Help

[KravMagaSelfDefense]

Hello guys, thanks for taking the time to read,
I've been pretty active in my atheist vs. theist life, looking up arguments, evidence, evolution etc, all that stuff, and I came across this blog on tumblr, this guy looks around 50 by his profile picture and he's still saying stuff like "Evolution's not something you don't believe in, if you don't believe in it you don't understand it,"
"Not understanding evolution doesn't make it false. Evolution isn't up for debate anymore. Willful ignorance isn't something to be proud of." The reason I mentioned his age was because I just think it's rather immature for him to be posting such nonsense, at least if you claim evolution's such an established fact you could give some evidence for it, but he never does, but keeps saying that evolution isn't up for debate. My question is, how do I deal with such fanaticism? People claim that religious people are close-minded, but sometimes when I look at atheistic blanket statements like these, which essentially say that any disagreement with them means you're willfully ignorant, I begin to wonder if it isn't the other way around. How do you deal with that sort of arrogance? If I ever would meet such a person in not the cyber-realm but the real one, how would I persuade them and turn them around on their path to self-destruction? Can you even debate such a person, who basically sits there and tells himself he's already won, and that any opposition is deluded? Your thoughts?
Incidentally, for you theistic evolutionists out there, or for those who've substantial knowledge on Darwinism, what evidence is there to be submitted for the theory? I've seen the old antibiotic resistance one, which doesn't hold water because of the difference between micro- and macro- evolution... I've seen homo erectus and the like, and I have answers for those... but what else? Anything new evolutionists are churning out lately?

[Reactionary]

this guy looks around 50 by his profile picture and he's still saying stuff like "Evolution's not something you don't believe in, if you don't believe in it you don't understand it,"

That's exactly what they want you to think. Chesterton said decades ago that "without education we're in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously." Many intellectuals, unfortunately, use their academic credentials to propagate an ideology, which often has nothing to do with their field of expertise. You see natural scientists writing books on theology (actually a-theology ), which they aren't qualified to do at all. The postmodern world, having failed to refute the Classical Theism, pushed philosophy aside in its entirety and dismissed it, instead promoting this buzzword "science", forgetting that scientia (= knowledge) has always been closely affiliated with philosophy. By doing this, naturalists actually cut the branch they're sitting on because reason is a necessary presupposition to any kind of knowledge, and despite boasting about "reason", they can't account for it or explain it. Chemical reactions aren't reasonable. This is the main reason why I don't buy this "evolutionary naturalism". I also don't believe in "chance".

If I ever would meet such a person in not the cyber-realm but the real one, how would I persuade them and turn them around on their path to self-destruction? Can you even debate such a person, who basically sits there and tells himself he's already won, and that any opposition is deluded? Your thoughts?

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much you can do, that you're not doing at the moment. You can "plant the seed" and hope it roots, live a Christian life as an example to the people around you, and who knows, maybe you will manage to convert a weaker atheist. Former atheists, as it was once said here, often make the strongest Christians. Try your best and good luck.

Incidentally, for you theistic evolutionists out there, or for those who've substantial knowledge on Darwinism, what evidence is there to be submitted for the theory? I've seen the old antibiotic resistance one, which doesn't hold water because of the difference between micro- and macro- evolution... I've seen homo erectus and the like, and I have answers for those... but what else? Anything new evolutionists are churning out lately?

I'm afraid nothing new has come out of the evolutionists' workshop since the Urey-Miller experiment in 1953. As for this "micro-" and "macro-" issue, I'd call it something of a misnomer set up to make us believe that only a small leap of faith is required to believe in the unproven "macroevolution". The truth is, this "microevolution" (actually adaptation, or natural selection) works in a different direction:
http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin

[DannyM]

Krav

It is practically indisputable that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. This happens in the course of biological reproduction. But he probably doesn’t mean that. Ask him to define his terms.

How do I deal with such fanaticism? People claim that religious people are close-minded, but sometimes when I look at atheistic blanket statements like these, which essentially say that any disagreement with them means you're wilfully ignorant, I begin to wonder if it isn't the other way around.

The real problem is he doesn’t accept that you don’t accept his version of evolution.

How do you deal with that sort of arrogance? If I ever would meet such a person in not the cyber-realm but the real one, how would I persuade them and turn them around on their path to self-destruction? Can you even debate such a person, who basically sits there and tells himself he's already won, and that any opposition is deluded? Your thoughts?

I’d focus on him, and show how all his basic assumptions are completely at odds with his worldview. This can take time (been speaking to this guy on Amazon for about 3 months now, but I think I’m finally getting him to think a bit about the core assumptions that he takes for granted). But I must admit it’s a rare breakthrough. Anyway, I’d get him answering for his worldview.

[Proinsias]

The assumption he appears to be making is that evolution is some sort of monolithic concept. It's either right or wrong. If the basic nuts and bolts of it can be demonstrated under lab conditions with some E. coli or drosophila then evolution is correct. If he can see variation in nature that can be explained generation to generation by Mendelian inheritance then the same must be correct all the way up the chain to genus, phylum and beyond.

