Can someone help me out with this debate? I think my brain just ate itself. >_<
Posted on: April 24, 2007 - 7:49pm
Offline
Can someone help me out with this debate? I think my brain just ate itself. >_<
This is incredibly long-winded, so I apologize, and normally I do all of my own debating. But I've never seen some guy, I don't know....ignore my factual explaination of evolution.
If any of you have any ideas as to how I could reply to this, I'd appreciate it. I totally thought I had this one. 
Hi MaragonEvolved,
If you could be completely honest, you would have to admit that you believe what you believe only by faith. For instance, evolution has not been proven and the honest biologist will tell you that it is but a "working hypothesis."
You DISbelieve in any god by faith. You cannot refute it beyond doubt. The Christian believes in God by faith. His Presence cannot be proved beyond doubt.
Both the atheist and the theist have one very interesting thing in common - they both believe what they believe BY FAITH.
I have studied evolution for years. I have been a Christian for years. If you can prove BEYOND doubt that there is NO God and that evolution is 100% fact, I will leave Christianity behind. I'm not at all worried though. 
So I said:
Hello Modres, thank you for your comment.
| If you could be completely honest, you would have to admit that you believe what you believe only by faith. For instance, evolution has not been proven and the honest biologist will tell you that it is but a "working hypothesis." |
Excuse my long-winded reply, but I'd like to cover this as throughly as possible.
Science is the study of the natural world. In order to derive conclusions scientists utilize the scientific method. Any scientific fact has been tested multiple times using the scientific method.
The scientific method is comprised of 4 separate steps, namely Hypothesis, Test, Conclusion and Peer Review.
Hypothesis is an idea about how something works. The scientist sees a natural phenomena and postulates an idea as to how said phenomena could work.
Test is when the scientist gathers evidence that would support the hypothesis. This is achieved through scientific experimentation in a controlled laboratory setting and a lot of research.
After testing, the scientist arrives at a Conclusion. In a conclusion the scientist verifies that the collected evidence supports his/her original hypothesis. If the evidence does NOT support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is thrown out. It can also be revised, but if it is, the scientist must go back to step one.
Peer Review occurs is the scientist has concluded that his evidence supports his hypothesis. He then submits his findings to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Then, accredited scientists worldwide attempt to disprove the original hypothesis. If the hypothesis can not be disproved by any scientist in the world, then the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.
When you say "working hypothesis", I can't help but laugh a little. For that is what ANY scientific theory is; the working hypothesis that has been proven by scientific research.
The misconception is that when you use the word 'theory' in layman's terms, it means 'idea you made up'. However, when it is used in a scientific context, the word 'theory' takes on a much more serious meaning.
Theory, when used in a scientific context is an explanation that best fits all of the evidence available. A theory can take years to prove, and it must be agreed upon by the scientific community.
The reality is, that if evolution were erroneous, then it would have been thrown out again years ago. Scientists don't play favorites with their theories. In example, Newton's laws of Gravity were revised by Einstein when they were found to not adequately explain gravity in many adverse situations; this was Einstein's theory of relativity.
Gravity is "only" a theory.
Heliocentrism is "only" a theory.
In general, a theory is a collection of smaller scientific facts that are placed together to allow for an explanation of a larger topic.
Theory refers to a "logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts." - National Center for Science Education.
In the case of Evolution, this theory is the product of several facts, that when observed together, make up the theory.
Evolution works off of at least 3 independent processes, and when taken together form what we mean by 'evolution'. These are replication, variation and selection, and they are all observable scientific facts.
a> Replication is simply reproduction. Everything alive in nature reproduces, from the orchid to the oyster to the human.
b> Variation- How things change from the parent to the offspring.
-"shuffling": involves the various genes in male and female sex cells after these cells combine. The 'shuffling' puts together new gene combinations, thus making the offspring different from their parents(You have brown hair, your mother doesn't, etc).
-Mutation: rare changes in genes, usually inherited. Can occur as copying errors in early stages of cell reproduction. Mutations can be neutral, harmful or beneficial to the organism.
Yes, variations are random, but to deny they exist is an exercise in tedium.
c>If you've followed so far, you'll realize that things reproduce, and when they reproduce their offspring can be different from the parents in many ways, both good and bad. Some of these changes, say better eyesight, can be beneficial to the organism in question. Now we're down to Selection.
