| bdsimon |
| Posted 06/18/12 at 03:07 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
It has been said on more than one occasion on this board that only epirical scientific evidence is acceptable as evidence for the existence of God. I am curious how the atheist came to this standard. I am of the opinion that there are other forms of evidence that are seen as completely legitimate and are accepted readily in most cases but the atheist does not even consider this form of evidence as evidence at all. IOW, they do not see it as weak evidence or insufficient but they say that is not evidence. How is the atheist justified in coming to this conclusion and why, as a theist, should I accept these terms? It seems to me that the atheist in most cases is not looking for evidence but is in stead looking for proof. I would be interested in hearing a case as to why only scientific evidence should be accepted as evidence for God. |
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 06/18/12 at 10:51 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Since evidence is not necessarily and by no means always scientific, I don't feel obligated to answer your question re why acceptable evidence must always be scientific evidence.
Describe your non-empirical evidence and let's see where we go from there.
|
| Loading... | |
| JudeNebula |
| Posted 06/18/12 at 10:58 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
| What kind of evidence would be required for zoologists to accept Werewolves as a real living species?
I require the same kind of evidence for Magic Men (God) as I do for all other mythical/magic creatures be it werewolves, vampires, santa claus, the tooth fairy of Gods.. |
| Loading... | |
| Equestions |
| Posted 06/18/12 at 11:11 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
| I always appreciate that double standard from them as well. They can't provide empirical evidence to support evolution and yet they want us to provide empirical evidence to prove God? OK....there's no double standard there or anything. |
| Loading... | |
| DEADEYE |
| Posted 06/18/12 at 11:28 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Lest we forget the post that shall go on in infamy...
"This is my whole point, actually. I've been thinking about this for some time, and so far, I can't think of a single miracle that couldn't be simulated through trickery.
And even if the miracles are genuine, I can't think of a single miracle that would imply actual omnipotence, rather than "extraordinary power".
And this is why even if Jesus appeared before me and started performing miracles, I wouldn't be inclined on that alone to either worship him or think him omnipotent." |
| Loading... | |
| JudeNebula |
| Posted 06/18/12 at 11:28 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Equestions
I always appreciate that double standard from them as well. They can't provide empirical evidence to support evolution and yet they want us to provide empirical evidence to prove God? OK....there's no double standard there or anything.
I'd like to direct you to hall of human origins and the Museum of Natural History, which is right next to the capitol building in Washington D.C
Here you will find TONS of empirical evidence to support evolution, such as over 6,000 skeletons of our half human, half ape ancestors..
The evidence is there, it is overwhelming, you just choose to ignore it. |
| Loading... | |
| gregwilson |
| Posted 06/18/12 at 11:42 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by JudeNebulaQuote: Originally Posted by Equestions
I always appreciate that double standard from them as well. They can't provide empirical evidence to support evolution and yet they want us to provide empirical evidence to prove God? OK....there's no double standard there or anything.
I'd like to direct you to hall of human origins and the Museum of Natural History, which is right next to the capitol building in Washington D.C
Here you will find TONS of empirical evidence to support evolution, such as over 6,000 skeletons of our half human, half ape ancestors..
The evidence is there, it is overwhelming, you just choose to ignore it.
Materialist presuppositions mostly, partial skeletons, and no knowledge about how these beings lived, thought (if they did), interacted, etc. Love the cartoon drawing at the top. You'd think by now the evolutionists would quit promoting silly hand-drawn pictures as evidence for ape-human evolution, but when it's all you got...
|
| Loading... | |
| Equestions |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 12:04 AM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Check it out Jude! The phylogenetic tree of the Spork! It all lines up and is in perfect order so it MUST be true!!! Wow...it's amazing what you can 'evolve' if you just put things next to each other and ASSERT that it absolutely happened this way. This evolution stuff is pretty easy!  It is a somewhat unified theory as it also incorporates the grapefruit spoon, spatula, and ladle. Without evidence from the fossil record, however, the theory is difficult to prove. Though, the emergence of the foodle or sporkula would provide empirical support. |
| Loading... | |
| JudeNebula |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 12:07 AM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gregwilsonQuote: Originally Posted by JudeNebulaQuote: Originally Posted by Equestions
I always appreciate that double standard from them as well. They can't provide empirical evidence to support evolution and yet they want us to provide empirical evidence to prove God? OK....there's no double standard there or anything.
I'd like to direct you to hall of human origins and the Museum of Natural History, which is right next to the capitol building in Washington D.C
Here you will find TONS of empirical evidence to support evolution, such as over 6,000 skeletons of our half human, half ape ancestors..
