you to feel it, since that's the case, we aren't our brain as we are one and our brain is made up of billions of cells.
8.
Atheists do this alot with evolution, they ask, "what definition" obviously the mainstream one, which is One Species evolving into a New/Different Species.
7.
Lots of atheists did this on the ChristianForums, I demonstrated every evidence/fact I list, then they scramble, and start again, which is circular. in effort to make me give up.
6.
Because the opponent/atheist makes Reference to The Bible and in order to refute this you have to use The Bible or things about The Bible.
For example Atheists will use Homosexuality as sin against Theism/YHWH's existence in a moral argument, they are Using The Bible to support someone atheist argument, so IN order to refute this, you Have to use The Bible, it's Original Language and History on The Bible to prove that Homosexuality isn't a sin and it's not a Biblical Doctrine.
5.
This happens alot, with atheists, it's easily to overcome, I just stop saying everything else I was arguing and just bring up the point/argument/fact they seem to ignore, until they answer it.
3.
Atheists do this with Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc or especially with Evolution, they link to 29 "evidences" for evolution.
to overcome this, all I do is ask them to point out or explain one of the "evidences", if they refuse they have lost.
2.
Well if someone claims to be of Jesus Christ then does not obey Him, they are not a Christian, a Christian isn't someone who merely believes, as everyone does, yet not all are Christians, Matthew 7:21 and 1 John 2:4 is the Universal Definition of a Christian. a Christian is someone who is, Christ-like, His Follower,
if they do not turn the other cheek they are not a Christian, they are secularist.
1.
Likewise when you're debating from a position founded on reality against someone who relies on assumptions of naturalism and an assumption that there's nothing more.
When you debate you must be Open Minded, you cannot assume Supernatural or Natural until proven, Natural is never proven though and the scientific conclusion always leads to beyond, to a Mind, to someone above nature, YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)
I think you should make a list for ten ways to know your winning against atheists.
Hey, Rafael, thanks for commenting on my posts. I've read them all, but don't have time to reply much right now. I plan to. You make some good and bad points.
DeleteGood news is, if you don't think this post applies much to you, maybe you are never losing a debate! ;-) I fully admit atheists fall victim to ad hominems and such as well.
"Obviously your hand, so a part of You, your Conscious, your mind is in your hand,"
DeleteIt's called a nervous system. Also, please find an adult, I'm afraid you're a danger to yourself and others.
"It's called a nervous system"
DeleteYet the nervous system is NOT the brain, if you are your brain, how do you Feel your nerves? This is impossible. you'd have to argue that your are your brain and Nerves, which is also impossible as you are One person and the nervous system and brain are made up of Individual atoms.
Grundy, I would like to debate you on debate.org, agree or disagree to debate, if you are confident in your atheism you will debate me.
ReplyDeleteif you want to debate reply to this comment and I'll link you.
What do you want to debate about? I might be interested in debating you.
DeleteI will, but I'm swamped right now. Try The Thinker on for size and I'll let you know when I'm available.
DeleteThinker we will debate on Evolution(One Species evolving into New/Different Species). you provide the argument and evidence for Naturalistic Version, I refute and then prove that we were without doubt, Designed(By YHWH)
Deletehere's my debate.org , http://www.debate.org/SavedByChrist94/
First I want to establish some preliminaries because I've had some bad debaters on debate.org who liked to use tricks to try to win without relying on the merits.
DeleteSo you want to debate speciation, correct? So all I have to do is provide evidence for 1 species evolving into another, correct?
Give me a definition of species.
When it comes to the theory of evolution there are four basic positions a theist can take:
1. Evolution is a natural process that was started by god in the beginning;
2. Evolution is partly natural process that god occasionally interacts with and guides;
3. Evolution is a process that is completely guided by god at every step; or,
4. Evolution is false and doesn't happen.
What option do you think fits you best?
And are you a young earth creationist, or an old earth creationist? How old do you think the earth is and the human race is? Do you believe the Genesis account literally? How do you approach design? How do you think god did it, all at once, over time, etc?
"So you want to debate speciation, correct? So all I have to do is provide evidence for 1 species evolving into another, correct?"
DeleteAll you have to do is show one species observed in a lab to evolve into a brand new/different species, nothing else. no theories, no speculations, no evidence, only observable facts.
"Give me a definition of species."
Kind and not by a little for example, One human having more muscles than the other doesn't make it another kind or prove that the more muscular one evolved, they are still the same kind.