-Natural Selection is where these variations get tested. If a certain variation gives that individual a higher chance of survival, the odds increase that this individual will live long enough to reproduce and pass along this new trait. Natural Selection is not random. It does not 'decide' to let a particular variation get passed along to new generations en masse, rather it only allows that the beneficial variations do. To state that such a process is' random' is to misunderstand it entirely. What can be random about only allowing beneficial deviations to pass en mass to future generations?
-Sexual Selection involves members of one sex preferring certain characteristics in the opposite sex and then choosing a mate based on those characteristics. How is this random? The preferred characteristics are the ones that are passed on because those are the animals that mate.
Put all of those things together, and that's how evolution works.
Please keep in mind that each of these processes is an observable scientific fact.
It would be erroneous to say that the same scientific method that brings us flight, electricity, open heart surgery, space travel, the internet, etc was correct about all of these other things, but incorrect about evolution.
Quote:
| You DISbelieve in any god by faith. You cannot refute it beyond doubt. The Christian believes in God by faith. His Presence cannot be proved beyond doubt. |
makes your statement a faulty one. As I have shown above, the theory of evolution is based upon a number of scientifically proven facts. I don't need to believe it is true when it has been demonstrated as such over 150+ years of dedicated research.Quote:
| Both the atheist and the theist have one very interesting thing in common - they both believe what they believe BY FAITH. |
Quote:
| I have studied evolution for years. I have been a Christian for years. If you can prove BEYOND doubt that there is NO God and that evolution is 100% fact, I will leave Christianity behind. I'm not at all worried though. |
When you say 'If you can prove BEYOND doubt that there is NO God', you are committing the logical fallacy of 'appeal to ignorance'. You are asserting that simply because something cannot be disproved, this must mean that it IS in fact, true. Absence of evidence is not evidence.
For more on this flawed line of thinking, please refer to the late, great Carl Sagan's discussion of his famous invisible dragon.
users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
To which he replied:
Hey MaragonEvolved, forgive me if I don't comment on all your comments, all right? That's swell.
Originally Posted by MaragonEvolved  This is a common myth about evolution that simply shows an ignorance as to what science is and how it works. |
Quote:
| Excuse my long-winded reply, but I'd like to cover this as throughly as possible. |
Quote:
| Science is the study of the natural world. In order to derive conclusions scientists utilize the scientific method. Any scientific fact has been tested multiple times using the scientific method. |
Quote:
| The scientific method is comprised of 4 separate steps, namely Hypothesis, Test, Conclusion and Peer Review. |
Quote:
| When you say "working hypothesis", I can't help but laugh a little. For that is what ANY scientific theory is; the working hypothesis that has been proven by scientific research. |
Quote:
| The misconception is that when you use the word 'theory' in layman's terms, it means 'idea you made up'. However, when it is used in a scientific context, the word 'theory' takes on a much more serious meaning. Theory, when used in a scientific context is an explanation that best fits all of the evidence available. A theory can take years to prove, and it must be agreed upon by the scientific community. |
Quote:
| The reality is, that if evolution were erroneous, then it would have been thrown out again years ago. Scientists don't play favorites with their theories. In example, Newton's laws of Gravity were revised by Einstein when they were found to not adequately explain gravity in many adverse situations; this was Einstein's theory of relativity. |
Quote:
| Gravity is "only" a theory. Heliocentrism is "only" a theory. In general, a theory is a collection of smaller scientific facts that are placed together to allow for an explanation of a larger topic. |
Quote:
| In the case of Evolution, this theory is the product of several facts, that when observed together, make up the theory. Evolution works off of at least 3 independent processes, and when taken together form what we mean by 'evolution'. These are replication, variation and selection, and they are all observable scientific facts. a> Replication is simply reproduction. Everything alive in nature reproduces, from the orchid to the oyster to the human. b> Variation- How things change from the parent to the offspring. -"shuffling": involves the various genes in male and female sex cells after these cells combine. The 'shuffling' puts together new gene combinations, thus making the offspring different from their parents(You have brown hair, your mother doesn't, etc). -Mutation: rare changes in genes, usually inherited. Can occur as copying errors in early stages of cell reproduction. Mutations can be neutral, harmful or beneficial to the organism. |
Quote:
| Yes, variations are random, but to deny they exist is an exercise in tedium. |
Quote:
| c>If you've followed so far, you'll realize that things reproduce, and when they reproduce their offspring can be different from the parents in many ways, both good and bad. Some of these changes, say better eyesight, can be beneficial to the organism in question. Now we're down to Selection. |
Quote:
| -Natural Selection is where these variations get tested. If a certain variation gives that individual a higher chance of survival, the odds increase that this individual will live long enough to reproduce and pass along this new trait. Natural Selection is not random. It does not 'decide' to let a particular variation get passed along to new generations en masse, rather it only allows that the beneficial variations do. To state that such a process is' random' is to misunderstand it entirely. What can be random about only allowing beneficial deviations to pass en mass to future generations? -Sexual Selection involves members of one sex preferring certain characteristics in the opposite sex and then choosing a mate based on those characteristics. How is this random? The preferred characteristics are the ones that are passed on because those are the animals that mate. Put all of those things together, and that's how evolution works. |
Quote:
| Please keep in mind that each of these processes is an observable scientific fact. |
Quote:
| It would be erroneous to say that the same scientific method that brings us flight, electricity, open heart surgery, space travel, the internet, etc was correct about all of these other things, but incorrect about evolution. |
Quote:
| This is an erroneous statement. The very definition of 'faith'("belief that is not based on proof" makes your statement a faulty one. As I have shown above, the theory of evolution is based upon a number of scientifically proven facts. I don't need to believe it is true when it has been demonstrated as such over 150+ years of dedicated research. |
You really haven't shown me anything of the sort. You have not convinced me of anything, and it is not because I'm so thick headed that I refuse to believe it. You're simply slinging your opinion around as if it is fact. It's not. It's opinion. Even Huxley said that if God could create with the appearance of age, there would be no way to disprove Creation.
Quote:
| When you say 'If you can prove BEYOND doubt that there is NO God', you are committing the logical fallacy of 'appeal to ignorance'. You are asserting that simply because something cannot be disproved, this must mean that it IS in fact, true. |
I realize that the oneness is on the Christian to "prove" the existence of God, however my point was that it simply cannot be done. If God were to step out of "heaven" and come down to earth and go "Hey everyone! Here I am!" people would still go "Wow, who created the hologram?!"
For all your presentation of what you believe to be the "facts" of the matter concerning evolution, it still winds up being your opinion about how you see things. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't know if I'm stumped or stunned.
- Login to post comments
You could try to cite sources on him, but I really don't think that will work. As my staunch agnostic friend says,"the hardest defense to beat is Nuh-ah"
No Gods, Know Peace.
i think you did a fantastic job explaining evolution to this guy. i really don't know what else you could say, but i hate to say that you should just walk from the argument. it seems like he'll never be willing to admit that evolution is true unless he can directly see something evolve right in front of his eyes (funny, that's what it would take fro me to believe in god.)
Damn it, I HATE walking away from a debate, especially one that I know, by rights I should be winning.
I feel as if he didn't even read the explaination I gave him.
Where's Todangst when I need him!?!
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
He doesn't even know his logical fallacies.
Quote:When you say 'If you can prove BEYOND doubt that there is NO God', you are committing the logical fallacy of 'appeal to ignorance'. You are asserting that simply because something cannot be disproved, this must mean that it IS in fact, true.
He has argument from ignorance bass ackwards. Jeez.
You could just call him a retard and walk away, but that wouldn't accomplish much. It seems like you should be able to make him see that the false claims he makes against evolution are true claims against his God existing, but that probably wouldn't work either. This is the classic example of a person who would still find a way to delude himself if you actually made something evolve in front of his eyes, he'd claim it was the Devil or something, just throw him and the bath water out.
Edit: The thing I find the funniest, and maybe what you could point out, is the fact that this guy wants you to believe through Faith that there is a God, but demands that you give him proof (which he ignores anyway) for your belief in evolution. Simply Ludicrous.
A few key elements.
I would not do what someone else suggested and that is site sources for the efficacy of evolution. This is what they want you to do because then they can go on safely asserting raw nihilism. My above argument, for instance, casts doubt on the entire premise of the argument from the other side. Specifics of evolution are unnecesary and irrelevant.
This is the best I can come up with:
You say you understand what evolution is but then come up with random things like "Actually, what you discribed could also very easily be explained by the fall of humanity. Our bodies change as we age, because as cells replace previous cells, they're not exactly like the previous cells they've replace, etc.," which has nothing to do with anything.
I suspect that you blatantly ignored most of what I said, lest it upset your worldview. Replication, Variation and Selection are three SCIENTIFIC FACTS that together form the theory of evolution. You can observe all of these facts today, in a laboratory or out in the natural world.
