Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview

Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:6ftAk.612$as4.132@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:zilAk.889$yr3.364@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:P5iAk.853$c45.337@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:igd4c4tgf33bqnsasnc5nr75jl7nfn9al0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 02:21:10 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

I think you are equating "kinds" with species. I believe kinds
may contain bunches of species. So you are not understanding
what I am seeing. In the creation account, whole varieties
come into existence not as single creations necessarily but as
groups of things that can become many species. For instance
cats: tigers, lions, sabre-toothed tigers, domestic cats, panthers,
cougars, jaguars, etc. Canines: wolves, dogs, coyotes, foxes,
etc.
Well, I must say, it is rare to see a creationist prepared to define
"kind".

Yes, you are right, it is rare, and I don't know if I can define
it. Let's just say I am attempting to try to define biblical "kinds."
Some have re-calculated a better way to define species also.
As new things have been discovered, that causes definitions to
become complicated, so much so that one definition for
species does not cover all types of organisms. The definition
of species for sexual organisms is different now than the
definition for species for such as assexual organisms.
If there is evolution, we would expect the definition of "species" to be a bit fuzzy, since there will be many cases in which one species is in the process of turning into two or more species. But if there are "kinds", wouldn't we expect them to be distinct and easily separable?
Yes.
Why do creationists have so much difficulty identifying kinds? I suggest it's because they don't exist.

No. Because they do exist, according to the Bible,
which is what creationists go by. You should
understand this because when Maxwell predicted
that radio waves existed, before Hertz proved that
they existed, they still really did exist.
You have a contradiction, then. You answered "yes" to my question above, yet you can't identify kinds, and you still claim they exist. In science, that wouldn't be allowed. If we expect to see X when Y exists, and we don't see X, that's considered evidence that Y doesn't exist.

Maxwell knew that radio waves existed, but he
could not prove it. Hertz proved it. But Maxwell
knew they were there even though he could only
show that he believed it. Maxwell very much was
a scientist, but he doesn't fit what you just said
any more than I do.
You are quite wrong about this. Maxwell didn't claim to have a way to detect radio waves. That is, the part about expecting to see X wasn't true. Nor was Maxwell's expectation merely a matter of faith. His theory explained quite a bit of what we could see, and made additional predictions about what we would see if we figured out how. Your theory, on the other hand, explains nothing of what we see, and makes predictions that turn out to be falsified by data we already have. See the difference?

I didn't say that Maxwell had a way to detect radio waves.
I said that he predicted that they existed. I don't have a
theory about it. I only know that Hertz proved that they
existed, and not only that, but showed they are part of the
electromagnetic radionion spectrum. This is not wrong,
and I did not originate this explanation.

That's not the part of your claim that's wrong. What's wrong is your analogy between Maxwell and your creationist ideas, as I have explained. Please reread what I said.

The biblical Tree of Life produces twelve species/types
of fruit on it's one tree, and one is produced every month. It
was a real tree, not a metaphor.
Don't be silly, no such tree ever existed.

It did exist in Paradise and it does exist in Heaven,
according to the Bible.
According to Revelations, you mean. Do you really think Revelations is even intended as a literal account of real events (and trees)?

Yes, I do think that the Revelation tells about real events,
but that it also has symbolism in it simultaneously. Many
of the symbols are even explained in it, such as the people
wearing white robes meaning that it stands for the righteousness
of the saints whose sins were blotted out by the savior's shed
blood that paid for their sins. Revelation speaks of a star
that falls from the sky (chaper 12) whose tail drew with it
a third of the stars. But then that star is identified as Satan
and the fallen stars as the angels that sinned with him. The
woman with 12 stars on her head is representative of the
Israel nation. The woman's child is the Messiah, whom
Satan wants to do away with. John saw this all in symbol
form, but then most of it he explains also as he reveals the
symbols.
So what makes you think the tree was intended literally?

It was in the garden and the Bible says that a cherub was
stationed at it when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden,
and there would be no need for someone to guard the tree
if it were not a real tree.
No, I'm talking about the description of the tree in Revelations, not the one in Genesis.

I see. The description of the tree of life is given in the
description of heaven that is in the Revelation. It is
not spoken of there metaphorically, but as an actual
kind of tree that grows on both sides of the river that
is in heaven.

Do you really think there is an actual, physical tree in heaven? An actual river? Where is heaven, exactly?

Now, I accept this on faith. But
for those that do not, there are a lot of depictions of a
cherub found in this region between N. Iran, N. Iraq,
E. Turkey and Russia. These depictions are sphinxes.
St. Petersberg, Russia has many ancient depictions of
cherubim. That is the area described in the Bible that
has a river that turns into four rivers, two being the
Tigris and Euphrates Rivers origin locations.
So what happened to the real cherub and the real tree? Why can't we find either of them?

Why don't you say what happened to the Tigris and the
Euphrates Rivers? We know where they are. Why do
you single out what I can't answer, and ignore the part
of the location description of the garden that you can
find? : )

Because we can find them. If it's necessary to have a cherub with a flaming sword to guard a tree, that tree must be able to be found. So where is it? London is a real city. Does that mean Harry Potter is a real person, even though I can't find Hogwarts?

With modern grafting techniques you could produce a tree that carried
a couple of different fruits but it would not be a natural tree.

If a man can do that much, God can certainly do a
lot more.
Sure, since god by definition can do anything.

Metaphors don't need an angel
Angels do not exist.

Angels do exist. They've probably kept you safe on many
an occasion.
Do you have any evidence for this interesting assertion?

Would you consider that a chemistry text book would be
evidence of a field of study called chemistry?
No. If the things in that book were not independently verifiable, the book would be worthless.

When you studied chemistry in school, did you
verify everything in the book before you believed
it taught chemistry, is the point.
No, that's not the point. The point is that I could have verified everything in it. And yes, I did verify some things, enough to give a good sample.

It's the point I was making, John. If you had never
studied chemistry before and had not learned how
to do certain things, you would not have yet been
able to verify anything. There has to be a starting
place you know.

That's not a point. You can't verify the claims about angels, and you can't point to the bible as evidence for those claims.

I believe that
in this way, the Bible is evidence that God exists.
If I brought an angel to you and introduced him to you,
you might not believe me if I told you he was an angel.
Even if he did some great display of what appeared to
be supernatural, you still might not believe that he is
an angel. Right? The only way that I know of that a
person can believe these things is the same way that I
believed them, and that is that the Holy Spirit would
work in their heart and show them that he is really
there. : )
In other words, you don't have any evidence but you deny that evidence is of use in determining truth.

Yes, I have plenty of evidence that God is real, but
before I received him, I also had evidence that he was
real, because he led me to understand that he
is real. He reaches a person in their mind, though,
and you can't show that to someone else. You can
only tell them about it. But I'll tell you again that
Maxwell could not prove that radio waves were
real either, but he predicted that they were with
certainty. So not all things are available to your
knowledge by your theory that you test everything
to see if it is real.
Sorry, but things you see or hear inside your head are not considered evidence.

Yes, they are evidence and the Bible is also evidence.
You just don't realize it, I suppose.

Nor does any other rational person. Otherwise we would have to accept the existence of Harry Potter, Mithra, Krishna, Superman, etc.

If you lived in a wild west town and some evil person
showed up looking for you, and someone rode out to
tell you about it because they were afraid for your life,
wouldn't you tend to believe that person, say if it was
a good relative of yours? At some point, you have to
just trust someone because you can't go around proving
everything.

True. But if in fact no evil person had actually shown up, and your friend was mistaken, this would eventually become clear. Anyone who claimed that the evil person was invisible and undetectable would probably be taken as a nut. You, on the other hand, have never told me anything that turned out to be true. You have never given me any evidence for your interesting claims. Why should I believe anything you say?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
    ... groups of things that can become many species. ... that's considered evidence that Y doesn't exist. ... Maxwell knew that radio waves existed, ... of fruit on it's one tree, and one is produced every month. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray, please define "scientific evidence"
    ... How about you provide citations that support this claim of yours? ... Irrelevant comment, a change has arisen, the union of two species ... because of this alleged "special creation ex materia"? ... yet you offer no evidence to support your claims. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray, please define "scientific evidence"
    ... How about you provide citations that support this claim of yours? ... Irrelevant comment, a change has arisen, the union of two species ... because of this alleged "special creation ex materia"? ... yet you offer no evidence to support your claims. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... >> to all modern species of such domain, but there's no clear evidence ... > evidence for the rest of the tree, ... bases is there unique alignment across all five genomes? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creation vs. Evolution: The Winner Is...
    ... > But to use that as evidence for reptile to ... >nor do we have any birds with skin scales alive today. ... >diverse kinds of wings in various species, and various creatures, could ... We share a creation channel, ...
    (talk.origins)