Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Plognark · 08-24-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAsimisI

Well it was not meant to be so..only speaking about many examples I was starting to see.

Ok, fair enough

Quote:

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 not directly by God.

Now, if you would, please help us deal with the literal interpretation innerantists...

Peez · 08-24-2004, 11:10 AM

Quote:

IAsimisI:
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.

My irony meter just got fried.

From Answers in Genesis, Darwin's slippery slide into unbelief:

Quote:

Charles Darwin's thinking and writing on the subject of evolution and natural selection caused him to reject the evidence for God in nature and ultimately to renounce the Bible, God, and the Christian faith.

and Darwin's real message: have you missed it?:

Quote:

In summary, then, Darwin was fully aware that his idea was a frontal assault on the very notion of an intelligent Designer behind the world. In fact, he might very well have formulated it precisely for that purpose. The idea of a spiritual realm apart from matter seems to have been anathema to him as a young man already. The primary inspiration for his theory of natural selection did not come from observation of nature. Perhaps not incidentally, his writings also reveal glimpses of specific antipathy to the God of the Bible, especially concerning His right to judge unbelievers in eternity.

From Creation Science Evangelism ("Dr. Dino"), Positive Testimonies:

Quote:

I give a lot of the credit for my damaged faith to the teachings of evolution in high school...

and What Happened to the Dinosaurs?:

Quote:

Evolution serves as the foundational basis for the religions of humanism and atheism. These world views are popular because man, instead of God, decides on rules and moral standards.

From The Evolution Deceit, WHY THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?:

Quote:

For some people the theory of evolution or Darwinism has only scientific connotations, with seemingly no direct implication in their daily lives. This is, of course, a common misunderstanding. Far beyond just being an issue within the framework of the biological sciences, the theory of evolution constitutes the underpinning of a deceptive philosophy that has held sway over a large number of people: Materialism.

and A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE THEORY:

Quote:

The theory of evolution is the outcome of the materialist philosophy that surfaced with the reawakening of ancient materialistic philosophies and became widespread in the 19th century. As we have indicated before, materialism seeks to explain nature through purely material factors.

From the Institute for Creation Research, SHOULD A CHRISTIAN BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?:

Quote:

Thus, evolution is not really a science but a religious philosophy... The faith of Biblical Christianity is diametrically opposite to that of evolution...

and GOD'S PLAN FOR YOUR LIFE:

Quote:

Evolution is essentially a humanistic philosophy designed to provide an escape from belief in the true God, not a science based on factual evidence.

Of course there have been numerous creationist posts here that have claimed that evolution is specifically incompatable with the existence of a god, but the Search funtion does not seem to be working. Sure, there are atheists who make this mistake, but in my experience it is creationists who are far more likely to do so.

Peez

Plognark · 08-24-2004, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peez

Of course there have been numerous creationist posts here that have claimed that evolution is specifically incompatable with the existence of a god, but the Search funtion does not seem to be working. Sure, there are atheists who make this mistake, but in my experience it is creationists who are far more likely to do so.

Peez

I would also like to point out that, quite often, the non-believer will argue against religion using evolution simply in response to some bone-headed baseless and hostile assertion from a fundamentalist of one type or another.

Great post, btw Peez :notworthy

Evoken · 08-24-2004, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peez

Of course there have been numerous creationist posts here that have claimed that evolution is specifically incompatable with the existence of a god, but the Search funtion does not seem to be working. Sure, there are atheists who make this mistake, but in my experience it is creationists who are far more likely to do so.

I don't agree(as I have been saying already) with Answers in Genesis or any other descendant of that bloodline. I have also pointed out why I don't AND what I think they are doing wrong. I am aware of the "Evolution is against God" progapagnda that is spouted by them and also about their "attacks" at Evolution and think that they are being dishonest about it all.

As for the atheist who make the same mistake..there are fundamentalists on all sides.

Peez · 08-24-2004, 01:01 PM

Quote:

IAsimisI:
I don't agree(as I have been saying already) with Answers in Genesis or any other descendant of that bloodline.

I never stated or implied that you did.

Quote:

I have also pointed out why I don't AND what I think they are doing wrong.

I am glad to hear it.

Quote:

I am aware of the "Evolution is against God" progapagnda that is spouted by them and also about their "attacks" at Evolution and think that they are being dishonest about it all.

Cool.

Quote:

As for the atheist who make the same mistake..there are fundamentalists on all sides.

Sure, but as I pointed out: this is the rule in the creationist camp, it is the exception in the scientific camp. If I may quote your earlier post:

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.

So you make a blanket statement about the "atheists here" when only a rare individual atheist here might make this error, and in the face of the fact that this error is very much more common among the creationists. You go on to suggest that the propagation of this error makes creationists more opposed to evolution, which may well be one of the reasons that creationists push it so often. I found this to be, well, odd.

Peez

Sparrow · 08-24-2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IAsimisI

As for the atheist who make the same mistake..there are fundamentalists on all sides.

I don't know how one can be a fundamentalist atheist. There is no doctrine or ancient writing to adhere to. Most atheists I know subscribe to the scientific method, which requires correction as new conflicting information is acquired. Compared to most religions, which require a list of beliefs to be held, atheism requires only one lack of belief.

Atheists can be strident, obnoxious, intolerant, annoying and have many other characteristics you might dislike. Atheists can also be compassionate, kind, considerate, generous, helpful and have many other characteristics you might encourage. Atheists may or may not be evolutionists. Evolutionists may or may not be atheists. I think it is very hard, if not impossible, to reconcile a literal interpretation of Genesis with a belief in descent from a common ancestor. Hence those who argue for such descent will necessarily refute the assertions of flood geology and a young earth, usually motivated by a literal belief in the bible. I don't recall anyone in this thread asserting that falsity of flood geology and a young earth implies Christianity (or for that matter, Deism) is false. Finding such problems in the bible might give one pause as to whether the document is inerrant or if it should be taken literally, but that is another forum.

When a poster arrives in this forum with a comment along the lines of 'I'm skeptical of evolution', some of us might make the assumption that the poster thinks creationism or ID to be more likely, especially if they claim to be a theist. It seems the overwhelming majority of those who post such claims are devotees of sites like AiG. We must react not only to the lack of education most people have on the subject, but also the miseducation many anti-evolutionists generate, especially reminding people often that evolution does not address the origin of life or the origin of the universe.

If I've miscategorized anyone or unfairly jumped to a conclusion, I apologize.

JLK · 08-24-2004, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LP675

I see no one answered my question.
...philosophical naturalism...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLK

Could you please explain/define "supernaturalism�?…

No, Why should I?

Because until you do, everyone here is going to call you a "philosophical naturalist" and not answer any of your questions dissing "philosophical naturalism".

Define, or join everyone.

Albion · 08-24-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Thats the problem with creationist ideas... if you try to determine the nature of the "creator" based on his designs, you come up with a fool, a madman, or someone with a sick sense of humor.

Which is why the IDists aren't keen to include the nature of the designer in the "scientific" search for intelligent design. Their candidate isn't up for negotiation, and if he doesn't happen to fit the criteria implied by the evidence, then the criteria have to be declared irrelevant. All of which goes to show what a waste of time it all is.

Clivedurdle · 08-24-2004, 03:40 PM

Hi Andrew!

My apologies, I've not been to your site for a while!

I'm interested in your skepticism about evolution, and also in the comments by others that evolution is compatible with religion - answering how and not why questions.

My personal background was strongly xian, but one where conflict with scientific world views were avoided for example by sleights of hand, that the dinosaurs occurred in a gap in Genesis 1 v 1 - God would not have originally created a formless and void earth!

Other posters have used other sleights of hand - God allowing evolution so he does not know the results of his actions is one.

I've just been on holiday, and bought a souvenir - Darwin, the Voyages of the Beagle ( has anyone like Attenborough made a film of this, it would be superb!). When he is in South America, he sees a cliff face cut away by a river, half way up a skeleton is sticking out! The locals are mystified how such a large creature that does not look like anything they know could have flown into and got embedded in the cliff face!

Evolution - and the related science - Andrew you should probably extend your scepticism to Lyell's Principles of Geology as well - really cannot be questioned as it is all completely interrelated and scepticism about evolution also needs to question just about all scientific thinking.

Popper defined religions as being in a category of not proveable, not disproveable.

Personally, I think atheists like Dawkins are correct to slam religious thinking. Why is not any religious thinking, no matter how liberal, really mumbo jumbo?

When epileptic seizures create an aura of god presense, has not the how and the why become completely interelated, and religiously based answers to why questions become invalid?

OneWayTraffic · 08-24-2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm not sure why you think the evidence is meager. Perhaps you haven't really been exposed to the bulk of it. Read, study, ask questions, learn - I think you'll end up convinced. If evolution as a scientific theory is wrong, I think it will be shown wrong in a similar way that Newton's theory of gravity is 'wrong' (fails at relativistic speeds, but substantially correct). In other words, there may be a few details we don't understand, but it's basically correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

...the evidence is meager ... evolution as a scientific theory is wrong, I think it will be shown wrong ... few details ...we don't understand.

I knew it! Even the most diehard evilutionists agree; evolution is false! Praise the lord!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-24-2004, 03:40 PM	#79
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Hi Andrew! My apologies, I've not been to your site for a while! I'm interested in your skepticism about evolution, and also in the comments by others that evolution is compatible with religion - answering how and not why questions. My personal background was strongly xian, but one where conflict with scientific world views were avoided for example by sleights of hand, that the dinosaurs occurred in a gap in Genesis 1 v 1 - God would not have originally created a formless and void earth! Other posters have used other sleights of hand - God allowing evolution so he does not know the results of his actions is one. I've just been on holiday, and bought a souvenir - Darwin, the Voyages of the Beagle ( has anyone like Attenborough made a film of this, it would be superb!). When he is in South America, he sees a cliff face cut away by a river, half way up a skeleton is sticking out! The locals are mystified how such a large creature that does not look like anything they know could have flown into and got embedded in the cliff face! Evolution - and the related science - Andrew you should probably extend your scepticism to Lyell's Principles of Geology as well - really cannot be questioned as it is all completely interrelated and scepticism about evolution also needs to question just about all scientific thinking. Popper defined religions as being in a category of not proveable, not disproveable. Personally, I think atheists like Dawkins are correct to slam religious thinking. Why is not any religious thinking, no matter how liberal, really mumbo jumbo? When epileptic seizures create an aura of god presense, has not the how and the why become completely interelated, and religiously based answers to why questions become invalid?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.