FB debate with christian
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2011, 05:22 PM
 
FB debate with christian
Hi, I'm new here and am looking for help. Smile I have been having a friendly debate via facebook with a christian on why I am an atheist. I was raised a christian and went to a christian private school. The person I am debating with was a teacher at this school. I would like help responding to his last message to me. If anyone can help, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Rachel

HERE'S HIS MESSAGE:

Thank you for your reply. When you say science is based on fact what part of science? Evolution? Have you read Darwin's Black Box? It is written by a microbiologist. Darwinism is not a science even if you have been led to believe it is. There is no evidence for macro evolution, only micro evolution. Science also can only address issues that it can address. There is much that science has no answer for. Consider the four impassable gaps:

Nothing to something
Non-life to life
Non-conscious to conscious
Non-rational to rational

Science has no facts concerning how these gaps were passed. Science can only speculate. I.E. Take it on faith.

Even science is a faith system. You believe your facts are true. You believe your thoughts can apprehend truth. You believe in truth. These are all acts of faith. To believe what you just wrote me takes faith.

The good news is that you believe truth, or facts as you say, exists.

We can at least agree on that can't we? Facts exist. Truth exists?
Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2011, 06:01 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2011 06:15 PM by ashley.hunt60.)
RE: FB debate with christian
Welcome Rachel, this is a great website for this sort of stuff. A lot of people around here are very logical and rational thinkers. First of all, it seems like he's ready to dive right into evolution, so this website will be your best friend.

Christian Wrote:Thank you for your reply. When you say science is based on fact what part of science?
All aspects of science are based on reason. Not facts per se, but reason and logic. We create a hypothesis, which may or may not be fact, and test it from there, using objective tests that are repeatable and retested by other scientists world-wide to decide if it is valid or not.

Evolution? Have you read Darwin's Black Box? It is written by a microbiologist. Darwinism is not a science even if you have been led to believe it is. There is no evidence for macro evolution, only micro evolution.
You're a brave soul. At that point I would start ignoring the messages. Far too many red flags that it'll go nowhere. But for this part, refer to the above link, Talk Origins. It contains a lot on refuting creationist claims. Here's their page on the proofs for evolution.

Christian Wrote:Science also can only address issues that it can address. There is much that science has no answer for. Consider the four impassable gaps:

Nothing to something
Non-life to life
Non-conscious to conscious
Non-rational to rational

Science has no facts concerning how these gaps were passed. Science can only speculate. I.E. Take it on faith.

True, science can't directly address all aspects of life(politics and raw philosophy for example), but those "gaps" are aspects that it can address. And have addressed. The "Nothing to something" thing is about the Big Bang, I'm guessing, which doesn't say something came from nothing, it says that the universe was condensed into a singularity and then started to expand.

"Non-life to life" is about abiogensis, which has again been covered by science. See the Miller–Urey experiment for more, but their experiment showed that amino acids(the basic building blocks for life) can arise naturally. Notably, the environment they used didn't match the Earth's environment at the time, but it proves that amino acids(and by extension life) can arise naturally, without supernatural intervention. And just because their environment didn't match earth's environment doesn't mean it's impossible on Earth. We know that life can arise naturally, and we know life has arisen on Earth.

"Non-conscious to conscious" and "Non-rational to rational" I'll take as the same thing, because I don't see how they differ. I'm guessing he means that gap from animal to man. I would suggest watching "The Human Ape"(Youtube Link) to learn just how blurred the line between human and ape is, and at the end they explain how we could have evolved the few mutations needed to make us so different.

But I have one more point to make here, and it's screaming at me. He's using the good ol' God of the Gaps. We do not have knowledge on this subject at this point in time, therefor goddidit. Just because there are gaps doesn't mean that God is behind them. It means that we have gaps in knowledge. It means we don't know everything. You can always point to unknowns in human knowledge, but that doesn't suddenly make it a known(I don't know, therefor I know it's god).

Christian Wrote:Even science is a faith system. You believe your facts are true. You believe your thoughts can apprehend truth. You believe in truth. These are all acts of faith. To believe what you just wrote me takes faith.

Okay, he is either going one of two ways here. Either he is talking about absolute knowledge, or lack thereof, or he is completely butchering the definition of fact and faith. The second is the most likely. Faith is belief without, or even against, evidence. That is the classical definition of faith. Facts are in direct contradiction to this. Facts are pieces of information that have been so surely confirmed that it's become nearly impossible that they are false. Faith says to hell with evidence, facts rely so intently on evidence.

Check back on us, I'm curious to see how it plays out.

EDIT: And I agree with GlassyKitten, be cautious of that last bit, especially since he's playing the definition change game.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ashley.hunt60's post
24-04-2011, 06:03 PM
 
RE: FB debate with christian
Welcome to the forums. Smile


Sounds like you've been having a discussion with those I know on another forum who contribute to a post entitled, Science and Religion are both based on faith!

