Evolution is Not Atheistic

[Meowzltov]

QV please:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-much-longer.7910094/page-19#post-68693331

And QV my answer:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-much-longer.7910094/page-20#post-68693355

I don't understand what you mean by "deep" time, or how it answers the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't understand what you mean by "deep" time, or how it answers the question.

I was pointing out that I have been saying the same thing you said.

In fact, I've been saying it for some time here.

I vaguely remember someone asking for just one piece of physical evidence that pwns evolution, and I answered with one word:

Time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I was pointing out that I have been saying the same thing you said.

In fact, I've been saying it for some time here.

I vaguely remember someone asking for just one piece of physical evidence that pwns evolution, and I answered with one word:

Time.

That only works if you can find an evolution supporter that thinks the earth is young. There probably are a small number of those, but good luck finding them.

 

[Cearbhall]

Fundies do need to deny and demonize evolution, to hold onto and protect, their literal interpretation of biblical creationism.

Some can't let go of the black and white thinking and literal interpretation and there are ample examples of that on this site.

In my opinion, it's especially sad because it keeps them from fully appreciating the question of why the story was written and what messages it's meant to communicate. Reading it the way you would read an objective news report keeps the reader from fully engaging with the cultural context, the significance of the symbolism, and the collaborative nature of the story. I always found the divine inspiration interpretation to be much more profound than the divine dictation interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

In my opinion, it's especially sad because it keeps them from fully appreciating the question of why the story was written ...

Why the story was written is found in the Ten Commandments that scientists want out of our schools and off of our public property.

And for the record ...

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

 

[As I was saying]

You can say that all you like. Doesn't make it true.

Non sequitur

 

[As I was saying]

Fundies do need to deny and demonize evolution, to hold onto and protect, their literal interpretation of biblical creationism.

Some can't let go of the black and white thinking and literal interpretation and there are ample examples of that on this site.

Non fundies are very quick to pronounce judgment on those that prefer what God says rather than what non fundies say. I do not know what they are hoping to achieve, but whatever it is, it is failing miserably as I and probably every other "fundie" has not changed their mind about the truth.

I guess that as non fundies can't let go of their black and white thinking that they are right and everyone else is wrong and that somehow God is involved in a scientific discussion about evolution, they will forever be rabbiting on about God does not exist which has nothing at all to do with evolution as a scientific concept.

We fundies do not and never have considered God to be a subject of evolutionary thinking. God is a spirit and those that worship him must worship him in Spirit and Truth. The two go hand in hand. Note it doesn't say that God must be worshipped with logic and science and man made knowledge, which is all that the non fundies can offer.

When you try and marry up the natural and the supernatural you are to say the least, up the creek without a paddle. It is like trying to mix water and oil. Understanding happens when you accept God for who he is, the supernatural creator of heaven and earth and all that is in it, and when you accept evolution for what it is, the invention of a man's mind to try and avoid the fact that God is the creator of heaven and earth and everything in it. In other words, man who is in rebellion against God, just like Satan was.

Some non fundies think it would be terrible to let God be God because if they did that they would not be able to make their own minds up and they would become puppets. The fact is they have a free will and that is what is keeping their lives a total mess as they keep on making the wrong decisions. That is why we have so much carnage in the world today.

If only they could see that a connection with God gives them a peace that passes all understanding instead of a pseudo peace that makes them think they are doing all right when in actual fact they are doing all wrong.

I know if there were no atheists, abortion would almost become a thing of the past and millions of children that have been murdered in the womb would be alive today, enjoying a life of promise.

 

[As I was saying]

There is nothing about evolution that denies out faith.

The only difference between Microevolution and regular Evolution is TIME. Take Microevolution and give it an ancient earth, and it will evolve from one species to another. And life has been around on earth from between 3900 million years to 2500 million years--that's certainly enough time for regular evolution. All the geologic evidence supports an ancient earth (radiometric dating, fossil evidence, gradual processes of rock).

We were told by Christopher Hitchens that life had been around for 4.5 billion years.

 

[Armoured]

Non sequitur

You can say that all you like. Doesn't make it true.

 

[Frenzy]

Non fundies are very quick to pronounce judgment on those that prefer what God says rather than what non fundies say.

You have that wrong, fundies do not prefer what God says they prefer what people wrote who said it came from God, fundies don't believe God they believe people.
Who told people about God? people, who told people what God said? people, who do you believe? people, is there a God? who knows? all we have is the words of people who tell us there are Gods, if you're happy to believe people then go for it, I'm not.
It goes even deeper than that because people of one faith do not believe people of other faiths which means people are only prepared to believe the people they want to believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have that wrong, fundies do not prefer what God says they prefer what people wrote who said it came from God, fundies don't believe God they believe people.

So if someone dies and you're in their will, you won't accept it?

