Evolution is Not Atheistic

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Believing in a divine jesus and a personal god? Do you have anything to support that? Washington refused last rites from christian clergy.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that their approach to deism would be shaped by their experiences in Christianity of a monotheistic deity.

 

[ecco]

No, you won't. You've never 'helped' anyone with evidence, only making baseless and worthless claims.

I win. (see #581 & 582)

 

[ecco]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that their approach to deism would be shaped by their experiences in Christianity of a monotheistic deity.

OK, no argument with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Features_of_deism

The concept of deism covers a wide variety of positions on a wide variety of religious issues. Sir Leslie Stephen's English Thought in the Eighteenth Century describes the core of deism as consisting of "critical" and "constructional" elements.

Critical elements of deist thought included:

• Rejection of religions that are based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
• Rejection of religious dogma and demagogy.
• Skepticism of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructional elements of deist thought included:

• God exists and created the universe.
• God gave humans the ability to reason.

Individual deists varied in the set of critical and constructive elements for which they argued. Some deists rejected miracles and prophecies but still considered themselves Christians because they believed in what they felt to be the pure, original form of Christianity – that is, Christianity as it supposedly existed before it was corrupted by additions of such superstitions as miracles, prophecies, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Some deists rejected the claim of Jesus' divinity but continued to hold him in high regard as a moral teacher (see, for example,Thomas Jefferson's famous Jefferson Bible and Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation). Other, more radical deists rejected Christianity altogether and expressed hostility toward Christianity, which they regarded as pure superstition. In return, Christian writers often charged radical deists with atheism.

Note that the terms constructive and critical are used to refer to aspects of deistic thought, not sects or subtypes of deism – it would be incorrect to classify any particular deist author as "a constructive deist" or "a critical deist". As Peter Gay notes:

All Deists were in fact both critical and constructive Deists. All sought to destroy in order to build, and reasoned either from the absurdity of Christianity to the need for a new philosophy or from their desire for a new philosophy to the absurdity of Christianity. Each Deist, to be sure, had his special competence. While one specialized in abusing priests, another specialized in rhapsodies to nature, and a third specialized in the skeptical reading of sacred documents. Yet whatever strength the movement had—and it was at times formidable—it derived that strength from a peculiar combination of critical and constructive elements.

— Peter Gay, Deism: An Anthology, p. 13​

 

[ecco]

No other scientific theories pretend to explain how God created all the species of creatures which exist, and no other scientific theories pretend to intrude on the supernatural.

That's a good thing. Neither science nor religion can disprove LastThursdayism.

But here is what evolution teaches (in direct contradiction to Divine revelation, and based on PURE SPECULATION):

from Wikipedia

Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in theatmosphere from photosynthesis. [NO REFERENCE TO THE CREATION ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER] ​

​

Yet wikipedia does reference Creation Accounts. They are referred to as non-scientific myths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you won't. You've never 'helped' anyone with evidence, only making baseless and worthless claims.

That is only because you refuse to learn what is a and what is not evidence. You have demonstrated your inability to understand the concept and refuse to learn. In fact almost all creationists refuse to learn what evidence is. That is one of the main reasons that they are still creationists. I am still willing to help you to learn. Until you do learn what is and what is not scientific evidence you will continue to deny evidence that is obvious to scientists.

I would think that you would be curious as to why your side keeps losing court case after court case. Here is a hint:

Most judges understand the concept of evidence very very well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I was saying said: ↑

What evidence? You atheists keep rabbiting on about providing evidence, so provide some. And whilst you are at it, tell me how life began, because unless you know the answer to that question you can't prove a thing about evolution.​

Betcha' Can't.

You are probably right. It is not that creationists are too stupid to understand what evidence is. I have never said that. They simply won't let themselves understand the concept. It is the only way that they can maintain their "doubts".

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not that creationists are too stupid to understand what evidence is. I have never said that.

Some of us may not understand what evidence is; but scientists can't understand what no evidence is.

And I have a challenge thread to prove it:

My Apple Challenge

 

[RickG]

Some of us may not understand what evidence is; but scientists can't understand what no evidence is.

No evidence is no evidence, cut and dried. However, no evidence does not dismiss the idea that evidence for something may surface one day. That is the part you don't understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

No evidence is no evidence, cut and dried.

And yet you guys expect to see evidence for occurrences that wouldn't generate any.

That's the point of my apple challenge.

It's like expecting to see sparks when rubbing two marshmallows together.

 

[RickG]

And yet you guys expect to see evidence for occurrences that wouldn't generate any.

That is an unspecific generalization. Perhaps you can provide an example (in this thread).

That's the point of my apple challenge.

How about sticking to the point of this thread? Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

It's like expecting to see sparks when rubbing two marshmallows together.

But provide a spark from another source and the marshmallow will burn rapidly.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you can provide an example (in this thread).

No, I can't.

But that doesn't mean I won't back down from my belief that scientists don't understand what no evidence is.

So if you want to claim I (or anyone) don't understand what evidence is -- then I want to claim you don't understand what it is not.

 

[RickG]

No, I can't.

Then why make such an unfounded statement?

