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

Hoghead1 · Mar 26, 2016

You might want to take a look at my post 239, in suti, where I speak about God's motivations in creation. I am well here that we are all speculating. However, that is necessary. We are dealing here the Big Questions and they always entail speculation, looking beyond the facts. We are also dealing here with questions science and the scientific method are not equipped to address, questions such as whether life has a meaning, etc.

In situ · Mar 26, 2016

ScottA said:
If not evolution, what is it that most atheists believe in, that would answer the origin of time, space, matter, and life?

As an atheist it is impossible to answer for all atheists. Only one question we will answer in the same manner - but you did not ask it; we don't believe god(s) exist and most will say we cannot know if their is a god, many gods, or no god at all.

When it comes to the question you asked; some does not even bother to address the question, they got enough of problem in real life to worry about it or they simply do not care, lack interest in the question, or it does not matter to them. Other may have naturalistic answers, others not. The variety of answers that exist among atheist can be as many as you care to ask. Some, but far from all, follow science in their beliefs - they will be the one that give you a naturalistic answer in some form or the other based on their own knowledge of things. However, a lot of atheist are spiritual and might believe in some form of after live life or a spirit world but no after life. They might give you a pure non-naturalistic answers. Who you ask the question decides the answer. Some atheist may not even call themselves atheist - for reason of their own or public stated. Some may call them self theist or deists and public never admit to be atheist. There are atheist among those that confess them self to be Christians - some know they are some does not know it yet. The point is, there exists a large gray zone in this matter between theist and atheists - and the only common thing you can find among atheist is the lack of belief in a god.

Subduction Zone · Mar 26, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
I give the book and the page that I got the quote from. You are really out in left field this time. Anyways, I don't care, it is to much trouble to try to explain it to you and it is not that important.

That is not good enough. I know that you did not read that yourself. You got that quote from a dishonest source that quoted out of context. You should want to know if you are using an honorable source or not. You weren't. As a Christian honesty should be important to you.

In this day and age when you are quoting someone from the other side it is up to you, or me if I do so, to provide a link to the original source. Otherwise it is to easy to spread lies by quote mining.

Subduction Zone · Mar 26, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Keep reading the posts, I already looked up his exact quote.

And once again you need to do better than that. According to the Bible "There is no God". That is an exact quote, actually that is said 12 times throughout the Bible. Is that a valid argument that there is no God?

In situ · Mar 26, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
You might want to take a look at my post 239, in suti, where I speak about God's motivations in creation. I am well here that we are all speculating. However, that is necessary. We are dealing here the Big Questions and they always entail speculation, looking beyond the facts. We are also dealing here with questions science and the scientific method are not equipped to address, questions such as whether life has a meaning, etc.

I read it before I read this post and decided then not to respond to it. And I wont do it now either. In short, the reason I did not respond is because I do not agree with what you wrote, but it is not up to me to "correct" your beliefs, in particular when your beliefs does not harm anyone.

That said, when it comes to theistic belief in evolution - I can show (mathematically) the principles a deity possible could used to "load" the universe to force human beings to evolve - or at least something similar to human beings (walking on two legs, body, a head, two arms, being creative thinkers). This using the theory of evolution itself. The only problem is that such model might not be possible to "prove" - and definitely not able to falsify - but it can be an anchor for a theists that wants to believe but has problem to merge his or hers belief, and faith in, that god exists with the story science tells us about life.

And the meaning of life. Yes, that old question. Science can answer that to - at least I found an answer in science for it. In fact the answer comes from the theory of evolution itself. This is also obvious if you look in nature. You may not like this answer or find it unsatisfactory, but the answer is; the meaning of life is to make more life. What greater thing than a new born is it in nature? A new life - it is a marvel to wonder over no matter its form! Parents are prepared to die for new life. All of life has always been about making more life. Isn't that obvious? And that is what Darwin marveled over at the end of his book - Origin of Species - as well. If you don't make more life there is no one left to even ask the question you made.

(Note: science does not exist to provide us with answer we like - that is what religion is for).

If you didn't like that answer, then the answer is 42.

In situ · Mar 26, 2016

bhsmte said:
Certain fundies deny ...

Certain fundies deny ...

Certain fundies deny ...

The "deny" part I got, however I am not a native English speaker and the grammatical style in the part I quoted does looks alien to me and I cannot make sense of it. I do not intending to be rude, or correct you, but I cant even make a qualified guess about what it is supposed to mean, so I am wondering if you would mind to adjust the English a bit so I can understand it properly?

It is this part that does not translate properly in my head: "well evidenced facts"

Hoghead1 · Mar 26, 2016

I don't think God "forces" the universe to do anything. I think God lures the universe, provides creative possibilities which all creatures have to decide to actualize or not.
I also don't see how just making more life answers the question as to the meaning of life. Questions of meaning, value, and significance, as well as God, are definitely not scientific questions.

In situ · Mar 26, 2016

bhsmte said:
deny the well evidenced facts

I think I unerstand now, 'evidenced' is used as verb, right? and you used it in away I bever seen the word 'evidence' been used before. Is it the same as saying "deny the well esatablsihed facts" ?

In situ · Mar 27, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
I don't think God "forces" the universe to do anything. I think God lures the universe, provides creative possibilities which all creatures have to decide to actualize or not.

Me neither, in fact I don't think god can do, or does anything more, than existing in peoples mind as an explanation for things..

Hoghead1 said:
I also don't see how just making more life answers the question as to the meaning of life.

Assume there is no meaning with making more life. Now since there is no meaning in making more life then we can safely assume life does not have have to make more life. But what will the consequences be? Well trivial after a while there will be no more life at all, since all life is dead. Therefore if life do not make more life, there will be no life. Observation: life exists.. Since there is life it cannot be correct that there is no meaning with making more life. Therefore there must exists at least one meaning with life making more life otherwise there would be no life now. Observation: only life can make more life. For life to exist life has to make more life. Therefore life needs to exist to make more life.

Conclusion: the meaning of life to exists is to make more life - because if life don't fulfill the meaning of why life exists there will be no life.

Interpretation of the conclusion: if you don't get any kids - it is like you never have exited at all when you die - your life had no real purpose (for life in general) if you did not make kids. Note: this does not prevent you from creating other meanings with your life - such as a selfish, individual, meaning with your life, like collecting stamps or argue with creationists on Internet or seeking "Your" meaning with life in "The Truth".

Now do you understand why a parent is prepared to die for their ofsprings - your ofspring is the meaning of (all that matters to) your existence!

Side note: I am not saying this is The Answer, or only answer, science provides with - this is the answer I found to that question in science (not that I was looking for an answer, it just struck me one day as a possible answer).

Darwin probably also realized this when he came up with the theory of evolution. Remember I said in my previous post that Darwin was dwelling on this issue in the end of his book The Origin of Species:

When I view all beings not as special creations, but lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant future. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings is grouped, show that the greater number of all species and genus, and the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to fortell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, that will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species.

.. we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generations has never been broken ... Hence we may look with some comfort to a secure future of equally inappreciable length.

... These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction [Darwin did not know about genetics] ... as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as consequence to Natural Selection entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms.

Hoghead1 said:
Questions of meaning, value, and significance, as well as God, are definitely not scientific questions.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I disagree. Those questions are being, or are about to be, addressed by science.

Now a thought experiment. Imagine science have come up to an answer to all of those question.

The answer science has to all those question are "42". Okay, now you don't even understand what the heck the answer is supposed to mean, neither do I. Still that is the answer. However, just because I don't understand the answer does not mean I am entitled to say it is not an answer. In the same manner you are not entitled to say it is not an answer just because you don't think it is enough. (Maybe you think it should be 43 or 44 even - still I don't get it).

My point is; those that says Science cant answer this or that question are most often those that does not like the answers science provides with. I don't blame you for not liking an answers, I can understand why. However, be careful saying that science cannot answer certain question, because if the reason for saying this is that you do not like the answer then your claim that science cannot answer your particular question has become a dogma.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 27, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
And once again you need to do better than that.

I do not need to do nothing.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 27, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
That is not good enough.

It is good enough for me and I am not here to please you.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 27, 2016

In situ said:
None of these question I can answers. Can you? If you don't it is okay with me, I can live with that because I don't feel the need to make up an answer to things I do not know the answer to!

Einstein had a lot to say about time. It is interesting because of the railroad. They needed to improve their concept of time to keep up with the demands of running a railroad on time. For me time is decay. Esp I have spent 50 years of my life doing remodeling and construction work. As buildings get older they decay. So I look at time more from this perspective because that is what I have to deal with. Yet I have been in homes that are very old and in very good almost mint condition.