The evidence is there, it is overwhelming, you just choose to ignore it. Materialist presuppositions mostly, partial skeletons, and no knowledge about how these beings lived, thought (if they did), interacted, etc. Love the cartoon drawing at the top. You'd think by now the evolutionists would quit promoting silly hand-drawn pictures as evidence for ape-human evolution, but when it's all you got...
We do have lots of knowledge of how these people lived..
Watch this video just for a short introduction..
|
| Loading... | |
| Equestions |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 12:14 AM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
| That's great Jude but what evidence do you have that one 'evolved' into another? Did we observe that? Can we repeat that? Oh wait.....we don't use REAL science in your world. My bad.
So about that mechanism you keep avoiding..... |
| Loading... | |
| gregwilson |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 12:25 AM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Does he have a time machine I'm not aware of?
If these events occurred 100,000 to 2.5 million years ago, what makes you think this evidence would be preserved for us to correctly interpret how these evolving beings lived/interacted? The fossils aren't complete fossils, and a few skulls showing the similarities between an ape and a man don't prove an evolutionary linkage anymore than the skeletal similarities between a rat and a chihuahua prove chihuahuas came from rats.
It's a nice and coherent story, but I'm just not buying it. For macroevolution of this magnitude to occur, a rapid development in intelligence is needed. Unfortunately, this requires complex mutations (which are empirically missing) acting on an already complex and delicate organ--the brain.
|
| Loading... | |
| JudeNebula |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 12:33 AM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by EquestionsThat's great Jude but what evidence do you have that one 'evolved' into another? Did we observe that? Can we repeat that? Oh wait.....we don't use REAL science in your world. My bad.
So about that mechanism you keep avoiding.....
Well for starters..if you look at this picture..
You can see that over time the ape looking species disappear and the species become more human like. The more human like species are always younger than the ape like species. There is a direct correlation going from most ape-like to more human like over the course of millions of years.
2. DNA evidence. We literally have remnants of our ancestors DNA within us.
And I'm not talking just about cases where humans interbred with Neanderthalsm, was recently discovered. If you are of European descent, there is a good chance you have neanderthal genes within you..
But also from the following,
1. Universal Biochemical Organisation and molecular variance patterns 2. Endogenous retrovirus's 3. DNA sequencing 4. Evidence from comparative anatomy 5.Vestigial structures
and many many more...Here is a complete list...
|
| Loading... | |
| Equestions |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 12:35 AM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
| Come on Greg! The Smithsonian says it's true so it MUST be absolute fact! You can't doubt the Smithsonian! Don't you know putting bones next to each other is all that's required to prove one thing evolved into another? Just like fish to tetrapods. Secular science NAILED that years ago! All those bones next to each other proved it! Oh wait.....there are those 400 million year old tetrapod tracks that kinda threw a monkey wrench into everything but Jude says science is NEVER been wrong so just ignore those tracks.....they don't count. All that counts are the bones that are neatly placed next to one another! That proves, according to Jude, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that one thing 'evolved' into another. How dare you question a peer reviewed scientist super genius Mensa member smarter than 99.9% of the world guy like Jude! |
| Loading... | |
| JudeNebula |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 12:37 AM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gregwilson
Does he have a time machine I'm not aware of?
If these events occurred 100,000 to 2.5 million years ago, what makes you think this evidence would be preserved for us to correctly interpret how these evolving beings lived/interacted? The fossils aren't complete fossils, and a few skulls showing the similarities between an ape and a man don't prove an evolutionary linkage anymore than the skeletal similarities between a rat and a chihuahua prove chihuahuas came from rats.
It's a nice and coherent story, but I'm just not buying it. For macroevolution of this magnitude to occur, a rapid development in intelligence is needed. Unfortunately, this requires complex mutations (which are empirically missing) acting on an already complex and delicate organ--the brain.
We don't have a 'few skulls'. We have 6,000 of just human/ape alone.
If you want to read more about the evolution of human intelligence over the course of millions of years..
You can read about it here..
|
| Loading... | |
| Equestions |
| Posted 06/19/12 at 12:47 AM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
| HAHA! Oh man.....hey.....mister peer reviewed scientist super genius. You might want to actually READ the articles you post.
"We do not have ancient DNA, i.e., from a fossil specimen, to directly compare with DNA from contemporary populations, so our approach was indirect or inferential," said Hammer.
Wait....they DO NOT HAVE ANCIENT DNA SO THEIR APPROACH WAS INDIRECT OR INFERENTIAL!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! OH MAN! Peer reviewed scientist....WHATEVER!!!!!
So they INFERRED all of this......wow! That's just how real science with actual empirical evidence is done! Testable, observable, repeatable....none of that. Just line up some skulls and INFER a bunch of stuff and Jude swallows it like candy. Man....talk about easy to brainwash! |
| Loading... | |
