LP675

Ok, instead of bothering with supernaturalism versus ‘philosophical naturalism’ lets cut to the chase and ask: “What choice do those who don’t believe in the existence of an extraterrestrial being powerful enough to create spontaneously from nothing all we observe on earth (i.e. God) have besides the theory of evolution to account for humanity, and life as it exists today?

MadMez

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I have the choice of any other theorum, idea or hypothesis that can equal or excede evolution in scientific vailidity to explain how we got here. And that wouldn't be this super-dooper being or yours.

"....I would rather belong to that race that commenced a skull-less vertebrate and produced Shakespeare, a race that has before it an infinite future, with the angel of progress beckoning forward, upward and onward forever - I had rather belong to such a race, commencing there, producing this, and with that hope, than to have sprung from a perfect pair upon which the Lord has lost money every moment from that day to this."

Ingersoll 1877.

LP675

, sure. So give me an example of another viable theory.

Sven

The fact that I indeed do this (compare posts #63 and #68) and the fact that you ignored the repeated part suggests that you either don't read my posts carefully enough and missed it or that you are either not willing or not able to answer my point.

After several repetitions you still don't get the point. If we adopt the hypothesis that life was designed (to some amount), we quickly see that this designer was stupid and/or malevolent. It is you who makes the link designer=God, not us - we never claimed that God is stupid and/or malevolent, because we have no reason to make this equivocation. So you have to find an explanation why the designer, who is your God according to you, looks stupid and/or malevolent.

Since you carefully managed to misunderstand the point again and again, it's a little bit ironic to accuse me/us of being childish.

Andrew_theist

Hello Clive,

This thread is completely out of my hands so I might as well respond to your post.

My view is that Genesis is a theological treatise and not a historical or scientific account of creation. Its primary concern is about the condition of people in relation to God. I agree God would not have originally created a formless and void earth and so this has caused much speculation. I don’t spend too much time worrying about it I am primarily a NT believer.

I think they are unduly impressed with the evidence in favor of evolution. On the other hand it shows that evolution one way or the other is not a drop dead issue for Christians and theists. Can the same be said for atheists? Evolution or some mechanistic method of developing the species we observe MUST be true or atheism is false. So it is not theists whose worldview depends on the truth of evolution. This probably explains why my voicing mere skepticism of evolution is met with such ferocity.

Clive there are scientists who believe in evolution who are not convinced the theory is sufficient to produce the effects we now observe. There are scientists who are skeptical that mutations and natural selection over time alone can produce the variety of species on earth. Though few there are some scientists who are openly critical of evolutionary theory at least as it stands today, doesn’t mean they are opposed to it or are for ‘special creation’ they just see serious holes and gaps that need filling.

Well this is off topic but I think some of Dawkins thinking is mumbo jumbo like for example the idea of memes is wild.

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pj_robotrebellion.htm

Please visit The Deep End for spirited but friendly discussion.

Plognark

Umm...pardon my bluntness...but....out of who or what's ass did this get pulled from?

Oikoman

Um... who? And what alternative mechanism to mutation and natural selection are they proposing? Not to rehash something that has been covered again and again on these forums, but none of the so-called scientific criticism that is tossed out has any merit beyond personal increduality, and none of the alternative mechanisms that are proposed are anything more than versions of "God-of-the-Gaps".

Jet Black

how many of these scientists are called steve?
what's wrong with memes?

MadMez

I don't need one. For me, Evolution satisfies all tests. Or even better, how 'bout I trade you one for the medial evidence you were going to get for the miracle child healing you posted?

Peez

Really? On what do you base this? Are you familiar with the evidence for evolution? What is lacking? Please be specific.Clearly, though many creationists disagree with that assessment.No, though this is hardly relevant.Perhap they were always here. That being said, I agree that before evolution atheists had to answer the question of how all those species came to be with "I don't know."Neither is it atheists. If evolution was shown to be false, this would not provide any evidence for or against the existence of god(s). In other words, evolution being true is not required for atheists. Note that you stated: "Evolution or some mechanistic method of developing the species we observe MUST be true or atheism is false." (emphasis mine). Obviously this implies that atheism may be compatible with some other "mechanistic method of developing the species." However, given that it is a scientific fact that we have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors, and the theory of evolution provides an excellent explanation for the mechanisms involved in that evolution, I don't see the point of this exercise.Ferocity? That seems like hyperbole. You have shown up and made vague claims about evolution without providing any evidence at all. You have implied that those who accept evolution are not "free thinkers." You have made elemental errors of biology. Others have tried to correct these errors, and challenged you to explain yourself and provide evidence to support your position. It seems rather odd that you would react in this way.I don't know any scientists who "believe in evolution" any more than I know scientists who "believe in gravity." Scientists accept the scientific fact of evolution, and accept the theory of evolution as a very good explanation (not to mention the only scientific explanation known).I don't know any scientists who thinks that "mutations and natural selection over time alone can produce the variety of species on earth." You are attacking a "straw man" (a caricature of evolution, one that nobody actually accepts).There are many scientists who are "critical" of certain parts of evolutionary theory, just as there are many scientists who are "critical" of certain aspects of gravitational theory. That is why research continues in these fields. However, you seem to be implying that scientists doubt that the theory of evolution is tenable. Apart from a very few ideologically-motivated individuals, virtually all biologists accept the theory of evolution as much as physicists accept the theory of gravity.

Peez