Atheists, Theists, and Evolution

[Lord_Marx]

Please, stop using the term Darwinist. I do not worship Darwin or the theory of evolution nor would I defend them anymore then any other science. I think evolution is true, but nothing in my life revolves around this belief apart from my participation on this message board.

 

[Asimov]

Objective persons know genuine theists and genuine atheists are mortal worldview enemies. But the facts of reality make this objective observation a "lie" when the issue is evolution.

Dent in Logic 1: False dilemma.

For all intents and purposes, all atheists support and defend neo-Darwinian evolution. This fact betrays an axiomatic truth: If evolution was anything about supporting the existence and handiwork of the Genesis Creator, then they would not support.

Dent in Logic 2: Naked Assertion.

However, a large mass of persons who think of themselves as theists and Christians wholeheartedly support and defend neo-Darwinian evolution just as much as any atheist.

Dent in Logic 3: Science and God are not mutually exclusive.

Reason and God are....

 

[TooCurious]

Ed Vidence, a question:

What logical reason do we have to believe that the Christian God would find it impossible to act in the world, except by fiat? Why is it impossible for God's "invisible hand" to be guiding the process of evolution? Meanwhile, poor science, which is helpless to measure or perceive the supernatural, given that it relies on observable and repeatable data, can make no comment on whether or not any gods have a role in the proceedings--why do you not find this a coherent possibility?

 

[Dannager]

This guy can't be for real. It's got to be a parody account. No sane Christian would dare compare the entire TE population to Judas. The rest of you creationists should be distancing yourself from this nutjob.

Oh by the way, Ed Vidence, the reason most of us aren't bothering with your OP is that you aren't worth it. You obviously are too far gone for us to change your mind, and none of the lurkers believe anything you've said. This is more or less a waste of a thread.

 

[Goatboy]

Oh by the way, Ed Vidence, the reason most of us aren't bothering with your OP is that you aren't worth it.

No the reason is we are all busy tooling up for this big Theist vs Atheist fight that the powerful logic of the OP compels us to start.

And worry ye not about Chuck, fellow atheists. As he cannot conceive of a personal deity (except himself) he’s declared himself pantheist and hence neutral for this one.


Good news is Optimus Prime and Jack Bauer have both just signed up to the EAC (Optimus was actually one of the founders of the conspiracy, but his membership lapsed during the billions of years he had to wait for theists to conspire against).

So I’ve got me a black t-shirt with a rude slogan, 10 hole steel toe-cap DM’s and a big stick with nails in it.

I’m ready, who wants some?

};op

 

[USincognito]

Objective persons know genuine theists and genuine atheists are mortal worldview enemies.

Hah! I spilled beer when I read this. My Antiochan Orthodox Cantor buddy Randall will be surprised to learn that after 12 years of friendship we not only no longer cannot get lunch together or talk on the phone for hours, but must draw pistols at noon.

But then again, despite the fact that he venerates Icons, believes in the transubstantiation in "essence" of the Host during Communion he accepts evolution and is one of the most skeptical people I know, you probably wouldn't consider him a real "Christian" much less a "genuine theist."

 

[chaoschristian]

So I’ve got me a black t-shirt with a rude slogan, 10 hole steel toe-cap DM’s and a big stick with nails in it. I’m ready, who wants some? };op

I've put on my 'Armour of God.' I'm ready.​

 

[Lilandra]

And worry ye not about Chuck, fellow atheists. As he cannot conceive of a personal deity (except himself) he’s declared himself pantheist and hence neutral for this one.

Bah! a rumor to provide false comfort to Atheists quaking in fear.

Good news is Optimus Prime and Jack Bauer have both just signed up to the EAC

Pfftt! Bauer only has 24 hours to kick booty. They created the leap year for Chuck so that he'd have an extra day to leap upon his victims and prolong their agony.

They had to add an extra day to February one year because he thought it was so funny that one of his victims wet himself, that he forgot to laugh.

 

[Goatboy]

I've put on my 'Armour of God.' I'm ready.​

You're gonna need at least two of them doggies to slow this unbeliever down.
(Trust me, the T-shirt is REALLY offensive).

 

[chaoschristian]

(Trust me, the T-shirt is REALLY offensive).

I'll see your offensive t-shirt, and raise you one deadly joke!​

 

[Goatboy]

Ich bin traurig, aber ich spreche nicht Deutsches.

};op

 

[Ed Vidence]

Please, stop using the term Darwinist. I do not worship Darwin or the theory of evolution nor would I defend them anymore then any other science. I think evolution is true, but nothing in my life revolves around this belief apart from my participation on this message board.

The original Darwinists (Huxley and Hooker) accepted and used this term to describe and separate themselves from their scientific opponents. EVERY major evolutionist uses the term in their books and literature endlessly (Dawkins, Dennett, Ruse, and Mayr to name just four - there are hundreds of others and, of course, they are all evolutionists).

The only real issue is your ignorance and uneducated status which has been outed by yourself.

No problem, you are an ordinary Darwinist; ignorance explained.

EV

 

[Magnus Vile]

Why would a Darwinist suddenly betray the central point of Darwin's theory (Genesis Creator not involved in nature) ? This is also tantamount to asserting the earth is flat.

