Jump to content


Photo

Should Christians Accept Evolution Theory?


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 January 2016 - 08:07 AM

The true reasons why atheists are keen to get Christians to accept evolution, can be deduced when the person thinks it through properly.
 
The reason why atheists want Christians to be evolutionist are the same reasons I would want intelligent design to be accepted by atheists.
 
Technically speaking, the final conclusion of the intelligent-design argument is that lifeforms are intelligently designed. I have known agnostics and there are even atheists, that accept the intelligent design argument. But logic and science can only take us as far as the conclusion that lifeforms are intelligently designed. Science can't take us to any conclusions about God (God of the gaps) some atheists believe aliens are the intelligent designers, or perhaps accept some kind of Spinoza like Einstein did.
 
My point is, that TECHNICALLY intelligent design doesn't involve the supernatural, so atheists can accept it but we all know that it would be to my advantage as a Christian if intelligent design was accepted because even though technically it doesn't prove God exists, nevertheless ID and God are like salt and vinegar. ID and God are like hotdogs and mustard.
 
In the same way, TECHNICALLY, evolution is not "atheist", but the reason atheists want us to accept evolution is because atheism and evolution are like salt and vinegar, atheism and evolution are like hotdogs and mustard.
 
This should be obvious to any intelligent person.
 
It would be obtuse to not realize that to accept evolution means that there is an UNSPOKEN victory for atheism, over theism, and to accept ID means there would be an UNSPOKEN victory for theism. This is one reason science-writers like to pretend ID is religion, so as to keep it out of science. The true syllogism for intelligent design, as argued by Paley and in various forms, comes down to a form of argument that includes no supernatural inferences.
 
(No talk of "ID is religion" is allowed in this topic, as that is a RED HERRING fallacy I am not allowing. If you want to argue that then I also have permission to argue that evolution is an atheist religion.)
 
 


#2 keysi

keysi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Zooloogy, Anthropology, Psychology, Books, Video Games, Martial Arts.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United Kingdom

Posted 13 January 2016 - 08:49 AM

What did the atheists who accepted ID think?
That life as we know it was designed by aliens I presume?
How did they suggest those aliens came into existence? Another form of biological evolution? If they don't believe in anything supernatural then that would only push us back further, and we'd really be no closer to an answer.
  • Enoch 2021 and mike the wiz like this

#3 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 January 2016 - 10:29 AM

What did the atheists who accepted ID think?
That life as we know it was designed by aliens I presume?
How did they suggest those aliens came into existence? Another form of biological evolution? If they don't believe in anything supernatural then that would only push us back further, and we'd really be no closer to an answer.

 

Exactly.  An Infinite Regress (Fallacy)

 

And they would have to show an Alien from jump-street or it's an Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy).

 

It's a Fallacious Sandwich with a side of desperate in-coherency.  :)


  • mike the wiz likes this

#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 January 2016 - 02:01 PM

Yes, the intelligent design argument, Keysi, as you have said, leads to implications of it being TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN.

 

("Mom, what does the earth sit on?"

"A turtle, son". 

"But what does that turtle sit on?"

"That turtle sits on a turtle."

"But what do those turtles sit on, is there ever a bottom?"

"It's turtles, all the way down!"

 

:D

 

Naturally, very few and only very intellectually honest atheists would accept intelligent design because reasonably, the design in nature is so diverse and so great and every anatomy and s@x is viable, into the millions, that the mind or minds that created life would have to be unfathomable great minds that perhaps REQUIRE total knowledge. (omniscience) This is why intelligent design favours God as an argument even though it does not even mention God.

 

So unless you want some Goku-sauce on your fallacy-sandwiches, I suggest you stick to the FACT of ID! ;)



#5 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 14 January 2016 - 03:39 AM

Does a fallacy to come to a conclusion negate the conclusion though?

 

A indicating B is a fallacy:

A does not indicate B

Therefore not B (is not a conclusion we can draw)



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 January 2016 - 04:02 AM

Fjuri, do you mean that;

 

Intelligent design meaning God exists is a non-sequitur, or do you mean this;

 

Intelligent design is posited to indicate God exists.

In your opinion intelligent design does not indicate God

Therefore God does not exist.

 

 

If I hear a dog bark it must be my dog.

it does not mean it is my dog

Therefore it is not my dog.

(non sequitur)

 

It may well still be your dog, it just does not "follow" from the evidence that it is or is not your dog.

 

But the evidence for intelligent design so strongly favours God's existence that it seems God is the only proper answer or it's back to the turtles. :D



#7 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 14 January 2016 - 04:05 AM

I'll talk about the Turtles.

 

"Mom, what does the earth sit on?"

"A turtle, son". 

"But what does that turtle sit on?"

"That turtle sits on a turtle."

"But what do those turtles sit on, is there ever a bottom?"

"It's turtles, all the way down!"

 

This is an infinite regress fallacy.

So: "Turtles all the way down" is a non-sequitur.

"Not turtles all the way down" is a non-sequitur as well, no?



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 January 2016 - 04:20 AM

I don't think the turtles are really about logic, Fjuri. I value logic greatly but sometimes it's not all about logic. 

 

With turtles all the way down, the problem is that it isn't really an explanation to say there are infinite causes of the same thing because it is so improbable or impossible.

 

For example, imagine if I argued that because you came from a womb and your mother came from a womb that this has simply gone on forever. That would be impossible. To say aliens created life on earth because aliens created them leaves the forever open-ended question; "but who created them". You have to create a solution posteriori.

 

But God is not a posteriori solution. All of the characteristics of God in the bible, are spoken of apriori, meaning the infinite regress is SOLVED by God's character.

 

So you have to ask yourself - if the bible is just a lot of made up baloney, and God is baloney, then why does His characteristics solve these problems before these problems were even thought about? If the bible was made up by simple morons with no brains then why does it have the answers?

 

By definition, God is omniscient AND eternal. There never was a "time" He wasn't. There never was a thing He did not know. Which just happen to be two things which are required in order to create a time/space continuum and lifeforms.

 

The problem is you need to learn to think differently. For example Fjuri, yesterday I looked at some small birdems on the tv and I thought, "they're so cute and little, a perfect little thing", and then when I was sat in the park one flown past me like a bullet, and I REMEMBERED, they are not only aesthetically pleasing, but also aerodynamic. You see, everything in nature, is just so smart. There is just too much, OVER-design, which means there is an unnecessary amount of creativity, there is beauty MATCHED with intelligence every single time. It is not something that can be equated with a random evolution really, for what would we expect from a mindless evolution? The only logical answer is this; we wouldn't expect much.

 

But the creation is MORE than, "much", it is the elephant-in-the-room, it is like going into an art gallery expecting to find a few pictures and instead you find out that the gallery itself is also one of the pieces of art, as well as everything inside.

 

The creation is something under your nose, each day. But because you have been taught since childhood that it is evolution, you haven't yet realized how brainwashed you have been.

 

It took me about ten years to fully UN-brainwash myself from evolution, which I accepted in my teens and early twenties, as a "fact".

 

Look around today. Look at how many trees there are. Look at the diversity in nature. Soak in it. Meditate on it, stare at it everyday, like I do. Stare at a tree for five minutes asking this to yourself; "could this create itself?......can all these things START in a swamp" - if you meditate on that question SERIOUSLY, for long enough, you will start to laugh at the question, for it is like asking, "can this artwork create itself".



#9 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 14 January 2016 - 05:36 AM

So we have the possibilities with Intelligent Design:

A. Infinite Regress

Claimed to be improbable.

-> not quantifiable, so not really a valid claim in a mathematical sense. 

If talking outside of mathematics, it is a matter of preference. 

 

Claimed to be impossible, often by the following syllogism:

(P1) An actual infinite cannot exist in reality.
(P2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(C1) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist in reality.
-> P2 is false due to an infinite temporal regress of events being a potential infinite. Therefore C1 is non-sequitur.
I realize of course this is not your syllogism, you don't need to defend it. If you have another, better to support your claim that an infinite regress is impossible, feel free to share.
 

B. Finite Regress

Proposed first step: God, it solves the infinite regress problem

-> Special pleading, it doesn't matter that the posterior solution is written down prior to your personal existence doesn't make it an apriori solution.

