Atheism and evolution

Biro

So far, Tim Robbins, redstar and seamus are making the best arguements. The OP is getting repetitive though, and the thread is getting pointless.

However, I felt the need to highlight this post as being quite useless, as Christ never taught anything about creationism nor evolution.

cavedave wrote: »

How are we supposed to accept the theories on the teachings of christ when there is so much controversy?

Doctor DooM

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is the market place of ideas, deal with it

Yes it is, evolution is quite a good one.

Gegerty

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is the market place of ideas, deal with it

A few related questions for you.

1. Who created god? Is there a god of gods?
2. If he's so wonderful then how come he did such a sh!t job! The very air we breathe is posionous to us.
3. Are you scared of dying?

Dades

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is the market place of ideas, deal with it

*sigh*

Meet me halfway here - at least answer some of your respondents or this thread is pointless.
A good start would be SDooM's post you dismissed earlier.

Dave!

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Creation scientists

That term just cracks me up to no end!

marco_polo

Dades wrote: »

The OP deserves a chance to continue to respond.

And if the thread is locked - it won't be because the OP holds a different view to the majority here.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is the market place of ideas, deal with it

*Cough*

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a fairly brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

gramlab

Don't ban the OP as "he noeth not what he does"

I think people should just not respond. If he can't fathom the basic bit about what a theory is then you all wasting your time. You might as well be trying to convince my mother in law that I'm a nice bloke - im-f***in-possible!

Doctor DooM

gramlab wrote: »

Don't ban the OP as "he noeth not what he does"

I think people should just not respond. If he can't fathom the basic bit about what a theory is then you all wasting your time. You might as well be trying to convince my mother in law that I'm a nice bloke - im-f***in-possible!

Missing the point... for me this is fun, for the OP this is internet, serious business.

marco_polo

gramlab wrote: »

Don't ban the OP as "he noeth not what he does"

I think people should just not respond. If he can't fathom the basic bit about what a theory is then you all wasting your time. You might as well be trying to convince my mother in law that I'm a nice bloke - im-f***in-possible!

Meh, slow day at work

CerebralCortex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is the market place of ideas, deal with it

Just gives evidence that the bible is the actual word of God and I'll be happy.

Doctor DooM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Just gives evidence that the bible is the actual word of God and I'll be happy.

If you think about it, it's the word of god all right. You just take the bible and create the god to suit it working backwards.

cavedave

Biro

However, I felt the need to highlight this post as being quite useless, as Christ never taught anything about creationism nor evolution.

The catholic church and the evangelical beliefs described in the video posted differ. If christians cannot agree on how mankind came about how do you expect us to regard it as a legitimate theory?

Zombrex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Similarly, a theory which postulates that all life on earth was not created by God (an important part of belief in God) but instead came about by the means of natural processes is clearly questioning the whether or God exists. I think evolution is an intrinsically atheist set of beliefs.

neo-Darwinian biological evolution is a scientific model/theory

A scientific model cannot "question" anything other than other scientific models. Since "God" is not, and under the commonly held definition, cannot be modelled in science Darwinian evolution has exactly zero to say about God.

Creationists on the other hand put forward the completely untestable and unverifiable idea that if the theory of Darwinian evolution is accurate this means their god (I stress their god) does not exist.

That is an issue for themselves and their own philosophy. It has nothing to do with science.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

If we are to advance our knowledge in a scientific manner we need to examine the theory of evolution carefully and with an open mind.

No, what we need to do is test the theory of evolution rigorously, which is exactly what biologists have been doing for the for the last 150 years.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is how scientists usually conduct themselves, examining the evidence before them objectively and without any preconceptions. This is the basis of the scientific method.

No it isn't. The basis of the scientific method is the formulation of theoretical models (theories), who's predictions are tested against observed phenomena to see if they accurately model the phenomena being studied. The model, or models are then adjusted accordingly based on how closely they do.

This is what happens with all scientific theories, including evolution.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Science is based on a materialistic world view, and this decrees that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Science does no such thing.

Science concerns itself with, and only with, what it can model and test (see comment on scientific method above). Anything it cannot model is outside the scope of scientific enquiry.

If it is not possible for science to model something, for example a supernatural deity such as the Christian God, then it is impossible for science to study it.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Scientists therefore look at the possible explanations for our existence from a skewed perspective; they are not open to the possibility that God is the intelligent designer of life on earth.

Scientists are open to any and all possibilities so long as they can be modelled, and these models tested for accuracy.

As soon as you figure out a way to model and test God get back to us and it will happily be included in any current scientific model you want.

The purpose of science is to understand what we currently don't understand, and scientists would like nothing more than to be able to formulate models of currently unstudied phenomena, such as God, and test these models for accuracy.