"When it comes to the theory of evolution there are four basic positions a theist can take:
1. Evolution is a natural process that was started by god in the beginning;
2. Evolution is partly natural process that god occasionally interacts with and guides;
3. Evolution is a process that is completely guided by god at every step; or,
4. Evolution is false and doesn't happen. "
I take 4, Creation and will refute all the other options.
"And are you a young earth creationist, or an old earth creationist?"
None, Bible doesn't say how old universe is, the earth it never specifies either, just says days, which can be new or old, due to History of humanity it's apparently New.
"Do you believe the Genesis account literally?"
Yes, and what does this have to do with Evolution? we are debating Evolution not Theism/Creation, if you want to however I will.
"How do you approach design? How do you think god did it, all at once, over time, etc?"
Depends, Universe was created then earth was formed then man, if mean Humanity's Design, The Bible and Science say at Once, Evolution under Theism has no necessity, however I know it's at once, whether I like it or not due to the Scientific and Biblical facts.
Lets start debate.
If speciation takes thousands of years, we are not going to observe it in a lab in a human lifetime. Your standard is absurd. You have to debate evolution according to the theory and the kind of evidence we'd expect to find according to it, which says that speciation takes place over long periods of time, NOT in how you think it should go.
DeleteOtherwise, the fact that no one has observed and videotaped god or an angel would be proof that god isn't real according to your standard.
"If speciation takes thousands of years, we are not going to observe it in a lab in a human lifetime."
DeleteThen evolution can never be proven.
"Your standard is absurd."
No it's not, I hold the same standard with Creation, if I can observe it, I'll accept it, I observe intelligent coding in DNA, I accept Design.
"You have to debate evolution according to the theory and the kind of evidence we'd expect to find according to it,"
The kind of evidence we'd expect is observation, otherwise it's an idea no different than bigfoot, just speculation.
" which says that speciation takes place over long periods of time, NOT in how you think it should go."
Of course I know it must take that long, however I won't believe until observed, one species has to be observed to evolve into a new/different species, since this is impossible, there's no way we can ever prove evolution, only have a faith of it, which I am not capable of.
"Otherwise, the fact that no one has observed and videotaped god or an angel would be proof that god isn't real according to your standard."
He doesn't have to be videotaped, He can be observed under a microscope, such as with DNA, intelligent coding that forms intentful/specific actions, like a computer, intelligence can only come from, intelligence.
If evolution cannot be observed then you have to admit it is not a fact, but a faith, facts are known and observed, like the fact that DNA is intelligent or we need to eat.
when it comes to science, things need to be observed, Science takes observable facts, not speculation, History I accept without demonstration as I accept that we cannot go beyond, however with Physical(in science), it needs to be observed.
Well I'm already getting a test of your debating style and I have to say it's very immature. We know evolution is a fact from the fossil evidence, the DNA evidence and the observation of all the species appearing exactly as they would if evolution was true.
DeleteIf seeing is believing, then I've never seen Jesus, so he doesn't exist. I've never seen Adam & Eve, so they never existed. I've never seen an angel, a spirit or god, so they don't exist.
"intelligence can only come from, intelligence."
So god was created by another god? Ha!
"If evolution cannot be observed then you have to admit it is not a fact, but a faith, facts are known and observed, like the fact that DNA is intelligent or we need to eat."
We can observe micro evolution, and all macroevolution is is microevolution, with more time. Evolution is not faith, it is a scientific theory that is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
If your own standard is applied to your own faith, Christianity is necessarily false! So renounce your Christian faith right now!
" Well I'm already getting a test of your debating style and I have to say it's very immature. "
DeleteHow?
"We know evolution is a fact from the fossil evidence,"
No we do not, as with the fossil evidence we can easily say YHWH created species similar and at different levels, that it appears as if they evolved/decsended, but are really just distinct kinds with similar traits made in different levels(for example Iphone 4 and IPhone 5 are similar, but they didn't evolve from each other, they were created similar, one at a different level)
" the DNA evidence "
DNA leads to Creation.
" the observation of all the species appearing exactly as they would if evolution was true.
"
Or appearing exactly as it would had YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) made species similar and at different levels.
"If seeing is believing, then I've never seen Jesus, so he doesn't exist."
I never claimed that since I cannot see evolution, that it didn't happen, but that I cannot believe, you're putting words in my mouth.
