Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

Of course, it is precisely the literalists who most view the evidence as atheistic. This is why this endless god of the gaps theology is so distained by sophisticated theologians.If you and others insist so stridently that evolution, geology etc. etc. is against god then when enough evidence mounts up for an individual to be convinced they can't be blamed for taking your viewpoint and using it to declare the non-existance of god.If you would all stop cramming your little gods into the gaps of knowlege then it would remomve one excuse for Wilson, Dawkins et al for using the your conclusions from the evidence to try to "prove" there is no god.You live by this viewpoint, your beliefs are subject to it's conclusions.

No, it wouldn't but it at least the literalists wouldn't be seen as in agreement with them.Of course, you statement about Darwin is wrong since he made no statments about life's origins. In fact, your ideas about motivations is full of it.

I'd like to see a transcript of this too. But it wouldn't surprise me if they asserted that there is no creator. I have read material of Wilson's critical of religion (IIRC) so he may have made that leap. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion.It doesn't matter what they actually said, Randman will decide for himself what was said, what it means etc. He isn't into actual reality.

Oh, yes that is right Randman. The sound you hear is the sound of another gap closing. This is why it is such bad theology to put your god in these gaps. The unintended side affect of a quest for the best understanding of the natural world we can get is to remove these gaps and change our world view.You, being sensitive, unsure and needing real world reinforcement go way overboard in your reaction to these advancements in understanding. You thrash about grasping at straws (to say nothing of strawmen ). You accuse those who only want to understand of attacking your beliefs. It is only because you insist on standing in front of the train. In fact, the majority of those involved in this learning process don't give a rat's ass for your beliefs. They are not under attack; they are simply uninteresting.It is another in a chain of philosophical changes in our view of the universe and where we fit.The truely religious with real faith don't find it necessary to have material ties to their gods. Those who do and insist that those gods fit in the gaps in knowledge are asking for what they get.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2005 01:59 AM

Hey, Rand, I agreed with you awhile ago to. These "guys" think that thre is no god. They think that one of the reasons why someone might think a god exists is closed by the evolutionary explanation. There, is that clear enough. I agree with you on that.I also agree with them.I told you; if you don't like people using things we learn as an attack on your small god then don't stuff him into gaps that can be closed. It is no wonder that you (plural) give the real Christians the heebeegeebees.And I disagree totally with your paranoid ravings that the reason for evolutionary science is to attack your god. That is just a side affect that you have created. Frankly, I don't give a damm.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2005 11:07 PM

I notice that your responses have absolutely no content. You choose not to point out where there is anything wrong with what I say.Do you think that you aren't preaching a god-of-the-gaps theology? Do you understand what the weaknesses inherent in that are?Those Christians that I defend are also ones that I know best and act most like the Christ is supposed to have wanted. It isn't only your science, logic and reading abilities that are wanting.

Stopping the sun would have NO effect on the length of the day. For practical purposes regarding the length of the day the sun is already stopped. That I think is PS's point.