A thread on evolution

[Obliquinaut]

evolution and atheism go hand in hand, plus the op discusses all that was in the video's one video exclusively based on origin of the universe being nothing, athiesm.

OK first off, you didn't really "discuss" anything, you asked everyone to watch 2 hours of your favorite viewing selections. OTHERS discussed the point.

Secondly the "First Uncause Cause" argument of Aquinas (which is kind of what you are bordering on here) is essentially little more than special pleading. You simply COMMAND that "God has always existed" and from there you get the Universe. When anyone asks where did God come from (because everything needs a precipitating cause) the answer of the faithful is "God has always existed! QED!"

If you find that to be a SATISFYING ANSWER then the more common atheist answer: "we don't really know what came before the universe" must sound very strange. The claim that the universe came from nothing isn't really a robust scientific stance. It's a placeholder. The fact of the matter is we don't know.

Personally I'm more comfortable when I hear people say "I don't know" than someone who claims they know just because they (or someone else) said so and even then the answer is predicated on Special Pleading.

 

[createdtoworship]

Like I said earlier, I don't believe you at this point. You're just playing games.

ok

 

[majj27]

the topics go hand in hand. no God, universe from nothing.

Evolution doesn't contain as a fundamental assumption "There is no God". It's a mistake to say that it does.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope. I'm not an atheist and I accept evolution as a natural, supported, scientific piece of reality. Zero conflict with it.

but it's not supported by science or anything resembling science.

 

[Obliquinaut]

the topics go hand in hand. no God, universe from nothing.

Ummmm, If you think God always existed (which I assume you do) then why is it so awful to think maybe the universe always existed?

Also: what is so wrong with shrugging our shoulders and saying "I don't know"?

 

[createdtoworship]

I wouldn't call most of those people particularly deep thinkers about their beliefs. Sorry. Most of 'em were kids and maybe they'd just survived their first Philosophy class or they were excited to be an "outsider" or whatever.

The stuff Ray proffered wasn't particularly compelling in any way. Especially if one has arrived at atheism through a deeper study and self-examination.

thats just poisoning the well, after having well drunk.

 

[pitabread]

the topics go hand in hand. no God, universe from nothing.

That is a philosophical discussion that arguably science can't address. Science does not deal with the question of whether or not a god or gods exist.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Evolution doesn't contain as a fundamental assumption "There is no God". It's a mistake to say that it does.

CORRECT!

There are many, many, many evolutionists who are also good Christians.

 

[createdtoworship]

OK first off, you didn't really "discuss" anything, you asked everyone to watch 2 hours of your favorite viewing selections. OTHERS discussed the point.

Secondly the "First Uncause Cause" argument of Aquinas (which is kind of what you are bordering on here) is essentially little more than special pleading. You simply COMMAND that "God has always existed" and from there you get the Universe. When anyone asks where did God come from (because everything needs a precipitating cause) the answer of the faithful is "God has always existed! QED!"

If you find that to be a SATISFYING ANSWER then the more common atheist answer: "we don't really know what came before the universe" must sound very strange. The claim that the universe came from nothing isn't really a robust scientific stance. It's a placeholder. The fact of the matter is we don't know.

Personally I'm more comfortable when I hear people say "I don't know" than someone who claims they know just because they (or someone else) said so and even then the answer is predicated on Special Pleading.

but you believe nothing caused the universe, (like dawkins right?) if not watch first video.

nothing is illogical.

 

[majj27]

but it's not supported by science or anything resembling science.

???

Um, yes, yes it actually is. Mounds and mounds of it. Unless you're working from some different definition of science from the majority of scientists.

 

[Obliquinaut]

thats just poisoning the well, after having well drunk.

Huh? I don't think you know what "poisoning the well" means. But that aside. I was clear all the way through your favorite video pointing out what I felt were old-hat PRATTS and critiques.

Ray is playing up to you. You are his audience. And everything he said sounded really good to you probably because, lacking a real understanding of what many atheists actually think (you would call it walls of empty text because, well, I think you know why ) you think Ray is really puttin' to us.

I'm sorry to tell you but most of us actually arrived at our atheism through much deeper thinking that either you or Ray have undertaken to understand our point of view. And funny thing is: most of us athiests actually understand your faith and the need for it very well. Many of us have come FROM that faith. And I think that really bothers you. How could we arrive at a different result using the same input variables?

 

[pitabread]

but it's not supported by science or anything resembling science.

If you're talking about biological evolution specifically, it's not only vastly supported by science, it's an applied science (e.g. it's useful in biological industries) which I pointed out earlier.

Of course this is something you'll never be exposed to watching typical evangelical videos like those by Ray Comfort et al.

 

[Obliquinaut]

but you believe nothing caused the universe, (like dawkins right?) if not watch first video.

nothing is illogical.

I believe I don't know what caused the universe. And I'm A-OK with that answer until data comes in. Maybe the universe has always existed (like your God, only without the rules against wearing different textiles together). Who knows?

 

[Obliquinaut]

well you are one that watched it. Did you pray ahead of time and say "Dear God if you are there, show yourself to me...after all I heckle christians all day on a christian forum and let them hear me, the least I can do is listen to you for one hour."

did you pray that prayer?

praying for you bud.

Do you pray to God asking for the wisdom to not mock atheism, a topic you probably don't understand?

Do you know why atheists engage with people like you? hint: it isn't to mock Christianity. Many of us have CHristian friends, people we love and support, and people we honor and respect.

No, many of us love to engage with people like you because:

1) you decide you can march over into a field like SCIENCE and leverage it to tell us how our lack of belief is stupid or naive

2) you belabor all the horrors of atheism, but can't imagine a world in which atheists can do good

You see, I actually believe Christianity can do good! I've seen it with my own eyes! It's why I recently helped pay for a friend and his wife to do mission work in Asia. They are truly good people and their faith is what drives them. I may not agree with it or believe it, but I like that they support their communities and it brings them joy. ANd they are good people.

I'm more than happy to debate the concept of God with them if they like or not whichever.

So the reason you get atheists responding to you is precisely because that is what you (and we) want to do.

You are not in the town square planting pretty trees and being mercilessly attacked by ebil atheists all day long pelting you with stones. No, you are standing in the town square throwing stones back at the ebil atheists.

Sorry if you missed that bit.

 

[Obliquinaut]

obliquinot said that ray did better than he thought initially.

I. DID. NOT. I was being sarcastic. Ray "converted" some pretty unconvincing atheists using poor reasoning. Perhaps you didn't read my posts along the way.

That is worth saying. I think obliquinot is a phd and has done peer review work. so his word travels far with me.

Nope. SHouldn't. Ray didn't do particularly good. Ray presented trash logic, poorly understood science and browbeating with threats of hell and torture. The people he "converted" were hardly convincing in any real way.

I apologize if I gave you the impression that I was being anything other than extremely sarcastic.

Sorry!

 

[Obliquinaut]

Yeah, so am I.

I had to make notes. I watched it, pausing and rewinding, for about 6 hours.

It was terrible.

Oh my heavens. You put in more work than I could! We've all seen every point Ray raises multiple times, so I was only willing to invest the hour that it lasted...not 6! You win!

 

[Obliquinaut]

One of the main points of the video is the incredible complexity of DNA. The oldest fossil ever found has complex DNA. The simplest DNA is a thousand times more complex than a set of encyclopedias. It quite simply didn't for by random chemicals.

Finally! SOmeone to discuss the topic with! Yay!

OK

1) first off chemical compounds aren't really purely random. Yes there is a random (stochastic) nature to chemical reactions but two chemicals will only react if certain features are present. The compounds of DNA are a relatively simple sugar with a phosphate and only 4 nitrogen bases (A,G,C,T). THere is nothing particularly "magical" or supernatural about the chemistry at all.

2) the way the information is transmitted is because these 4 bases hydrogen bond and selectively stick to complementary bases on RNA which then uses more hydrogen bonding to pass that information to the amino acids of proteins (grossly oversimplified and it's been about 3 decades since I took my biochem class, so hopefully a real biologist can fill in any errors or gaps I hit here)

3)Yes there's a lot of information in a living thing, but we've had billions of years to build that information up to the level it is today. There is active work on the origins of life, but so far all of life uses standard issue regular chemistry. Nothing particularly supernatural is needed.

Subtle variations in the genetic code do not account for the origin of the genetic code. This isn't randomness, this is design. Intelligent design has to have an intelligent designer. So there is a God and His handiwork is revealed in the incredible complexity of our bodies and the world around us.

To infer design is to assume that there was a specified end-state in mind from the beginning. That since we survive in this environment we must be made to survive in it. But how would you differentiate a self-replicating life form that reproduces faster than it is killed off and relies on a passive filter to weed out maladaptive traits from one that was designed to fit in the space?

The adage is: the puddle was not made to fit the shape of the water. The water conformed to the shape of the hole that makes the puddle.

God has a nature and His nature is perfection. That's why sin is such an affront to Him, and why people stained by sin cannot enter His presence. There is a place for those who wish to spend eternity in His presence and a place for those who do not.

Let's not bring Ray Comfort's Discomforting Hell Threats into the conversation. That has no bearing on how one should reason through a problem.

No one would teach math by telling kids NOT how to do addition and subtraction but rather that they simply need to have FAITH that 3+2 =5 or someone is going to come to their home in the middle of the night and burn them with a blowtorch.

 

[pitabread]

Let's not bring Ray Comfort's Discomforting Hell Threats into the conversation. That has no bearing on how one should reason through a problem.

It may be an aside, but I've never understood why evangelicals resort to fear based approaches. Does it really seem an effective technique? Perhaps it is, but resorting to fear to coerce people into a belief system just seems rather repugnant.

That's why Ray's evangelical approach strikes me as a person selling insurance. It's reducing a deep belief system with a storied history and turning into an insurance policy. Do evangelicals really think that is good witnessing?

It makes me wonder if Ray will did 'win' any converts, how sincere those conversions really are.

 

[majj27]

It may be an aside, but I've never understood why evangelicals resort to fear based approaches. Does it really seem an effective technique? Perhaps it is, but resorting to fear to coerce people into a belief system just seems rather repugnant.

That's why Ray's evangelical approach strikes me as a person selling insurance. It's reducing a deep belief system with a storied history and turning into an insurance policy. Do evangelicals really think that is good witnessing?

It makes me wonder if Ray will did 'win' any converts, how sincere those conversions really are.

He always struck me as more of a carnival huckster playing word-games. Especially after the Banana Incident.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but you believe nothing caused the universe, (like dawkins right?) if not watch first video.

nothing is illogical.

But you and I know that your first video was a worthless piece of quote mining. Your fear of learning only confirms that you know that to be the case.