You can say that you've 'read a bunch of stuff on evolution', but that doesn't mean that you didn't read incredibly biast or erroneous things.
Your argument about what your professor told you is a logical fallacy. You're attempting to argue from authority, and that simply doesn't wash. I would be able to cite countless other 'atheist biology professors' who would be quick to assure you that evolution is an accepted scientific theory. But I'm sure you'll say that anyone I cite is a liar and your professor was the authority on the subject. Although, I feel I must again point out that a "working hypothesis" is just a different way of saying 'theory', which you would know, had you read my explanation of the scientific method.
Lastly, I'd just like to point out that you suggest that I should believe that there is a god simply on faith, but demand that I give you proof for my confidence in evolution.
Slightly hypocritical.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
From this: http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391EvidEvol.htm
it appears that he's technically correct. So what? His claim that evolution is not observable is incorrect, that article touches on that as well.
There is no faith involved in not having a belief. Does this clown claim that his non-belief in the tooth fairy is having "faith?"
Quote:
This guy isn't worth Todangst's time. It doesn't require faith to not have a belief in something.
Quote:
Well, you can't prove beyond doubt that there is no Amun-Ra either, so why not go Egyptian?
It appears that he wins on a technicality, but it's a cheap point. I'd check with deludedgod for clarification.
Not true, see the link I posted above, and I believe that treatment-resistant bacteria are another observable example of evolution.
He wins the battle, gets bitch-slapped in the war.
Again, so what? Just because there are people that produce incorrect examples of evolution doesnt mean that evolution is not generally accepted as fact. Even he puts the source of this example as "scientist." Well, I can say that I evolved from wheat because my hair is about the same color. That doesnt discredit evolution, that just shows I dont know what I'm talking about.
Awfully ironic statement. Ask him why it's not ok to accept evolution because you "cant go out and prove it," but it's ok to believe in god given the same restriction?
I'm not clear as to what he's arguing here.
Is this guy a creationist? I think he's subscribing to the Johnnie Cochran theory.
We can observe it today
He attaching way too much importance to the difference between the terms. Whether it's one or the other, the scientific community regards it as basically fact.
Tell him you cant believe in god, you need proof. You cant take what is generally believed today because all we have is a 2000 year old compilation of writings, no bones, no physical evidence whatsoever and no working hypothesis.
So he is a creationist? He must not comprehend evolution if he's comparing it to creation. The two concepts are apples and oranges.
His grammar sucks too. Oneness? And, I can think of MANY ways in which god could express himself that would turn me into a believer real quick.
It is way more than your opinion, he's completely ignoring the argument. The Johnnie Cochran theory -- Evolution = Mountains of evidence, numerous tests, all tests passed. Theist's response = "Why are we even arguing this? You can't prove it."
I think your argument was well presented and well supported. He is kind of like the male sugarfree in that he disregards every logical argument by hiding behind the "You cant prove it 100 million billion percent" crap. Stop wasting your time on him, he isnt playing fair.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
talkorigins.org has some good pages about evolution. His main problem is the claim that we haven't seen it in action. We have. We have observed speciation on several accounts. Of course, in response to this, he'll probably bring up the Hovind argument about types ("You never see a dog give birth to a cat." Well duh.) This would reinforce the theory that he doesn't know what he's talking about and is an ignorant loon.
He'll likely need to learn the definition of "species" and read some of deludedgod's wonderful entries explaining evolution.
-Triften
kmisho, thank you for your post, I will include that in my reply.
Yes, I just call it the argument to universal skepticism. There's also an equivocation fallacy on the word 'faith'... in short, there's so many basic errors in logic in this fellow's arguments that the argument should simply cease.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Give him data on the Mendel(sp?) experiments with breeding pea plants. He was able to get the type pea plants he wanted by selection.
LOL I said 'pea'!!!!!!!!!
OK, I read that, and I'm going to use your explanation of evolution when I have to explain it to a theist. You did it well.
From what I can tell, this person completely ignored your stuff, and simply acted smug while sticking his fingers in his ears, figuratively speaking. Really, I could say that someone who mispells "described" as "discribed", mispells "onus" as "oneness" and uses emoticons in a debate is not worth it, but I have FAITH in human intelligence. Faith that is shaken whenever these idiots are brought to my attention, but it's still there. There's nothing I can add, it looks like the others here have supplied you with enough material to shoot down his pithy responses.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Update:
He replied,
"Hey Maragon,
"
You said: " I suspect that you blatantly ignored most of what I said, lest it upset your worldview."
Don't flatter yourself, Maragon. I'd like assure you that I read everything you wrote (which should have been evident by me quoting it), and unfortunately for you, NONE of it neither upset me or inspired me. I can assure you of that.
You said: "Modres, I'm sorry but most of that simply isn't worth replying to."
Gee, I really hope that you're not going to be upset that I'm not upset with that remark. At any rate, I noticed that you couldn't keep yourself from replying anyway, could you?
You said: "Your argument about what your professor told you is a logical fallacy. You're attempting to argue from authority, and that simply doesn't wash. I would be able to cite countless other 'atheist biology professors' who would be quick to assure you that evolution is an accepted scientific theory. But I'm sure you'll say that anyone I cite is a liar and your professor was the authority on the subject.
You assume way too much. I wasn't attempting to argue anything. I was simply relating to YOU what my professor TAUGHT. I don't care if you think he was right, wrong or indifferent. If it's any consolation, I thought pretty much everything he taught was a crock. He was a really cool teacher though, with a great sense of humor (unlike many of the atheists on this board, who seem to be too enamored with themselves to know what a sense of humor is). My biology professor was an extremely cool dude, with a very real sense of humor.
I would never call you a liar, though you seem to have called me one. Next time I see my old biology professor, I'll be sure to straighten him out on the obvious difference between "working hypothesis" and "theory" which he apparently missed out on. By the way, why would I say my old professor was an authority on ANY subject? He's an evolutionist and an atheist for goodness sakes!
You wrote: Although, I feel I must again point out that a "working hypothesis" is just a different way of saying 'theory', which you would know, had you read my explanation of the scientific method."
Oh I see...because YOU said it, it must be true? Goodness how stupid of me not to realize this from the getgo!
Cheese and crackers, kids today...
You said: This is an appeal to nihilism. It's the mother of all contradictions, as to assert it is to assert that you are wrong in the case of any assertion since the premise is that no one knows anything. Anyone who actually believes this has done nothing more than give himself every reason to doubt his own beliefs. Doubt about one thing is not license believe some other thing.
You are RICH! This is good stuff! The premise is NOT that no one knows anything. The premise is as I stated it - that you cannot prove beyond doubt that evolution is true, but that you believe it because it SEEMS true to you. I can assure you I do not doubt my own beliefs. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove them either. At least I'm honest about it. You on the other hand are completely dishonest. I'm quite certain you'll get over it one day though.
By the way, isn't it cool that Christians have set up this board so that you can come here and discuss things that are near and dear to your heart, even if it's diametrically opposed to Christianity? I think that's pretty cool. You have a good day...oh and try not to take yourself too seriously all right? You should be here to have fun. That's why I'm here. There is NOTHING on this or any other forum worth losing sleep over. I developed a very thick skin a long, long time ago.
So, I'm pretty sure I should just walk away from this one.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
What a smarmy little cunt! You caught him in a logical fallcy fair and square (why would he relate what his biology professor "TAUGHT" if it wasn't an appeal to authority? It certainly wasn't an intriguing or original take on the subject like Carl Sagan's invisible dragon, it was just some biologist saying "evolution is a working hypothesis"
and he simply weaseled his way out with some emoticons and a few hundred pounds of smarm. Seriously, fuck that.
Also, it's really, REALLY easy to quote without reading the entire passage you're quoting.
What board was this on, anyway? If idiots like this inhabit it, I almost want to go just to get a few laughs.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
I know how you feel, I can't stand walking away from a debate, it makes me feel that I was defeated by thier impenetrable wall of ignorance. And it is bad to feel defeated after you have so obviously won the debate.
But it eventualy gets to the point where replying is just wasting your time and not having any effect on the other person. And that is when it is time to move on and do somthin more productive with your time (like argue with a different, slightly less idiotic theist), because there is not point wasting the only life you will ever have on that fool.
For anyone still interested, I think I got him,
I replied to his above post:
Quote:Don't flatter yourself, Maragon. I'd like assure you that I read everything you wrote (which should have been evident by me quoting it), and unfortunately for you, NONE of it neither upset me or inspired me. I can assure you of that.
Flatter myself? That's rich coming from the guy who believes that there is a god who watches his every move, knows his every thought and counts him as special amongst the billions of other people on the planet.
