Darwin's theory

Doctor Jimbob

In response to your earlier post, I think it would be reasonable for you to offer proof that CFSI is actually a thing before asking anyone to refute it.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You keep talking about evolution and atheism as if they are the same thing. The aren't. People of most, if not all faiths accept evolution.

... while some Theists believe in M2M Evolution, all Atheists believe in it ... indeed Prof Dawkins goes as far as saying that :-
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

There is some Cognitive Dissonance going on, if a Theist accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist ... and then doesn't become an Atheist themselves.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

In response to your earlier post, I think it would be reasonable for you to offer proof that CFSI is actually a thing before asking anyone to refute it.

It is self-explanatory ... it is information that is complex, specified and functional. All functional information is CFSI, for example Human Writing, Computer programs, source code and genetic information.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... but all Atheists believe in Evolution ... indeed Prof Dawkins goes as far as saying that :-
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

There is some Cognitive Dissonance going on, if a Theist accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist ... and then doesn't become an Atheist themselves.

All atheists believe in evolution for the simple reason that any opposing theory requires unnecessary evocation of a deity. All atheists believe in gravity too. Does that mean the two are somehow connected?

Dawkins isn't some kind of spokesperson for atheists or evolutionists by the way. He's just a man who happens to be pretty passionate about both.

There's some cognitive dissonance going on all right. Just not where you're claiming it is.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

It is self-explanatory ... it is information that is complex, specified and functional. All functional information is CFSI, for example Human Writing, Computer programs, source code and genetic information.

It really isn't. Your argument is a bit like me saying my bedsheets and the trees outside are both green so they must be somehow connected.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

All atheists believe in evolution for the simple reason that any opposing theory requires unnecessary evocation of a deity. All atheists believe in gravity too. Does that mean the two are somehow connected?

Dawkins isn't some kind of spokesperson for atheists or evolutionists by the way. He's just a man who happens to be pretty passionate about both.

There's some cognitive dissonance going on all right. Just not where you're claiming it is.

... but Prof Dawkins didn't say that the existence of gravity made him an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.
I believe in gravity as does every other person I know ... and anytime anybody has any doubts about it, they can test it's existence by letting a brick fall on their big toe!!!:eek:

... so there is no controversy over the existence of gravity ... and, unlike evolution its existence or non-existence has no implications for the existence of the God of the Bible ... or the worldview of its adherents.

... and there is serious Cognitive Dissonance going on, if a Theist accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist ... and then doesn't become an Atheist themselves.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... but Prof Dawkins didn't say that gravity made him an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.
I believe in gravity as does every other person I know ... and anytime anybody has any doubts about it they can test it's existence by letting a brick fall on their big toe!!!:eek:

... so there is no controversy over the existence of gravity ... and, unlike evolution its existence or non-existence has no implications for the existence of the God of the Bible ... or the worldview of its adherents.

At least we're getting to the core of your issue with evolution.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It really isn't. Your argument is a bit like me saying my bedsheets and the trees outside are both green so they must be somehow connected.

If your sheets are made from Linen then they are 'connected' to the trees outside by both being plant material.

The fact that the information in Human Writing, Computer programs, source code and genetic information is complex, specified and functional is self-evident ... or are you saying that this information isn't complex, specified and functional?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... but Prof Dawkins didn't say that the existence of gravity made him an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.
I believe in gravity as does every other person I know ... and anytime anybody has any doubts about it, they can test it's existence by letting a brick fall on their big toe!!!:eek:

... so there is no controversy over the existence of gravity ... and, unlike evolution its existence or non-existence has no implications for the existence of the God of the Bible ... or the worldview of its adherents.

... and there is serious Cognitive Dissonance going on, if a Theist accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist ... and then doesn't become an Atheist themselves.:)

Again, Dawkins is not a spokesperson for the rest of us. I assume Dawkins' point was that evolution provided proof that we weren't created in the way stated in the bible, whereas previous to the theory this could only be assumed.

