Consequent Infidel

any thoughts regarding if it is logically and scientifically false? I had a long disscussion on this with a theist....

he believs that evolution are stages of creation till it reaches its latest state, any ideas ?

he also believs that even if evolution is by natural selection then it shouldnt contradict with the existence of a creator because it all is under his pre-OMNISCIENCE and will.

Doubting Didymus

Well, in the form you describe it, it's as illogical as any other unevidenced belief. Scientifically it's as unacceptable as any other unfalsifyable hypothesis. Naturally, it doesn't contradict the idea of a creator, any more than it contradicts the idea of a teapot orbiting pluto, but it does prop up some hurdles for the idea of a designer.

However, it sounds to me like you aren't describing theistic evolution as I understand it at all. You seem to be dealing with progressive creationism, which holds that successive groups of creatures were created and systematically replaced, without any species ever giving rise to another. This is a claim that makes a multitude of predictions from modern genomes and the fossil record, none of which hold up. Theistic evolution as I understand it, is simply the total acceptance of modern evolutionary theory and the belief in a god at the same time. That is a proposition that makes NO predictions, and so can not be called unscientific or illogical (you could logically argue against the existance of god, but not against the coupling of these two beliefs so long as they are held apart from each other in their respective factual claims).

Consequent Infidel

so there is no contradiction Between existence of a creator and evolution , nor there is a way to prove it wrong?

however the point i usually rise is Why would a supreme Beeing with infinite Power and Will need to creat By evolution instead of instant creation?

is it because He is NOT ABLE to creat his creatures instantly?

If that's the reason...then his absolute Beeing and power is questioned

Doubting Didymus

Quite, but at that point you are arguing against the existance/modern perception of god by the incompatible properties arguments, rather than aguing against the coexistance of the two positions.

Remember that the species of theistic evolutionism I am referring to is that fairly rare breed that makes precisely no factual claims about the natural world. Evolution is NOT compatible with anything that takes the bible remotely literally, or anything that proposes intelligent guided processes post-abiogenesis.

Warcraft3

Consequent Infidel:

Well He would not NEED to do it in any particular way, but He COULD do it anyway He chose to. So I think the question from my persepctive is how DID He create. Questions of why He choose this method over that method are as unanswerable to me as other questions concerning intelligent beings. I often question why some people like pineapple or watch any program on the WB channel, but I just can not answer them satisfactorily.

I mean pineapple is just wrong and the WB shows are outright blasphemy against all that is entertaining.

No. It is simply a choice He is free to make. To quote a recent movie "The problem is choice."


Russ

Warcraft3

I make the factual claim that listening to any song by Britany Spears is harmful to all forms of life

\
Gotta disagree on that one. I do not see why it is not compatible with either one.


Russ

emotional

That's right. That's what good about it. Impervious to any evidence to the contrary.

No. God is perfectly able to create the universe in 6 days 6000 years ago as described in the Bible, but He chose not to do so. He chose to give the creation a part in the creative process. John Haught elaborated on that theme.

Roland98

Logically, it makes little sense to me--why would an all-powerful, all-knowing being use evolution as a "mechanism" to arrive at man? In that manner, the creation story actually makes more sense.

But hey, if some want to believe that, it's fine with me. If they need God for whatever reason, and can reconcile evolution with it, more power to them. At least they're adjusting their theology to deal with the reality, rather than changing reality in order to fit theology.

Warcraft3

Logically? Well, why would a being such as God logically create ANYTHING by ANY METHOD? Why logically would He NOT create anything?

Why logically did someone write "The cat in the hat"? Why logically did I decide to make this section blue?
Who knows? People and animals make choices and so can God. His choices do not have to be logical or even understandable to be choices.

Yes, yes I need God to make up for the many emotional and intellectual weaknesses I have. I just can not deal with the cold hard truth of atheism :boohoo: Oh woe is me!!!........

Please......spare me the physco-babble bull%$^&.


Well, I am not really adjusting my theology by considering TE as a possibility.


Russ

WinAce

There's a potent Argument from Laziness and Brutality to be made against theistic evolution, as AiG knows all too well... but in the end, if a person can already find a way to fit gratuitous suffering and a loving, all-powerful and all-knowing god into the same universe, fitting a god and the frankensteinian side effects of evolution as a creative process in won't be a problem...