Ethics of anti evolution arguments

[trophy33]

The claimed and logical conclusion if there is no God in the picture

Why do you want God to be in the picture of natural processes? Why is it such a problem He is not directly in the theory of evolution if its not a problem He is not directly in the theory of gravity or in the theory of relativity?

As God does not directly cause rains or thunderstorms, He also does not need to directly cause adaptation of organisms or mutations.

 

[truthpls]

Why do you want God to be in the picture of natural processes?

Why do you want God to not be in creation and resulting processes?

Why is it such a problem He is not directly in the theory of evolution if its not a problem He is not directly in the theory of gravity or in the theory of relativity?

God made the laws. How is He not in them?

As God does not directly cause rains or thunderstorms,

You know that how? I see no reason why if He wanted that he could not override normal rules.

He also does not need to directly cause adaptation of organisms or mutations.

No, why would He? He created it all and did so in such a way that things adapt and in some cases mutate.

 

[trophy33]

Why do you want God to not be in creation and resulting processes?

Its not about wanting. If the natural processes work "automatically", adding God into the mix would be good for nothing practical. How would you, for example, create a computer algorithm for predicting hurricanes with the God parameter in it? What would you do with such parameter in the code?

God made the laws. How is He not in them?

He is not in them directly. The mechanism works automatically, like your watches do. You do not need to move the hands in your watches with your fingers.

You know that how? I see no reason why if He wanted that he could not override normal rules.

We are talking about the "normal" rules, in natural sciences. Not about "overriding" them - miracles.

 

[truthpls]

Its not about wanting. If the natural processes work "automatically", adding God into the mix would be good for nothing practical.

How do you know they work automatically? If God was not all and in all who says they would work?

How would you, for example, create a computer algorithm for predicting hurricanes with the God parameter in it?

Why would I try to shove the Almighty into a little computer program? God has an angel in charge of the four winds we are told in the bible. What does a man made program know about angels and how God set it all up?

What would you do with such parameter in the code?

Sorry if you thought God had to fit in that. Then there is things like prophesy that has to happen. For example, there will be we are told hailstones about a hundred pounds each one day. When those are seen in the world, do you think your little programs will either have predicted it, or know what is what?

He is not in them directly. The mechanism works automatically, like your watches do. You do not need to move the hands in your watches with your fingers.

How would we know if He was in the forces of nature or not? Do you have a ghostbuster camera to look at that?

We are talking about the "normal" rules, in natural sciences.

You thought God was normal?

 

[Larniavc]

Bacteria that eat nylon do not prove than man came from bacteria. No real connection. All that shows is that God's creations are resilient and adapt.

That was not the question I was answering. Please do not move the goal posts.

 

[Larniavc]

Or to prove it. There is no data to falsify the tooth fairy. So?

If there is no way to possibly disprove something it cannot be explored with the scientific method.

I’d go a step further and say that if something is infallible it probably (but not definitely) does not exist.

 

[Larniavc]

Likewise if you found proof there was no creation you would be famous. I don't expect proof for beliefs.

Creation ex nilo is unfalsifiable; thus I explorable by science. I would go further and say it is probably (but not definitely incorrect).

 

[Astrid]

For Christians. Other theists have different opinions about it.

Educated Christians reject false literal bible- reading.
Like flood or the 6 day thing.

 

[Astrid]

Why do you want God to be in the picture of natural processes? Why is it such a problem He is not directly in the theory of evolution if its not a problem He is not directly in the theory of gravity or in the theory of relativity?

As God does not directly cause rains or thunderstorms, He also does not need to directly cause adaptation of organisms or mutations.

our friend was just being thoughtful, providing examples of
false arguments

 

[trophy33]

How do you know they work automatically? If God was not all and in all who says they would work?

Because they repeat still the same, according to physical laws. Chemistry, physics etc. If you jump 100 times, you will go down 100 times.

Why would I try to shove the Almighty into a little computer program?

If the "God parameter" is useless for a computer program predicting hurricanes, then we can agree that adding God to natural sciences adds nothing to their results. And therefore, we also do not need to add God to the theory of evolution as such, as far as it is only a naturalistic description of biological phenomena.

How would we know if He was in the forces of nature or not? Do you have a ghostbuster camera to look at that?

Because they repeat still the same, according to physical laws. Chemistry, physics etc. If you jump 100 times, you will go down 100 times.

If you do not want to go the route of Spinoza, defining God as just some blind force without personality, then you have no point and its not God directly, what is pushing you down.

You thought God was normal?

I said we are talking about what is "normal", in natural sciences. When you jump 100 times, you will go down 100 times. We do not need God to describe this phenomenon - for example mathematically.

 

[David Lamb]

Educated Christians reject false literal bible- reading.
Like flood or the 6 day thing.

Well, maybe some educated Christians count the flood and "the 6 day thing" as you call it, as false literal bible-reading. However, there are highly educated scientists who are Christians who do believe the Genesis accounts to be literal. A person can be educated without believing the Theory of evolution over millions of years, or a local rather than a worldwide flood at the time of Noah.

 

[o_mlly]

Nylon eating bacteria.

Microevolution.

 

[Larniavc]

However, there are highly educated scientists who are Christians who do believe the Genesis accounts to be literal.

Who?

 

[Larniavc]

Microevolution.

There you are then. You were wrong and evolution is a fact. Unless you propose some barrier that stops small changes become big changes?

 

[o_mlly]

"Some creationists lie about the facts; how can this be morally justified?"

Lying is immoral. However, as science has no facts only probabilities, accusing those who disagree with your "science" of lying is immoral.

Lying consists in putting into words the very opposite of what one really thinks— the opposite of one's own state of mind. The lie must, of course, be intentional and with a deliberate purpose to deceive for the sake of gaining some advantage, regardless of the injury that may result to the person who is deceived.

 

[o_mlly]

You were wrong and evolution is a fact.

Only microevolution has been observed.

Unless you propose some barrier that stops small changes become big changes?

First, you must demonstrate the macroevolution claimed. Unless you can demonstrate that bacteria never had the ability to absorb nylon then all you have is microevolution, ie., adapting to the present environment.

 

[o_mlly]

Bwaaaaaahahaha!

Is that a "sciencey" word used in cognitive behavior therapy?

 

[Astrid]

Well, maybe some educated Christians count the flood and "the 6 day thing" as you call it, as false literal bible-reading. However, there are highly educated scientists who are Christians who do believe the Genesis accounts to be literal. A person can be educated without believing the Theory of evolution over millions of years, or a local rather than a worldwide flood at the time of Noah.

I went over that before including how flood- believer scientists are always
” highly educated” , or “ brilliant”.

And, its not “ maybe some” educated Christians.

While you don’t intend it you are grossly insulting the
integrity of the great majority of educated Christians.

Flood- belief mandates rejecting / denying
”all the evidence in the universe”, that fails to support
or directly disproves flood, in favour of ideology.

And that, my friend, is exactly what scientific dishonesty is.

I mentioned polar ice disproving flood, you ignored that. Why?

I do not understand how clinging to a disproven belief - or abandoning scientific
honesty -shows much respect for God. Maybe you can explain it.


* Dr. K Wise, Yec paleontologist
“ even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec
I will still be yec”

Do you find that admirable?

 

[Piers Plowman]

I went over that before including how flood- believer scientists are always
” highly educated” , or “ brilliant”.

And, its not “ maybe some” educated Christians.

While you don’t intend it you are grossly insulting the
integrity of the great majority of educated Christians.

Flood- belief mandates rejecting / denying
”all the evidence in the universe”, that fails to support
or directly disproves flood, in favour of ideology.

And that, my friend, is exactly what scientific dishonesty is.

I mentioned polar ice disproving flood, you ignored that. Why?

I do not understand how clinging to a disproven belief - or abandoning scientific
honesty shows much respect for God. Maybe you can explain it.


* Dr. K Wise, Yec paleontologist
“ even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec
I will still be yec”

Do you find that admirable?


*







It is exactly what your “ highly Educated”
scientists do, to disgrace themselves and their faith.

You prefer 'yes-men' over scientists with actual spines?

 

[Astrid]

Who?

Dr. K Wise for one.