Creation and atheists

[tansy]

Or simply ask either man the following question: "Will the other man tell me that your path leads to the peaceful tribe?"


Can you figure out why that works?



See? No god necessary.

Drat...I KNEW there'd be another answer!!!!!

 

[tansy]

Or simply ask either man the following question: "Will the other man tell me that your path leads to the peaceful tribe?"


Can you figure out why that works?



See? No god necessary.

Hey..that's weird..I just replied to this post, and my reply has ended up out of sequence, as post no. 33 above.

So, I'll just repeat my reply, such as it is:

Drat!!! I KNEW there'd be another answer!


(Just as well for us, there are atheists...you keep us on our toes )

 

[tansy]

Jester4Kicks.....I've just written a reply twice to your post no. 39, but both my replies have come up out of sequence as post nos. 33 and 34....weird. So, anyhow, just wanted you to know I did read and respond to what you said

 

[juvenissun]

The idea of taking Genesis literally was always something I considered naive and simplistic. Genesis is so obviously, to me, a poetic and imaginary tale of beginnings, an introduction to the idea of God as the underlying First Cause.

A grade school child may also feel the Bible is a very simple book. Because he knows every word in the book. What are those crazy Bible scholars doing with this simple book?

 

[sbvera13]

...if we set up loads of dominoes (I've seen programmes where they do this) in a certain pattern, with different colours and things - when they push the forst dominoe, they all move, and end up making a giant picture. Do you think that God could have done something limke this, but obviously on a vastly more complex scale?

It's certainly within God's power. Whether that's how it happened or not is a matter of faith... all we can tell from observation and science is what happened. Why it happened that way is not science's job to figure out.

 

[tansy]

It's certainly within God's power. Whether that's how it happened or not is a matter of faith... all we can tell from observation and science is what happened. Why it happened that way is not science's job to figure out.

 

[tansy]

Could someone answer this question for me...bearing in mind I know just about zilch about it - but you know those things (I can't for themoment recall what they're called), that zoom around sort of chaotically and randomly (my husband's playing Bob Dylan athe moment, loudly..I can't think), that I think they have not yet discovered a pattern in them - well, do you think there might BE a pattern behind them, as yet undiscovered.
Hope you know what I'm talkimg about...sorry I'm not being at all precise.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Could someone answer this question for me...bearing in mind I know just about zilch about it - but you know those things (I can't for themoment recall what they're called), that zoom around sort of chaotically and randomly (my husband's playing Bob Dylan athe moment, loudly..I can't think), that I think they have not yet discovered a pattern in them - well, do you think there might BE a pattern behind them, as yet undiscovered.
Hope you know what I'm talkimg about...sorry I'm not being at all precise.

From your description, by best guess is that you are referring to neutrinos. However, calling their motion "chaotic" or "random" doesn't seem to be particularly fair.

Think about billiards balls sitting on a pool table. The que ball is struck, and a sequence of events occurs, all perfectly predictable based on simple physics given enough time to make appropriate measurements.

Now, shrink that pool table down to the subatomic level. Everything still occurs according to fundamental laws... but due to the scale, it is much harder to see how it happens. Add to that, these particles are invisible... so we cannot observe them directly, we can only observe their effects.


Finally... to take a MASSIVE step back... you need to understand that their are entire schools of thought dedicated to the concepts or "order" or "chaos" in the universe. If that is where you would like to go with this, you first need to decide if you wish to do so from a philisophical perspective, or a scientific one.


But again, GREAT questions!

 

[Plecto]

I havent read the whole thread but I'll just respond the the first post.

If it was somehow 100% true that God exist my world view wouldnt change much. I guess depends on what kind of God we are talking about. If just the existing of God was true and nothing else I would not worship him in any way. Because of the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution i couldn't just deny it, it would be denying all of science and that is not something that would be resonable to do even if there was a god. A god does no fit in my world view in any way so if it was a God I would say that we don't understand him in any way.

 

[tansy]

I havent read the whole thread but I'll just respond the the first post.

If it was somehow 100% true that God exist my world view wouldnt change much. I guess depends on what kind of God we are talking about. If just the existing of God was true and nothing else I would not worship him in any way. Because of the overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution i couldn't just deny it, it would be denying all of science and that is not something that would be resonable to do even if there was a god. A god does no fit in my world view in any way so if it was a God I would say that we don't understand him in any way.

Hello Plecto...thanks for your response.
I think that Christians (and others) would say that we DO have at least a little understanding of God.
I don't know if you have read any of the Bible, but if you had, you would maybe understand a bit more the predicament the theory of Evolution CAN put Christians into. However the Creationist position has difficulties of its own.
I've been trying to consider things from as many angles and perspectives as I can...not that I'm particularly expecting to get absolutely definitive answers, but at least I'm hoping to expand my understanding.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This question is basically aimed at atheists.

I don't know if this would be difficult for you to imagine...but, if you could take as a hypothisis that God actually DOES exist, and that He DID create everythign at some point in the past (or at least the MAKINGS of everything, if you understand what I mean), how would you then approach the question of evolution?

You'll have to be more specific. Every possibility is a hypothesis, including the possibility that some intelligence did some manner of 'creating'. The existence of God may have a bearing on the validity of evolution, but it all depends on waht you mean by 'God'. What god are we talking about?

The existence of the god of deism, for instance, has no bearing. But the existence of the god of traditional, fundamentalist, young-Earth Creationism most certainly does.

So what exactly are you asking?

(Apologies if I over-analysed this! ).

(I amnot taking sides on this discussion, only that as a Christian, I believe God DID create everything, am just not sure HOW...I understand natural selection, but am stillunsure about the rest)

Well, if you ever had any questions.

Do you think your view of evolution might change, or how do you think you might reconcile the Scriptural account with science?

Reconciling science to fit a piece of text is akin to saying that there is no forest because it's not on the map, even though there are trees all around you. So yes, I think it would be prudent to reconcile the text with science, not the other way around.

I know there are plenty of theistic evolutionists who do this, but wondered if any atheist could imagine doing it (particularly I know that many of you have read Genesis and so forth).

I daresay we all acknowledge the possibility. We just don't see any reason to see it as anything more than just that: a possibility.

 

[tansy]

You'll have to be more specific. Every possibility is a hypothesis, including the possibility that some intelligence did some manner of 'creating'. The existence of God may have a bearing on the validity of evolution, but it all depends on waht you mean by 'God'. What god are we talking about?

The existence of the god of deism, for instance, has no bearing. But the existence of the god of traditional, fundamentalist, young-Earth Creationism most certainly does.

So what exactly are you asking?

(Apologies if I over-analysed this! ).

No, you haven't over-analysed this - you make a good point....this is one reason I like talking with non-Christians...they bring up stuff one hasn't taken into consiferation - and, no, I wasn't thinking of Deism, but rather the others...but any perspective, I find interesting and/or informative.

Well, if you ever had any questions.

Thanks...I've been asking questions in Physical and Life Sciences forum

Reconciling science to fit a piece of text is akin to saying that there is no forest because it's not on the map, even though there are trees all around you. So yes, I think it would be prudent to reconcile the text with science, not the other way around.

Thank you

I daresay we all acknowledge the possibility. We just don't see any reason to see it as anything more than just that: a possibility

Yes, I don't know that there are many or any atheists who categorically deny the possibility.

.

 

[sk8Joyful]

This question is basically aimed at atheists.

I don't know if this would be difficult for you to imagine...but,
if you could take as a hypothisis that God actually DOES exist, and
that He DID create everythign at some point in the past (or at least the MAKINGS of everything, if you understand what I mean),

how would you then approach the question of evolution?

read here: "Billions of missing links", by G.Simmons M.D., author of "What Darwin didn't know"

(The belief, atheists err in, is re 'inter-species' evolution: from algae -> to apes -> to humanity. But Darwin’s theory implies discontinuous and abrupt interspecies step-evolutions, which have never been observed.
No such thing exists, unless aim is to dismiss GOD)

Yet as well-educated christians, we can continue learning about evolution... in plants & animals all around... us. In fact, we humans have continued to change/adapt/evolve... too. So, within the same/vertical-evolutions continue; and

for the purpose of praising... God.

 

[Morcova]

I just realized how Hespera misspelled the word "account".

Hahaha oh wow.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

read here: "Billions of missing links", by G.Simmons M.D., author of "What Darwin didn't know"

(The belief, atheists err in, is re 'inter-species' evolution: from algae -> to apes -> to humanity. But Darwin’s theory implies discontinuous and abrupt interspecies step-evolutions, which have never been observed.
No such thing exists, unless aim is to dismiss GOD)

How does Darwin's theory imply what you say it does? Darwin postulated a slow, gradual change, which has been superseded by the idea (and evidence) of punctuated equilibrium. Which raises another question: why would you bring up Darwin's theories? His research is 140 years out of date: the modern synthesis would be a far more germane place to start, wouldn't you agree?

Yet as well-educated christians, we can continue learning about evolution... in plants & animals all around... us. In fact, we humans have continued to change/adapt/evolve... too. So, within the same/vertical-evolutions continue; and

for the purpose of praising... God.

So... do you believe in the theory of common descent? I'm confused .

 

[Hespera]

(The belief, atheists err in, is re 'inter-species' evolution: from algae -> to apes -> to humanity. But Darwin’s theory implies discontinuous and abrupt interspecies step-evolutions, which have never been observed.
No such thing exists, unless aim is to dismiss GOD)

Yet as well-educated christians, we can continue learning about evolution... in plants & animals all around... us for the purpose of praising... God.

In the educated dept, you no doubt know the bible. You shouldnt suppose from that, that you understand evolution or know what "atheists" think.

Seriously. There is no "aim to dismiss god"; there is no "algae>apes" idea unless it is your idea; evolution. Darwin-style or otherwise does not Imply
discontinuous and abrupt changes.

Where do you get this stuff? if i thought evolution was what you are talking about, I wouldnt beieve it either.

"Interspecies" evolution is something that creos talk about, but I think they dont really know what a species is.

On the species level of classification, there is not much difference between the two animals. Cow and buffalo for example, and they can interbreed.
Dog and coyote and wolf. All similar, all can interbreed. All different species.

Evolving from one species to a similar species is exzactly what evolution does.

Of course no big jump has been observed. It has never happened.

No such idea even exists, unless as a way to try to dismiss evolution as nonsense.


Do you understand what i am saying, or do you somehow think I am wrong?

 

[sbvera13]

But Darwin’s theory implies discontinuous and abrupt interspecies step-evolutions, which have never been observed.

The thoery of evolution does not imply that. Let me say it in no uncertain terms: that is a lie. I doubt you are purposely lying, but somehwere in the chain of education that led to someone telling you this, lying occured. That is how wrong it is. It's not a mere misconception, or disagreement; it is actively misrepresenting the actual theory. As in 180 degrees opposite of what it actually says.

Do you know what the word we use for "discontinuous and abrupt interspecies step-evolutions" is? Creationism.

 

[USincognito]

read here: "Billions of missing links", by G.Simmons M.D., author of "What Darwin didn't know"

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that an M.D. hack for the DI isn't probably the best source of information for scientific explanations for the "how do they do that" things we find in nature.

 

[Naraoia]

Do you know what the word we use for "discontinuous and abrupt interspecies step-evolutions" is? Creationism.

Or saltation

 

[tansy]

So basically all you atheists would say that, if indeed there is a God AND He created the universe etc, He has done it through evolution...or would ANY of you say that there is an (outside) possibility that He created without evolution (other than the obvious natural selection that one sees actually nowadays, that is verifiable happening in front of our eyes, that we can actually test).