Also Jesus Christ can observed in Scripture, Heart and Physically on The Shroud of Turin.
"I've never seen Adam & Eve, so they never existed. I've never seen an angel, a spirit or god, so they don't exist."
not seeing doesn't mean they don't exist, I cannot see you, yet you exist.
"So god was created by another god? Ha!"
How does saying "Intelligence can only come from Intelligence" equate to YHWH being created? this is immature. YHWH has no cause, He is uncaused.
what I meant was that whatever is that an Effect(something that has a Cause, thus YHWH cannot be applied He has no cause) must scientifically have a Cause with Equal or Greater Properties, thus Intelligent effects like us, must have a Cause which have Intelligence.
"We can observe micro evolution, and all macroevolution is is microevolution"
Exactly, this is assuming that Macro-evolution is Microevolution, it needs to be observed for this to be true, until then Microevolution can only evolve something into same species, one species hasn't been observed to evolve into a new/different species.
"Evolution is not faith, it is a scientific theory that is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
But based on no observation of it, so not a fact.
"If your own standard is applied to your own faith, Christianity is necessarily false! So renounce your Christian faith right now!"
Not so, I can observe DNA's Intelligence and know we were designed, I can observe The Shroud being supernaturally caused, something that has never been seen before, I can observe The Holy Spirit, Knowledge and Reason(which come out of nowhere), and Substance Dualism. even if I didn't like Christianity I'd have to admit it is a scientific, historical, logical, philosophical, and moral fact.
you claimed I was immature, I have not been.
Yes you are very immature, and your writing skill suck. Your arguments are as bad as Ray Comfort's.
Delete"YHWH created species similar and at different levels,"
So YHWH created all the species slightly different from one another so that they'd look like they evolved over billions of years? That is absurd. What is your evidence for this? Faith?
"DNA leads to Creation."
No it doesn't. You infer creation based on your own biases. But according to your own standard, you have not observed DNA being created by god, so your theory is false. Truth is, in science there are many things we do not see that we infer using the evidence. No one saw the big bang, but we infer it happened using the evidence. It's like a detective piecing together the scene of an accident after it is over.
"How does saying "Intelligence can only come from Intelligence" equate to YHWH being created? this is immature. YHWH has no cause, He is uncaused."
Yes, your own standard says intelligence can ONLY come from intelligence, so YHWH has his own god that created him. Obviously, your own reasoning gets you into trouble.
"YHWH cannot be applied He has no cause"
Scientifically prove YHWH has no cause using observable facts or else I won't believe you.
"Microevolution can only evolve something into same species,"
So given millions of years, what will stop macroevolution from occurring?
"But based on no observation of it, so not a fact."
Now whos putting words into your mouth? YOU! Your standard is that if you cannot observe it, it is false by default. So like I said, no one has observed Jesus (the gospels are not even written by eyewitnesses). No one saw god, or any miracle, and if you claim the bible counts as a document of reported miracles, then on your standard I have to grant all the miracles of other religions.
Let me ask you, how do you explain the fact that DNA mutates and creates mutations if it is designed by god? Is god incompetent or sadistic? The shroud of Turin was a medieval hoax because scientists dated it to the middle ages. Everyone knows that dumbass, you're so gullible.
"I can observe The Holy Spirit,"
OK next time you see it, take a picture with your phone and show it to me.
"even if I didn't like Christianity I'd have to admit it is a scientific, historical, logical, philosophical, and moral fact."
Science DISPROVES the shroud of turin is authentic. And archaeology proves the bible is made mostly of fairly tales that were made up. Grow up and get educated, you have a lot to learn about facts and logic.
"Yes you are very immature, and your writing skill suck. Your arguments are as bad as Ray Comfort's."
DeleteHow are they as bad as Ray Comforts, demonstrate, otherwise what you said is hypocritical.
""YHWH created species similar and at different levels,"
So YHWH created all the species slightly different from one another so that they'd look like they evolved over billions of years? That is absurd. What is your evidence for this? Faith"
No, DNA which is observable. is One Species evolving into a New/Different Species observed? No.
"No it doesn't. You infer creation based on your own biases"
You claim I'm immature and that I'm comparable to Ray Comfort yet assume I have a biased, so You know what goes on in my mind? that I'm biased? No, don't tell me to stop being immature when I'm not doing that and you are.
