Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,923 Year: 4,180/9,624 Month: 1,051/974 Week: 10/368 Day: 10/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Word Evolutionists
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 93 (116679)
06-19-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mike the wiz
06-19-2004 12:19 PM


Re: Relevance?
Mike
If you look through the postings from those here who support the TOE, how often do you find them saying that the TOE means no GOD?
Is it not more common to find that it is the Creationists who say that the TOE means there is no GOD?
The TOE does not deal with origins or moral issues. It has nothing to do with that. GOD is the realm of WHY. Evolution is simply the HOW.
If Life began on its own, or if life started from some divine spark is outside Evolution. The TOE continues to apply and explain what we see in either case. And this is a very important point.
You say...
God then becomes an unnecessary precursor to the natural processes.
I don't think that Evolution makes ANY statement about whether GOD is a necessary or unnecessary Precursor. Evolution says nothing about the precursor.
You then say...
I think many creos would be "won over" if this whole "this means no God" thing would dissapear.
That is likely so but it is only the Creationists themselves that insist on inserting the "this means no God" thing.
It is only the Creationists that insist that Evolution denies GOD.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 06-19-2004 12:19 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 06-19-2004 2:21 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 93 (116683)
06-19-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
06-19-2004 2:21 PM


Re: Relevance?
There are Atheists who rule out GOD. Period.
But what does that have to do with Evolution?
I think it's great that you are starting down this path. But where you need to concentrate are on Atheists to convince them that there is a GOD (admitedly a daunting task) and Creationists who insist that Evolution = No God.
One thing that has always helped me is to simply look at the products that might have been created by GOD.
On one hand are a bunch of objects, poorly designed, many failures that went extinct and even those that have survived, cobbled together with makeshift and jury rigged systems, with bits and pieces left over like the apendix, with no padding on the shins, hair that falls out, eyesight that fails, subject to wear, tear and desease.
On the other hand are a set of rules, interactions that work wonderfully, forces and laws that regulate everything from galaxies to light itself. The more we learn about these rules, the beauty that is a crystal, the wonder that is gravity, the forces that hold the electron away from the nucleus, string theory and branes, the adaptability that is Evolution, the more awsome it becomes.
Of the two, poorly designed and patched KINDS or the symmetry, beauty, awesomeness and functionality of the underlying rules, which is more likely the product of a GOD?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 06-19-2004 2:21 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 06-19-2004 2:55 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024