Quote:
You contradict yourself constantly and I couldn't reply to much of your post because it was illogical.
Quote:
I would never call you a liar, though you seem to have called me one. Next time I see my old biology professor, I'll be sure to straighten him out on the obvious difference between "working hypothesis" and "theory" which he apparently missed out on. By the way, why would I say my old professor was an authority on ANY subject? He's an evolutionist and an atheist for goodness sakes!
noun A belief used as the basis for action: theory".)
SO either you DO trust his opinions, or you don't, which is it sir? What you're doing here is selectively believing, picking and choosing from the things he taught you to make your 'point'.
Quote:
Cheese and crackers, kids today...
Any time that you would like to definitively prove to me that evolution is nothing more than a 'working hypothesis'(whatever you think THAT means), I'd be glad to hear it.
Quote:
When you originally engaged me into a debate, you set up the false premise that I could never, ever prove anything to you.
I can explain evolution, I can cite sources, I can appeal to any kind of logical tool I please, but seeing as you've already asserted that you don't believe that I can prove anything to you, this is essentially an exercise in tedium to me.
Essentially, your argument is, and always will be 'YOU CANT PROVE THIS ONE HUNDRED MILLION BILLION PERCENT SO GOD DID IT!!!!!!!!!'.
Quote:
Why wouldn't I take myself seriously? This is the only life I've got and I'm here to do everything I do to the best of my ability and enjoy every moment of it.
I guess you can afford to take yourself 'less than seriously' because you have that whole second life thing. Must be nice to not be accountable to the rest of the human race.
Logic, for the win.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
And people bother to ask me why I'm ashamed of being called 'christian.'
It hurts us in our brain meats precious! It hurts us!
He has shut off his mind and is pulling the debative equivalancy of shoving fish in his ears and whistling dixie to avoid hearing anything you have to say. Notice that many his rebutals to your arguments come not onto the arguments themselves, but onto you for using them? He has turned the whole thing into an ad homenim attack by focusing on why he feels you and not your arguments are wrong.
Keep pegging everything he throws at you and eventually he may get tired, and I do mean everything. If he tries pseudo-science, give him the real science without bringing up that HE used that argument. If it becomes an ad homenim or strawman argument, just blast the argument and not him for its stupidity. If he can't detatch himself from the argument, then do it for him. Maybe eventually you can crowbar him away from theism's most potent tactic, making the individual feel that any attack on their belief is a direct attack on them.
The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.
I think you have become my hero. The fact that you're still arguing and not slinging insults at him proves that you have a lot of stamina. Plus, you're really brilliant to have made the points you made.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
I'm on the CARM atheist and evolution boards, come join the....uh...."fun".
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/index.php
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
Well, I've certainly learned a lot about Evolution just from reading your argument, which is quite brilliant by the way.
I think this guy is either:
1) Knows in his subconscious that he has been defeated, but does not want to consciously admit it because he is afraid of being unfailthful.
or
2) Truely an ignornant bastard and simply does not actually think about what he is reading.
Same could be said about most others aswell I suppose. And the frequent use of the smiley faces just shows how arrogant he is, as if you two are on the battlefield and he is laughing at you as he "defeats" you.
Dear Flying Spaghetti Monster,
Let us pray that all the hungry children in the world will be fed and peace be spread throughout the entire world. Amen.
*Incoherent speaking*
What do you mean it is not your will to feed the children of the world?!
I think you should walk away at this point. In reference to your addition of my input, he replied: because it SEEMS true to you.
This REMAINS a blatant appeal to nihilism, despite the irrational denial of it. The reason for making this point is that no one knows anything. Life is but a dream...as far as we know. So evolution is a dream, and god is a dream.
Final Update, I kicked his ass.
His final reply was:
"Quote:Really? I do what I do because of my accountability to God. I have worked on food lines at food kitchens, built homes in Mexico for the needy, given money consistently to missionary and food organizations, as well as secular institutions who are non-profit. I've helped people along the side of the road whose car had broken down and the list is too long to mention and it would only look like bragging. The reason I have done and will continue to do those things is because of the example of the One Who came to live, die and was resurrected for humanity.
Need I say more about the arrogance of atheists? It's self-apparent. Good night, Gracie."
I'd call this pathetic brand of special pleading a forefit.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
It looks like you had him. My response to this kind of post from a theist would be something like: So you're not a good person per se. You just pretend to be good because you think you owe somebody something.