If Evolution

6days

6days

New member
Silent Hunter said:
Are you saying you've never used goddidit to support any argument and it can't be shown you did? Seriously?!
Click to expand...
What I said was "Post a quote in context and we can see."... Otherwise you are just making strawmen arguments.
(And, then we can look to see if you have ever used evolutiondidit to support any argument)
Context is important...right?
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
OK, Mr. KnowItAll, How did life begin?
Click to expand...

I don't need to be a 'know it all' to know that the theory of evolution has never espoused 'chemicals miraculously coming to life'. You seem to be conflating evolution with something else entirely, somehow. Where did you study science exactly?

:AMR:
 
6days

6days

New member
Arthur Brain said:
I don't need to be a 'know it all' to know that the theory of evolution has never espoused 'chemicals miraculously coming to life'. You seem to be conflating evolution with something else entirely, somehow. Where did you study science exactly?
:AMR:
Click to expand...
Wait... Wait.... It seems many evolutionists are too embarrassed to admit they believe that life came from non-life so they pooh pooh anybody who blurs the line between chemical evolution and biological evolution. But... atheists in particular have no choice other than to believe their is just a progression of chemicals that can eventually evolve into chemists.

In fact, many evolutionists (MANY) refer to abiogenesis as part of the evolution process. For example from a Harvard website... www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_chem.html
"...suggest that life is a logical result of known physical and chemical properties operating within the atomic and molecular realm. Furthermore the origin of life itself seems a natural consequence of the evolution of that matter..."
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
6days said:
Wait... Wait.... It seems many evolutionists are too embarrassed to admit they believe that life came from non-life so they pooh pooh anybody who blurs the line between chemical evolution and biological evolution. But... atheists in particular have no choice other than to believe their is just a progression of chemicals that can eventually evolve into chemists.

In fact, many evolutionists (MANY) refer to abiogenesis as part of the evolution process. For example from a Harvard website... www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_chem.html
"...suggest that life is a logical result of known physical and chemical properties operating within the atomic and molecular realm. Furthermore the origin of life itself seems a natural consequence of the evolution of that matter..."
Click to expand...

I'm not an atheist, an "evolutionist" or embarrassed by however life itself came about. I realize that for some people evolution has to be discounted because of their particular belief system but that doesn't apply to me or plenty Christians for that matter.
 
6days

6days

New member
The Barbarian said:
Just for the record, what do scientists mean by "evolution" in biology?
Click to expand...
Stay awake in science class, and you wouldn't need ask such a question... But you would likely still equivocate the definition between observational science and your unobservable belief system.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
(6days expresses a mistaken idea of evolution)

Barbarian asks:
Just for the record, what do scientists mean by "evolution" in biology?

(6days dodges the question)

6days said:
Stay awake in science class, and you wouldn't need ask such a question... But you would likely still equivocate the definition between observational science and your unobservable belief system.
Click to expand...

As suspected, he has no idea.
 
V

Veritas veritate

New member
If Evolution

Silent Hunter said:
God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.

The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.
You can further your education here, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Click to expand...

The "god of the gaps" fallacy is using gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence for the existence of God. And there are those who do this very thing; however, having read through this thread completely, that is not being done in this thread. Therefore, when you accuse anyone in this thread of using the "god of the gaps" fallacy you are attacking a straw-man.


Silent Hunter said:
I didn't know "I want a cup of tea" will cause water to boil.
Click to expand...

It most certainly does when it causes me to decide to fill the pot with water and use thermodynamics to boil it for my tea...

Silent Hunter said:
Perhaps you can quantify the amount of "I wanted a cup of tea" necessary to boil water, it sure will help save on my energy bill.
Click to expand...

What exactly was the logic for saying this? That you would even say this proves my point about thinking that why/how (in this case quantification) is the only valid answer to why.

Silent Hunter said:
There is a huge difference between the Big Bang (a naturalistic theory of origin) and goddidit. That you don't understand the difference is a testament to your lack of critical thinking skills. That no matter how clearly I might explain it you will never comprehend it is testament to the thoroughness of how well you have been brain-washed by christian fundamentalism.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am more than aware of the differences, apparently more than you since you call the Big Bang theory a "naturalistic theory of origin." The Big Bang theory actually says nothing at all about the origin of the universe, I put it that way because that is what most people think when you say Big Bang theory (and we all know that what the majority thinks can't be wrong); however, that wasn't the point. The point is it has to be believed, because, it too, has no proof: but, I should have expected you to create another straw-man to try to prove wrong... And do not think I missed the Ad Hominem attack you tried to cleverly switch into.

Silent Hunter said:
Goddidit is an argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...

Only when it uses the gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence for the proof of the existence of God; which, as I have already stated, is not taking place in this thread. What is being discussed is not a lack in scientific knowledge, it is the interpretation of scientific knowledge that is being brought into question: right now specifically the timeframe in which speciation has taken place, can take place, and is taking place.

Silent Hunter said:
That you don't accept or undrstand a naturalistic explanation doesn't make goddidit the conclusion by default.
Click to expand...

You are completely correct, but nobody in this thread has suggested that it does. You are just asserting that is what is taking place.

Silent Hunter said:
I see you are continuing to confuse "straw man" with "goddidit".
Click to expand...

I do not believe that I am the one that is confused here...
 
Last edited:
V

Veritas veritate

New member
The Barbarian said:
This is a good point. When we ask about causes, we should consider the kind of cause we're discussing. In the above, your intentions are a final cause, the purpose behind the boiling, while thermodynamics is a formal cause, the mechanics of boiling.

So the diversity of life is "caused" by God's intention to have such a diversity. That is the final cause of living things. Random variation and natural selection together make the formal cause.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and it would seem that we agree pretty closely on most things except the timeframe of it all happening...

I have enjoyed my conversations with you on this thread, but my conversation with Silent Hunter has become entertaining so it might be a little while before we get back to our discussion.
 
CherubRam

CherubRam

New member
According to the bible plants and animals interbred are defiled.


Hybridization as an invasion of the genome

I wonder if God did not want us interbreed different plants and animals for a reason?


Leviticus 19:19
“‘Keep my decrees. “‘Do not mate different kinds of animals. “Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. “




Deuteronomy 22:9
Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled.


Christ's name in English is Yahshua.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Veritas veritate said:
Exactly, and it would seem that we agree pretty closely on most things except the timeframe of it all happening...
Click to expand...

Well, common ground is good. Glad to know that.

I have enjoyed my conversations with you on this thread, but my conversation with Silent Hunter has become entertaining so it might be a little while before we get back to our discussion.
Click to expand...

Enjoy. But do come back and talk. You've been a voice of reason here, and I would like to hear more from you.
 
V

Veritas veritate

New member
The Barbarian said:
Well, common ground is good. Glad to know that.



Enjoy. But do come back and talk. You've been a voice of reason here, and I would like to hear more from you.
Click to expand...

Ok, It has been a while since he has posted, so it would seem that I have some time to devote to our conversation once again.

So where should we pick up? I will let you pick the topic to discuss.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
I don't need to be a 'know it all' to know that the theory of evolution has never espoused 'chemicals miraculously coming to life'. You seem to be conflating evolution with something else entirely, somehow. Where did you study science exactly?

:AMR:
Click to expand...
Creationists believe in "evolution" too. We just don't believe the crazy version that you do. But there can be no evolution without something to evolve. Where did this first LIFE come from in your world-view?
 
CherubRam

CherubRam

New member
The new life forms that come about are not able to breed with the parent life forms, only among themselves. That is because they have degenerated.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Veritas veritate said:
Ok, It has been a while since he has posted, so it would seem that I have some time to devote to our conversation once again.

So where should we pick up? I will let you pick the topic to discuss.
Click to expand...

Let's talk about this:

"In terms of Christianity, yes the theory of evolution can seem dangerous to some Christians, and indeed it does threaten the foundation of certain versions of Christianity. But this is the case only for those Christians who understand their faith in oddly modern terms that are radically divergent from traditional Christianity and the creedal orthodoxy of the church. In this way, Darwin's idea will emerge as "pious", because it allows us to test the relative "orthodoxy" of our faith. Of course, we would be wrong to suggest that Darwinism is a sufficient "test" of Christian orthodoxy tout court- it is not even a necessary test. Rather, Darwinism is and interesting and useful test at this particular cultural moment. If Darwinism is "dangerous", it's dangerous because the popular version of Darwinism offered up by the most high-profile so-called Darwinists endeavors to turn Darwinism into a universal philosophy. These figures are generally referred to as "ultra-Darwinists", or "Darwinian fundamentalists" (epithets provided by fellow Darwinists and atheists, and not by religious people). This strain of Darwinism is "dangerous" not merely to religion, but to science and even to thinking atheists...Thankfully, ultra-Darwinism will be shown to be intellectually vacuous, misleading, old-fashioned, and more accurately thought of as a Christian heresy than as a true presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution."
Connor Cunninghham Darwin's Pious Idea 2010
Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
Grand Rapids, MI

I'm not presenting this as my opinion, although I think the author makes several telling points therein. What's your take on this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top