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

The Cadet · Mar 21, 2016

Abraxos said:
Darwinian Evolution is baseless without a good theory of Abiogenesis, which it does not have.

Do I have to know where each individual molecule in my raw materials comes from to build a GPU?

Abraxos · Mar 21, 2016

The Cadet said:
Do I have to know where each individual molecule in my raw materials comes from to build a GPU?

To the ignorant probably not. What's your point? Not wanting to know means it didn't happen?

The Cadet · Mar 21, 2016

Abraxos said:
To the ignorant probably not. What's your point? Not wanting to know means it didn't happen?

My point is that we do not need to understand the first step in a process to understand the process. We know evolution happens, and we can trace it back through genetics and the fossil record. Not knowing what the first creature was does nothing to diminish this. Demanding that we know exactly how life started before we can make any statement about how it diversified is like demanding that we know exactly where the hunk of Tungsten we're working with came from before we can make any statement about how to form it into a lightbulb.

Abraxos · Mar 21, 2016

The Cadet said:
My point is that we do not need to understand the first step in a process to understand the process. We know evolution happens, and we can trace it back through genetics and the fossil record. Not knowing what the first creature was does nothing to diminish this. Demanding that we know exactly how life started before we can make any statement about how it diversified is like demanding that we know exactly where the hunk of Tungsten we're working with came from before we can make any statement about how to form it into a lightbulb.

That's how science works, kid.

Think about it, if you build a house on sand the house crumbles. Without a strong foundation the theory falls apart. This is common sense which in itself is a glaringly obvious contradiction to Darwinian Evolution. And what evolution are you talking about? And I don't want to hear Comparative Anatomy as evidence for Evolution.

juvenissun · Mar 21, 2016

Laury said:
Because how it started has nothing to do with how the already existing life changes over time.
I don't get what's so hard about that.

Do you mean how did life start has nothing to do with life itself?
Would this question be laughable if we found aliens on another planet?
Have you heard that we were probably Martians? What if we were actually Venusians?
Abiogenesis is a wrong term. It is the beginning of biogenesis.

juvenissun · Mar 21, 2016

Chris B said:
Only if an entity with awareness and intent was involved.
I'm far from up on the latest data and modelling, but I think there are two or three ideas concerning the beginning of space and time which fit observed nature but do not require an entity (which in no wise rules one out, of course.)
But if no sentient creator, then calling the universe "a creation" is to introduce an unnecessarily loaded term.

All existed models (ideas) of the universes described the process of formation. But all of them still NEED a beginning, which is unknown.

To this, one could say:
We do not know it, so we do not talk about it. Or
We need a Creator.

The Cadet · Mar 21, 2016

Abraxos said:
Without a strong foundation the theory falls apart.

The theory has an incredibly strong foundation in observable evidence from comparative anatomy, genetics, paleontology, and more. The fact that we don't know how the first lifeform came to be is both outside the scope of the theory and completely irrelevant to the theory.

AV1611VET · Mar 21, 2016

The Cadet said:
The theory has an incredibly strong foundation in observable evidence from comparative anatomy, genetics, paleontology, and more.

After how many tries?

The Cadet · Mar 21, 2016

AV1611VET said:
After how many tries?

I'm not an expert on evolution, but others have already answered - comparative anatomy fits incredibly well with genetic phylogenies. No "extra tries" needed.

AV1611VET · Mar 21, 2016

The Cadet said:
I'm not an expert on evolution, but others have already answered - comparative anatomy fits incredibly well with genetic phylogenies.

Only on paper.

The Cadet said:
No "extra tries" needed.

They got it right the first time, huh?

It dovetails perfectly without prior collaboration, does it?

The Cadet · Mar 21, 2016

AV1611VET said:
It dovetails perfectly without prior collaboration, does it?

I'm not sure if it's perfect, but it's uncannily close.

AV1611VET said:
Only on paper.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Pagan · Mar 21, 2016

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

The word, evolution, means change. So the question becomes:

Did you know that most theists accept change? Atheism has nothing to do with change.

Or the word, evolution, means the theory of natural selection. So the question becomes:

Did you know that most theists accept the theory of natural selection? Atheism has nothing to do with the theory of natural selection.

Probably all of us accept change as a part of life.

I bet most religious people don't works as biologists, and they have little interest in the theory of natural selection.

Edit:

I should also add that my granddaughter's American History textbook divides Christians into Modernists and Fundamentalists. It defines Fundamentalist as a Christian outraged by Darwin, so I guess I can say that Fundamentalists have a lot of interest in Darwin.