Aside from that though, you're taking one mans opinion and extrapolating it to all atheists, and indeed theists who accept evolution, and that's just silly.

SW wrote: »

At least we're getting to the core of your issue with evolution.

And it only took 10 years :pac:

J C

SW wrote: »

At least we're getting to the core of your issue with evolution.

Atheism is also at the core of the Atheist's belief in evolution. Prof Dawkins has elevated it to the point of allowing him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

If your sheets are made from Linen then they are 'connected' to the trees outside by both being plant material.

I'm quite sure they aren't, but that's not really the point anyway.

The fact that the information in Human Writing, Computer programs, source code and genetic information is complex, specified and functional is self-evident ... or are you saying that this information isn't complex, specified and functional?

I'm not saying any of that, because it's a nonsense term. I'm outright denying that the comparison between all those forms of information is anything even approaching appropriate or fitting. 3 can be proven to be created by humans, and you're including the 4th purely because it fits your argument, without any basis whatsoever.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Again, Dawkins is not a spokesperson for the rest of us. I assume Dawkins' point was that evolution provided proof that we weren't created in the way stated in the bible, whereas previous to the theory this could only be assumed.

Aside from that though, you're taking one mans opinion and extrapolating it to all atheists, and indeed theists who accept evolution, and that's just silly.

Prof Dawkins point is valid, if M2M Evolution occurred ... it would indeed make all Atheists intellectually fulfilled by having a proven 'origins' explanation ... and one that would destroy the Christian explanation that God did it.

The only 'fly in the ointment' is that M2M Evolution is mathematically, logically and evidentially impossible.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Atheism is also at the core of the Atheist's belief in evolution. Prof Dawkins has elevated it to the point of allowing him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Nonsense. a person doesn't have to be an atheist to accept evolution. To suggest otherwise is just incorrect as people from all major religions also accept evolution.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The only 'fly in the ointment' is that M2M Evolution is mathematically, logically and evidentially impossible.

That's purely because it contradicts your belief in Genesis. Biological sciences currently operate using current understanding of evolution. There is no scientific endeavour that currently uses predictions based on creationism.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins point is valid, if M2M Evolution occurred ... it would indeed make all Atheists intellectually fulfilled by having a proven 'origins' explanation ... and one that would destroy the Christian explanation that God did it.

Ok, but what exactly does that have to do with anything?

The only 'fly in the ointment' is that M2M Evolution is mathematically, logically and evidentially impossible.

Not if you understand it and look at all that pesky evidence it isn't.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm not saying any of that, because it's a nonsense term. I'm outright denying that the comparison between all those forms of information is anything even approaching appropriate or fitting. 3 can be proven to be created by humans, and you're including the 4th purely because it fits your argument, without any basis whatsoever.

SETI looks for complex functional specified information encoded in radio-waves coming in from space to try and detect extra-terrestrial intelligent life.
CFSI is found in Human Writing, Computer programs, source code and genetic information.
... or are you simply in denial because of the implications of CFSI in genetic information for the existence of God?

Delirium

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ok, but what exactly does that have to do with anything?

JC wishes to reinforce the idea that a person cannot be a Christian and accept evolution. Probably something to do with the inability of creationists to put forward any evidence for their claims.

J C

SW wrote: »

Nonsense. a person doesn't have to be an atheist to accept evolution. To suggest otherwise is just incorrect as people from all major religions also accept evolution.

A Theist who accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist is logically a Practical Atheist themselves.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

SETI looks for complex functional specified information encoded in radio-waves coming in from space to try and detect extra-terrestrial intelligent life.
CFSI is found in Human Writing, Computer programs, source code and genetic information.
... or are you simply in denial because of the implications of CFSI in genetic information for the existence of God?

Oh nice try. SETI might look for information but I doubt they use the term CFSI. Good attempt at making it seem more legit though. 5/10.

You can keep repeating that CFSI is found in all of these places, but you still haven't proven that it's even a thing.