Perhaps engage on the level that whilst all but the wilfully ignorant would deny the ability of an evolutionary scientist to rather accurately predict the ratio of certain traits in successive generations, it's another thing to be totally convinced that this concept is the main thrust behind the variety of life on the planet. I think it is fairly well established that base pair change along with sexual reproduction does play a role in the emergence of unique lifeforms, but the extent of this role is yet to be determined. It has not yet been shown to break the species barrier and has quite a few taxonomic ranks to climb through before it can claim to explain life.

[Murray]

Parts of evolution are actually a step above scientific fact and people do need to realize this. Evolution is not "just a theory". That is like saying the theory of gravity is just a theory, or the theory of relativity is just a theory. Evolution probably did happen, and really why the heck does that matter. We make such a big deal out of it for no reason. Evolution does not destroy historical evidence for Jesus does it? Evolution is just an explanation of how we got here, we do not live our lives based on the creation myth so why bother. Maybe god really did inspire genesis, but why can it not be symbolic, the book of the end is symbolic so why can the book of the beginning not be?

Evolution does not disprove god, really It more so proves it. Life, when you think about it is beyond explanation. why does LIFE develop? Why can I move my hand when I tell it to? ahh its crazy.

[domokunrox]

Parts of evolution are actually a step above scientific fact and people do need to realize this. Evolution is not "just a theory". That is like saying the theory of gravity is just a theory, or the theory of relativity is just a theory. Evolution probably did happen, and really why the heck does that matter. We make such a big deal out of it for no reason. Evolution does not destroy historical evidence for Jesus does it? Evolution is just an explanation of how we got here, we do not live our lives based on the creation myth so why bother. Maybe god really did inspire genesis, but why can it not be symbolic, the book of the end is symbolic so why can the book of the beginning not be?

Evolution does not disprove god, really It more so proves it. Life, when you think about it is beyond explanation. why does LIFE develop? Why can I move my hand when I tell it to? ahh its crazy.

When you cut an elephant into parts, yes, the pieces are all are individually light.
This doesn't mean that put together the elephant isn't heavy.

This is the fallacy of composition.

[KravMagaSelfDefense]

Parts of evolution are actually a step above scientific fact and people do need to realize this. Evolution is not "just a theory". That is like saying the theory of gravity is just a theory, or the theory of relativity is just a theory. Evolution probably did happen, and really why the heck does that matter. We make such a big deal out of it for no reason. Evolution does not destroy historical evidence for Jesus does it? Evolution is just an explanation of how we got here, we do not live our lives based on the creation myth so why bother. Maybe god really did inspire genesis, but why can it not be symbolic, the book of the end is symbolic so why can the book of the beginning not be?

Evolution does not disprove god, really It more so proves it. Life, when you think about it is beyond explanation. why does LIFE develop? Why can I move my hand when I tell it to? ahh its crazy.

I haven't seen the evidence. I am still a skeptic with regards to evolution... do you have any evidence to cite? Perhaps we can discuss it.

[Murray]

http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html

[jlay]

why the heck does that matter. We make such a big deal out of it for no reason.

Eph. 4:14
James 1:6
1 Corinthians 3:19
Hebrews 13:9

Murray, if that link is the best you got, then your evolutionary worldview is even more porous than I thought.

[Murray]

jlay if you want to spoil yourself in reading about evolution go google it.

You don't need me to post a million links about it

[RickD]

http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html

Murray, did you even look at the link? That is probably the weakest argument for the kind of evolution it promotes. I honestly don't see a problem with evolution's simplest definition(change over time), because it could encompass a lot. But, that link is just absurd.

[Murray]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01

Better?

It seems ID is based around pointing out tiny flaws in Evolution instead of presenting evidence for it. I could find holes in the theory of gravity, but that does not make it untrue does it?

[RickD]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01

Better?

It seems ID is based around pointing out tiny flaws in Evolution instead of presenting evidence for it. I could find holes in the theory of gravity, but that does not make it untrue does it?

When I have more time, I'll look over that link. In the mean time, I'd like to see the holes you have in the law of gravity.

[Murray]

just an example rick , i'm sure theres not to many

[RickD]

just an example rick , i'm sure theres not to many

Murray, the naturalistic evolution that you're speaking of, is a theory. The law of gravity, is a law.

I suggest you do a simple search, and note the differences between a theory and a law. Naturalistic evolution (NE)is a theory that attempts to explain change over time. But, NE has no acceptable explanation for origins. IMO, NE is a dying theory. People need to know where we came from, how we got here, and why. Naturalistic evolution doesn't do a good job of accounting for any nonmaterial things. Murray, if you're enamored with evolution, may I suggest this website:http://answersincreation.org/

That site does a good job, IMO, of explaining theistic evolution.