"ut according to your own standard, you have not observed DNA being created by god, so your theory is false. Truth is, in science there are many things we do not see that we infer using the evidence. No one saw the big bang, but we infer it happened using the evidence. It's like a detective piecing together the scene of an accident after it is over."
This cannot be done with Science. we use observable facts, Fact is Universe began to exist, Big Bang is possible but not necessary.
"Yes, your own standard says intelligence can ONLY come from intelligence, so YHWH has his own god that created him. Obviously, your own reasoning gets you into trouble."
Intelligence can only come from intelligence doesn't equate to that, no one said there are an Infinite amount of past causes, all I said is Intelligence can come from Intelligence, which is true, I did not say that there are an infinite amount of causes, so Intelligence coming from Intelligence can only stop Somewhere due to First Uncaused Cause, there is a First Uncaused Cause that is Intellect, this is God, as Intellect can only exist with a Mind.
Continue, The First Uncaused Cause has no cause.
Delete"Scientifically prove YHWH has no cause using observable facts or else I won't believe you."
Time, Time cannot have always existed, something exist with no beginning and no end, no time, this is called The First Uncaused Cause, which is Spaceless, Timeless, matterless(Matter is in time cannot go in past forever), has no beginning, and is changeless.
In Science there are two ways things are caused, with intent and without, something without Intent is Acciental, Accidents require a prior cause, therefore Scientifically The First Uncaused Cause caused on Purpose, Purpose requires a mind, the First Uncaused Cause is a Mind, with all the other traits is God, now God cannot be One Person as He is love, love requires other persons, and there cannot be Multiple "gods" because it is contradictory, they would be of same substance/realm, of Which no greater can be Conceived.
Thus Multiple Person yet One, and since is Love(like intelligence)He must have made Himself most known(Most Popular Religion is Bible and most evidence(Shroud and Scripture), therefore God is YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit)
"So given millions of years, what will stop macroevolution from occurring?"
How do you know Micro-Evolution produces Macro-Evolution? You can't unless it's observed that One Species Evolved into a New/Different Species, all we have is one species adapting, this is not proof for Macro.
"Now whos putting words into your mouth? YOU! Your standard is that if you cannot observe it, it is false by default. So like I said, no one has observed Jesus (the gospels are not even written by eyewitnesses)."
I have, Shroud of Turin and Prayer.
"Let me ask you, how do you explain the fact that DNA mutates and creates mutations if it is designed by god? Is god incompetent or sadistic?"
No, because Death exist, this causes mutation, mutation is a disfunction with no intent, what is Death? Death is Nonfunction, in order to Not function we slowly get there, this is called Dying, which is Disfunction, Mutation is therefore due to death which is Biblically compatible.
Is He is Competent or Sadistic? No, Death has to exist where sin does, otherwise we live forever in a world where people choose evil.
"The shroud of Turin was a medieval hoax because scientists dated it to the middle ages. Everyone knows that dumbass, you're so gullible."
No, that has been refuted,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
Also, "dumbass"? why insult? it benefits nothing, also you called me immature, how can you call me immature yet call me dumbass, or even call yourself Thinker when you do not free think, this is an insult to true freethinkers, which are Followers of Jesus Christ.
"OK next time you see it, take a picture with your phone and show it to me."
Observation doesn't mean just sight, for example I can observe my thoughts yet I cannot physically hear, smell, taste, touch or see them.
"I have, Shroud of Turin and Prayer."
DeleteYes keep praying man, you're gonna need it. Your words "I won't believe until observed." So I don't believe in god or Christianity or miracles until I observe it.
"I can observe my thoughts yet I cannot physically hear, smell, taste, touch or see them."
Thoughts in your head to not translate to reality. There's a difference between the conceptual and the actual.
It seems you infer a lot of things that can't be seen to make the case for Christianity, that's the same thing scientists are doing to make the case for evolution, but scientists use science, and you use your imagination.
You seem to be lost on one major concept, speciation takes time, no human can see it in their lifetime unless it is a small evolution. But we know species evolve because of the changes in DNA and the fossil record are consistent with the theory. See Nylon-eating bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
So let me ask you: How old is the earth, how old is man, and do you believe Noah put all the animals/plants on the boat?
How do you explain:
Australopithecus afarensis
Homo gautengensis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis†
Homo floresiensi
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo cepranensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis
"Yes keep praying man, you're gonna need it. Your words "I won't believe until observed." So I don't believe in god or Christianity or miracles until I observe it."