Chris B · Mar 21, 2016

juvenissun said:
All existed models (ideas) of the universes described the process of formation. But all of them still NEED a beginning, which is unknown.

To this, one could say:
We do not know it, so we do not talk about it. Or

Definitely no. We go to work on improving out knowledge.
We don't have adequate tools or technology? We go to work on improving them first.
Sitting there in ignorant silence helps how, exactly.?

We need a Creator,

And most definitely no. Other possibilities exist.
"Something does not appear out of nothing" is a pretty good common-sense rule at the scale of human experience,
but as with some other instinctive truths "it ain't necessarily so" at the cosmic or the quantum level.

And it's precisely at these points of nature not following "common sense" that new and deeper knowledge can be found.
"Hot things gradually get cooler until they match their environment."
Not bad, but it doesn't work for iron.
"As materials get cooler they contract"
Not bad, but it doesn't work for water.

It beats either wallowing in "don't know" or constructing a neat total answer on insufficient grounds and clinging to that.

Mind you, "the invisible Pink Unicorns did it" covers everything and anything, and it's very difficult to disprove.

Hieronymus · Mar 21, 2016

Only a fool, a theophobe or a thoroughly indoctrinated person believes DNA wrote itself.
Dead unconscious things do not evolve into living things by themselves.
Hence the panspermia idea, which is slightly less impossible.

Hieronymus · Mar 21, 2016

Abraxos said:
Darwinian Evolution is baseless without a good theory of Abiogenesis, which it does not have.

Evolution of a "first lifeform" is just as baseless.
It requires DNA to basically write itself, producing purposeful traits.

juvenissun · Mar 21, 2016

Chris B said:
Mind you, "the invisible Pink Unicorns did it" covers everything and anything, and it's very difficult to disprove.

It is an idea to explain the origin. It satisfy that requirement.
From there, we can talk about the rest of it. Of course, in this case, it won't go far.

The Cadet · Mar 21, 2016

juvenissun said:
It is an idea to explain the origin. It satisfy that requirement.
From there, we can talk about the rest of it. Of course, in this case, it won't go far.

Are you postulating that this alternative explanation has to be scientifically valid?

juvenissun · Mar 21, 2016

The Cadet said:
Are you postulating that this alternative explanation has to be scientifically valid?

Yes.
It should not just be a wild fantasy. It allows a great depth of reasonable and significant system development. The idea of evolution is an example.

So,
A Creator; or
Evolution; or
Unknown.
There is no other option.

Laury · Mar 21, 2016

juvenissun said:
Do you mean how did life start has nothing to do with life itself?

Wow, no matter how many times I say it, you still don't get it right.

I am talking about evolution, not life itself. Evolution is the theory about how life changed over time, not how it started. How life started is a different subject.

Maybe this would explain it better:

Evolution is not why life started existing, it's about why life exists the way as it is now.

Yes, the question how life started is interesting, and I posted a video under the comment that explains the chemical processes, which you probably ignored. How shocking.

juvenissun said:
Would this question be laughable if we found aliens on another planet?

What question?
How is other life on planets relevant to this discussion?

For your information: we have found out that there was a time where primitive life (first, very simple cells) existed on Mars, until atmosphere disappeared and the planet froze. So yeah, that could be considered alien life.

juvenissun said:
Have you heard that we were probably Martians? What if we were actually Venusians?

Not from any scientifically relevant sources. So in other words:

No.

The Cadet · Mar 21, 2016

juvenissun said:
Yes.
It should not just be a wild fantasy. It allows a great depth of reasonable and significant system development. The idea of evolution is an example.

...Okay, then we can throw creation out as well, because creation is not only not scientific, but it demands that numerous scientific discoveries be thrown out the window in order to accommodate it. By your criteria, it's only "evolution" or "I don't know"!

But ignoring that, let's just remind ourselves what, exactly, you're asking of us. You're demanding that, in order to prove your trichotomy wrong, we present a scientifically viable model for how life came about and diversified... other than the leading scientific explanation for how life came about and diversified. That is absurd. Science is inherently convergent. That is, the more evidence arises, and the further we understand a subject, the more the viable competing hypotheses start to look like each other. In this case, any model we form to try to explain how life diversified will almost certainly look a whole lot like the theory of evolution, because that is what the evidence unambiguously points to. And even if there was a huge paradigm shift for some reason, you're expecting that from some random schlubs on a forum for Christians?! What you are demanding is absurd.

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

SO COOL

Christ is King

SO COOL

Christ is King

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

SO COOL

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SO COOL

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SO COOL

Active Member

Old Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

SO COOL

... and God saw that it was good.

Active Member

SO COOL

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency