Foyle,
You dodged the key point: "Human-beings evolved from another species" is a proposition that cannot be refuted. This is your theory of evolution as applied to human beings. But if it cannot be refuted it is not a scientific theory.

Foyle you said:

<<If you really are interested in proof of human evolution read Robert Ardrey’s books for a start, ‘African Genesis’,’The Territorial Imperative’ and ‘The Hunting Hypothesis’. Ardrey's assembly of 24 lines of evidence that A. africanus was an armed hunter are particularly interesting and, to me, convincing.

I obtained from the University of Michigan site, a chart of the fossil record tracing the evolution of man from australopithecus afarensis through A. africanus, homo habilis, H. erectus, H.heidelbergensis to Homo sapiens.>>

Foyle, before considering the "facts" we need to get our methodology straightened out. You should be attempting to disprove the proposition: <<Human beings did not evolve from another species>>

Is a chart constructed on the premise that human-beings evolved from other species to be taken as proof of that premise? Without the evolutionary premise is it not conceivable that the same "facts" are consistent with an alternative view of our universe and the history of life on this planet? What makes these "facts" incompatible with the proposition that "Human-beings did not evolve from another species"?

Your attempt to derive those who dare to challenge evolutionary theory in describing them as "unsinkable rubber duckies" just supports what i said earlier: "Atheists are taking a position that avoids scrutiny through reason and evidence, betraying a fundamental lack of confidence in their own position."

Stick to reason and stop ducking the issue!

Grateful,
It is you who is ducking the issue. It is you who is ignoring factual evidence in your favouring of the scribblings of uneducated ancients with no knowledge of modern science and scientific method.

Of course evolution is a scientific theory. It is supported by substantial amounts of evidence in the same way that the theory of gravity or Einstien's Relativity Theories are supported by evidence. Science relies on evidence to support each theory.

Newton's earlier motion theories were shown by evidence to comply with Einstein's Theory, but only at velocities that are a low fraction of the speed of light. Thousands of lines of evidence over more that 110years has shown that so far Einstein's Theories do not need modification.

The evolution of man theory could be refuted if verifiable evidence was found which supported a theory that mankind made a spontaneous appearance on the scene. Such evidence has never been found!

Thousands of fossils and the determination of the ages of those fossils has shown that the theory of evolution, as far as the evolution of man from earlier mammalian primates is concerned, is accurate. At most minor modifications will be necessary if new fossils come to light and such fossils fill in minor gaps in our current knowledge or add to our enlightment.

Hi again AJ. This may have to be my last response- not a copout, simply recognition of the fact that I have a ridiculously busy month ahead. And as I’m sure you’ll agree, discussions on OLO are, whilst interesting, not the number one priority in life.

<Yes and very convenient too that god only ever reveals himself in ways that can be explained by other more rational means.>

Firstly, you commit the fallacy of assuming that two explanations both can’t be true at the same time.

Secondly, often it’s the fact that people’s experiences CAN’T be explained by rational means that compels them to believe.

<Easy, meeting him face to face in a more visual and/or audible sense.>

If God just popped into existence every time a human asked him to, he’d be a genie in a bottle and many of the things that make life fruitful wouldn’t exist in the long run.

<There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus from an eye-witness;>

This is a hotly contested claim, like many things in history. There are good arguments which suggest that eye witnesses had a lot to do with the process.

<there is not a single event from his life that we can accurately date or provide any evidence for;>

We have documents from a short period after his life, attesting to events in his life. That is called historical evidence.

<we have no writings from him;>

Nor would we expect any.

< no carpentry works>.

Ditto.

<and the supernatural claims would be impossible to verify even if they did happen>

What sort of verification are you after?

You’re making serious epistemological errors- demanding unattainable evidence and more importantly, you’re asking for evidence that we wouldn’t expect to see, even if the hypothesis were true!

<your posts read like that of a person who has just finished reading the books of the fraud, Lee Strobel - who’s arguments, mind you, have all been thoroughly discredited.>

Where’s your evidence that he’s a fraud?

Strobel writes at a popular level and his aim is persuasion. He’s a journalist not a historian.

(continued)

<Trust me, I know them all.>

Have you read Michael Licona, NT Wright or William Lane Craig?

<Then you’re easily persuaded considering we have no idea who even wrote the gospels.>

There’s only one reason to doubt the uniform testimony of the early church and several reasons to believe it. But more to the point, authorship is irrelevant to the minimal facts approach.

<Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.>

Gross over simplification.

It all depends on your prior assumptions. If naturalism is true, miracles are impossible/exceedingly unlikely.

There are good reasons to doubt naturalism, there are good reasons for God’s existence and there’s a strong historical basis for Jesus claiming to be divine. Given those things, Jesus’s miracles and resurrection aren’t extraordinary at all. They’re likely.

Thus the minimal facts establish the events surrounding the claimed resurrection and make it a good candidate for explanation of the facts.

[<<The specific Christian version of the nature of humanity and the human condition is very accurate>>

How?]

It teaches that humans are fundamentally floored and that we are selfish at the very core. This contrasts with much of modern day psychology and humanistic beliefs.

Many people thought the world was headed for a better future and had to reconsider their beliefs in light of the horrific world wars of last century. From a Christian perspective, it wasn’t surprising.

[<<...and Jesus provides the perfect answer...>>

How?]

In an imperfect world, Jesus lived the perfect life. He reverses the natural order by teaching that the weak will be strong. Despite already setting the best example possible in his life on earth, he finished it all by sacrificing himself for others.

(continued)

[For starters, you haven’t yet come up with a rational reason for believing in god]

I’m persuaded by a personal experience or two that I interpret as God working in this world.

In terms of arguments, the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument strike me as plausible arguments for God’s existence, as laid out by William Lane Craig.

There are several things about the universe that make much more sense within a theistic, Christian framework than within a naturalistic framework: The beginning of the universe, the universe’s appearance of contingency, the fine tuning of the universe, the existence of rational inference, evidence for the miracle of Jesus’s resurrection, the whole beginning of Christianity as a historical event and the underlying mathematical order that allows science to function.

C Stephen Evans makes the following argument which is a reasonable one: Natural signs certainly seem to exist that lead people to believe in God. They provide widely accessible signs that point to God, yet they are easily resistible, which is exactly what one would expect to see if there is a God who exists and makes it possible to hold some sort of natural knowledge of him: Cosmic Wonder, beneficial order and the moral realm/moral awareness.

(I recently read this and highly recommend it http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Signs-Knowledge-God-Arguments/dp/0199217165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296876586&sr=8-1)

<Particularly since I have no idea of what you’re talking about and neither does Google (http://tinyurl.com/5uxe82d), nor any atheist I've asked in the last couple of days.}

Sorry- I didn’t explain that well.

Amongst the left-wing intellectual/academic elite, belief in God is seen as worthy or mockery rather than serious contemplation. Social factor.

Regarding moral accountability: Sexual restraints ARE rational. Don’t trust me on this; consult history.

I see you ignored my major point on this topic- that none of these arguments contribute much to proving the truth or otherwise of God or religions.

(continued)

<They get emotional because they are opposed to the insanity and destructiveness of religion>.

Insanity and destruction? Yes, sometimes, of course.

But if you suggest that the net value of religion to society is negative, I would have to get you a straight jacket.

Religious people are happier and healthier. They give much, much more time and money to charitable causes and they are more likely to be doctors, teaches and nurses. All these things have been proven by studies. Not that I need them to either- I know them to be true from my own circle of influence.

The vast majority of charities are either religious or were started religious and gave up the name for political correctness sake; but, their history remains.

This week a study showed that 12 churches in the Philadephia area combined to contribute over $50 million a year in economic benefits to the communities they serve. http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-01/news/27092987_1_partners-for-sacred-places-congregations-churches

Sociologically, religion is good. Only ignorant new atheist authors and their internet disciples could suggest otherwise.

<Theism does not explain anything, it simply asserts.>

Atheists often say this but I’ve never seen a good argument to support it. Can you elaborate?

re: The Historicity of Jesus:

Atheist historian Michael Grant:

“To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

See these links, they won’t take up much of your time and they are very informative on the issue:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2011/01/christ-myth-wont-die.html
Thanks for the discussion.