Human Evolution

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Creationists got there long ago.
That's right.

Creationists were here first.

Then science showed up and started sowing its tares.

Now look.

You can throw a beach ball into a crown with your eyes closed and hit an atheist.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not in the slightest.

And I think that when you're stuck trying equate acceptance of science to religion, then you have definitely ran out of arguments, boyo.
Same for that barrel analogy to avoid answering what you know is right.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,547
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,281.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Not in the slightest.

And I think that when you're stuck trying equate acceptance of science to religion, then you have definitely ran out of arguments, boyo.

Maybe there's a reason it violates the rules to say it is religion
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Maybe there's a reason it violates the rules to say it is religion
I wasn't trying to imply evolution runs on faith.

In fact, I didn't notice that until after I had typed it.

It's just a good point.

Belief comes before acceptance.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Why is it logical to postulate that perhaps a first cause with a mind just is and it could not be otherwise, but not logical to postulate that perhaps a first cause without a mind just is and it could not be otherwise?

First Cause is quite a bit more than 'just is', though we might tend to think of him that way. Existence itself 'is' because God exists —not the other way around. God does not fit a principle we know of as 'existence'.

And why is it, that, no matter what the thread is about, people always, always, always ignore the subject of the thread and change the topic to talk about the origin of the universe instead?
Somehow, the threads have a tendency to be about postulations that either do or do not deny God.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
And you do agree with me that the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 represents a fact that just is? It could not possibly be otherwise in any universe. No God was required to decide that.
If God is God, First Cause and Omnipotent, yes, God made that. He is not subject to it —it is, (to put it crassly), his invention, as is all of reality. But don't worry, he will not change.

Reality is what it is, because God is real. Reality is his 'invention'.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Somehow, the threads have a tendency to be about postulations that either do or do not deny God.

That's not true. We're heading towards 200 posts in this thread and nothing has been claimed or suggested that would deny God's existence. If there wasn't a single atheist on this forum, these discussions would still take place. The same arguments would be used. The same points made. It's always been thus.

I am really not aware of anyone in this forum who has ever used science as a means to deny God's existence. Feel free to look if you like, but you'd be wasting your time.

To be honest, these discussions are sometimes a good way to learn about some scientific aspect of evolution or star creation or planetary formation or any of umpteen topics that emerge. And this doesn't reflect well on me, but I join in on occasions because I find some of the arguments mildly amusing (yes, you could say that I'm only doing that because it makes me feel smarter...and I'll take the fifth on that).

So let's be honest here. These type of threads are about some fundamentalist views of scripture bumping into scientific reality. A reality which, as I have said, does NOT deny God's existence.

Glad to have cleared that up.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
That's not true. We're heading towards 200 posts in this thread and nothing has been claimed or suggested that would deny God's existence. If there wasn't a single atheist on this forum, these discussions would still take place. The same arguments would be used. The same points made. It's always been thus.

I am really not aware of anyone in this forum who has ever used science as a means to deny God's existence. Feel free to look if you like, but you'd be wasting your time.

To be honest, these discussions are sometimes a good way to learn about some scientific aspect of evolution or star creation or planetary formation or any of umpteen topics that emerge. And this doesn't reflect well on me, but I join in on occasions because I find some of the arguments mildly amusing (yes, you could say that I'm only doing that because it makes me feel smarter...and I'll take the fifth on that).

So let's be honest here. These type of threads are about some fundamentalist views of scripture bumping into scientific reality. A reality which, as I have said, does NOT deny God's existence.

Glad to have cleared that up.
I guess I was too vague. By 'postulations' I wasn't referring to science, as such, but simply, 'claims', by whatever means anyone arrived at those claims. @doubtingmerle , to whom I was responding, was complaining:
doubtingmerle said:
And why is it, that, no matter what the thread is about, people always, always, always ignore the subject of the thread and change the topic to talk about the origin of the universe instead?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
The point is that interpretations of scientific evidence can be explained and justified. This isn't a matter of a personal aesthetic reaction to a conclusion.

We have and do collect information .... the information is subject to interpretation (and those vary) .... ie what does the information mean?

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

we have collected information and that information is interpreted in various ways.

Yes, but by removing the justification you give a false equivalence to interpretations.

A fact is something that's indisputable. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by someone. It has to be accepted only on belief.

I feel that is a false oversimplification of both terms.

When the scientific community changes the theory of evolution to the indisputable facts of evolution .... lemme know.

It's disputable and will remain so.

I never denied that it is disputable... I just questioned the reasoning of the dispute.

I also stated that nothing is an indisputable fact in science.

Some religious believers may claim to have indisputable facts... but those can even be inconsistent within the same sect of the same religion.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I guess I was too vague. By 'postulations' I wasn't referring to science, as such, but simply, 'claims', by whatever means anyone arrived at those claims. @doubtingmerle , to whom I was responding, was complaining:
doubtingmerle said:
And why is it, that, no matter what the thread is about, people always, always, always ignore the subject of the thread and change the topic to talk about the origin of the universe instead?

And the origin of the universe, however we discover it happened (IF we discover it), will be the way that God had decided it should happen. Unless people want to believe in a God that deliberately hides things from us.

I'm up to the back teeth with those (present company exempted) who claim that God must exist because...gee, just look around you at his wonders, and then bend over backwards to deny those wonders when they are explained in terms we can understand.

When the world encompassed as far as we could reasonable travel, then it might have seemed that God must have created it especially for us. His wonders to behold. Then we discovered parts of the planet that had been hidden from us. Then we discovered that some of the pretty lights in the night sky were other planets. So we updated what we thought God had made for us.

Then we discovered that we were a system of planets that revolved around a rather nondescripts sun, and we weren't the centre of all things (at which point the Church had had enough of this heresy and burnt those like Giordano Bruno at the stake for promoting such ideas). Because they seemed to directly counter our impression of what God must have done.

Then we discovered that our solar system was one of many. Then one of thousands. Then one of billions. In an outer suburb of a mediocre galaxy. And people had to rethink what God might have done. Which is difficult at this point because we aren't built to consider such things. Numbers such as a billion and distances like a light year and times on a galactic scale are simply beyond us. Some people started to wonder what it was all for.

Then we discovered that our galaxy was likewise one of many. Then one of billions. We have no concept of a million, let alone a billion. So multiply billions by billions (and I'm starting to sound like Sagan now) and it becomes utterly meaningless. So a lot more people started wondering what on earth it was for.

Then Hubble discovered that space is expanding. So all we can see is not all there is. And some of what we can see is disappearing from all possible contact with us. And that which was out of our reach when we climbed down from the trees will be forever out of our reach. And...this is the clincher...there is good reason to believe that there is an infinity of that which is outside the observable universe.

So there is a small rock on the dark side of a small moon circling a dead planet in a tiny solar system on the outer edge of a dying galaxy in a place that has always been and will forever be somewhere that we can't even see let alone reach. I wonder what on earth it is for.

Feynman once said:
“It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”

To say that I couldn't agree more is the Understatement Of The Week. But some still hold to the view that caused Bruno to be burnt alive; that we are the centre of everything. And they still claim a
literally medieval viewpoint. I can't cope with the audacity of that view.

But even that view is still not an argument against God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If God is God, First Cause and Omnipotent, yes, God made that. He is not subject to it —it is, (to put it crassly), his invention, as is all of reality. But don't worry, he will not change.

Reality is what it is, because God is real. Reality is his 'invention'.

Two angels walk into a bar. The bartender brings over a pair of beers. "We're thirsty," says the first angel, "Can you please bring us two more?"

"Are you crazy?" says the bartender. "I can't serve you 53,567 beers!"

I am sorry, but the quantity two plus two cannot possibly equal the quantity 53,567. That is logically impossible. No God can make those two quantities be equal.

Your quote above was in response to, "And you do agree with me that the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 represents a fact that just is? It could not possibly be otherwise in any universe." And I stand by that.

But you assert that no, 2+2=4 is simply his invention because that is what he decided. He could have decided otherwise.

In no possible world is two angels on the head of a pin holding two beer mugs each the same thing as two angels on a head of a pin holding a total of 53,567. Not even an omnipotent God can do things that are logically impossible.

If your God can do things that are logically impossible, can he be completely honest with you while lying to you at the same time?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
That's just what Paul warned about in Romans 1.
He warned you not to think, else you might become an atheist?

As Robert G. Ingersoll put it, "If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
First Cause is quite a bit more than 'just is', though we might tend to think of him that way. Existence itself 'is' because God exists —not the other way around. God does not fit a principle we know of as 'existence'.
Which does not answer my question. You might have misunderstood the question. Let's reword it a little:

Why is it logical to postulate that perhaps it just is that a first cause with a mind exists, and it could not be otherwise; but it is not logical to postulate that perhaps it just is that a first cause without a mind exists, and it could not be otherwise?
I contend that the root cause of existence possibly did not have a mind, and possibly did. Both options seem logical to me.
 
Upvote 0