Anyway, the problem we deal with here is not only the origin of the universe but that of our language as well. To talk about a "being" or "before" any time did exist is meaningless unless we define what we mean with a beginning. In physics the "beginning" of the universe is defined as when time emerged in the universe. Let me illustrate this with this picture:

I have some different theories I am looking into, but your not interested in religion so there is no reason to go into any of that. The talk about cause and effect and God is the Divine Cause for the Universe we live in. The universe could go through cycles of expanding and shrinking. They talk about the entire universe being the size of a mustard seed or even smaller. Most of what we think we see is an illusion. There is very little matter and most everything is energy.

That time point was aprox 13.6 billion years ago.

This number comes from the Hubble and there is really no way to verify it. Still 14 is a significant number. The age we live in could very well be 13.6 thousand years old. That would be the last big extinction when the saber tooth tigers, giant sloths and wholly mammoths died off. If you study the ice cores there is a peak at around 13.6 thousand years ago.

At this point our understanding is limited and there is a lot of truth and error mixed together. There is a women by the name of Kat Kerr that has a lot of video on youtube. She talks about Heaven as a place where our understanding will increase. There will be Universities and different places to go where we will have the opportunity to study and learn without having to sort out the truth and error that you feel compelled to do here on this planet in this world. Theist and atheists seem compelled to have to sort all of this out depending on their perspective. The question is WHY? because we all have the same natural evidence to work with. It seems like the people that work the hardest to gather evidence seem to know very little about the evidence that they are gathering. That is why they say it is a grievous task because they do not have the reward of understanding. Darwin tried to explain his observations but he pretty much failed in his attempt.

I am justified to claim it did not had a beginning in the sense you ask.

Science is dispensational. They have ages or eras or whatever you want to call them with a beginning and a end. These time scales become a map that we would be lost without. Evolution requires a beginning and a end. Both evolution and the Bible talks about how the earth is repopulated with a remnant of what was here in the previous age or era. Like we talked about the dinosaurs and the mammals that were alive at the same time as the dinosaurs. Those mammals later evolved when the climate changed and the conditions became more favorable for them. Then something happened around 6,000 years ago that science has put a lot of effort into understanding. We have the beginning of civilization when there was a transition from a hunter gather to a food producer. This is a transition that took place over a 6,000 year period of time. That is why we say that a thousand years represents a day in the Book of Genesis.

That is why I said your question is malformed. And I needed to use a lots of words, even a picture, to explain why I can answer your "simple" question that way.

You need to define your words. That is why I say there are two dictionaries the one God uses and the one that man uses. For example the world evolution was around long before Darwin came along and decided to give it a new definition. "In classical Latin, though, evolutio had first denoted the unrolling of a scroll, and by the early 17th century, the English word evolution was often applied to ‘the process of unrolling, opening out, or revealing’. " The unrolling of a scroll is clearly different then the product of mutation, errors and mistakes. One is random and the other is predetermined at least by the constraints of the natural laws if nothing else.

The point I try to make here (which is the very same point I made previously) is that you are still trying to simplifies reality to fit into your simplified view of what reality "must" be according to yourself.

Actually my objective is to try to figure it out. I would assume you are trying to do the same thing. We either build and create or tear down and destroy. Just like there are those who produce and those who plunder. There was a lot of death and destruction during WW2 and there were people that saw enough destruction. That is why they wanted to build a new world. They use to say don't get in the way of progress. Lead follow or get out of the way. That is the attitude the people had that were here to rebuild and salvage what was not destroyed during the war.

You seams to think the universe must obey some rules of what you have decided make sense to you - but you are wrong because the universe does not need to follow your logic, or any logic at all for that matter.

In church we are taught about the mind of Christ and the Divine thoughts of God. Logic is different than Logo although they are both from the Greek language.

The universe is not obligated, in any way, to have to make sense to us.

Wisdom, knowledge and understanding is a part of the universe. God gives us the ability to be able to understand His Creation. Even we are able to create ourselves to some degree.

I never felt I needed religion for anything.

I do not want to trip over the meaning of the word religion. But I felt a lot of need. I needed solutions and answers and it was in the Bible that I found the solution and the answers that I was looking for. I had issues to deal with and science had no solution. As a child I felt that whenever I reached out to science I would get my arm cut off. So you may not feel any need for what religion has to offer but I do. I am confident that God has the answer for every question and the solution for every problem then we will ever have in life.

You may feel that way, and that is fine with me. So if religion make you feel more complete, yea sure go for it. But frankly, I believe the "need" for religion is a taught thing - you are told you need religion by you culture.

