Originally posted by Nickstenyes an entire belief system based upon unobserved phenomena, complete with
googlefudge...you are talking centric and I am talking holistically. Even though evolution is something totally different on its own, it could not have been possible if there wasn't any thing that needed a so called transformation to be something better.
So what you are saying is that you kinda belief in the following:
It rained for millions of years a ...[text shortened]... ly appeared and thought - heck lets transform this into something.
THAT is talking nonsense!
creation myth, holy books (The origin of the species, The God delusion), complete
will religious luminaries and heralds of a new morality (Nietzsche etc), with worship
of a New deity, the God of Science! Look how they look to it for comfort and
answers,
'The day when medicine advances to the point where crappy stuff like that doesn't
happen can't come soon enough.'
it has eyes but cannot see, a mouth yet it cannot speak, ears, yet it does not hear,
the God of science, worship of a new deity that has diluted morality, engendered
greed and oppression, fomented wars under the pretext that the fit will survive,
depleted the earth of natural resources and upset the eco systyem almost to the
point of no return, All Hail the God of Science.
Materialism must be stopped!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieClosed minded and ignorant, your words not mine.
yes an entire belief system based upon unobserved phenomena, complete with
creation myth, holy books (The origin of the species, The God delusion), complete
will religious luminaries and heralds of a new morality (Nietzsche etc), with worship
of a New deity, the God of Science! Look how they look to it for comfort and
answers,
'The day w st to the
point of no return, All Hail the God of Science.
Materialism must be stopped!
Now, what can you possibly say on this subject that will have any relevance?
Originally posted by googlefudge
NO NO NO NO.
The theory of evolution specifically and exclusively deals with the diversity of life. Cosmology is physics and not biology, and Abiogenesis is an independent and separate part of bio-chemistry.
Answer by Nicksten
YES YES YES, it all eventually comes together! Even though people have come up with the big bang theory way after
they have come up with the evolution theory, evolution had to take its place (it's starting point at some time) ..... Or is it not part of the bigger picture here?
Just an interjection here about the context of evolution in this kind of debate:
Creationists tend to see evolution in anything that is connected to any part of creation. This includes the formation of stars and the cosmos, as well as the origin of life. This attitude is understandable because some evolutionists (especially on RHP) have equated evolution with atheism. So creationists have to defend the creation story on all fronts.
However, if you accept a Young Earth (say 10 000 years) then you have to throw out much or all of the following fields of science: Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology, Biochemistry, Geology, and maybe some other ...ologies that I missed.
Yet, incredibly, polls show that about 45% of Americans are YECs! They have to be shizophreniacs to follow any of the sciences that I mentioned... (Or maybe compartmentalise their lives, keep their "faith" apart from "the real world".) This must lead to severe internal conflicts! I know, I've been there...
Biology Professor Darrel Falk points out in his wonderful book Coming to Peace with Science written from his perspective as an evangelical Christian, that the YEC perspective is the equivalent of insisting that two plus two is really NOT equal to four!
Sometime when I have a bit more time I would like to start a thread to explore the idea why some atheists (e.g. the arch proponent Richard Dawkins) insist that evolution proves that there is no God, because it does no such thing!
ðŸ˜
Originally posted by CalJustI would like to start a thread to explore the idea why some atheists insist that evolution proves that there is no God, because it does no such thing!
Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]NO NO NO NO.
The theory of evolution specifically and exclusively deals with the diversity of life. Cosmology is physics and not biology, and Abiogenesis is an independent and separate part of bio-chemistry. [/b]
Answer by Nicksten
YES YES YES, it all eventually comes together! Even though peop sist that evolution proves that there is no God, because it does no such thing!
ðŸ˜
I agree, but that is also what every creationist i have encountered on this forum also believes.
Edit - just to add, i don't ever recall Dawkins making such a claim.
Originally posted by CalJustInteresting how you defend science from those illogical minded creationists, then throw in your errors at the end - also motivated from a position of threatened belief.
Sometime when I have a bit more time I would like to start a thread to explore the idea why some atheists (e.g. the arch proponent Richard Dawkins) insist that evolution proves that there is no God, because it does no such thing!
I very much doubt that you can find any atheist who thinks evolution proves that there is no God, and I very much doubt that Richard Dawkins has ever even hinted at that.
So before you start your thread, look at your own beliefs and biases critically.