DeleteYet you have observed Him, and don't try to say you didn't, Science says otherwise, Shroud of Turin confirms The Bible and The Bible Romans 1:20 confirms you do.
"Thoughts in your head to not translate to reality. There's a difference between the conceptual and the actual. "
? Thoughts cause every single thing you will, YOU are your thoughts, are you your hand or your brain(piece of atomic matter)? No, you are a Mind, you will things by thought, no one denies this.
"It seems you infer a lot of things that can't be seen to make the case for Christianity, that's the same thing scientists are doing to make the case for evolution, but scientists use science, and you use your imagination.
"
Thoughts do not need to be Seen, we can OBSERVE them without site, Evolution is a Physical process, this has to be Seen to be proven, Thoughts, Logic, YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) do not as they are non-physical and still observed, you cannot SEE your thoughts, but surely you can observe them, as Scripture says, the evidence of things not seen.
I ask you, when you read, this next word, HEY, what did you see? Did you see the WORD, "Hey"? No you didn't, you saw Electrical Signals hitting a screen, the Word is Immaterial.
Numbers, are Numbers Material? No. they are Immaterial Concepts, Love isn't material, yet obviously exists, love has no shape or form.
"You seem to be lost on one major concept, speciation takes time, "
"no human can see it in their lifetime unless it is a small evolution. "
Then it can never be proven, there's no argument against creation, as evolution is a mere idea, not observable.
"But we know species evolve because of the changes in DNA and the fossil record are consistent with the theory."
Yet with those same fossils and changes in DNA they can be consistent with Creation, I can theorize newtons laws, but they ain't true, quantum physics is(Just an example)
We don't want hypothesises, we want observable facts, otherwise we have nothing for evolution and it's no different than the idea of aliens dropping us off, just an idea.
Creation however has DNA, it has an observable basis.
"So let me ask you: How old is the earth, how old is man,"
Earth Formation is as old as man, Universe I don't know, Bible doesn't specify, man was created after earth.
"Australopithecus afarensis
Homo gautengensis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis†
Homo floresiensi
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo cepranensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis"
How do I explain? easy, YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) designed similar species and different levels of them(we have less hair in our design they have more for example)
And to back this up DNA proves intellect, while Evolution has no other basis then assumption, evolution not required, no different than ancient myths of hinduism and the cosmic egg
Your arguments are so bad.
DeleteYet you have observed Him, and don't try to say you didn't, Science says otherwise, Shroud of Turin confirms The Bible and The Bible Romans 1:20 confirms you do.
What scientific evidence do you have that says I have observed god? If your Christianity is based on the Shroud of Turin, that's really pathetic. All we have to do is show it is fake and your religion is done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ho-T3SQuw
No, you are a Mind, you will things by thought, no one denies this.
How do you know your thoughts are not determined by physics? You cannot have a thought about a thought before you have the thought.
Thoughts do not need to be Seen, we can OBSERVE them without site, Evolution is a Physical process, this has to be Seen to be proven, Thoughts, Logic, YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) do not as they are non-physical and still observed, you cannot SEE your thoughts, but surely you can observe them, as Scripture says, the evidence of things not seen.
We can observe the transitional fossils and the DNA changes that correspond to evolutionary theory. Your god is just a concept inside your head, that's why he cannot be seen.
Numbers, are Numbers Material? No. they are Immaterial Concepts, Love isn't material, yet obviously exists, love has no shape or form.
God is also an immaterial concept, therefore only exists in your head and in your imagination, same as every other god. Love is a chemical/electrical process.
Then it can never be proven, there's no argument against creation, as evolution is a mere idea, not observable.
Are you saying creationism is unfalsifiable? Because if you can always make up ad hoc excuses to cover up its flaws, what's the point of debating? You will always find a way to lie to cover how bad the idea is. And how do yo explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw
Yet with those same fossils and changes in DNA they can be consistent with Creation,
No they are not consistent with the biblical account. Evolution happens over billions of years, not 6 days. The the bible says birds were created before land animals, but that is not consistent with the fossil evidence. The bible is plain wrong.
We don't want hypothesises, we want observable facts, otherwise we have nothing for evolution and it's no different than the idea of aliens dropping us off, just an idea.
Everything observed has been consistent with evolutionary theory, nothing has been consistent with the creationism idea. And creationism has no science backing it up, it relies on magic to explain everything.