We have TEist rhetoric evading the invulnerable OP points and logic.

EV

Uh. What? I do disagree with Darwin on something. He said that there was a creator that started it all with either one or several starting lifeforms. In fact Darwin said, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms, or into one;"

So the OP's logic falls apart simply because of the fact that Darwin was a theist. (A TE, in fact possibly the first TE). No contradiction for the TE's of today. Atheists don'/t have to believe anything to qualify as atheists, (excepting the blindingly obvious) and are free to accept whatever explaination makes the most sense. For this atheist, the TE's have the best supported argument. (Leaving out the part they don't attempt to support in the first place, because it's untestable, and unfalsifyable)

And why would I be mortal enemies with theists? My wife is a theist, and I'm not her enemy. Nor is she my enemy. We just don't agree on the specifics of how life (the universe, and everything) started.

Though we do agree on the most likely explaination fo how life got so complicated. She isn't one for ignoring God's own handiwork to argue that her, human, interpretation of a book (no matter how important that book may be) outweighs the evidence that God left behind.. God doesn't decieve, according to her, and I have no problem with that.


The OP looks like YECist rhetoric evading reality....

 

[Ed Vidence]

Ed Vidence, a question:

SNIP....Why is it impossible for God's "invisible hand" to be guiding the process of evolution?

I assume you are talking about the God of Genesis and the Bible.

There are two reasons:

1. Evolution says and asserts a blind and mindless process not involving God or controlled by Him produced organisms. The point here is that the objective claims of Darwinism say God is not involved in nature = the whole point of Darwin's theory.

2. The only source we have for God says nothing about creating the process just described. Any objective reading of Genesis says origins was not by common descent. Rather, Genesis says mankind and nature had sudden miraculous birth at some point in time.

Conclusion: The Bible does not say what Darwinism claims and Darwinism does not say what the Bible claims.Your question is false BECAUSE it has no objective source for its claim.

Irrefutable logic: Atheists would not support Darwinism if was anything about supporting the Genesis Creator - they are not naieve. All atheists support Darwinism. This means TEism is subjective and sourceless, or even worse; wolves in sheeps clothing.

Meanwhile, poor science, which is helpless to measure or perceive the supernatural, given that it relies on observable and repeatable data, can make no comment on whether or not any gods have a role in the proceedings--why do you not find this a coherent possibility?

Atheist philosophy.

IF you are not an atheist then why are you using their philosophy as your starting presuppositions ?

You could be confused and/or genuinely ignorant. Real theists support God - they do not side with atheist starting assumptions which feign "neutrality" about God then proceed to concomitantly offer all of these biases as "evidence" against God.

EV

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Maybe it's faulty memory but isn't Ed also Willowtree and Ray Martinez? I guess his ban is over.

 

[Asimov]

Those silly Newtonists....always trying to convince me about macro-gravity.

 

[Willtor]

I'll see your offensive t-shirt, and raise you one deadly joke!​

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chaoschristian again.

Now THAT is a good reference!

 

[rjw]

I assume you are talking about the God of Genesis and the Bible.

There are two reasons:

1. Evolution says and asserts a blind and mindless process not involving God or controlled by Him produced organisms. The point here is that the objective claims of Darwinism say God is not involved in nature = the whole point of Darwin's theory.

2. The only source we have for God says nothing about creating the process just described. Any objective reading of Genesis says origins was not by common descent. Rather, Genesis says mankind and nature had sudden miraculous birth at some point in time.

Conclusion: The Bible does not say what Darwinism claims and Darwinism does not say what the Bible claims.Your question is false BECAUSE it has no objective source for its claim.

Irrefutable logic: Atheists would not support Darwinism if was anything about supporting the Genesis Creator - they are not naieve. All atheists support Darwinism. This means TEism is subjective and sourceless, or even worse; wolves in sheeps clothing.




Atheist philosophy.

IF you are not an atheist then why are you using their philosophy as your starting presuppositions ?

You could be confused and/or genuinely ignorant. Real theists support God - they do not side with atheist starting assumptions which feign "neutrality" about God then proceed to concomitantly offer all of these biases as "evidence" against God.

EV

Hi Ed Vidence,


You reasons for rejecting Just Too Curious’ question about God controlling evolution!

Nature is more than just origin of life and evolution. The Bible is much more than just Genesis.

How far are you prepared to push your arguments for rejecting the question put to you by JTC – with respect to both the Bible and nature?

That is, does your argument only apply to a small portion of the Bible and a part of nature, or is your argument universally applied to the Bible and to nature?


I reckon you are just cherry-picking.



Regards, Roland

 

[Lord_Marx]

The only real issue is your ignorance and uneducated status which has been outed by yourself.

No problem, you are an ordinary Darwinist; ignorance explained.

EV

Did I hit a nerve? No matter, personal insults serve as an reliable cue to the end of a reasonable discussion. I'll let you beat your strawmen in peace.

 

[Dannager]

Maybe it's faulty memory but isn't Ed also Willowtree and Ray Martinez? I guess his ban is over.

That would explain it. Maybe it's time for another one.