 

[Meowzltov]

We were told by Christopher Hitchens that life had been around for 4.5 billion years.

This isn't a "Christopher Hitchens" idea; it's a "virtually all scientists" idea.

 

[justlookinla]

Some have a faith-based belief in a willy-nilly creation with the human life form being just another product of mass confusion (Darwinists) and some believe that creation is purposeful and humans are the highest form of life created by God (Theists).

One cannot accurately say that 'Christians believe in evolution' without pointing out the kind of evolution being embraced, theistic or non-theistic, macro or micro. There are huge differences in implications in the various views.

 

[ecco]

Some have a faith-based belief in a willy-nilly creation with the human life form being just another product of mass confusion (Darwinists)

Why do those christians opposed to evolution, always try to make belief in evolution a faith-based thing. For atheists, the only faith baseing involved is that we have faith in the consensus of tens of thousands of scientists over the years. If I did not have this kind of faith, I would never fly in an airplane or drive a car.

... some believe that creation is purposeful and humans are the highest form of life created by God (Theists).

Since you are talking about evolution, the end of your sentence should read: ...form of life created by God (Creationists). There are many theists who believe in evolution.

One cannot accurately say that 'Christians believe in evolution' without pointing out the kind of evolution being embraced, theistic or non-theistic, macro or micro. There are huge differences in implications in the various views.

I'll give you theistic or non-theistic. However, you are wrong on the macro or micro part. Evolution, theistic or not, posits both macro and micro. You know that, but don't want to acknowledge it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do those christians opposed to evolution, always try to make belief in evolution a faith-based thing.

Because cyanobacteria → man has never been observed.

 

[justlookinla]

Why do those christians opposed to evolution, always try to make belief in evolution a faith-based thing.

The belief that humanity is the result of a willy-nilly process acting on an unknown single life form from long ago is a faith-based thing.

For atheists, the only faith baseing involved is that we have faith in the consensus of tens of thousands of scientists over the years. If I did not have this kind of faith, I would never fly in an airplane or drive a car.

Argumentum ad populum.

Since you are talking about evolution, the end of your sentence should read: ...form of life created by God (Creationists). There are many theists who believe in evolution.

I'm talking about the different views of evolution. Atheistic Darwinist evolution is just one of the views. And no Christian believes in evolution without God being involved in some manner.

I'll give you theistic or non-theistic.

That's because it's easily shown.

However, you are wrong on the macro or micro part. Evolution, theistic or not, posits both macro and micro. You know that, but don't want to acknowledge it.

I can show you examples of the 'how' of micro-evolution. Medical research depends on it, not the 'what we gonna get we just don't know' of Darwinist (macro) evolution. You, on the other hand, have only the faith based 'time+mutation' claim that some unknown life form became all the life we observe today. Willy-nilly 'creationism' in other words.

 

[ecco]

I can show you examples of the 'how' of micro-evolution. Medical research depends on it, not the 'what we gonna get we just don't know' of Darwinist (macro) evolution.

My point, as you well know, is that people who believe in evolution, theistic or otherwise, believe in macro evolution. You just don't want to accept that.

You, on the other hand, have only the faith based 'time+mutation' claim that some unknown life form became all the life we observe today. Willy-nilly 'creationism' in other words.

Sticks and stones etc. If it makes you feel good to apply your own nonsensical ideas to evolution, then do.

I'm surprised you believe in heliocentricity (or do you?)

 

[justlookinla]

My point, as you well know, is that people who believe in evolution, theistic or otherwise, believe in macro evolution. You just don't want to accept that.

They believe in directed evolution as contrasted to the willy-nilly Darwinist evolution.

Sticks and stones etc. If it makes you feel good to apply your own nonsensical ideas to evolution, then do.

What nonsensical ideas?

I'm surprised you believe in heliocentricity (or do you?)

What does that have to do with the various views on evolution?

 

[ecco]

My point, as you well know, is that people who believe in evolution, theistic or otherwise, believe in macro evolution. You just don't want to accept that.

They believe in directed evolution as contrasted to the willy-nilly Darwinist evolution.

Yes, but that includes the concept you cannot accept -MACRO-. You even skipped responding to that part of my post.

What nonsensical ideas?

Your creationist beliefs. And your refusal to accept that christians accept macro evolution.

I'm surprised you believe in heliocentricity (or do you?)

What does that have to do with the various views on evolution?

Didn't answer. Hmm. Interesting. It's just that some people who take Genesis literally, believe in creationism and geocentricity. I was wondering just where you draw the line on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[As I was saying]

This isn't a "Christopher Hitchens" idea; it's a "virtually all scientists" idea.

I never said it was a Christopher Hitchens idea. I said Christopher Hitchens TOLD us. It is obvious that he disagrees with you as do virtually all scientists.