Earth Formation is as old as man, Universe I don't know, Bible doesn't specify, man was created after earth.
How many years is that? Be specific. If creationism is true as you say, then it should be able to give us good answers. Otherwise it's explanatory power is very weak. Science and evolution can give us specific numbers, so give me specific numbers if your creationism idea is better.
How do I explain? easy, YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) designed similar species and different levels of them(we have less hair in our design they have more for example)
So you're saying all these transitional species lived at the same time as humans? Impossible! Their bones are dated hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago, before modern humans. What scientific evidence supports your crazy idea?
It is obvious that creationism is on the same exact level is the cosmic egg. That's why %97-99 of scientists accept evolution as FACT.
"What scientific evidence do you have that says I have observed god? If your Christianity is based on the Shroud of Turin, that's really pathetic. All we have to do is show it is fake and your religion is done."
DeleteNope, Science disagrees with opinions, especially that fallicous video you linked, all evidence points to authenticity,
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/habermas_shroud_turin_significance_1981.htm
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/habermas_JETS_Shroud_Rejoinder_Basinger.htm
"How do you know your thoughts are not determined by physics? You cannot have a thought about a thought before you have the thought."
So thoughts are Physical? They are Atoms? if so, Everything you see is a mind.
"We can observe the transitional fossils and the DNA changes that correspond to evolutionary theory."
Which also correspond to YHWH creating similar species, not evidence for evolution, Observation is.
"God is also an immaterial concept, therefore only exists in your head and in your imagination, same as every other god. Love is a chemical/electrical process."
Love is a Chemical Process? Demonstrate.
2, So your saying Math is an Imagination?
"No they are not consistent with the biblical account. Evolution happens over billions of years, not 6 days. The the bible says birds were created before land animals, but that is not consistent with the fossil evidence. The bible is plain wrong."
Where does The Bible say how long those days are?
Also birds being created before land animals is consistent,
Fossil record is an assumption, How do you KNOW that land animals before birds? you can only Speculate, which isn't for debate nor proof.
"Everything observed has been consistent with evolutionary theory, nothing has been consistent with the creationism idea."
One species has been observed to evolve into a new/different species?
" And creationism has no science backing it up, it relies on magic to explain everything."
Miracles aren't, "magic", Quantum Mechanics is a Scientific Fact, get up to date scientifically, Miracles can and do happen, science wholeheartly agrees with Quantum.
"How many years is that? Be specific. If creationism is true as you say, then it should be able to give us good answers. Otherwise it's explanatory power is very weak. Science and evolution can give us specific numbers, so give me specific numbers if your creationism idea is better."
Actually no, notice the Pseudo comparing Science and Evolution, you cannot compare until you show One Species evolved into a new/different one, we can say Creation and Science because Intelligent Design is observed in DNA.
" Impossible! Their bones are dated hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago, before modern humans. What scientific evidence supports your crazy idea?"
"crazy idea" chill with the insults.
How do you know it's Hundreds of Thousands and millions of years old?
"That's why %97-99 of scientists accept evolution as FACT."
Evolution is a Fact? Please show me where one species has been demonstrated to evolve into a new/different species? otherwise it's not a fact, just an idea, like aliens or cosmic egg.
Also lighten up on the insults and abbrasiveness, why would you want to harm/offend or provoke someone else?
Nope, Science disagrees with opinions, especially that fallicous video you linked, all evidence points to authenticity
DeleteThen why hasn't the Catholic church said it is legit?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157217/The-Turin-Shroud-fake-Eminent-historian-claims-40-similar-cloths-originated-1-300-years-AFTER-crucifixion.html
So thoughts are Physical? They are Atoms? if so, Everything you see is a mind.
Never said that, thoughts are an emergent property.
Which also correspond to YHWH creating similar species, not evidence for evolution, Observation is.
So you believe god created a bunch of species so that they are each a little different as if they evolved from one another, but were created at the same time? If so why are the fossils in different rock layers and why are most of those species extinct?
Love is a Chemical Process? Demonstrate.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/jan-june09/love_02-13.html
Where does The Bible say how long those days are?
So I ask you, since you think creationism has better explanatory power than evolution and science, give me numbers on how old the universe, the earth, life, and human beings are. And don't play games, I want answers.
Also birds being created before land animals is consistent
No. Birds evolved from dinosaurs: http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/dinosaur-institute/dinosaurs/birds-late-evolution-dinosaurs
One species has been observed to evolve into a new/different species?
How about this, let's hold god/Christianity to the same standard as you are with evolution. So since no one saw Jesus, or his miracles or god, they don't exist. Ok? Same standard.
Miracles aren't, "magic", Quantum Mechanics is a Scientific Fact, get up to date scientifically, Miracles can and do happen, science wholeheartly agrees with Quantum.
Quantum mechanics is not magic or a miracle, and QM allows something to happen uncaused, so no need for god. Ha!
Actually no, notice the Pseudo comparing Science and Evolution, you cannot compare until you show One Species evolved into a new/different one, we can say Creation and Science because Intelligent Design is observed in DNA.
Evolution is a scientific fact. You have to disprove every transitional fossil first before you can say it is a lie.
How do you know it's Hundreds of Thousands and millions of years old?
Easy: Science. http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/datingfossilrecord.html
Evolution is a Fact? Please show me where one species has been demonstrated to evolve into a new/different species? otherwise it's not a fact, just an idea, like aliens or cosmic egg.
Please show me a miracle and proof Jesus was the son of god and that Yahweh is god and that every single word in the bible is true and that Adam and Eve were real. It has to be proof that I can see with my own eyes.
"Then why hasn't the Catholic church said it is legit?
Deletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157217/The-Turin-Shroud-fake-Eminent-historian-claims-40-similar-cloths-originated-1-300-years-AFTER-crucifixion.html "
1, The Catholic church doesn't represent The Bible, they are humans like us, #2, They are contrary to The Bible and secular as they not only have Unbiblical Doctrines but Anti-Biblical doctrines, 3, Catholic Church isn't scientific.
Why would you accept what the catholic church says if you don't even accept The Bible, if you don't believe in the catholic church, then your argument is pointless, whether or not the catholic church has accepted it, Science does.
Also the cloth is from Jesus Christ time,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
"Never said that, thoughts are an emergent property. "
If it's emergent, then it's not from the brain, nor is it physical as we never observe matter popping into existence when a thought comes, either way it's immaterial.
"So you believe god created a bunch of species so that they are each a little different as if they evolved from one another, but were created at the same time? If so why are the fossils in different rock layers and why are most of those species extinct?
"
The Flood. One Possible theory is that since after the fall, animals would become violent, things like dinosaurs, wouldn't help our salvation, had to go.
"Love is a Chemical Process? Demonstrate.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/jan-june09/love_02-13.html "
That didn't prove that Love is a chemical process, all it proved is that these chemicals make one Feel good, like oxycotin, and they cause one to love,
of course if you have one feeling good they'll love, whether by being treated nice, a chemical, happiness, satisfaction, etc
Love is still a personal and willing property, cannot be a chemical property, chemicals are mindless and have no will, they can INFLUENCE will though, if they make one feel good, they'll Choose to love, the chemical CAUSED love, love isn't the chemical or the chemical process.
"So I ask you, since you think creationism has better explanatory power than evolution and science, give me numbers on how old the universe, the earth, life, and human beings are. And don't play games, I want answers."
The Bible doesn't have to, if it said the earth was created in 2 days and it wasn't then we have problems, but it never states it, therefore it fits with whatever we find.
"No. Birds evolved from dinosaurs: http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/dinosaur-institute/dinosaurs/birds-late-evolution-dinosaurs"
No, there;s no proof, that is a speculation from fossil record/similarities, we can easily say that YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created them similar, like how he created humans and apes similar, humans got the better design.
"How about this, let's hold god/Christianity to the same standard as you are with evolution. So since no one saw Jesus, or his miracles or god, they don't exist. Ok? Same standard."
DeleteActually not, we can observe DNA and The Shroud of Turin, also Morality and our Hearts with The Bible.
"Quantum mechanics is not magic or a miracle, and QM allows something to happen uncaused, so no need for god. Ha!"
where/how does quantum mechanics allow something to happen, uncaused?
"Evolution is a scientific fact."
Scientific facts are observed, like gravity when you jump and fall down, One Species evolving into a New/Different Species(Evolution) has never been observed, it is speculated.
"You have to disprove every transitional fossil first before you can say it is a lie."
Easy, (assuming there's transitional fossils) transitional fossils are just different but similar species, so we view them as transitionary, when they are not, for example(just an example)
we have the PS1, PS2, and PS3, did The Ps2 and 3 evolve from PS1 because they are similar? is PS2 the transitional playstation?
