A friend of mine is a pretty die-hard Christian (shock horror, both of his parents are missionaries/vicars) and he often posts little sayings of some kind or another on Facebook, which I usually ignore. However, today he posted something that really irritated me for some reason:
"The more I look at science, the more in awe of God I become."
And just to make that worse, one of his Christian friends commented "Boom" as if he had made some kind of infallible argument. Somehow, I feel as though nothing I say will make any difference because they must be incredibly deluded already to believe that God just "invented" science. Basically, this is the guy who thinks he's a "modern and intelligent" Christian by saying that things like Noah's Ark are "just stories and aren't meant to be taken seriously by Christians". But if that is true, then why take ANY of the Bible seriously and where does he draw the line between stories and (what he believes is) the truth?
In the past I asked him and his friend where the evidence was. He claimed science (yes, seriously) helped prove Christianity and that Christianity was about "opening yourself" to it and believing, and then you "feel God" or whatever. How do you argue with someone like that??
What do you all say to religious people (not necessarily just Christians) who claim that science is just an invention of God? Is there a specific way to argue with someone who twists everything to awkwardly suit modern day thinking?
Jimminee freaking christmas, Rich, you don't know much about evolution AT ALL. There are fossil transitions and there is not a strain to prove it. It comes from studying the morphology of bones between different creatures. We can see over time the small changes that have occurred within species on scales of millions of years. It also comes from genetic studies and comparisons of living creatures. That's how we know the Red Panda is related more to a raccoon than a bear and that cows and manatees have a common ancestor.
Could a cow give birth to a horse. No, that's just stupid, but after a million years of the right environmental pressures, the ancestor of today's cows could become something more horse-like. Would it be a horse? No, it'd be an entirely new species. It's the same thing that happened to our ape ancestor. Over a few million years, some took to the plains and began to walk upright, others stayed in the trees. So today we have humans and other apes like gorillas, bonobos, chimps, and orangutangs. It's like comparing you to the great-great-great-grand child of your great-great-great-grand father's brother. You are still related, but distantly.
Also, here's a website showing some transitional fossils for humans: http://fourdollarsalmostfive.blogspot.de/2009/05/did-someone-ask-fo...
And here is Answersingenesis.com (a website that you quoted as being a good source) saying that you should avoid this argument, which is one of three that you have used and all three of those should be avoided.
The only reason I'm even arguing this point with you, despite the fact that it's obvious you haven't done your homework and you aren't likely to change your opinion and arguing for that purpose would just be wasting me time, is because the topic here is how to argue against a particular delusion. That the earth was created by a supernatural entity is a delusion. It is natural processes that have formed and shaped the universe as we know it over billions of years. This here is part of my argument against that delusion.
A cow doesn't become a horse
You are trolling now.
RE: "A cow doesn't become a horse, nor an ape a man." - I don't know how to break this to you gently, Richard, but a man IS an ape --
No one said a cow became a horse, but some dinosaurs DID become birds, and I am living proof!
I'm an atheist and a believer in evolution, but I recognize that the theory isn't 100% worked as regards every single species.
For example, we have charts showing the evolution of modern man and the modern horse. These are based on fossil skeletons.
Where is the one for the modern cow? the modern pig? The modern camel? Where are the missing fossil skeletons?
We await an explanation for the lack of fossil evidence for the evolution of many species other than man and the horse. Do human and horse skeletons preserve better? Do cow, pig, and camel skeletons decay more easily? So far, there appears to be no answer.
This doesn't disprove evolution, which is certainly a better explanation than "God did it," however the theory remains incomplete.
And something from nothing--the big bang?
If you can't have something come from nothing, then what created God? If he exists, then according to you, he had to have a creator.
As you probably know, but for those who don't, fossilization is a rare process that needs to have certain environmental conditions to occur. Essentially, the body must die somewhere so that it ends up being buried and thus is kept from scavengers who would like nothing more than to crack open some bones for the marrow inside. This process occurs better where animals can be sucked under ground like in peat bogs or the La Brea tar pits, sometimes caves and caverns provide this, too, or places where sedimentation occurs like river beads and flood plains. Or in the case of our history where we purposely began to bury our dead.
To use your example of a camel, we don't have transitional fossils for the camel from about 4 million years ago to present because they did not live in areas conducive to fossilization. Does this explain all instances of why we don't have transitional fossils? Of course not, but it is one of the reasons for why we don't see as many.
It's also the case that we haven't found any pre-chimpanzee fossils either. They don't live in an area amenable to such.
Not unlike other cultists, you clearly do not know the difference between the everyday use of the word "theory" and a scientific theory, which is not surprising. As a aside note, creationism is a hypothesis. BARELY!
we just have a different idea of how the puzzle fits together.
Smashing on the jigsaw pieces like a chimp on sugar to force them fit isn't "a different idea." You're trying to force science where it doesn't belong: your "holy" books.
Some believe in evolution as God's creative tool
See above. Science has proven religion wrong a thousand times over in every era of history. Every time there are 3 phases:
1. Complete denial by religion. It's a lie and it's blasphemy!
2. Realization that they can no longer ignore the mountain of facts.
3. Pretend like it was always of the religion! "It's been written in our holy book all this time!"
Muslims do this a lot too. Every time something new is discovered they're the first to raise their empty skulls and shout "it was written here in this surah! we already knew about atoms and quantum theory or how the world is round! yeah!"
Since Islam is a cult like yours I chose to take them as an example.
God being the first cause
Now, you've made clear your reading comprehension isn't the best, but gives this a try.
Specifically the "The First-cause Argument" paragraph.
Betrand Russel is easy to follow, and he already owned everything you have brought up here until this point.
Others believe in micro evolution but not macro.
How many more times? I'm not a special needs student counselor, alright? I don't know how to handle you if you behave like this, you got to try a little bit.
See, you come here and babble about god being the first cause, micro and macro evolution. What you don't realize is that these are such OLD and examined topics, you think they're clever but we know them by heart. You coming here saying god was the first cause would be like me going into geology class and saying the earth is flat! And getting laughed out of the room. That's precisely how ridiculous it is at this point. You might as well argue the world is flat or that the universe revolves around the earth.
You're like a 8 year old stumbling into a book club full of adults, and you try to teach them the first letters of the alphabet. And we think it's cute and want to give you milk and cookies because it's amusing.