A rational response from a theist
Posted on: February 7, 2008 - 7:48pm
Offline
A rational response from a theist
I just wanted to post this short exchange of messages from myspace. This girl from my area contacted me to "witness", and then when I answered her question she was rational. I almost fell out of my chair when I got her response. So, here it is, (copied and pasted so read from bottom to top)
Thank you for the information. I guess any one of could be correct if you really sit and think about it. I guess I just choose to believe in what I do because of the way I was raised. I have often thought, like you said, what if what I have been taught all my life is wrong. I just can't bring myself to believe that it is for fear of something bad happening to me or someone I love. Silly, huh? And, I guess I am an athiest to the other gods. Never thought about it that way! Thank you again for your information. I always want to learn more.
Lisa
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: ken
Date: Feb 5, 2008 6:39 PM
I was raised Southern Baptist, so I know the bible very well. I choose not to believe it because it is incoherent nonsense. Have you ever sat down and read it from the beginning like any other book? Well, I guess technically it is 66 books, but who's counting? It used to have a lot more books (now called the .apocrypha.>
but they weren't canonized even though at one time it was illegal to publish a bible without them. The more you study the more you realize that Christianity is no better than Islam, Buddhism, or Judaism, which spawned the big three Abrahmic religions. Anyway, if you can find one argument that doesn't take a leap of faith to accept your beliefs then let me know. It takes absolutely no faith to accept evolution, because it has been proven. There is an indisputable fossil record. I will admit that evolution is the answer to how and not why, but I will stick to my reason rather than believe in fairy tales. Besides, there are thousands of gods, what if you are wrong? If you had been born in another country, say Iran, you would be Muslim, and would message me with a surah from the koran rather than a verse from the bible.
You are an atheist too, whether you believe it or not. You are atheist about Zeus, Allah, and Dagda. When you are willing to go one god further you will understand my position.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: ~*~Lisa~*~
Date: Feb 3, 2008 7:02 PM
We don't know each other but I feel that I need to share something with you. I am a Christian and it is my duty to witness to people. It's your business how you take this but I will be blessed for doing my part. In Genesis 1:1, The Holy Bible says, "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth". I don't understand how you can't believe this. How do you think we all got here?
- Login to post comments
A response I get from a theist aquaintence of mine is that the fossil record in itself does not prove evolution happens. He says all it proves is that there were a number of creatures that were slightly different, it doesn't actually prove that they evolved from each other. His explanation of course is that each different animal was 'placed' there, by the guya no less, not 'god of the sky'.
This I beleive has some validity to it. I think we have to point to observations in genetics to consolidate our evidence.
What do you think? How does fossil record actually prove each species evolved from the one before?
It goes something like this.
Say we find a fosil of a species, or a currently living species, that are decended from a fosil that is much older.
Evolution then predicts that there should be intermediary stages.
When we then find a fosil of a intermediary species that fit in the right time and place, that more or less proves the predictions of evolution.
The number of fosils that supports evolutionary predictions stack upp to a pretty convincing evidence for evolution.
I dont think one can get any better proof. if they wont accept the fosil record I dont think they wil accept DNA evidence either.
"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "
Well, you said the most important thing when you noted that it's not ONLY the fossil evidence that supports the theory.
I'm guessing one mistake he's making might be the "but there are so few (or not any) transitional fossils".
This is a silly argument. Of course we have transitional fossils; it's only a matter of the distance between each specimen.
Thought experiment: Imagine that you want to walk one mile. By the "no transitional fossils" reasoning, you couldn't walk a mile, because first you'd have to walk half a mile. So you decide to meet the challenge. But hold on, says your friend. Before you can walk half a mile, you first have to walk a quarter of a mile. You think that sounds fair, so you begin to walk the quarter of a mile. Again your friend stops you and says that, before you can walk a quarter of a mile, first you have to walk a sixteenth of a mile. Your friend could do this to you ad infinitum.
Evolution-bashers tend to place the same infinite demands on the fossil record.
Also, when we're talking about the fossil record, we're not just talking about the fossils themselves. We're also talking about geology---specifically the geologic column. Since deeper earth is older earth, then if evolution were true, we'd expect to see a very clear gradient of complexity in the geologic column, where the deeper in the earth we go, the less complex organisms tend to become.
And wouldn't you know it, that is exactly what we find. No exceptions to date, that I'm aware of.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I always thought that the fossil record was insufficient. What really sealed evolution for me was the arguments from DNA. (Not that I didn't already believe it, just that I was taking it on scientific authority rather than it being proven to me)
There was one to do with a DNA altering virus and another to with vitamin producing genes being broken in all apes but not other mammals.
What these arguments did was suggest a DNA link between similar families.
E.g. there are viruses that change our DNA so as well as the important DNA that assigns our characteristics there is some null coding that doesn't do anything - failed attempts by these viruses to reproduce themselves.
The closer an animal is 'related' to us, the more of this 'redundant' code it shares, suggesting that it has been passed down genetically. You'd need to speak to a biologist or find the threads in this forum for more detailed versions.
DeludedGod and Yellow 5 I think would be good to ask.
That's basically it. It's wrong to think of the fossil record as just some bones dug up here and there. One has to consider the global geologic column and the way it was built up. What would we expect to see as animals die and are fossilized while layers of sediment stack up on top of each other for millions of years and if evolution is true? We would expect to see exactly what we do see and no fossil ever found contradicts evolution theory when the geology that put it where it is is correctly understood.
You're pretty close to winning a toaster on this one.