No, The PS1, PS2 and PS3 though similar were designed similarly, but at different times with advancements and the PS2 is just the 2nd Playstation not transitional.
likewise, "transitional fossils" aren't transitional, they are just a similar species, different species and designed separately.
"Easy: Science. http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/datingfossilrecord.html"
That wasn't Science, it was speculation, the article said, "As we have learned more, and as our instrumentation has improved, geoscientists have reevaluated the ages obtained from the rocks."
So it's always improving which means we still don't know the proper date, so it'll never be objective, so we don't know that it's hundreds of thousands and millions of years old.
"Please show me a miracle and proof Jesus was the son of god and that Yahweh is god and that every single word in the bible is true and that Adam and Eve were real. It has to be proof that I can see with my own eyes."
Shroud of Turin, DNA,.
1. The Catholic church is in possession of the shroud, and if they will not even say it's real, why should you or I? There's no scientific proof the shroud is real, doesn't matter how old it is.
DeleteIf it's emergent, then it's not from the brain, nor is it physical as we never observe matter popping into existence when a thought comes, either way it's immaterial.
Do you even know what an emergent property is? Consciousness is an emergent property completely dependent on the physical brain. No brain - no consciousness.
The Flood. One Possible theory is that since after the fall, animals would become violent, things like dinosaurs, wouldn't help our salvation, had to go.
One possible theory? Since the Fall? I got 3 questions on the fall. When did it take place, where did it take place, and what scientific evidence do you have that it did take place? I need facts.
Dinosaurs like T. rex had 7 inch teeth for eating meat. So they did not "become violent". Apparently you think the Flintstones was a documentary.
That didn't prove that Love is a chemical process, all it proved is that these chemicals make one Feel good, like oxycotin, and they cause one to love
That's what love is fundamentally. What scientific evidence so you have otherwise?
The Bible doesn't have to, if it said the earth was created in 2 days and it wasn't then we have problems, but it never states it, therefore it fits with whatever we find.
Then you admit that the creationist idea has weaker explanatory power since science can give us dates as to how old the earth, universe, life and humans are. So under creationism, our knowledge decreases not increases. That means it's inferior.
we can easily say that YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) created them similar, like how he created humans and apes similar, humans got the better design.
But this is an ad hoc and totally speculative assumption, that is backed up with no evidence. Your story sounds like god tricked us into thinking evolution happens, that's deceitful.
Actually not, we can observe DNA and The Shroud of Turin, also Morality and our Hearts with The Bible.
None of those things prove Christianity or that god exists. You make a huge illogical inference on them, with no warrant. We have already observed RNA form naturally. And how do you explain people born mentally ill, psychopathic and sociopathic who cannot feel empathy and make moral decisions? How does that fit into god's plan if he's real?
where/how does quantum mechanics allow something to happen, uncaused?
Read Alex Vilenkin's book, Many World In One, or Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe From Nothing, or Alan Guth's book The Inflationary Universe.
Scientific facts are observed, like gravity when you jump and fall down, One Species evolving into a New/Different Species(Evolution) has never been observed, it is speculated.
Really? Refute all this evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
And no one saw god do anything, so he doesn't exist.
Easy, (assuming there's transitional fossils) transitional fossils are just different but similar species, so we view them as transitionary, when they are not,
DeletePs1, Ps2, Ps3 are not biological organisms, they're not alive, they are not born, and they do not reproduce and adapt. So your example is bullshit.
So it's always improving which means we still don't know the proper date, so it'll never be objective, so we don't know that it's hundreds of thousands and millions of years old.
All that means is we have more accurate dates. For example if we have a range of dates from 40-50 million years ago, a more accurate reading will be 42-47 million years ago. As technology gets better we will narrow the range down to 44-46 million years ago. But this does not mean that the dating system is totally off. Radiometric and isotropic dating are determined to be a very useful method and your criticism means nothing. You have to show how the whole method is wrong.
"Shroud of Turin, DNA,."
Prove the shroud is miracle and that DNA was created by god. I need to see it happen with my own eyes. If I can't see god do it, it's false.
These are very important points. I find the word games mentioned in number 8 the most relevant to my debates. Its as if making a new definition disqualifies everything. It would be more honest to say "I am sorry I don't understand this as it means x to me."
ReplyDeleteI find apologetics builds in their conclusions to their definitions, making them circular.
Delete