Evolution Is Not Atheism

[gladiatrix]

Today at 09:21 PM Micaiah said this in Post #31
Are you a Christian?

I was a Christian until I found that there is no evidence supporting the existence supernatural being described in the Bible (or any other religious text that I am familar with)

How do you decide what is and isn't truth in Scripture?

Does a particular event, person, etc. "track" (is confirmed by) with the external evidence (scientific, archeological, historical, etc.). Just because the Bible "says so" is not good enough unless there is evidence outside of the Bible to confirm what is written there. After all, it is just another work created by fallible humans and I don't take ANYTHING written by humans at face value, , especially ones who try to scare into compliance with threats on behalf of an invisible "Authority" who, very conveniently, only "speaks" to them (or so they claim without one iota of evidence)

According to Scripture, Noah's boat was a very seaworthy vessel. It ensured the continuity of animals and humans after a global flood.

According to thousands of years of shipbuilding experience, a wooden vessel designed as described would have been completely unseaworthy, especially when one loads this shoddy design with a huge number of animals, provisions, etc. I go with the evidence and "the bible says" is NOT evidence. The story gets even more unlikely in light of the fact that such a vessel would have had to have been constructed by an old man with no knowledge of shipbuilding, the wrong materials, a unseaworthy design, and with the help a few sons-in-law. In addition there is no way that 8 human beings could

• collect the 2 of every kind of animal (7 of every "clean" kind) onto a vessel from all corners of the earth (where did Noah get kangaroos, tasmanian devils, polar bears, ~1 million species of insects?)
• storing food for the enough food for the animals for a long voyage
• the logistics of caring for, feeding, and clean up after all those animals (done by 8 people, some of whom were elderly? I don't think so!)
• This doesn't even begin to cover the "problems lists" for more see Problems with the Global Flood and more from Flood FAQs

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 11:55 AM gladiatrix said this in Post #41

I was a Christian until I found that there is no evidence supporting the existence supernatural being described in the Bible (or any other religious text that I am familar with)

Does a particular event, person, etc. "track" (is confirmed by) with the external evidence (scientific, archeological, historical, etc.). Just because the Bible "says so" is not good enough unless there is evidence outside of the Bible to confirm what is written there. After all, it is just another work created by fallible humans and I don't take ANYTHING written by humans at face value, , especially ones who try to scare into compliance with threats on behalf of an invisible "Authority" who, very conveniently, only "speaks" to them (or so they claim without one iota of evidence)

According to thousands of years of shipbuilding experience, a wooden vessel designed as described would have been completely unseaworthy, especially when one loads this shoddy design with a huge number of animals, provisions, etc. I go with the evidence and "the bible says" is NOT evidence. The story gets even more unlikely in light of the fact that such a vessel would have had to have been constructed by an old man with no knowledge of shipbuilding, the wrong materials, a unseaworthy design, and with the help a few sons-in-law. In addition there is no way that 8 human beings could
collect the 2 of every kind of animal (7 of every "clean" kind) onto a vessel from all corners of the earth (where did Noah get kangaroos, tasmanian devils, polar bears, ~1 million species of insects?)
storing food for the enough food for the animals for a long voyage
the logistics of caring for, feeding, and clean up after all those animals (done by 8 people, some of whom were elderly? I don't think so!)
This doesn't even begin to cover the "problems lists" for more see Problems with the Global Flood and more from Flood FAQs

To make a claim that something would not work would require a good knowlwdge of the item that was constructed. I am unaware of any 'As Built" drawings produced by Noah. Apparently he wasn't out to make a name for himself from his boatbuilding expertise.

I am sorry to hear about your past experiences regarding Christianity. It highlights the slippery slide from questioning the historical accounts of Scripture given in Genesis and abandoning the Christian faith. Reading your post, the trouble areas seem to be rebellion and doubt toward God. That pretty well reflects the history of mankind.

 

[Cantuar]

I seek to point out the inconsistency on the one hand of claiming to be a Christian and disregarding the plain teaching of Scripture on Creation.

The "plain teaching" of scipture on creation leads most Christians to the conclusion that the scientific answers are correct and that the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old and that lifeforms on this planet are related through evolution. Biblical literalists are a minority of the world's Christians. Or are you saying that this minority comprises the only real Christians? In which case, that rather gives the lie to the notion that believing in creationism is not necessary for salvation, doesn't it?