I always like when someone says,can't we both agree ______________. So that whatever they're asking you to agree with them on it's usually intended to bolster their point of view and get you to accede thereby deflating your conflict with their assertion because you agree you can join with them on one point. And usually that point has nothing at all to do with the crux of your counterpoint.

I wish you luck. Especially when this is going out on Facebook.
Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2011, 06:23 PM
RE: FB debate with christian
HEy , welcome to the TTA forum , make yourself at home.

Well your debater seems to be mistaking abiogenesis for evolution.
Evolution explains the diversity of biological organisms - that's it.
Abiogenesis is an experiment that proves life can come from non life - amino acids that grouped into protein.
Also there is no micro or macro evolution - there's just evolution. It's been confirmed through both fossil records and DNA analysis.
I think your friend was presented with a straw man position of evolution.
Also on the "something came from nothing" I recommend the following lecture :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Also , one last point. In science it's ok to say "I don't know". When you claim you have a god that holds all knowledge in the universe and you can communicate with said god , even if you're unsure about something you have to make something up or your superman get deflated.

Hope I helped Tongue

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2011, 06:53 PM
RE: FB debate with christian
Can you transfer to a "REAL" school?

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2011, 08:12 PM
 
RE: FB debate with christian
(24-04-2011 06:53 PM)No J. Wrote:  Can you transfer to a "REAL" school?

This was actually a "school" I went to over 10 years ago (high school). Unfortunately, my parents paid hard earned money to send me to an unaccredited christian school where I learned a lot about religion and a little about everything else. Luckily college and other experiences helped me say goodbye to the christian nonsense I was raised to believe.
Thanks everyone! I used a lot of what you said and responded to him. I'll let you know what he says, if anything. I'm at the end of my rope with him though. I know I'm not going to change his mind and I know he's not going to change mine. Sometimes I feel like these type of debates are useless. Sad
Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2011, 10:39 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2011 11:28 PM by daemonowner.)
RE: FB debate with christian
Ha! This guy's a joke. He's doing more than mistaking evolution for abiogenesis.
I would suggest IronChariotsWiki and TheAtheistExperience if you don't know about those. The first is a wiki listing responses and going into depth on the common arguments for christianity. The second is a pretty cool TV show in Austin, Texas.

Put bluntly:
-There is more to science than evolution.
-Darwin's Black Box is a joke of a book put out by the morons of the ID movement.
-There is nothing called darwinism (nor evolutionism, just like there isn't a position for people who accept germ theory call 'germ theorist' or likewise 'gravitationist').
-Arguably, evolution is more supported by evidence that gravity.
-There is resounding evidence for macroevolution, and microevolution (at what point does micro evolution become macro?) - We've even observed macro evolution in the lab and in the wild ( Link ).
-Well done, captain obvious! Science can only adress issues it can adress.
-There is a decent amount that science cannot learn about, and those things are therefore not demonstrable and shouldn't be believed. Just because we don't know how the universe came into being doesn't mean magic man dunnit or it's on the back of a giant space turtle.
-How does he know those are impassible? We don't know some of those, but that doesn't mean that we can't know. That is an unsupported argument from ignorance. And anyway, "If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you will always get something" - Lawrence krauss ( A Universe from Nothing ). Non-life to life is called abiogenesis and we are continuously learning about how that could have happened, ever since Urey and Miller did their experiment.
-Science doesn't take a damn thing on faith. Faith is anathema to science. faith is believing something in spite of evidence, and we do not take it on faith that germs exist, or that the earth is a sphere.
-He is equivocating with the word belief (that is, using two different definitions as convenient, which is a dishonest way of arguing), I believe that I am currently typing on my computer, but I do not require faith to believe that. I accept that I am typing, but that sort of acceptance or belief is not on par with the sort of evidence based believe we have due to science.
-How do I have to have to have faith to think that there are some things in the universe that are objectively true?
-I do agree with him that facts are true (ie; facts are facts), but religion is still not a fact and his arguments are still crap.

I hope that wasn't daunting or too lengthy to read.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes daemonowner's post
25-04-2011, 11:09 PM
 
RE: FB debate with christian
Welcome to the forum! Great first thread.

I'll just reply to the message like I would do it if I were you. Unlike most of our members, I use less cited sources. This is merely because the other members are smarter and more resourceful, but yea anywayssss..


(24-04-2011 05:22 PM)RachelP Wrote:  Thank you for your reply. When you say science is based on fact what part of science? Evolution? Have you read Darwin's Black Box? It is written by a microbiologist. Darwinism is not a science even if you have been led to believe it is. There is no evidence for macro evolution, only micro evolution. Science also can only address issues that it can address. There is much that science has no answer for. Consider the four impassable gaps:

Nothing to something
Non-life to life
Non-conscious to conscious
Non-rational to rational

Science has no facts concerning how these gaps were passed. Science can only speculate. I.E. Take it on faith.

Even science is a faith system. You believe your facts are true. You believe your thoughts can apprehend truth. You believe in truth. These are all acts of faith. To believe what you just wrote me takes faith.

The good news is that you believe truth, or facts as you say, exists.

We can at least agree on that can't we? Facts exist. Truth exists?

"Thank you for your reply. When you say science is based on fact what part of science? Evolution? Have you read Darwin's Black Box? It is written by a microbiologist. Darwinism is not a science even if you have been led to believe it is. There is no evidence for macro evolution, only micro evolution. Science also can only address issues that it can address. There is much that science has no answer for."
Thank you for replying to my reply Smile. All real sciences are based on fact, that's what science is. Also, yes, you're right; Darwinism isn't a science, evolution on the other hand, is. Micro evolution IS evidence for macro evolution, they're obviously connected. So I'm assuming you accept Micro-evolution? You accept the fact that Micro-Evolution is undeniable? If so, you must accept macro evolution. If you accept that organisms can evolve subtle changes in a population and diverge into other species, how can you deny that millions and millions of years of Micro-evolution would lead to march larger differences between the two organisms at the end of it all?

Unless of course, your argument is that 6,000 years ago, God created all the Domains, Kingdoms, Phylums, Classes, Orders and Families we have today, and from there, the organisms went through micro-evolution to form other genus and species. In which case, there's not much point to this conversation, seeing as you're willing to deny undeniable proof of earth's true age.

If that's not what you're argument is, then your logic seems to me to be flawed. If we assume the first replicating life form came to be roughly 3 billion years ago (COMPLETELY random number on my part, no evidence at all, just for speculation), how would 3 billion years of micro-evolution not lead to macro evolution? The "micro-evolutionary tree" would only grow more and more branches, each one increasingly different from the lifeforms on the opposite end of the tree. It is impossible to accept micro-evolution and deny Macro-evolution, and it is impossible to deny micro-evolution.

"Consider the four impassable gaps:

Nothing to something
Non-life to life
Non-conscious to conscious
Non-rational to rational"

You are correct in assuming we don't know how "nothing to something" or "non-life to life" occurred. Although there are guesses, of course, non of which are worth mentioning though, no matter how plausible (Seeing as we don't have hard evidence of any of it.) But that isn't evolution, that is Abiogenesis. You may argue that they're one in the same, but they're very different.

As for non-conscious to conscious and non-rational to rational, i don't understand why you separate the two with such significance. The same reason there is rational, there is consciousness. Developed brains. And developed brains are explained by evolution.

"Science has no facts concerning how these gaps were passed. Science can only speculate. I.E. Take it on faith."
Correct, science has no facts about the first two gaps, although evolution clearly covers the last two. However, not knowing and speculating is entirely different from "take it on faith" Scientists do not claim lightning hit inorganic molecules and turned into self replicating molecules. Scientists do not make a guess and hope with all their heart it's correct instead of testing out whether or not it would work or looking for evidence for or against it. "Faith" is the belief and support of a guess, a story, a hope. Science is the testing of a theory, hypothesis or observation. They're two entirely different things. You don't have "faith" that if you step out your door right now, you won't get assaulted by the easter bunny. Based on logical fact and speculation, you EXPECT and THINK you won't get assaulted by the easter bunny.

"Even science is a faith system. You believe your facts are true. You believe your thoughts can apprehend truth. You believe in truth. These are all acts of faith. To believe what you just wrote me takes faith.

The good news is that you believe truth, or facts as you say, exists.

We can at least agree on that can't we? Facts exist. Truth exists?""

Again, that is entirely incorrect. Science is the opposite of a faith system. Faith requires you to not KNOW. Faith requires you to NEED to hope to be right. Science insists, no, REQUIRES that you ensure you're right before you claim it to be true. I don't "believe" my facts to be true, I accept that they are. I don't accept the big bang, I don't accept any current Abiogenesis theory, because I don't KNOW that they're true, they aren't FACT. However, I may agree with the idea of the big bang. I think one or two of the current Abiogenesis theories MAY be correct. This does not mean I have faith, it means I think they're logical explanations for what may have happened, but I do not yet accept them as fact.

Also: One does not "believe in truth" one accepts truth. Truth is not something you can believe in. To believe requires there to be some doubt, and if there's some doubt, it is not truth and it is not fact.



SORRY TO ANYTHING SAID BY OTHER PEOPLE THAT I REPEATED D;
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: