How many creationist here think that atheism and evolution go together?

[Jay Follett]

Did you know that most theists accept evolution? that atheism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, cheese making, wind surfing or horse riding.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes. Yes I did.

Most Catholics, for a start.

 

[juvenissun]

Did you know that most theists accept evolution? that atheism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, cheese making, wind surfing or horse riding.

If you asked an atheist about the origin of things, they have two choices: 1. Do not know; 2. Evolution.
There is no third option.

 

[Chris B]

If you asked an atheist about the origin of things, they have two choices: 1. Do not know; 2. Evolution.
There is no third option.

3: we're working on it.
4: evolution doesn't kick in for a good while after the origin of things.
5: it's probably quantum.
6: some people consider the hand of God as a possible answer, but that is difficult to confirm or test.
(and why could it not have been the hoof of an Invisible Pink Unicorn?)

 

[Jay Follett]

If you asked an atheist about the origin of things, they have two choices: 1. Do not know; 2. Evolution.
There is no third option.

Your ignorance is shining like a beacon before you, I do realise that your education was lacking certain things but you have been here long enough and read enough to know better.
What has origins got to do with evolution?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Make a poll and find out.

 

[juvenissun]

3: we're working on it.
4: evolution doesn't kick in for a good while after the origin of things.
5: it's probably quantum.
6: some people consider the hand of God as a possible answer, but that is difficult to confirm or test.
(and why could it not have been the hoof of an Invisible Pink Unicorn?)

All the above simply say: I don't know.

 

[juvenissun]

Your ignorance is shining like beacon before you, I do realise that your education was lacking certain things but you have been here long enough and read enough to know better.
What has origins got to do with evolution?

How do you answer this: The origin of human?

 

[Jay Follett]

How do you answer this: The origin of human?

I ask you a question and you answer with a question, I am not going to wallow in your ignorance.

 

[Chris B]

All the above simply say: I don't know.

Not really #4, but otherwise I'll admit that's about right, despite any amount of wishing for a nice, tidy and settled answer.
Any way it's looked at, less than certainty is involved in the current best answer.

 

[Chris B]

How do you answer this: The origin of human?

With tool-making hominids, but the timing is very variable depending on exactly what one counts as human
(with no additional qualification.)

 

[juvenissun]

Not really #4, but otherwise I'll admit that's about right, despite any amount of wishing for a nice, tidy and settled answer.
Any way it's looked at, less than certainty is involved in the current best answer.

The so-called evolution theory avoided the origin problem because it can not answer the problem. If it can, then it WILL include it. So, it is still a "I don't know" answer.

 

[juvenissun]

With tool-making hominids, but the timing is very variable depending on exactly what one counts as human
(with no additional qualification.)

So, is the origin of human problem an evolution problem?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you know that most theists accept evolution?

Unfortunately, yes.

I would say the rise in theistic evolution in the U.S. probably coincided with the Bible being expelled from school.

that atheism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution,

On paper maybe, but that's like saying breathing has nothing to do with oxygen, since I can breathe other gasses.

 

[Chris B]

The so-called evolution theory avoided the origin problem because it can not answer the problem. If it can, then it WILL include it. So, it is still a "I don't know" answer.

Evolution theory was never intended to address the issue! (Why "so called", anyway?)
Evolution has nothing in the slightest to do with the origins of the universe, so decrying it for that is something peculiar.
Do you blame a spring balance scale for not measuring volume?

 

[Chris B]

So, is the origin of human problem an evolution problem?

Amongst other things. It's also a definition problem, or question, at least.
People vary in position as to when you start to get a True Human™, as opposed to mere human-like animals.
It's not easy because specifying to exclude social apes seems to catch not a few individual modern humans on the wrong side of the line.

(if we didn't evolve but were designed and created, the designer or manufacturer needs to do recalls: there's a lot of poor design and engineering that could have been done better. Unintelligent Design?)

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution theory was never intended to address the issue! (Why "so called", anyway?)
Evolution has nothing in the slightest to do with the origins of the universe, so decrying it for that is something peculiar.
Do you blame a spring balance scale for not measuring volume?

It does not intent because it can not (the "I don't know" category).
If it can, it will.

 

[juvenissun]

Amongst other things. It's also a definition problem, or question, at least.
People vary in position as to when you start to get a True Human™, as opposed to mere human-like animals.
It's not easy because specifying to exclude social apes seems to catch not a few individual modern humans on the wrong side of the line.

(if we didn't evolve but were designed and created, the designer or manufacturer needs to do recalls: there's a lot of poor design and engineering that could have been done better. Unintelligent Design?)

It is an origin problem. It IS an evolution problem.
That is the point.

 

[The Cadet]

If you asked an atheist about the origin of things, they have two choices: 1. Do not know; 2. Evolution.
There is no third option.

Yet. This line of reasoning is just chock-full of problems.

For starters, most atheists have few qualms about accepting the theory of evolution because there is no secular reason to reject the scientific history described by cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution. It's not a coincidence that virtually every group that has stepped up to bat against evolution has been religious in nature. So there's no particular need for atheists to dream up fanciful explanations for the origin of things; we have a fairly workable model that is gradually being refined as new evidence comes to light.

Secondly, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer barring any other. So you've already offered a perfectly valid alternative to evolution for non-believers.

Thirdly, just because you cannot conceive of a third option does not mean that nobody can, or that there is no third option. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.

And it's not like any of this is new to you, either.

 

[Chris B]

It is an origin problem. It IS an evolution problem.
That is the point.

If you mean it's something for which evolution theory is the right tool to address it, I'll agree.
If you mean it's a problem which challenges the validity of evolution theory, it doesn't.

Why these worries about "don't know"?
It's an enormous universe, and we've only been tackling it at all systematically for a few hundred years.
A hundred years ago we only knew of one galaxy and were just starting to become aware of the whole quantum realm.
We now know of hundreds of billions of galaxies, and are quantum-based devices are fundamental to electronic technology.
We're doing pretty well, so far.
But as an unstable (our glory and our shame?) experimental species we've a long way to go before we can have any assurance at all that we are even a bit special.