 

[Arikay]

Speaking of Noahs Flood (yes I like playing with the flood). My big question is Noahs fish and whale problem, that I described in my most recent "fun with the flood" thread. The basic idea with this problem is that Noah needed to build seperate tanks for different fish. Needed to get different types of water and food. He needed to fill all of these tanks (not good to purposly flood much of your own boat). He needed to have a clean air supply for the whales. and among other things, he needed to fit two blue whales (the largest animal alive on earth) on the ark.

Of course Hovind (Dr. Dino) solved this problem with basic logic. Salt water and fresh water animals Evolved from a single animal after the flood.
Of course, that defeats the entire argument of creationism is right and evolution is wrong, but lets not tell him that.

 

[Cantuar]

Lucaspa has identified himself as a Christian who accepts the statements below. Lucaspa and others could share with us what they consider to be essential truths of Scripture, and the criteria they use to determine what is truth, and what is not truth.

Where did you get the notion that he's identifying himself as a Christian? Everything I've seen him post on the subject has said that he is not saying anything about having or not having a faith, religion, or whatever. I think he's probably trying to get people to judge what he writes on its own merit, free of the baggage that gets hung on people when they identify their faith position. I've seen a few cases where creationists have said flat out that atheists can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything or that some piece of obvious scientific or statistical nonsense must be true because it's being disseminated by a good Christian and Christians don't lie. Do you not see how this uncritcal acceptance of whatever "good Christian men" say can lead Christians to be duped if they don't bother to make even simple checks? If someone is making a scientific claim, there are scientific books and websites and journals out there where these claims can be checked. But, no, you prefer to believe or reject scientific statements based simply on the religion of the person saying them. Lucaspa's refusal to state his faith position means that people can't just accept or reject his scientific statements on that basis, they actually have to - horrors - take a bit of trouble and think about what he's saying.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 12:29 PM Cantuar said this in Post #43



The "plain teaching" of scipture on creation leads most Christians to the conclusion that the scientific answers are correct and that the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old and that lifeforms on this planet are related through evolution. Biblical literalists are a minority of the world's Christians. Or are you saying that this minority comprises the only real Christians? In which case, that rather gives the lie to the notion that believing in creationism is not necessary for salvation, doesn't it?

I understand you have a background in science. Your training should make you a little more careful in drawing inferences from the statements people make.

Firstly, some Christians embrace evolution because they reject the plain teaching of Scripture. The two are incompatible. Those who embrace evolution typically view the Genesis account as a metaphoric description of events. Those who accept the plain teaching of Scripture recognise that the writers of Scripture and Christ understood Genesis as a historical record of the events of Creation. Scripture is clear on the correct way to interpret these passages.

Secondly, where have I stated that you cannot be a Christian and accept evolution. The two are logically incompatible, but we humans are inherently illogical creatures.

 

[Micaiah]

In regards to Lucaspa, I not that he is now posting on the Christian forum for discussions on evolution and creation. I am sure he would resent and vigorously deny any implication that he is being deceiptful, and so I assume he is a Christain and embraces the statement of Christian beliefs required for this forum.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 12:30 PM Arikay said this in Post #44

Speaking of Noahs Flood (yes I like playing with the flood).

I think you aptly describe your attempts to disprove the truth of Scripture. Last time I checked your calculations they were out by a factor of 300.

 

[Arikay]

May I suggest you read my most recent thread on it. I updated my math (thanks to your catch), and added a whole lot more to my flood stuff.

I would assume that you havent read it.

As I stated in both my flood posts, If you find any mistakes, let me know and ill check them out and fix them if they are wrong. I definatly know that my work isnt always right.

Today at 09:38 PM Micaiah said this in Post #48



I think you aptly describe your attempts to disprove the truth of Scripture. Last time I checked your calculations they were out by a factor of 300.

 

[gladiatrix]

Yesterday at 11:09 PM Micaiah said this in Post #42
To make a claim that something would not work would require a good knowlwdge of the item that was constructed. I am unaware of any 'As Built" drawings produced by Noah. Apparently he wasn't out to make a name for himself from his boatbuilding expertise.

You are the one claiming that Genesis is correct about it's scientific details here and go even further in making the extraordinary claim that the Bible is the word of an all-knowing superbeing (I would expect such a one to "know" what constituted a seaworthy vessel).

Genesis goes into quite some detail describing the ark. IF one uses the materials and dimensions outlined in Genesis, then it just wouldn't work as described. A multi-story, barge-like wooden vessel over 400 feet long is not a seaworthy vessel. It would leak and be too unstable (because of the wood, too "bendy") to survive even the mildest storm or stay afloat for long (it would leak even on calm water because the boards wouldn't stay tight in a vessel that size).

I am sorry to hear about your past experiences regarding Christianity. It highlights the slippery slide from questioning the historical accounts of Scripture given in Genesis and abandoning the Christian faith. Reading your post, the trouble areas seem to be rebellion and doubt toward God. That pretty well reflects the history of mankind.

I question the "historical account" of the Bible because it doesn't square with reality. Are you claiming that God is , in effect, "lying" to us (making the reality with just the appearance of great age, that life evolved from a common ancestor, that the archeological/historical record contradicts the Bible at every turn)? This stupidity of the appearance of "old age in a young earth" is a YEC variant of what is known as the Omphalos argument, first proposed by P. H. Gosse in 1857. The original argument states that the univers was created "young" but looks "old" (the Almighty is pulling the legs of the faithful it would seem). YECs like Morris (I think Hovind goes for this one, too) extend the argument by claiming that these distant objects don't really exists and are illusions (more deception by God).

In other words, the supposed distant light is just an "artifact" created by God " at the time of Creation in transit. " God, it seems, not only likes to torture His pets, but loves to deceive them too. Christian fundamentalist Newspeak "spin-control" on the fact that this explanation makes God a trickster is to claim that God created the old age look/illusion as a "test of faith".

The Omphalos Argument and Creationism

 

[Arikay]

Gladi: unfortunatly I would say, save the good info for those that will listen. Its very obvious that there are some people here who arent willing to actually listen to any info you have and will seemingly glance over it and go on to the next thing to pick at. Or go back over old things, and not back up any of their claims.

 

[Cantuar]

In regards to Lucaspa, I not that he is now posting on the Christian forum for discussions on evolution and creation. I am sure he would resent and vigorously deny any implication that he is being deceiptful, and so I assume he is a Christain and embraces the statement of Christian beliefs required for this forum.

Well, that just shows what you get when you make sassumptions instead of reading what people actually say. He said in one post on that forum that his participation there doesn't mean that he's saying he's a Christian (or that he's saying he isn't). Maybe you should wander over there and look at it; I think it's on one of the two threads attached to the top of the forum.

 

[Micaiah]

Quote "I question the "historical account" of the Bible because it doesn't square with reality."

That would be your perception of reality. In Australia, we have a lot of conflicts about what aborigines call sacred sites. These sites may be protected or the aborigines can be compensated for use of the land. In a court of law, the artifacts from those sites would form important evidence for the case that this land was used by the aborigines anscestors. It could be a specially shaped stoned, or some paintings. The design in these artifacts implies a designer, and hence occupation by man. I've never heard any mining company argue that the artifacts came about by chance over a long period of time. All recognise the hand of a creator in the arrangements of rocks or the way in which those rocks were formed.

In other words, the existence of a designer is demonstrated by their creations. What is true of the aboriginal artifacts is true of our universe. I look at the universe inwhich we live and see clear evidence of a Creator.

 

[Cantuar]

I understand you have a background in science. Your training should make you a little more careful in drawing inferences from the statements people make.

Firstly, some Christians embrace evolution because they reject the plain teaching of Scripture. The two are incompatible. Those who embrace evolution typically view the Genesis account as a metaphoric description of events. Those who accept the plain teaching of Scripture recognise that the writers of Scripture and Christ understood Genesis as a historical record of the events of Creation. Scripture is clear on the correct way to interpret these passages.

Well, it obviously isn't clear, because it's such a matter of heated debate among Christians. There are Christians who accept evolution because it's a scientifically strongly supported theory; they accept it as science on that basis. Same as they accept all the other strongly supported scientific theories. They take Genesis as being not literal history on the basis of biblical criticism and knowledge of ancient documents and writing styles. They reject what you call the plain teaching of scripture because their studies of the writings of that period tell them that a literal interpretation is an inappropriate one, however plain it might appear to people brought up in the modern world.

Secondly, where have I stated that you cannot be a Christian and accept evolution. The two are logically incompatible, but we humans are inherently illogical creatures.

Oh, wasn't it you who said that the CofE bishops who accepted evolution were traitors?

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 02:28 PM Cantuar said this in Post #52



Well, that just shows what you get when you make sassumptions instead of reading what people actually say. He said in one post on that forum that his participation there doesn't mean that he's saying he's a Christian (or that he's saying he isn't). Maybe you should wander over there and look at it; I think it's on one of the two threads attached to the top of the forum.

I like to assume the best of people. I would expect that Lucaspa would abide by the rules of the forum, and would not act deceiptfully in this matter by either stating or implying something that is not true. Wouldn't you agree.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 01:31 AM Micaiah said this in Post #53

The design in these artifacts implies a designer, and hence occupation by man. I've never heard any mining company argue that the artifacts came about by chance over a long period of time. All recognise the hand of a creator in the arrangements of rocks or the way in which those rocks were formed.

The flaw in this analogy, is there is no known mechanism by which rocks could "arrange" themselves into those arrangement.

In the case of life, on the other hand, there is a mechanism (imperfect reproduction coupled with selection mechanisms).

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 02:35 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #56



The flaw in this analogy, is there is no known mechanism by which rocks could "arrange" themselves into those arrangement.

In the case of life, on the other hand, there is a mechanism (imperfect reproduction coupled with selection mechanisms).

We are here taking about the existence of the universe which covers all aspects of creation. If this is the type of evidence that is suggested conclusively supports evolution, then you do not take much convincing.

 

[Arikay]

Micaiah, If you trully want to learn about evolution, why dont you go and actually read about it from evolution sites?
You seem to make claims with no evidence and dont seem to understand evolution.

The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Why the universe exists or how the universe was created.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 02:00 AM Arikay said this in Post #58

Micaiah, If you trully want to learn about evolution, why dont you go and actually read about it from evolution sites? 

Why would anyone knowingly want to read about evolution. Why would they want to subject themselves to communist lies?

 

 

[gladiatrix]

Today at 01:31 AM Micaiah said this in Post #53

Quote "I question the "historical account" of the Bible because it doesn't square with reality."

That would be your perception of reality. In Australia, we have a lot of conflicts about what aborigines call sacred sites. These sites may be protected or the aborigines can be compensated for use of the land. In a court of law, the artifacts from those sites would form important evidence for the case that this land was used by the aborigines anscestors. It could be a specially shaped stoned, or some paintings. The design in these artifacts implies a designer, and hence occupation by man. I've never heard any mining company argue that the artifacts came about by chance over a long period of time. All recognise the hand of a creator in the arrangements of rocks or the way in which those rocks were formed.

In other words, the existence of a designer is demonstrated by their creations. What is true of the aboriginal artifacts is true of our universe. I look at the universe inwhich we live and see clear evidence of a Creator.

When all else fails, run and hid your God in the Gaps (what we don't know...yet!)..

Intelligent Design is supposed to be "proof" that God exists (let's not kid ourselve here, we all know that IDists and you mean the Christian God, not just some anonymous, generic, Creative Force). However, to "prove" that there is such a thing AS intelligent design, one must first assume that a Creator, acting as an Intelligent Designer, exists. ID is NOT a logically consistent, reasonable theory because one escaped this paradox simply defining the primordial creator as being omnipotent and uncaused (back to the old cosomological argument, something that IDists like William Craig and Johnson do all the time in whatever failed version they try to drag up). That is a case of circular reasoning based on special pleading.

Special pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption (Ex. God is the omnipotent, uncaused cause and doesn't require an explanation or evidence).

It is a logical fallacy, because you require certain rules to apply to evolution that you do not require your "deity" to adhere to. Furthermore, IDists usually attribute characteristics to this "deity" whose existence they are trying to prove in the first place! (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, uncaused, various combos of these = The IDists' "omnimax" God, it's the Christian god as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Cronos, Marduk, whatever).

It is also a case of "circular" reasoning aka "begging the question", because in your case to support the existance of a deity, one must assume the Intelligent designer is God in order to prove God exists! Worse yet, is the intellectually dishonest trick of trying to escape this trap (caught in the trap of "circularity") by trying to "plead" that God is the "transcendent, uncaused cause". PULLEEZE!!! With that kind of "logic" one can prove anything!

If your God indeed designed "creation", then He is one rotten engineer! What follows is just a very small list of "crappy" designs that are NOT explained by any Intelligent Designer, but ARE explained by evolution where new species are created by modifying older ones. Designs are not "optimal" (what one expects from an "omnimax" God), but "Rube Goldberg", ad hoc designs the arise from natural selection. The design "selected" is one that works. The one that works isn't always the "best" or "optimal" design.

Oolon's Big List of Suboptimal Design Warning, this is a one big, well-documented (many links) list! (not exhaustive, but most representative)