But, at the moment at least, that appears to be impossible as the religious have moved the definition of their god far out of reach of any scientific models. As such science is unable to model them in any manner.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

Take the bacteria flagellum. This incredibly complex organ would simply cease to function if any single part of its composition was altered or removed.

That isn't true, after than claim was made biologists put forward a number of examples of functioning flagellum that had less parts than the one presented by the Discovery Institute.

All of which is interesting but irrelevant to evolution because you cannot map backwards the path of evolution simply by removing parts from a functioning organism. That isn't how evolution works to start with.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

It is therefore impossible that it could have been formed by a step by step process like evolution.

Even if the flagelium was irreducibly complex as Creationists claim (it isn't, but we will assume it is), that doesn't demonstrate that it couldn't have evolved, because evolution theory doesn't state that whole parts are added in a single step to an organism as Creationist claim it does, and thus removing whole parts is not rewinding the stages of evolution.

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

The same came be said of the eye.

Biologists understand quite well how the eye evolved.

In fact computer models suggest that an eye evolves quite quickly and a lot easier than other organs in the animal world.

Evolution of the eye is not only unremarkable but it is also seemingly quite common as over 40 different evolutionary designs have been found, suggesting that the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently of each other.

Overheal

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

As a Christian I have often wondered if atheists who constantly rail against the faith of believers realise that their belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith as a belief in God. You constantly talk about the mountains of evidence in favour of an evolutionary explaination for our existence and yet you don't seem to realise that the jury is still out, it is just a theory. I could easily theorize that the moon is made of cheese but that doesn't have any credibility and neither do the rantings of an 19th century snob like Darwin. I don't mean to sound arrogant, I just think people, particularly atheists, need to look at their own faith before they criticise another.

Is the Scientific Model of reasoning a matter of faith? Remember that same model was what brought us the Industrial Revolution and beyond. Some truly amazing accomplishments. I don't remember the last time God put a man on the moon (you can argue he did.. I'll let you ), whether it were made of cheese or Halle Berry clones.

As a man of faith can't you accept God created science and implemented evolution as part of his grand design?

Look at your own faith before criticizing ours, so.

robindch

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

The creation scientists in America, the likes of Kent Hovind more in line with the reality of the scientific method than Richard Dawkins (and all of his atheistic proslytizing)

Kent Hovind? The man who bought his doctorate from a "university" with a corrugated iron roof? The man who had $42,000 stashed in his house together with a cache of weapons, including semi-automatics, then claimed he took no salary, paid no tax and who didn't recognise the federal government of the USA? The man who's currently serving a lengthy prison sentence for tax evasion?

You should really pick your heroes with more care

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

This is the market place of ideas, deal with it

Unlike in religion, truth in biology is not decided by popularity in the market-place of ideas.

seamus

Overheal wrote: »

As a man of faith can't you accept God created science and implemented evolution as part of his grand design?

I've always found it curious that people favour the "6 days" theory rather than point to evolution as an indicator of God's infinite wisdom and intelligence.

Surely it's more fun to think that God tapped the first domino and sat back to watch, rather than think that he placed all the dominos down on the flat in one go and said, "There, I'm done"?

Perhaps the idea that God didn't explicitly decide to create them, hurts some people's egos?

5uspect

Troll ftw
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055294199

Hudson 4 ever

5uspect wrote: »

Troll ftw
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055294199

Yer ma ftw

Zillah

I'm so glad he's a troll. Its so much better than the alternative.

Hudson 4 ever

Zillah wrote: »

I'm so glad he's a troll. Its so much better than the alternative.

SHE is not a troll

Doctor DooM

Ah well, was fun while it lasted.

EDIT: Post reported, btw.

Zillah

Jesus hates children.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well then you have our sympathies, it can't be easy being you.

--edit

damnit, you bastards shouldn't be allowed post until after I do. I'll have to talk with an admin.

Zillah

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

SHE is not a troll

Thats just what a troll would say.

BJC

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

SHE is not a troll

Oh....just a gobsh1te then??

Doctor DooM

Mordances with wolves wrote: »

well then you have our sympathies, it can't be easy being you.

--edit

damnit, you bastards shouldn't be allowed post until after I do. I'll have to talk with an admin.

Excuse me, I am quite legitimate!

Zillah

This is a perfectly cromulent thread.

Doctor DooM

Zillah wrote: »

This is a perfectly cromulent thread.

The OP just tried to cromulentisise further in Christianity and PDN was on it like some form of modding ninja.

CerebralCortex

Hudson 4 ever wrote: »

SHE is not a troll

I expected more from a lady.

rockbeer

OP, the question you should ask yourself, if you are capable, is how the world could possibly function without evolution or some such similar mechanism. It's necessary in order to allow its occupants to adapt as the environment changes. Without a mechanism for adaptation, life would most likely have died out by now. If there's no evolution, please explain how it does work.

You do accept that the environment changes over time don't you? If not, you might like to read up on a phenomenon known as global warming.