SW wrote: »

JC wishes to reinforce the idea that a person cannot be a Christian and accept evolution. Probably something to do with the inability of creationists to put forward any evidence for their claims.

Oh I get that, I'm just not sure how his point does his argument any favours.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

A Theist who accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist is logically a Practical Atheist themselves.

Key word there being 'possible'. Not 'necessary'.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

A Theist who accepts a theory that makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist is logically a Practical Atheist themselves.

only if one struggles with the concept of logic. Just because a person accepts evolution does not mean they lost their belief in God. It is silly to suggest otherwise.

Delirium

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Oh I get that, I'm just not sure how his point does his argument any favours.

One could say the same about the majority of his content arguing against evolution :pac:

Doctor Jimbob

SW wrote: »

One could say the same about the majority all of his content arguing against evolution :pac:

FYP.

J C

SW wrote: »

JC wishes to reinforce the idea that a person cannot be a Christian and accept evolution. Probably something to do with the inability of creationists to put forward any evidence for their claims.

If M2M is true, then Christianity is just wishful thinking. If everything created itself, where is there any room for God? ... the answer is obvious ... there is no room for such a Being
... and the Atheists are correct that He doesn't exist, or if He does, he has no claim on any of us for anything and for all practical purposes He can be treated as non-existent.
It's as stark as that ... and we all need to face up to it ... and become Practical Atheists, if M2M Evolution happened.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

If M2M is true, then Christianity is just wishful thinking. If everything created itself, where is there any room for God? ... the answer is obvious ... there is no room for such a Being
... and the Atheists are correct that He doesn't exist, or if He doe,s he has no claim on any of us for anything and for all practical purposes He can be treated as non-existent.
It's as stark as that ... and we all need to face up to it.

That is a very telling post.

J C

SW wrote: »

only if one struggles with the concept of logic. Just because a person accepts evolution does not mean they lost their belief in God. It is silly to suggest otherwise.

Why would they believe in God ... if everything created itself ?
What role would the introduction of a Divine Being have, under such circumstances?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

If M2M is true, then Christianity is just wishful thinking. If everything created itself, where is there any room for God? ... the answer is obvious ... there is no room for such a Being
... and the Atheists are correct that He doesn't exist, or if He does, he has no claim on any of us for anything and for all practical purposes He can be treated as non-existent.
It's as stark as that ... and we all need to face up to it ... and become Practical Atheists, if M2M Evolution happened.

All this does is once again highlight the fact that your issue is a faith based one. That it causes you problems with regards to religious belief. I don't envy you that problem. But the solution isn't to try and get religious folk to reject science that doesn't fit with their beliefs.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That is a very telling post.

It is indeed very telling ... I'm a realist ... and if M2M Evolution occurred, this represents the 'death knell' for the relevance and indeed the existence of God.

... so we're still back to the question of whether M2M Evolution occurred.

... and the fact that every medium sized biomolecule has a combinatorial space that is in excess of the Universal Probability Bound proves the M2M is an impossibility.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

It is indeed very telling ... I'm a realist ... and if M2M Evolution occurred, this represents the 'death knell' for the relevance and indeed the existence of God.

... so we're still back to the question of whether M2M Evolution occurred.

... and the fact that every medium sized biomolecule has a combinatorial space that is in excess of the Universal Probability Bound proves the M2M is an impossibility.

I'm afraid that question was resolved quite some time ago. The straws are running out.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It is indeed very telling ... I'm a realist ... and if M2M Evolution occurred, this represents the 'death knell' for the relevance and indeed the existence of God.

... so we're still back to the question of whether M2M Evolution occurred.

No, we've established that you have religious reasons for rejecting evolution.

... and the fact that every medium sized biomolecule has a combinatorial space that is in excess of the Universal Probability Bound proves the M2M is an impossibility.

Science accepts evolution occurs, and still occurs today, so whatever maths a creationist dreamt up are clearly wrong.