My own view is that evolution does major damages to one of Theisms strongest arguments - a claim to be an explanation for our existence. For this reason it is dangerous for theism and rightly seen as a threat by theists - but it does not, in itself rule out all theism.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis statement by Dawkins claiming that evolution disproves God appears to be a red-herring coming from the Vatican. He never claimed such a thing, there's even a video on youtube of Dawkins giving a lecture at Berkley called - 'Why science can't disprove God'.
Interesting how you defend science from those illogical minded creationists, then throw in your errors at the end - also motivated from a position of threatened belief.
I very much doubt that you can find any atheist who thinks evolution proves that there is no God, and I very much doubt that Richard Dawkins has ever even hinted at that.
So before you s ...[text shortened]... theism and rightly seen as a threat by theists - but it does not, in itself rule out all theism.
Originally posted by Proper Knob
I agree, but that is also what every creationist i have encountered on this forum also believes.
twhitehead would say: define creationist!
There are several species. Young Earth Creationists beieve in a literal 6 day creation, which means that the earth is max 10 000 years old. Although that seems to be a widely held opinion, as i pointed out above it is incompatibe with science.
There are (fortunately!) other options. If I am the only theistic evolutionist on RHP, then so be it. But I don't think so!
just to add, i don't ever recall Dawkins making such a claim.
Repeatedly, and ad nauseum!! His latest masterpiece was "The God Delusion", which spells his argument out in detail.
Originally posted by CalJustYou are not the only theistic evolutionist here, but they do get drowned out by the creationists.
Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I agree, but that is also what every creationist i have encountered on this forum also believes.
twhitehead would say: define creationist!
There are several species. Young Earth Creationists beieve in a literal 6 day creation, which means that the earth is max 10 000 years old. Although that seems to be a s latest masterpiece was "The God Delusion", which spells his argument out in detail.[/b]
I've read the The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The Greatest Show on Earth, River out of Eden, and have nearly finished Climbing Mount Improbable, i don't recall him ever claiming evolution disproves the existence of God.
Originally posted by twhitehead
I very much doubt that you can find any atheist who thinks evolution proves that there is no God, and I very much doubt that Richard Dawkins has ever even hinted at that.
Have you ever read Dawkins???
This theme goes throughout his books, starting from The Selfish Gene, through The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable and A Devil's Chaplain.
Dawkins extends his conclusions to religion in general in highly agressive terms: "It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow disease', and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
If you are interested I can give you the exact reference for this quote. I have it at home. Right now, this is quoted by Collins in his book "The Language of God" on p163.
Originally posted by CalJustNot unreasonable. But i don't see it as a claim that evolution disproves the existence of God. I see the central theme running through Dawkins books as that the complexity and diversification of life on this planet is explained by natural selection, with no need for a designer. Which, from what i've read, is the view shared by those at biologos.
Another Dawkins quote:
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference
Would it be unreasonable of me to accept that this is a plea for atheism??
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by NickstenYou are quite right that is talking nonsense...
googlefudge...you are talking centric and I am talking holistically. Even though evolution is something totally different on its own, it could not have been possible if there wasn't any thing that needed a so called transformation to be something better.
So what you are saying is that you kinda belief in the following:
It rained for millions of years a ...[text shortened]... ly appeared and thought - heck lets transform this into something.
THAT is talking nonsense!
The only trouble is it's what you are saying and not at all what I am saying.
I am not saying anything like this...
There is no 'thing' called evolution that magically appeared when life appeared and started
turning primitive life forms into more complex ones.
Evolution is a process that happens when living things multiply.
If you have a self replicating molecule (or collection of molecules) that build copies of themselves
but do not do so perfectly and thus make errors in copying, then subsequent generations of these
self replicating molecules will have differences to their parents.
Some of these differences (perhaps even most) will be harmful in that they hinder the molecules
ability to self replicate. Others will be helpful and will make self replication more likely.
The ones with helpful errors will be more likely to replicate and thus the proportion of the population
with this beneficial error (mutation) will increase.
This is evolution by natural selection.
It is an inevitable consequence of self replicating systems that make errors in their replication.
There are other mechanisms, particularly with simple life forms (horizontal gene transfer for one),
but this process is guaranteed to happen. It's an inevitable consequence of self replicating DNA and RNA.
It is irrelevant for this process how life came to be, at what stage of development, this process will inevitably
arise.
This is a known fact, it is a theoretical inevitability and has been observed multiple times.
There is nothing we can discover that would change this, ever.
&feature=fvwrel