But that doesn't mean I won't back down from my belief that scientists don't understand what no evidence is.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. The problem is that you are forming on opinion on scientific understanding from a non science point of view, which is incorrect from a scientific point of view.

So if you want to claim I (or anyone) don't understand what evidence is -- then I want to claim you don't understand what it is not.

In other words, your only intent is to disagree, rather than try to understand your misconception.

 

[justlookinla]

That is only because you refuse to learn what is a and what is not evidence.

You'll not offer evidence for anyone to examine. Anyone can make worthless and baseless claims, such as yours.

You have demonstrated your inability to understand the concept and refuse to learn.

You've demonstrated your ability to make worthless and baseless claims.

In fact almost all creationists refuse to learn what evidence is.

Prove it. Yet another worthless and baseless claim. Add that to the mountains of your worthless and baseless claims.

That is one of the main reasons that they are still creationists.

Prove it. Even more added to your worthless/baseless mountain.

I am still willing to help you to learn. Until you do learn what is and what is not scientific evidence you will continue to deny evidence that is obvious to scientists.

I'm willing to examine evidence. Your mountain of worthless and baseless claims....that's totally another thing.

I would think that you would be curious as to why your side keeps losing court case after court case. Here is a hint:

Most judges understand the concept of evidence very very well.

I'd think you're be curious why there's no evidence coming from you. Or not.[/QUOTE]

 

[PsychoSarah]

Some of us may not understand what evidence is; but scientists can't understand what no evidence is.

And I have a challenge thread to prove it:

My Apple Challenge

We've already pointed out a flaw in such reasoning: you disprove an honest god by suggesting the being would make an apple that is identical to one that took time to grow.

Worse, at least it would functionally make sense to make an apple created in 2 seconds identical to one that took weeks to naturally form, since it would suit it better for consumption. Most of the qualities of our planet that make it appear old have no function for life or anything else functionally necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'll not offer evidence for anyone to examine. Anyone can make worthless and baseless claims, such as yours.

Justa, you demonstrated long ago that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. I have posted scientific evidence in the past and you denied it. That means you were wrong. There is no if ands or buts here. You can disagree with the interpretation of evidence, but it is undeniable. When you understand the concept of evidence then you can deamnd it.

You've demonstrated your ability to make worthless and baseless claims.

That is wrong.

Prove it. Yet another worthless and baseless claim. Add that to the mountains of your worthless and baseless claims.

Gladly. As soon as you learn the concept of scientific evidence I will do this for you.

Prove it. Even more added to your worthless/baseless mountain.

Please do not spread falsehoods against me. That is against the rules of the forum.

I'm willing to examine evidence. Your mountain of worthless and baseless claims....that's totally another thing.

But you cannot properly examine evidence if you do not understand the concept. Your bias and lack of education will get in the way of a proper analysis.

I'd think you're be curious why there's no evidence coming from you. Or not.

I have given evidence to others. Only you and a couple of others have lost the right to demand evidence here.

 

[justlookinla]

Justa, you demonstrated long ago that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. I have posted scientific evidence in the past and you denied it. That means you were wrong. There is no if ands or buts here. You can disagree with the interpretation of evidence, but it is undeniable. When you understand the concept of evidence then you can deamnd it.

You've demonstrated for quite a while now, and continue to demonstrate in this post, you only have meaningless and worthless claims concerning evidence.

Gladly. As soon as you learn the concept of scientific evidence I will do this for you.

For months now you haven't shown me, or anyone else, anything but meaningless and worthless claims. And continue to do so.

Please do not spread falsehoods against me. That is against the rules of the forum.

What falsehoods? Your response is an example of what you've been doing for months and months and months now. You make meaningless and worthless claims.

But you cannot properly examine evidence if you do not understand the concept. Your bias and lack of education will get in the way of a proper analysis.

The burden lies with you...you've made claims of evidence and then attempt to insult the intelligence of those who respond to you with 'you're too stupid to understand' when asked for this yet unseen, invisible, worthless, meaningless evidence. You have no evidence, you only have empty, baseless, worthless and invisible claims.

You'll not give the evidence in your response to this. That's because it's not there.

I have given evidence to others. Only you and a couple of others have lost the right to demand evidence here.

You have? When? Where?

You and I both know you're not going to reference this alleged evidence you've allegedly given to others. It'll be more of the same empty, worthless and meaningless claims.

 

[ecco]

Justa, you demonstrated long ago that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence.

Justlookinla believes in the concept of scientific evidence up to the point where it conflicts with his literal interpretation of Genesis and all stories thereafter.

 

[ecco]

to Subduction Zone

You've demonstrated for quite a while now, and continue to demonstrate in this post, you only have meaningless and worthless claims concerning evidence. It'll be more of the same empty, worthless and meaningless claims.

Justlookinla believes in the concept of scientific evidence up to the point where it conflicts with his literal interpretation of Genesis and all stories thereafter.

 

[justlookinla]

Justlookinla believes in the concept of scientific evidence up to the point where it conflicts with his literal interpretation of Genesis and all stories thereafter.

The scientific method destroys Darwinist evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The scientific method destroys Darwinist evolution.

Of course the over 100 year old postulations are easy to defeat; how about attacking the modern version of the theory?