|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution falsifies God/s? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Taken from Open letter to all Atheists.
Welcome to the fray Faceman, I think this deserves it's own thread;
Message 44: For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar. ... So the validity of evolution is a falsification test for belief in god/s? Or is it just a test for your particular belief\interpretation re god/s? And do you mean god/s would be a liar for
Just askin.
... So indirectly, atheism is being taught in public schools, via evolution. Logical fallacy, as has been pointed out.
Message 57: Does evolution leave room for a supernatural Creator? Yes. A supernatural creator could create the universe in a manner that would cause life to form and evolve. Notice that this invalidates your argument re atheism. There are many religions that do not conflict with evolution.
Message 58: No, I'm almost certain that's not what they all believe. There are some Christians who believe in evolution, though I'm not sure how they sell themselves on that. See the Clergy Letter Project, also see Catholic Church comments.
God is not a democracy. The majority does not get to rewrite the books of the Bible. So you don't vote on the validity of the Rigveda but you choose fundamentalist Christianity instead. Curious.
quote: No conflict with evolution there eh?
(repeat): For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar. This is evolution, these processes have been observed and documented and they are scientific facts. Also, I note that "original kinds" and descendants ("after their kind") meet the definition of clades ... so I don't see much conflict there. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added Nasadiya Sukta Edited by RAZD, : kinds Edited by RAZD, : liar listby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Message 77: In what capacity? Did He create life and then just walk away? That doesn't make sense. A being capable of creating everything, must be more complex than His creation - otherwise He becomes obsolete. In other words, if He is more complex than we are, it's illogical to conclude that He would create us and then fade away into obscurity. There can be only evolution, or a creator, but not both. An evolutionary god repudiates himself. So you are saying that god/s capable of creating the universe complete with all the laws that govern physics, chemistry, biology, etc., so that it develops all according to plan, is less powerful\complex than god/s that need to tinker with their creation to correct mistakes? (*) Fascinating. (deleted0 Edited by RAZD, : notes Edited by RAZD, : removed notesby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Message 52: ... also declare that thick-boned, scaled theropods eventually morphed into hallow-boned, avian feathered flying things. ... So, given all the problems you are having explaining yourself with other replies, I guess you will be happy to learn that evolution does not "declare that thick-boned, scaled theropods eventually morphed into hallow-boned, avian feathered flying things" yes?" You may be less happy to learn that theropods had hollow (as opposed to "blessed") bones and feathers, and that birds and theropods share a common ancestor ... with feathers and hollow "pneumatized" bones. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined:
|
(I offer this post as alternative reading material, the "opposing" view, note I am not attacking RAZD's information, but I would like to show to readers such as Faceman, that there is an alternative way to view the world. That's all, I promise I have no debate-intentions, we all know what I believe and expound, and we all know that what I expound will be "ripped" to pieces, following this post. For me, this doesn't prove my points unsound, because anyone can rip a fine cake to pieces. Majority-rule doesn't prove anything to me, which is why am like a bouncy mikey-ball that always comes back. )
This is evolution, these processes have been observed and documented and they are scientific facts. I agree all four, "facts", exist. I submit that those facts can still exist even if molecules-to-man, did not happen. Logically it has been shown that these, "parts" of Darwin's claim do not preclude the "whole" from being false. For example, if the branching, changing, and frequencies, all happened, these can all happen without any macro-changes to animal kinds. This is why evolution does not make any claims that animals MUST change over time, because all of these "facts" do not imply that animals MUST macro-evolve. So when you say, "this is evolution", then since I, mike, agree with all of those facts existing, does this mean I believe in, quote, "evolution"? Yet we know that mike doesn't accept macro-evolution. In that case, how can I agree with evolution, and not agree with evolution unless the word has two meanings? It must at least mean two different things, logically. Don't fall for the bait and switch - creation.com At most, those facts sited, provide compelling confirmation evidence, in an inductive form, (as to claim proof is to affirm the consequent). Those things SHOULD follow given a macro evolution, that they actually do, is not consequential. It is "interesting". But the burden of proof is still very heavy upon Darwin's shoulders, given the size of the very great claim of molecules-to-man.
Burden Of Proof Evolution Is Not A Fact One final point I make is in reference to the fallacy of composition. Even if the parts are true, this does not make the whole true. I won't get into disputing evidence, because I don't dispute any, I also accept adaptation in animals. Notice I CERTAINLY DO accept those four facts that make "evolution", so does that mean that really I am evolutionist? If I accept those facts, and those facts, ARE "evolution" but I don't accept, "evolution", then logically, we have an equivocation problem happening. Notice all the scientists at CMI ALSO accept those facts, but simply disagree that they are consequential. Consequential to what? To accepting MORE than those facts. What is MORE? MORE is to say, "ergo, molecules-to-man." But that "ergo" does not logically follow. All the best, mike. (Disclaimer. Please note RAZD, my very contrary opinions in no way effect the eloquence, knowledge, patience and cogency your posts constantly offer, which I have not seen an equal response to in fair debate, in this topic, as of yet. Naturally we are still diametrically opposed, ideologically, but please don't take that personally, because this is my standard response to all evolutionists. So very many times, because we are so outnumbered, it seems our absence-of-presence means that there is an absence-of-evidence of Christians actually having a response. So I chose to offer material to the contrary. We do exist, we do have an alternative thinking-pattern, but we are few in number. Absence of evidence can seem consequential, but only a "conspicuous absence of evidence" is consequential. Most Christians aren't all that intellectual, which also gives us absence. Feel free to have the final word on this one, as I am just passing through. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well, what faceman said was:
For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar. If he comes back, one of the things he has to decide is how much evolution disproves the existence of God. Nowadays it seems like creationists admit the evolution of species and genera but not families, so presumably he'll have to argue that the latter, but not the former, disprove the existence of God. You say that we have an "equivocation problem", but this can be perfectly solved by faceman saying what he meant when he said "for evolution to be true, there can be no God".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I agree all four, "facts", exist. I submit that those facts can still exist even if molecules-to-man, did not happen. ... Agreed. The origin of life is still an open question.
... Logically it has been shown that these, "parts" of Darwin's claim do not preclude the "whole" from being false. IIRC Darwin did not claim anything involving the origin of life, just the origin of species via natural selection ... and the formation of nested hierarchies from common ancestor populations.
For example, if the branching, changing, and frequencies, all happened, these can all happen without any macro-changes to animal kinds. This is why evolution does not make any claims that animals MUST change over time, because all of these "facts" do not imply that animals MUST macro-evolve. So when you say, "this is evolution", then since I, mike, agree with all of those facts existing, does this mean I believe in, quote, "evolution"? Yes, imho, it does, as does any creationist that believes in descent from original kinds forming the diversity of life we see. Of course I also need to ask what you mean by "macro-changes to animal kinds" -- is this some other kind of change from evolution?
Yet we know that mike doesn't accept macro-evolution. In that case, how can I agree with evolution, ... Well part of the problem is a proper understanding of macro-evolution, how you use it vs how science uses it. For science speciation and nested hierarchies are the elements of macroevolution.
... how can I agree with evolution, and not agree with evolution unless the word has two meanings? It must at least mean two different things, logically. Or it is a matter of degree rather than type of evolution. Perhaps a foray into cladistics can clarify the discussion: Clade - Wikipedia
quote: And as new species continue to arise from existing species, cladistics is more flexible in categorizing the new diversity of life than traditional taxonomy. Blue plus green is a clade and so is blue plus green plus red. As can readily be seen from this diagram is that this is precisely (imho) how "kinds" would descend from a parent original kind. The question between creationism and evolution then becomes what and how many original kinds were involved. So is Red a kind and Blue/Green another kind or are all three one kind? A difference in degree ... or difference in kind? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : kindby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
What I meant was if evolution were true, then that would nullify a great portion of the book of Genesis. If those chapters were suspect, then why wouldn't Gen. 1:1 be suspect? And on and on it goes, where the disbelief stops, no one knows.
Thus I should have clarified that (Darwinian) evolution would disprove a Christian God, since the Bible would no longer be reliable, but I suppose it wouldn't shut the door on other gods. The Christian God is the only God I work with though, so my choices of deities are limited in that regard. How much evolution would I require? An amount equal to 1CNRhK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
What I meant was if evolution were true, then that would nullify a great portion of the book of Genesis. As it has been shown that evolution happens, and that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for that, is that close enough? And parts of Genesis were disproved prior to Darwin and his theory. The idea of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago was disproved about 200 years ago by the early Christian geologists who were seeking to support that flood.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
I think I've answered most of your post in my replies to Dr. Adequate, so I'll just quickly repeat it here.
If evolution were true, then that would negate a Christian God, but you're right, many other religions would probably not be damaged by it.
Also, I note that "original kinds" and descendants ("after their kind") meet the definition of clades But completed within 6 days? There's the rub (for Christians anyways).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
That's a tad bit of elephant hurling right there Coyote.
As it has been shown that evolution happens, and that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for that, is that close enough? Not by a country mile (and they're longer out here - we evolve them that way).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
I shall here use "evolution" in the broad sense, not just biological evolution.
If evolution were true, then that would negate a Christian God... If evolution were true, then that would negate portions of the Bible. IF you wish to equate the Bible with a Christian God, then it would also negate a Christian God. But, to me, equating printed material with God sure seems silly. MooseProfessor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What I meant was if evolution were true, then that would nullify a great portion of the book of Genesis. If those chapters were suspect, then why wouldn't Gen. 1:1 be suspect? And on and on it goes, where the disbelief stops, no one knows. That would appear to be a problem for your particular all or nothing approach (which is not my problem).
Message 58: No, I'm almost certain that's not what they all believe. There are some Christians who believe in evolution, though I'm not sure how they sell themselves on that. See the Clergy Letter Project, also see Catholic Church comments regarding evolution. It would appear that many Christians have no problems with evolution.
Thus I should have clarified that (Darwinian) evolution would disprove a Christian God, since the Bible would no longer be reliable, but I suppose it wouldn't shut the door on other gods. The Christian God is the only God I work with though, so my choices of deities are limited in that regard. There are plenty of choices, so I always wonder why anyone would choose a flavor of belief at odds with reality observed in the world around us.
Message 44: For evolution to be true, there can be no God - or at the very least He would become a liar. ... So the validity of evolution is a falsification test for belief in god/s? Or is it just a validation test for your particular belief\interpretation re god/s? And do you mean god/s would be a liar for
Just askin. But we may be getting a little ahead of the debate here, as I am not convinced that you really understand what evolution is ... This is evolution, these processes have been observed and documented and they are scientific facts. Also, I note that "original kinds" and descendants ("after their kind") meet the definition of clades ... so I don't see much conflict there. What do you think evolution is that makes it so antithetical to your belief/s? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3385 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
IF you wish to equate the Bible with a Christian God, then it would also negate a Christian God. Since the Bible reveals Jesus to be God, then it becomes impossible to separate the two - if you're a follower of Christ that is. If, on the other hand, you're Thomas Jefferson and think the Bible is fodder for scrap-booking, well good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But completed within 6 days? There's the rub (for Christians anyways). Indeed, that would mean hyper-evolution on a scale not even remotely considered by scientists. Presumably you also believe in a delusional flood and that the world is young. You realize that these beliefs are falsifiable yes? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What I meant was if evolution were true, then that would nullify a great portion of the book of Genesis. If those chapters were suspect, then why wouldn't Gen. 1:1 be suspect? And on and on it goes, where the disbelief stops, no one knows. Right. When you exclude the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Judith, and the Epistle of the Apostles from the Bible, who knows where it will all end? You have to believe everything, or you can't believe anything at all. That's just logic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024