Does evolution contradict the idea of theistic creation?

Originally posted by sonship
I quoted him in support of his own claim also, as I should.

For what reason? You were trying to demonstrate something we both agreed to, because you wanted to make out that it was in contradiction to my argument (which it wasn't) and thus you created a straw man.

He has a very strong case. Its too bad that it works not in favor of his Blind Watchmaker thesis. Too bad for you too.
In what way is it 'too bad for me'? It doesn't contradict anything I have ever said in this forum.

You're full of baloney to say I twist his words into a strawman argument.
You did, and you know it.
In that thread you never once addressed the argument in the OP. Not once.

My counter would be ever would be -
Counter to what? Counter to Dawkins? I see, you are now arguing against Dawkins not against me. What does this have to do with whether or not you created a straw man argument using Dawkins in the other thread? You seem to have lost track of what you were saying.

I'd tell him to his face, and you too.
Well maybe you should. But when you are ready to talk to me rather than Dawkins, let me know.

No amount of pseudo Zen Buddhist like flipping weak rationales around could convince me that there is only a Dawkinsian, Twhiteheadian appearance of design in biology.
That doesn't change the fact that you used a quote from Dawkins to set up a straw man argument in the other thread.

Go down with the ship as we go into the 21rst Century.
The ship that sank is the one you are on. And it sank 150 years ago.

I am pretty sure your Blind Watchmaker Evolution will have to be replaced by some other theory.
Its always easy to make your claims in the future. I will prove that God doesn't exist in 2050. I will prove it so convincingly that even you will believe it. So there!

He is not a charlaton of a crackpot.
I didn't say he was.

You are a victim of malignant self love, I think.
And you are a barefaced liar - as anyone can see by going back a post or two and seeing that you have deliberately misquoted me.

And I only referred to his very good chapter Evolution Statistics Verses Random Mutations in his book The Science of God.
And I demonstrated conclusively that he had used an erroneous argument in that chapter and that he was well aware that he was doing so.

As to some of his other ideas about the days of creation in Genesis, I did not refer to them or endorse them.
Nor did I suggest you did.

Hmmm.

I don't think so. I think you'd be too busy backpeddling and explaining what you were not saying. I don't think your brand of relentless and ruthless Atheism would make much progress.
Well, since you cannot prove it, that is just your opinion - which is not worth anything.

You must be just blowing hot air still.
Clearly not.

In fact, given that much of your post consists of:
1. Claims that at some future date my claims will be disprove.
2. Claims that I would loose a debate with some person.
It is clear that you are the one blowing hot air.

Originally posted by twhitehead

For what reason? You were trying to demonstrate something we both agreed to, because you wanted to make out that it was in contradiction to my argument (which it wasn't) and thus you created a straw man.
------------------------------------------------------------

Cutting to the main point here:
Biological life does not have the illusion of design. They appear to be designed because they are.

I am not going to flip back over the pages to see what you think is so obviously always the case - your rightness.

Biological systems do not have only an illusion of design, as Dawkins believes. They appear so because they are designed.

If you agree with me that is all I care about at the moment.
If you do not agree with me then I'm sure you're wrong.

And if you insist on proof they were designed with some mathematical certainty, I say the evidence is more in favor of them being designed and less in favor of design only being an illusion or "appearance".

In what way is it 'too bad for me'? It doesn't contradict anything I have ever said in this forum.

That's because you are careful to try to never say anything on this forum.
I don't have time for this today.

Yea, yea.
Best way to remain unassailable - claim to have never said anything.

Oh, I didn't put up the link to the video for you.

In that thread you never once addressed the argument in the OP. Not once.

So what?
Let the thread starter complain about that if he wants.

And I think I DID speak to the OP.

Above I wrote:

I see Evolution to mean three things mainly, or at three levels:

What do we mean by Evolution ?


1.) Organisms CHANGE when they go to new environments - evidenced.

IE. Brown rabbits living generation after generation in white snow will give rise to more white rabbits. This is not disputed.

2.) A Thesis of Common Descent - some evidence

Living things appear on earth in a sequence of simpler life to more complex life.
This occurred in a sequence of steps from single celled organisms up to human beings.

I think there is some arguable evidence for a thesis of common descent.

3.) A Blind Watchmaker Thesis - The processes that gave rise to living things are totally naturalistic processes - a blind, unintentional, purposeless, goalless, (random mutation + natural selection ) unguided, no purposes in mind, no room for God or any intelligence, purely material and physical processes.

IMO there is no evidence for this third definition of Evolution.

In the first definition I admit solid evidence.
In the second definition I admit some arguable evidence.
In the third definition I think there is no evidence.

the Blindwatchmaker Thesis I think contradicts theistic creation.

Here a few posts latter is where I said that.

I think only the third concept (a Blind Watchmaker thesis) contradicts theistic creation.
The first and second definitions of Evolution would not be a problem to my Christian faith necessarily.

I don't think the second definition "a Common Descent" would be a show stopper to theistic belief in creation.

Not understanding that there was a FIRST man and a FIRST woman would be a problem to New Testament teaching for me. If there is a gradual slipping into mankind, how could there be a FIRST man and a FIRST couple ?

So your accusation that I never addressed the OP is a bold face lie.

Originally posted by sonship
Cutting to the main point here:
Biological life does not have the illusion of design. They appear to be designed because they are.

But why are you making that point when it has nothing whatsoever to do with what was being discussed?

That's because you are careful to try to never say anything on this forum.
I say an awful lot on this forum. That it doesn't match what you wished I had said, is your problem.

I don't have time for this today.
Acting like its my fault that you made something up?

Yea, yea.
Best way to remain unassailable - claim to have never said anything.
I only claim to have never said what I have never said. I would be stupid to claim to have said what I had never said.

nd I think I DID speak to the OP.
I think you are confused about which thread I was referring to. I said 'that thread' no 'this thread'.

So your accusation that I never addressed the OP is a bold face lie.
No, you just didn't read my accusation very carefully. (or you deliberately misread it.)