Evolution

[genkaus]

So, you would maintain that the question of the existance of God is a biological/scientific issue?

When it is raised within the field of biology/science, yes, I would.

The reason for how or why that question arises is quite irrelevant to the nature of the question.

On the contrary, the reason for how and why a question is asked forms the context of the question and is very much relevant to the nature of the question. For example, if my boss asks me "What are you doing?", he's asking me about what I'm working on right now. When my mom asks me "What are you doing?", she's asking about my life plans. See? Same question - different reason - different nature.

[Mister Agenda]

Why do Atheist believe evolution cancels out creationism?

You shouldn't capitalize atheist unless it is at the beginning of a sentence or part of an official name, like the Atheist Council on Fallacy Management. You shouldn't capitalize theist under the exact same rule.

Atheists don't necessarily believe evolution cancels out creationism. An atheist could believe in a form of creationism that doesn't involve any supernatural deities, although I imagine such are rare (but not rare enough: Raellians). Evolution does rule out a lot of mythological explanations for the variety of living species if you regard science as more germaine to the question than ancient literature.That's science though, not atheism. There are plenty of theists who accept evolution as the most likely explanation for biological diversity on Earth.

---

If I wanted a lesson about God I would speak to a theologian and not an evolutionary biologist. I suspect you don't follow your own advice on this matter...What gives Dawkins any authority to speak about God?

Where God is offered as an explanation for the origin and diversity of life, Dawkins is quite qualified to offer an opinion on how that explanation compares to the scientific ones.

One doesn't need authority to be qualified to discuss a matter, merely the necessary information to form and defend a cogent opinion.

I would be very interested in hearing any information you may be in possession of that would logically require Dawkins to re-evaluate his position on the matter. If you don't have such information, what gives you 'authority' to judge Dawkins as lacking authority to speak about God?

[Mister Agenda]

Of course not, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy involved when people take the position of "we studied the sciences that shows us there is no God because theres no evidence" The question of Gods existance is a philosophical/theological question, studying biology gives no authority to speak on philosophical issues.

You sure are concerned about authority. The question of an abstract God's existence may be a philosophical/theological question, but one that actually affects reality enters the realm of that which can be detected if it is actually there. When God is given as the explanation for something which turns out to have a natural cause, that particular version of God has been disproved to the extent that anything can be disproved. If your God has no effect on reality it is immune to disproof by science. Enjoy.

Well anyone with an ounce of intelligence perhaps would pause for thought and think about that? Would such an intelligent guy really devote his time to nonsense? Doesn't something not fit in that equation? Either 1.He isn't really intelligent or 2.Perhaps it shouldn't so quickly be dismissed as nonsense, doing so would be rather unintelligent I would have thought

Quickly assuming something isn't nonsense because the person making the claims is intelligent isn't very intelligent. The list of geniuses with quaint beliefs mutually exclusive to the odd beliefs of other geniuses would make a very lengthy one. Newton believed in alchemy, Edison tried to invent a device to talk with the dead, Tesla was a fan of eugenics, and so forth. MENSA is filled with people who cannot agree. Sometimes it seems that the main use to which high intelligence is put is to defend positions one holds for other reasons than intelligence.

---

I love that type of thinking, what your effectively proposing in order that you don't have to acually think about it, is that all intelligent people who believe in God are delusional, does that really sound like a good argument to you? seriously?

No. That an argument must stand or fall on its own, regardless of the intelligence or authority of the originator, does sound like a good policy to hold, given the human fallibility to which even geniuses are not immune.

---

It's not really an issue within the Orthodox Church, there isn't really an "official" line like the Catholic Church its a matter of personal choice, I personally don't have any probnlem with evolution if it is true, although I happen to think it isn't..but I'm certainly not a creationist. I think the theory requires much closer scrutiny and in time will be shown to be false as its understood at this moment.

'False as it's understood at this moment' in the sense that 'in the future, the mechanisms of evolution will be better understood and some of the details will have to be adjusted' or in the sense that 'Huh, it turns out that evolution doesn't explain the diversity of species after all'?

---

Because God says how he created us, already human, he spoke us into existence. If he created swamp muck and we crawled out of such, he might have told us that, but that's not what He did. When you believe in God, you take the whole bible as truth, not your own cross bred interpretation of some hybrid creation/evolution.

Actually, according to Genesis, God raised Adam from the dust. Is that so different from raising him from microorganisms?

---

There are a lot of fallacies in Catholicism, I don't agree w a lot of things they do. I can't speak for their stance on this. And evolutionists theories will always have missing links and flawed carbon dating etc so I wouldn't call that much of anything let alone evidence.

I can't find anything in the theory to suggest any expectation that all links will be present and accounted for. Carbon dating is one of the most reliable dating methods, it can be cross-referenced to things we know the age of within a year; but like all dating methods it must be applied correctly. For instance, the sample must have once been living, uncontaminated, and not over a certain age (not over 65,000 years).

---

So, you would maintain that the question of the existance of God is a biological/scientific issue? The reason for how or why that question arises is quite irrelevant to the nature of the question.

The existence of a God that affects things that can be studied by science is certainly a scientific issue. If someone maintains that the light and heat given off by the sun is due to the will of Helios, and we discover that the sun is perfectly capable of generating light and heat without supernatural intervention, then that particular theological claim has been resolved: the sun doesn't run on Helios power.

[Drich]

Why is it that creationists are so adamant that god couldn't have created them through evolution?

They are not.

[NoMoreFaith]

Why is it that creationists are so adamant that god couldn't have created them through evolution?

They are not.

Hey, thats the same counter-argument my 7 year old used! Great minds!

[Drich]

Why do Atheist believe evolution cancels out creationism?

Evolution disproves biblical creation- 100%

Atheists don't believe in any gods. This includes creator gods.

I understand that. my question asks how that works, or Why does the process of evolution somehow cancel out the idea of a creator?

---

Why do Atheist believe evolution cancels out creationism?

Why do you think it doesn't?

Because i do not see anything in the bible that says doesn't.

---

Why is it that creationists are so adamant that god couldn't have created them through evolution?

Actually,that is the position of mainstream Christendom. It is only the loopy young earth creationists who believe otherwise.

There is no 'atheist position' on creationism or any other topic apart from the existence of god(s).


I do not reject the notion of creationism out of hand:I make no claims. I simply decline to believe in creationism due to the lack of credible evidence.I might be wrong. I will be happily believe the second I see any credible evidence. Since nobody has once managed this task in recorded history, I'm not holding my breath.

Very enlightened view.

[Faith No More]

They are not.

Then why do they spend so much time trying to refute it?

[Drich]

Why is it that creationists are so adamant that god couldn't have created them through evolution?

Because the bible-thumpers point to their buy-bull which says:

Gen. 1

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

To the feeble-minded if their "god" saw it was good why would he allow it to "evolve?"

all good points, but at the same time the bible does not record that they didn't evolve. Man progressed from the point in which He was created and originally deemed "good." In that God took his finished/good product and evolved a portion of him into "Eve." Because even though Man was found "good" the circumstance in which man live was incomplete.

No where in scripture does does it say "good" is always complete.

[NoMoreFaith]

In that God took his finished/good product and evolved a portion of him into "Eve."

Getting fast and loose with the definition of evolution aren't you. (at least in the way biologists use it)

No where in scripture does does it say "good" is always complete.

Secondly, Evolution doesn't have an end product, we are as much a transition as the human species before us.

Thirdly, As a matter of logic, why would an omnipotent creator NEED to evolve anything.

[Jackalope]

There are a lot of fallacies in Catholicism, I don't agree w a lot of things they do. I can't speak for their stance on this. And evolutionists theories will always have missing links and flawed carbon dating etc so I wouldn't call that much of anything let alone evidence.

"Flawed carbon dating"

We hear that claim frequently. The problem is, the claims always turn out to be false.

Care to post a few examples (with sources) so your claim can be properly discussed?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Luckily, our friends over at the talk.origins archive have done us all a favor and have looked into and have debunked commonly encountered creationist claims on the "flaws" of carbon dating (you really mean "radiometric dating", but that's a common mistake). Oh, and not just radiometric dating, but on a whole bunch of other shit too.

It turns out that in every case, the creationists were wrong, and in some cases were engaged in what appeared to be deliberate deception. The fact that creation "scientists" continue to make claims based on what's been demonstrated to be false only leads me to conclude that the deception is, in fact, deliberate.

You don't need to take my word for it, read the refutations and thier sources and find out what's really true. Either that, or you can continue to listen to whoever you've been listening to. By the way, they're lying to you.