Weighing the Evidence: An Atheist Abandons Atheism

BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | January 10, 2005 | Charles Colson

[muir_redwoods]

"Your position is the same as the creationists saying they haven't seen dinosaurs evolve, so it didn't happen."

No it's not. Dinosaurs leave fossils and with cladistic research one can determine their evolution. Plenty of early religions left written records with all sorts of claims and they aren't proof either. If they were one could make the case for the existence of Baal.

One has faith or one needs proof. Take your pick

[VadeRetro]

No need to squirm and shout. I just asked if it bothers you that nothing you're saying is true. Evidently, yes, but not that you can admit.

Dinosaurs and mammals have overlapped for their entire histories, except that the dinos dropped out of the picture. This is not news. Until the dinos (among other life forms) dropped out in a big extinction event 65 million years ago, mammals were prevented from exploring a a lot of niches. We finally found a mammal old enough but still big enough to have eaten a smallish dinosaur. This is news of a sort, but doesn't overthrow anything much except to point out that some mammals were exploring predation of animals bigger than insects.

IOW, you're playing Twist and Shout, waving a minor factoid around like it's the fall of the Evolutionary Empire. Doesn't look very honest.

You are one of these evolutionists insisting that there is near infinite amount of transitional animals in the fossil record, right?

"Near infinite" is not predicted. "Plenty more than in Darwin's day" is known to be true.

Now has evolution stopped? If not, can you point me to any "transistional" trans-species LIVING, BREATHING animals that I may take a look at?

Why do we seem to need a whole new flu vaccine every year? Why can't we re-use last year's?

And while you're at it, please provide me with ONE example of a mutation that ADDED information to an animals' genetic code.

Is it OK if it's beneficial?

[Dimensio]

Is it OK if it's beneficial?

I'm trying to remember if it was here where some creationist claimed that a "beneficial" mutation in either a virus or a parasite wasn't really beneficial because it wasn't good for humans.

[VadeRetro]

I'm trying to remember if it was here where some creationist claimed that a "beneficial" mutation in either a virus or a parasite wasn't really beneficial because it wasn't good for humans.

The final escape: "One must not impute purpose to the Designer." (Unless, that is, the Designer's design doesn't look too botched-up.)

[shubi]

Sorry, but evidence is evidence.

Just so you will understand the term:

Main Entry: 1ev£i£dence
Pronunciation: ‚e-v„-d„n(t)s, -v„-ƒden(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 14th century


1 a : an outward sign : indicationb : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
-in evidence1 : to be seen : conspicuous ²trim lawns T areeverywhere in evidence—

[muir_redwoods]

so for your purposes, the ravings of a lunatic, the mumbled dreams of a 3 year-old and the testimony of a drunk are evidence simply because they said the words. Fine. There now can be evidence for anything so where are you, logically?

[shubi]

You must weigh each piece of evidence as to credibility.

You discard some. You take others under advisement and you find others to be credible.

Even if evidence is false, it is still evidence.

[spitlana]

What is this "creation" of which you speak, and why should it be studied?

Oh dear--if the sun rising behind the mountain, or the glimpse of an iridescent throated hummingbird returning to the place it was hatched after thousands of miles of flight are not to be studied--And instead, decades of pouring over old teeth and bones to be studied--excuse me if my attention span begins to fail. Life is too short!

I am not here to engage in an endless discussion of cirular reasoning. I worship a Creator and there is my joy in His handiwork. I don't think the evolution you speak of (as if it were a person!) can ever raise the heart to equal joy.

[muir_redwoods]

"Even if evidence is false, it is still evidence."

I think, after a long walk, you're making my point. The evidence some people seek can be just as easily false as true. No human has any basis to judge the relative reliability of evidence for G-d's existence, One has either faith or one wants proof. Take your pick.

[Dimensio]

Oh dear--if the sun rising behind the mountain, or the glimpse of an iridescent throated hummingbird returning to the place it was hatched after thousands of miles of flight are not to be studied--And instead, decades of pouring over old teeth and bones to be studied--excuse me if my attention span begins to fail. Life is too short!

Ah, okay, you're engaging in the logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion, and then presenting it to me as though it were established fact as an argument for not bothering to study the past in any way at all. I apologize. I was under the impression that you were engaged in rational discourse.

I am not here to engage in an endless discussion of cirular reasoning.

Of course you are not. You are here to assert that you are right, all others are wrong, to dismiss any evidence contrary to your assertion and to claim that others are foolish to even consider that you might possibly be wrong.

[shubi]

There is evidence that supports faith is my point.

[Junior]

One of these days you must tell me how you do this.

[muir_redwoods]

"There is evidence that supports faith is my point."

And you have absolutely no way to evaluate the validity of what you accept as evidence. No one else does either with reference to G-d. You can have faith or you can look for elusive proof. Take your pick

[shubi]

I guess we are talking about two different things.

[spitlana]

and you, dear Dimensio, only wish to argue. I'm sure you've had plenty of "discourse" on all the many forums you have visited (as per your first reply)...

and you are quite wrong. I love to study the past very much. Truth from all ages is extremely exciting and uplifting. An old worn out nonsensical "theory" however, stuck in Darwin's 1800's, is excrutiatingly boring (to say the least).

But I shan't argue with you. May you find the truth you seek in all your studying. I applaud your curious mind, perseverence, and hard studying. May it bring you to the purposeof life, and not merely knowledge.

Blessings...

[Mr. Silverback]

There and I thought they were ignoring it just because no one knew who the old geezer was.

I too think that's the reason they're ignoring it.

[Mr. Silverback]

Ah, the "people are atheists to justify sexual deviancy". Just one in a series of bogus and bizarre "explanations" for why people don't believe as you do.

Let me first say that I do not believe that most, or even many, of today's believers in evolution hold to such a belief because they want to get jiggy.

However...to deny that a lot of people like (and promote) evolution because it eliminate's God's influence is naive at best. Take this example:

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

I submit it is not a case of Christians fighting science, but a case of non-christians fighting Christ.

[js1138]

I suppose there are people who think of Christianity as one team in some kind of cosmic football game -- best to be on the winning side, you know. Wouldn't want to be in the locker room if we lose.

But it is possible to to accept the message of Jesus in your heart, unconditionally, win or lose, because it is right.

[Mr. Silverback]

God created the second law of thermodynamics, too.

[Publius6961]

In fact, he told a group last May that he considers both the Christian God and the Islamic God to be “omnipotent Oriental despots—cosmic Saddam Husseins.”

It is remarkable, the similarity of this expression, to C.S. Lewis' repeated reference to God as the 'Cosmic Sadist', in his A Grief Observed, for profoundly sad reasons my favorite Lewis book.