Why do you believe in the evolution theory? (2)

[justlookinla]

False dichotomy.

The creation of humanity by evolution was through natural processes. It is only you who insists that natural mechanisms are godless. I am willing to accept evidence for God in the process if there is any, and I never insist that God can not be part of the process.

Your version of evolution differs from the version of evolution which is embraced by theistic evolutionists. Stop trying to make evolution a monolithic term.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your version of evolution differs from the version of evolution which is embraced by theistic evolutionists.

That doesn't make it atheistic.

Why do you insist that scientific theories are godless? How did you determine that god is not found in nature?

 

[justlookinla]

That doesn't make it atheistic.

Why do you insist that scientific theories are godless? How did you determine that god is not found in nature?

If humanity isn't the result of theistic creation, it's the result of atheistic creation. This results in at least two different views on evolution and the creation of humanity.

Stop trying to use your evolutionary view as the definitive evolutionary view. It's not working.

 

[Loudmouth]

If humanity isn't the result of theistic creation, it's the result of atheistic creation.

Why would a theory that refers to naturalistic processes be atheistic? Why do you insist that god is not a part of nature?

 

[justlookinla]

Why would a theory that refers to naturalistic processes be atheistic? Why do you insist that god is not a part of nature?

Why wouldn't the view that humanity is the result of a Godless creator be atheistic creation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't make it atheistic.

Why do you insist that scientific theories are godless? How did you determine that god is not found in nature?

Your argument has always been that there is no reason to believe that God had anything to do with the natural processes and now you are arguing that there is no reason to think they are Godless. Rather hypocritical don't you think?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your argument has always been that there is no reason to believe that God had anything to do with the natural processes and now you are arguing that there is no reason to think they are Godless. Rather hypocritical don't you think?

I have always said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A lack of evidence for God acting in nature is not evidence for a Godless nature. I am more than open to evidence of God in nature.

Justlookinla, on the other hand, is arguing that God can not be a part of nature. He is arguing that if natural processes are the cause then God does not exist. Perhaps you should be speaking to Justlookinla.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why wouldn't the view that humanity is the result of a Godless creator be atheistic creation?

Why do you view nature as being Godless?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have always said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A lack of evidence for God acting in nature is not evidence for a Godless nature. I am more than open to evidence of God in nature.

Justlookinla, on the other hand, is arguing that God can not be a part of nature. He is arguing that if natural processes are the cause then God does not exist. Perhaps you should be speaking to Justlookinla.

You have always said that there is no evidence of God in the process so there is no reason to believe that God had any part in it. You have said that of we (theists) want to add God that is up to us but TOE is sufficient on its own and there is no evidence for a need for God in the process.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have always said that there is no evidence of God in the process so there is no reason to believe that God had any part in it.

And? I am not saying that God can not be a part of the process, merely that there is no evidence that God is a part of the process. Big difference.

 

[justlookinla]

I have always said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A lack of evidence for God acting in nature is not evidence for a Godless nature. I am more than open to evidence of God in nature.

Justlookinla, on the other hand, is arguing that God can not be a part of nature. He is arguing that if natural processes are the cause then God does not exist. Perhaps you should be speaking to Justlookinla.

If ONLY naturalistic processes are the cause, then it's Godless creationism. Your particular use of "evolution" is attempting to define the creation of humanity by the Godless creationism of atheistic Darwinist creationism (just one of the several alleged meanings of 'evolution').

 

[justlookinla]

And? I am not saying that God can not be a part of the process, merely that there is no evidence that God is a part of the process. Big difference.

No God is needed to create humanity or God is needed to create humanity. Big difference.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're attempting to use the atheistic Darwinist creationist view and pass it off as 'evolution'. That's simply your view of evolution, it's not everyone's.



If your position of the creation of humanity by evolution includes a theistic impetus, let us know. Otherwise, let us know.

Either way, stop trying to pass off evolution as a monolithic term and view.

No, he isn't. Where does Loudmouth mention the explicit exclusion of gods in evolution ever? I truly mean ever, search this entire site for it if you want.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No God is needed to create humanity or God is needed to create humanity. Big difference.

Well, one of those makes existence without a deity possible, not guaranteed. The other guarantees it, but only if you retain deity as being nonspecific.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You best breeding days might be behind you Paul, but as long as your body provides a platform for other species, like the bacteria in your gut, to continue to breed and evolve, you're still part of the fun

Yes, and that long life enabling multiple generational communcation is still operative . . . I've got grandkids to encourage!

 

[FredVB]

Your veiled allusions to HGT in prokaryotes simply don't apply since Darwin never spoke of prokaryotes.
"It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)

Do you think God is incapable of creating natural processes that could produce the biodiversity we see today?

There was no veiled illusion to HGT or anything, that was being read into what was said, when what was said referred directly to what Darwin spoke of.

Sure God is capable of creation with use of such natural processes. God is perfect, and I see from revelation God is good and providing what is good for God's creatures as said and not ever lying or deceiving, and wouldn't have created in just such a fashion as is assumed with Darwinian evolution with natural processes without the divine work of God accomplishing all this creation.

You do realize that agnostic is a knowledge statement, not a belief statement, right? I am an agnostic atheist. Perhaps you live in a highly religious area where a lot of creationists happen to be, thus giving you the impression that the majority of Christians are creationists, when it actually is just the case in certain regions of the country.

If one as you says simply, I don't know if there is God, that wouldn't be a faith statement, but it doesn't cut off coming to any faith statement. If it is said that it cannot be known that there is God, that is a faith statement, and it would be agnostic. If it said there isn't God at all, that is a faith statement, whether it is said that this is believed or it is said that it is known, or proved from science, or whatever.

I meet just a very few believing Christians apart from where I go to church. With any communication among them it is not usual at all to discuss evolution or creation or anything of origins. When I communicate about Christian beliefs about it I am thinking of Bible believing Christians as I am. I had believed of what I had learned from the evolutionary theory, but coming to know it was not all proven and with many gaps, as I came to faith in the gospel with trusting God's word, I could trust the creation account, and see that other believers did too, more so now through what I find online for such perspectives.