If you think the explanation has explanatory value, please explain the mechanism of creation of the first existence, in 5-10 lines. Me personally can't get beyond the first.

 

So you have to ask yourself - if the bible is just a lot of made up baloney, and God is baloney, then why does His characteristics solve these problems before these problems were even thought about? 

Interpretations of the Bible have changed in the past in order for it to incorporate the answers to arising problems. That is a fact.

Is it impossible that the solution you now find in the Bible is just such an interpretation to such a problem?

 

If the bible was made up by simple morons with no brains then why does it have the answers?

I don't think the Bible was made up by simple morons with no brains. A lot of the authors were pretty clever and the concili which helped shape the context likely consisted of a lot of smart men.
 

By definition, God is omniscient AND eternal. There never was a "time" He wasn't. There never was a thing He did not know. Which just happen to be two things which are required in order to create a time/space continuum and lifeforms.

A requirement relationship has not been shown.

 

The problem is you need to learn to think differently. For example Fjuri, yesterday I looked at some small birdems on the tv and I thought, "they're so cute and little, a perfect little thing", and then when I was sat in the park one flown past me like a bullet, and I REMEMBERED, they are not only aesthetically pleasing, but also aerodynamic. You see, everything in nature, is just so smart. There is just too much, OVER-design, which means there is an unnecessary amount of creativity, there is beauty MATCHED with intelligence every single time. It is not something that can be equated with a random evolution really, for what would we expect from a mindless evolution? The only logical answer is this; we wouldn't expect much.

I suppose you wouldn't expect much. Don't see this as an insult, I'll have time next week (as I think I told you) to go more into detail.

 

But the creation is MORE than, "much", it is the elephant-in-the-room, it is like going into an art gallery expecting to find a few pictures and instead you find out that the gallery itself is also one of the pieces of art, as well as everything inside.

 

The creation is something under your nose, each day. But because you have been taught since childhood that it is evolution, you haven't yet realized how brainwashed you have been.

I'm curious as to why you're writing this, what purpose does it have?

 

It took me about ten years to fully UN-brainwash myself from evolution, which I accepted in my teens and early twenties, as a "fact".

Ok. Thank you for sharing.

 

Look around today. Look at how many trees there are. Look at the diversity in nature. Soak in it. Meditate on it, stare at it everyday, like I do. Stare at a tree for five minutes asking this to yourself; "could this create itself?......can all these things START in a swamp" - if you meditate on that question SERIOUSLY, for long enough, you will start to laugh at the question, for it is like asking, "can this artwork create itself".

Hmmm, I'll have to create a topic on self-indoctrination some day as well.



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 January 2016 - 12:58 PM

:) Oh Fury-Fjuri, the codswallop thou dost speaketh. Canst thou argue with an irrefutable mikey-bull? Canst thou stand against a wave collapsing Enoch! The lies thou dost speaketh to thineself!

 

Enoch, I have a new name for Fury-Fjuri and Goku-Guru;

 

DUMB AND DUMBER.

 

Only I can't figure out which is which.  :farmer: 

 

(forgive my mischief Goku/Fjuri, what can I say, laughing at my own mischief gives me great pleasure, a lot more pleasure than wasting my knowledge on people who aren't interested in it. I have wasted my wisdom on a million evo-swine, and I just can't be bothered making it a million and one. ;)



#11 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 14 January 2016 - 01:44 PM

:) Oh Fury-Fjuri, the codswallop thou dost speaketh. Canst thou argue with an irrefutable mikey-bull? Canst thou stand against a wave collapsing Enoch! The lies thou dost speaketh to thineself!

 

Enoch, I have a new name for Fury-Fjuri and Goku-Guru;

 

DUMB AND DUMBER.

 

Only I can't figure out which is which.  :farmer: 

 

(forgive my mischief Goku/Fjuri, what can I say, laughing at my own mischief gives me great pleasure, a lot more pleasure than wasting my knowledge on people who aren't interested in it. I have wasted my wisdom on a million evo-swine, and I just can't be bothered making it a million and one. ;)

 

Right, the "logic pro" at his best.



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 January 2016 - 01:53 PM

Lighten up, Fjuri. It was only a bit of tongue-in-cheek, mischief.

 

Besides this thread is about the political motive of some atheists that desire for Christians to be evolutionist. I believe I have shown that it is in the atheist's interests to get Christians to be evolutionist, for the interests of atheism, as it gives an unspoken but OBVIOUS victory to atheism.



#13 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 14 January 2016 - 03:09 PM

You have only stated that because you cannot seem to separate ID from God, that atheists can't separate evolution from atheism.

 

I could refer to all the millions of theistic evolutionists out there to proof you wrong.

They're all just "non-intelligent" while you've seen the light.  :worship:



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 January 2016 - 03:33 PM

I don't remember saying you can't separate intelligent design from God. After all, God didn't design the carburetor

 

 

 

Fjuri: I could refer to all the millions of theistic evolutionists out there to proof you wrong

.

That wouldn't prove evolution wasn't basically an atheist philosophy, as you have committed the genetic fallacy.

 

For example, you could also show me millions of catholics that call themselves Christian but worship Mary, would that mean that the bible/Christianity, teaches that Mary was a person to be worshipped and prayed to?

 

So the "followers" of a principle or doctrine, do not determine the nature of the doctrine.

 

The fact that people that CLAIM to be Christian, also accept evolution, many of them, may well be caused by cultural conditioning. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is not atheistic. In fact evolution is a theory that has been accepted by scientists, which means that it shaves God away, using Occam's razor.

 

Darwin said that if his theory required God he would, "abandon" it. The theory of evolution tells us how the creatures got here, by natural causes alone, which is "not God", because creation is the teaching from the bible, which tells us that the universe needed God to be created, and the creatures needed God to be created.

 

So evolution is a theory that tells us that you only need evolution. To add "God" would be unparsimonious. Or are you arguing that evolution needs God?

 

(Ahah! Can you see how this last part highlighted in red, REVEALS your true motives, for if you truly wanted evolution to be accepted by theists for innocent reasons, then wouldn't you also tell us that it needs God? But notice that atheists do not argue that it needs God, in fact they argue that it does not need God while at the same time telling us to believe that we can believe that God had something to do with evolution.)

 

You can't have it both ways. Does evolution need God or does it not? If it doesn't, then don't tell us to be evolutionist. If it does, then preach to the world that evolution needs God.

 

Herein lies the atheist motive; that they want us to accept evolution, but they know that evolution is very much something that does not require God, according to scientific rules, which means they only want us to accept evolution so that atheism has an unspoken victory over theism. For why else would they want us to accept evolution given it favours a circumstance whereby God is not needed, such as a strictly materialistic, scientifically explainable universe?

 

I explained all that in the opening post.



#15 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 14 January 2016 - 04:06 PM

You have only stated that because you cannot seem to separate ID from God, that atheists can't separate evolution from atheism.

 

I could refer to all the millions of theistic evolutionists out there to proof you wrong.

They're all just "non-intelligent" while you've seen the light.  :worship:

 

Quite. Except that you should change the 'non-intelligent' to 'cowardly acquiescence to Darwniain intimidation'



#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:47 AM

I could refer to all the millions of theistic evolutionists out there to proof you wrong.

They're all just "non-intelligent" while you've seen the light.  :worship:

 

Quite. Except that you should change the 'non-intelligent' to 'cowardly acquiescence to Darwniain intimidation'

Interesting......

 

As a theistic evolutionist, the only intimidation I've ever experienced has come from YEC.



#17 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 January 2016 - 01:19 AM

I don't remember saying you can't separate intelligent design from God. After all, God didn't design the carburetor

Reread your post #1 and #8.

"My point is, that TECHNICALLY intelligent design doesn't involve the supernatural, so atheists can accept it but we all know that it would be to my advantage as a Christian if intelligent design was accepted because even though technically it doesn't prove God exists, nevertheless ID and God are like salt and vinegar. ID and God are like hotdogs and mustard."

 

"But the creation is MORE than, "much", it is the elephant-in-the-room, it is like going into an art gallery expecting to find a few pictures and instead you find out that the gallery itself is also one of the pieces of art, as well as everything inside."

I know you're making abductive conclusions so technically you're making no separating conclusions at all, but you're clearly identifying your position as if these are inseparable.

 

That wouldn't prove evolution wasn't basically an atheist philosophy, as you have committed the genetic fallacy.

1. Evolution is not a philosophy... Didn't you say you we weren't allowed to go for the "ID = religion" derail?

2. The theory of evolution makes no statements regarding deities, there exist theists (=believers in God) that have an interpretation of God that does not clash with the theory of evolution. Therefor they can go hand in hand. As a reference to the interpretation I refer to theistic evolutionists.

 

For example, you could also show me millions of Catholics that call themselves Christian but worship Mary, would that mean that the bible/Christianity, teaches that Mary was a person to be worshipped and prayed to?

 

So the "followers" of a principle or doctrine, do not determine the nature of the doctrine.

No true Scotsman fallacy. And I didn't even say Christians, I said "theistic evolutionist".

 

The fact that people that CLAIM to be Christian, also accept evolution, many of them, may well be caused by cultural conditioning. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is not atheistic. In fact evolution is a theory that has been accepted by scientists, which means that it shaves God away, using Occam's razor.

You're really fond of abductive reasoning, aren't you? Occam's razor is limited to abductive reasoning and cannot be used to make conclusive conclusions. The theory of evolution doesn't mention God, so no conclusions regarding God can be made based on that alone.

 

Darwin said that if his theory required God he would, "abandon" it. The theory of evolution tells us how the creatures got here, by natural causes alone, which is "not God", because creation is the teaching from the bible, which tells us that the universe needed God to be created, and the creatures needed God to be created.

I don't care what Darwin said in his personal philosophy. Argument from authority.

 

So evolution is a theory that tells us that you only need evolution. To add "God" would be unparsimonious. Or are you arguing that evolution needs God?

 

(Ahah! Can you see how this last part highlighted in red, REVEALS your true motives, for if you truly wanted evolution to be accepted by theists for innocent reasons, then wouldn't you also tell us that it needs God? But notice that atheists do not argue that it needs God, in fact they argue that it does not need God while at the same time telling us to believe that we can believe that God had something to do with evolution.)

 

You can't have it both ways. Does evolution need God or does it not? If it doesn't, then don't tell us to be evolutionist. If it does, then preach to the world that evolution needs God.

False dichotomy

You can have a God separate from an algorithm that created the diversity of life. He can even intervene when needed/wanted.

 

Why the hell would I tell that the algorithm needs God though? If I argue for evolution, I make no assessment on the existence of God. I do make an assessment on your interpretation of God, but I hoped you'd be honest (to yourself at least) enough to realize that there's a chance, however small that that interpretation might not be 100% correct.

How sure are you of your interpretation of God? (0-100%)

 

Herein lies the atheist motive; that they want us to accept evolution, but they know that evolution is very much something that does not require God, according to scientific rules, which means they only want us to accept evolution so that atheism has an unspoken victory over theism. For why else would they want us to accept evolution given it favours a circumstance whereby God is not needed, such as a strictly materialistic, scientifically explainable universe?

 

I explained all that in the opening post.

This entire topic is based on a mind projection fallacy. Your explanations are claims made within your own perspective, projecting at others.

 

So your last post was:

- Faulty interpreting the genetic fallacy

- No true Scotsman Fallacy

- Faulty application of Occam's Razor

- Argument from Authority

- False Dichotomy

- Mind projection fallacy

 

You're on a roll, man.

 

Quite. Except that you should change the 'non-intelligent' to 'cowardly acquiescence to Darwniain intimidation'

The arrogance is stunning.



#18 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 January 2016 - 01:43 AM

I don't remember saying you can't separate intelligent design from God. After all, God didn't design the carburetor

Come on, Mike, we all know the identity of the Designer, don't we?

 

....This does not mean that the theory of evolution is not atheistic. In fact evolution is a theory that has been accepted by scientists, which means that it shaves God away, using Occam's razor.

The exact same thing can be said of gravitational theory; the germ theory of disease; kinetic theory; nuclear theory; or any other scientific theory.  So what?

 

Darwin said that if his theory required God he would, "abandon" it.

Really?   I had never heard that.  Do you have a reference?

 

The theory of evolution tells us how the creatures got here, by natural causes alone, which is "not God", because creation is the teaching from the bible, which tells us that the universe needed God to be created, and the creatures needed God to be created.

 

So evolution is a theory that tells us that you only need evolution. To add "God" would be unparsimonious. Or are you arguing that evolution needs God?

See above about gravitational theory, etc....

 

(Ahah! Can you see how this last part highlighted in red, REVEALS your true motives, for if you truly wanted evolution to be accepted by theists for innocent reasons, then wouldn't you also tell us that it needs God? But notice that atheists do not argue that it needs God, in fact they argue that it does not need God while at the same time telling us to believe that we can believe that God had something to do with evolution.)

Silly of me .... I thought God can do whatever He wants.

 

Herein lies the atheist motive; that they want us to accept evolution, but they know that evolution is very much something that does not require God, according to scientific rules, which means they only want us to accept evolution so that atheism has an unspoken victory over theism. For why else would they want us to accept evolution given it favours a circumstance whereby God is not needed, such as a strictly materialistic, scientifically explainable universe?

Key term "according to scientific rules."  You don't object to the exclusion of God in kinetic theory, do you?

 

Science is necessarily materialistic and naturalistic in terms of its methodology.  In terms of philosophy/theology, science is properly agnostic..... as is evolution.


  • Goku likes this

#19 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 January 2016 - 04:38 AM

Piasan said:

 

Science is necessarily materialistic and naturalistic in terms of its methodology. In terms of philosophy/theology, science is properly agnostic..... as is evolution.


Lol This can happen when we use multiple code names for the same core idea. Now you know I am not going to let you get away with peroniyfying an idea or concept.

Science is nothing more than glorified reasoning--the answer to the question, "what caused 'this' effect'"? God says, "Come let us reason together...". God can make theories (ask and answer quesions). Notice Him asking Adam, "Have you eaten of the tree where of I comanded you not to eat of"?

There are no limits on our reasoning process. We can think anything we want! Test my hypothesis and see if "the thought police" arrest you? lol :)



#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 15 January 2016 - 05:00 AM

 

Fjuri: So your last post was:

- Faulty interpreting the genetic fallacy

- No true Scotsman Fallacy

- Faulty application of Occam's Razor

- Argument from Authority

- False Dichotomy

- Mind projection fallacy

 

The genetic fallacy, is perhaps the only charge you have against me, because what I really meant was that you can't define what evolution is based on those who follow it.

 

For example, there are people who, in a superficial way - "follow Christ" because they think He was an alien, but would that have anything to do with what Christianity is?

 

As for the "no true scotsman", you are quite wrong about that because I did not claim that a catholic is not a true Christian. 

 

As for Occam's razor, you again wrong, Occam's razor is based on the principle of parsimony, and to say that evolution requires or needs God in some way would be an unparsimonious argument because evolution is an explanation that does not require any supernatural premises or inferences, it is a methodologically natural, "theory" (weak theory at that)

 

As for "argument from authority" (argumentum ad verecundiam), I didn't ARGUE anything, I just said that Darwin himself acknowledged parsimony because he would never submit a theory that required a God-of-the-gaps inference.

 

"Mind projection" fallacy? Not really, it can be SHOWN that there is a political/unspoken advantage, in accepting a theory which directly implies that God is not needed to create the creatures. There is definitely an advantage to atheism over theism. Goku even somewhat ADMITS that he has an agenda in getting me to accept evolution. I don't say that to falsely represent him, if I have misunderstood him then fine, but the point is that it can be shown that there is an OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE to atheism, if evolution is accepted, and an OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE to theism, if intelligent design is accepted, because atheism and evolution work nicely as they both only require natural explanations, processes with established causes, but intelligent design definitely requires an intelligent agent of IMMENSE intelligence, and perhaps even omniscience.

 

So 1. Perhaps you are correct about me using the genetic-fallacy, but it is a similar mistake.

 

2, False dichotomy? No, because I think the law of the excluded middle applies.

 

"either evolution requires God or it does not"

 

Because it can be shown that the theory does NOT require God, then why tell Christians to accept evolution when it is a Godless theory of creation? so I win, 5-1. :) :acigar: 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users