FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Science & Skepticism > Evolution/Creation
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-24-2004, 07:26 AM   #61
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here
Posts: 10,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IAsimisI
I have not denied that Evolution has occured. I think Evolution is a proven fact, the only thing I am not clear yet is how Macroevolution resulted from Microevolution+Time, but I have been looking into it as of late. But I do not see Evolution and God as mutually exclusive.
I know. I didn't want to suggest that you object to evolution. Again: The only point is that an explanation involving a god is not scientific. You can believe as long as you wish in theistic evolution, I'm the last who would object to this.
Edited to add: As I already wrote several times: If you believe in theistic evolution, you are faced to find an explanation for bad design. But since this is only a variation of the "problem of evil" and theists usually don't think it's a problem, I guess you think you have a sufficient explanation for it.
Sven is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 08:58 AM   #62
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: southeast
Posts: 2,526
Cool Proof that ID is not Science

Quote:
Originally Posted by IAsimisI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid
But what happens if we reverse engineer organisms, and discover that the designer was an idiot?
How about we keep the discussion civil and profitable?
Actually, trying to reverse engineer the designer is proof that the ID movement is not science, but religion in disguise. The ID proponents refuse to address the issue of ‘what can we learn about the designer by examining trends in the designs?’

The clear conclusion is that the designer (assuming there was one), was a committee of idiot savants. There are clear examples of horrible mistakes, inefficient design, and competing designs. Some design features are quite ingenious, but they are sitting right next to amateur mistakes.

Because this is not the conclusion that the ID proponents are looking for, they pretend that the issue is off limits and refuse to discuss it. Anyone with a real scientific motive, such as our illustrious Oolon, is more than happy to work on reverse engineering the designer. Therefore, ID is not science, but religion trying to disguise its nature.
Asha'man is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 09:13 AM   #63
RBH
Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 15,407
Default

Asha'man wrote
Quote:
The clear conclusion is that the designer (assuming there was one), was a committee of idiot savants. There are clear examples of horrible mistakes, inefficient design, and competing designs. Some design features are quite ingenious, but they are sitting right next to amateur mistakes.
Once again, Multiple Designers Theory rears its head!

RBH
RBH is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 09:21 AM   #64
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: .............
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asha'man
The clear conclusion is that the designer (assuming there was one), was a committee of idiot savants. There are clear examples of horrible mistakes, inefficient design, and competing designs. Some design features are quite ingenious, but they are sitting right next to amateur mistakes.
Yeah yeah..God is an idiot..
No wonder we are done in his image
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Evoken is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 09:26 AM   #65
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here
Posts: 10,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IAsimisI
Yeah yeah..God is an idiot..
No wonder we are done in his image
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Why I get the impression that I repeat myself?

"If you believe in theistic evolution, you are faced to find an explanation for bad design. But since this is only a variation of the "problem of evil" and theists usually don't think it's a problem, I guess you think you have a sufficient explanation for it."
Sven is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 09:33 AM   #66
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: .............
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven
Why I get the impression that I repeat myself?
Actually Sven, you are not repeating yourself. This topic was started by someone who had questions about Evolution(I am one who has questions too) not as an ID or Creationist topic nor as a Goddidit type explanations or God bashing..just about Evolution.

For some odd reason..the atheists here like to mix Evolution with God(something that is totally unreleated to Evolution per se) and like to use Evolution to support their God bashing. This I see as childish and not even objective, no wonder Creationist are so opossed to Evolution..it is because of the bias of people who combine the Evolution theory with atheists propaganda.
Evoken is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 09:37 AM   #67
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IAsimisI
Actually Sven, you are not repeating yourself. This topic was started by someone who had questions about Evolution(I am one who has questions too) not as an ID or Creationist topic nor as a Goddidit type explanations or God bashing..just about Evolution.

For some odd reason..the atheists here like to mix Evolution with God(something that is totally unreleated to Evolution per se) and like to use Evolution to support their God bashing. This I see as childish and not even objective, no wonder Creationist are so opossed to Evolution..it is because of the bias of people who combine the Evolution theory with atheists propaganda.
If you get the creationists to cut the shit with "Evolution is a plot against god!" we'll stop mixing the two issues together.

I can't roll my eyes far enough. They'll fall out of my head.
Plognark is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 09:47 AM   #68
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: .............
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plognark
If you get the creationists to cut the shit with "Evolution is a plot against god!" we'll stop mixing the two issues together.
Well as far as I know..Creationists..well YECs..are the smal minority, the only difference is that they are the most active or simply the loudest ones. But their "Evolution is a plot against god" is the result of a fundamentalist mindset or simply cognitive dissonance as I said earlier. But if when faced with an explanation about Evolution they enconuter in it some God bashing..they will..obviously reject it as a plot against God.
Evoken is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 09:53 AM   #69
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IAsimisI
Well as far as I know..Creationists..well YECs..are the smal minority, the only difference is that they are the most active or simply the loudest ones. But their "Evolution is a plot against god" is the result of a fundamentalist mindset or simply cognitive dissonance as I said earlier. But if when faced with an explanation about Evolution they enconuter in it some God bashing..they will..obviously reject it as a plot against God.
True, however this:

Quote:
For some odd reason..the atheists here like to mix Evolution with God(something that is totally unreleated to Evolution per se) and like to use Evolution to support their God bashing. This I see as childish and not even objective, no wonder Creationist are so opossed to Evolution..it is because of the bias of people who combine the Evolution theory with atheists propaganda.
Is equally reactionary/inflamatory.

Plus, it's not the fault of the atheists/agnostics/evolutionists that the stories of the bible do not match with observed evidence in reality. If you want to accept the biblical stories of creation as literal, then you can't have mainstream evolution. If you want mainstream evolution, you can't have a literal interpretation of genesis. There is no other option other than accepting them as some sort of myth or perhaps as being metaphorical. Or rather, no other rational option.
Plognark is offline  
Old 08-24-2004, 10:11 AM   #70
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: .............
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plognark
Is equally reactionary/inflamatory.
Well it was not meant to be so..only speaking about many examples I was starting to see.

Quote:
Plus, it's not the fault of the atheists/agnostics/evolutionists that the stories of the bible do not match with observed evidence in reality. If you want to accept the biblical stories of creation as literal, then you can't have mainstream evolution. If you want mainstream evolution, you can't have a literal interpretation of genesis. There is no other option other than accepting them as some sort of myth or perhaps as being metaphorical. Or rather, no other rational option.
I agree on both points. In my opinion I don't think that The Bible needs to have the whole Evolutionary process in order to be valid or not I see it more as a summary of the creation and something that mirrors the following events. Altho if you read Genesis 1(KJV) you will see that all of creation was created thru the earth/water and not directly by God.
Evoken is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:58 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.