I was not taught anything. I had to learn it all on my own. The school system does not teach religion, my parents did not teach us any religion. It was up to us to decide if we wanted to learn it on our own. If anything I was raised to be a secular humanist with a little bit of Stoic thrown in for good measure.

We don't need religion inherently. In fact we are probably better of without religion.

I hear people say they do not have religion they have a relationship with the God that created them. There are people that believe that religion is a creation of man. It all depends on how you define the word and what dictionary you use. If you have the mind of Christ and the Divine thoughts of God then you use God's dictionary to define the words and not man's dictionary.

However, I realize that some people for some reason or the other want to believe.

I think they want to be a part of the family and so they have to go along with and abide by the status quo. Although I am a fundamental dispensationalist. But people tend to argue among themselves as to what that means. I tend to avoid that because God works on us as individuals before He joins us together with others. Just like construction work where the parts are produced in a factory and then they are assembled into a building according to a plan.

It only become a problem when religion manifest itself like it does in you - when you try press your opinion onto other as "truths". I then reserve my right to wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Here we are on "Easter" sunday. At the trial of Jesus Pilate asked: "What is truth?". Jesus came to testify to the truth. We are to follow the example of Jesus.[/quote]

In situ · Mar 27, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
I do not need to do nothing.

If you want to play the game you need to - remember you told me you failed many time when debating with peole. Well, maybe this is the reason why.....

In situ · Mar 27, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
I have some different theories I am looking into,

Me to, but I did not know you was such an expert on physics, maybe you can help me. I need someone to craft out the finer details in the metric tensor around a singularity for me:

For clarity : just a hobby I have when I feel bored. So in no way an expert by any means or measurement.

In situ · Mar 27, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Einstein had a lot to say about time. .

Joshua... the qutinging got completely messed up in the lower part of your reply (check it and you see what I mean). Would you mind to go back and edit it so I easier can read and reply to it? Thanks in advance.

I also appreciate the longer reply, but for now I need to get some sleep and will read it later.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 27, 2016

In situ said:
Me to, but I did not know you was such an expert on physics, maybe you can help me. I need someone to craft out the finer details in the metric tensor around a singularity for me:

I studied a little bit about the physics of lighting but I do not know that much about it. According to Wiki: these equations are highly non-linear, which makes exact solutions very difficult to find. If this is a reference to time travel Kat Kerr talks a little bit about that.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/544513411177006318/

joshua 1 9 · Mar 27, 2016

In situ said:
Joshua... the qutinging got completely messed up in the lower part of your reply (check it and you see what I mean). Would you mind to go back and edit it so I easier can read and reply to it? Thanks in advance.

ok I found it

bhsmte · Mar 27, 2016

In situ said:
The "deny" part I got, however I am not a native English speaker and the grammatical style in the part I quoted does looks alien to me and I cannot make sense of it. I do not intending to be rude, or correct you, but I cant even make a qualified guess about what it is supposed to mean, so I am wondering if you would mind to adjust the English a bit so I can understand it properly?

It is this part that does not translate properly in my head: "well evidenced facts"

I really don't know how to make this much clearer, than I already have.

A fundie, is typically a Christian, who takes scripture literally and who will deny any evidence (scientific or otherwise), that contradicts a literal interpretation of scripture.

Certainly, you have observed these types on this board and how they deny well evidenced reality.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 27, 2016

bhsmte said:
A fundie, is typically a Christian, who takes scripture literally and who will deny any evidence (scientific or otherwise), that contradicts a literal interpretation of scripture.

That is not true at all, true science does NOT contradict the Bible. IF there is a contradiction then it is because someone does not understand science or they do not understand the Bible. God gives us Science and God gives us the Bible so He can not contradict Himself. He is the one that creates wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Of course there are counterfeits and forgeries, there always is and we need to properly discern the word of truth.

3718 // oryotomew // orthotomeo // or-thot-om-eh'-o //

from a compound of 3717 and the base of 5114 ; TDNT - 8:111,1169; v

AV - rightly divide 1; 1

1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways
1a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv.
to doing right
2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth
directly and correctly

In situ · Mar 27, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
It is good enough for me and I am not here to please you.

Translation: I am not trying to convince anyone, but myself.

Do you see the problem with that approach?

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

Well-Known Member

in vivo veritas

Regular Member

Regular Member

in vivo veritas

in vivo veritas

Well-Known Member

in vivo veritas

in vivo veritas

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

in vivo veritas

in vivo veritas

in vivo veritas

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

in vivo veritas

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency