Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[Oncedeceived]

Thanks for the detailed response, but most of what you said represents a philosophical difference. I asked what difference it makes in practise. You presented the example of murder. If atheists were really more likely to murder than theists you would have something there, but I guarantee you will not find any source that records such a trend. So while you may feel that the "sac of chemicals" view should make murder acceptable to someone who holds that view, this is not actually the case in practise. If it were you should be able to present some statistics to support this.


Thus I repeat my question. Can you outline the practical difference between the two views? What difference does it make to the way you and I actually behave?

Edited for duplicated text.

The basis of the argument is what should be the case if materialism is true; what if we are just a sac of chemicals and the laws of physics ultimately determine what we do and what we think. The matter is that what we experience is not consistent with a materialistic worldview. We do experience "I", we do experience "thoughts" we do experience "emotions" and we experience "choice". If materialism is true, we can't even know if it is true. There is nothing that informs us that materialism is in fact factual. Materialists live inconsistently with what they believe. In the case of murder, there is no valid "reason" that murder is actually wrong in a materialistic worldview. There is no real good, bad or evil. The fact that materialists do believe that there really is good, bad and evil is not consistent with their own worldview.

So in practice materialists do not live consistently with what should be true if it were true.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Insulting? Blame the worldview of atheistic Darwinist creationism, not me.

But it is our point that you actually mischaracterize the atheistic Darwinist point of view. You falsely claim that it must mean there is no meaning to life.

Now I could turn the tables and say why does believing in God mean there is meaning to life? Why would what God thinks about things have anything to do with what my life is?

Are we like little children who must believe one way only or else we will be spanked? Is that really what gives meaning to life?

I'm not suggesting my own opinions here . . . I'm raising logical questions for you to answer, if you can.

 

[lasthero]

Edison built a lot of it. A hyperactive child, prone to distraction, he was deemed "difficult" by his teacher. At age 11 his mother quickly pulled him from school and taught him at home.

...so? So what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

In other words, you are unable to provide an example of how thinking we are are God's special creation is different in any practical sense than accepting we are sacs of chemicals. Correct?

Edited for screwy internet issues.

The Christian worldview is consistent internally and externally. The Materialistic worldview is inconsistent internally and externally. The Christian worldview therefore is consistent, matches reality and the materialistic worldview denies realty. In practice materialists do not live their own worldview.

 

[lasthero]

But it is our point that you actually mischaracterize the atheistic Darwinist point of view. You falsely claim that it must mean there is no meaning to life.

Now I could turn the tables and say why does believing in God mean there is meaning to life? Why would what God thinks about things have anything to do with what my life is?

Are we like little children who must believe one way only or else we will be spanked? Is that really what gives meaning to life?

I'm not suggesting my own opinions here . . . I'm raising logical questions for you to answer, if you can.

Be careful, man. Your coming dangerously close to suggesting that Once has some problems when it comes to arguing things. Only atheists do that. Wouldn't want you to become one.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The basis of the argument is what should be the case if materialism is true; what if we are just a sac of chemicals and the laws of physics ultimately determine what we do and what we think. The matter is that what we experience is not consistent with a materialistic worldview. We do experience "I", we do experience "thoughts" we do experience "emotions" and we experience "choice". If materialism is true, we can't even know if it is true. There is nothing that informs us that materialism is in fact factual. Materialists live inconsistently with what they believe. In the case of murder, there is no valid "reason" that murder is actually wrong in a materialistic worldview. There is no real good, bad or evil. The fact that materialists do believe that there really is good, bad and evil is not consistent with their own worldview.

So in practice materialists do not live consistently with what should be true if it were true.

Let me repeat that I am not a materialist, but you simply do not recognize the philosophical options available to a materialist. Materialists could very well view morality as being based on the necessary instinctive concessions that must be made by individuals to live together socially; Materialists could very well personally value moral choices even while not believing they have eternal consequences for an immortal soul they don't believe they are. By way of example, Materialists could easily fall in love, be grateful for falling in love, remain faithful to their spouse even while considering that an instinctive response built into them by evolution. In like manner, they can avoid killing others, avoid cheating others, and so forth. This is not being inconsistent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. There is no logical reason to deny a materialist the right to consider living things more special than dead things, and thinking things more special than dumb things. You can say all day long there's no reason to do that, but the reply is that a person with free will can do it if that's what they choose to do. See, when you go beyond saying "there's no reason to adopt such values" and say they cannot adopt such values . . . your are making a logical error.

There is no logical reason for materialists to have logical reason if their worldview is true. If they hold true to their belief that we are just material beings and our mind is just the brain, then they should have no rational thought but only that which has been caused by the physics that came before. There is no logical error in a materialistic worldview. There are no values as there is no right or wrong or good or evil.

 

[crjmurray]

Let me repeat that I am not a materialist, but you simply do not recognize the philosophical options available to a materialist. Materialists could very well view morality as being based on the necessary instinctive concessions that must be made by individuals to live together socially; Materialists could very well personally value moral choices even while not believing they have eternal consequences for an immortal soul they don't believe they are. By way of example, Materialists could easily fall in love, be grateful for falling in love, remain faithful to their spouse even while considering that an instinctive response built into them by evolution. In like manner, they can avoid killing others, avoid cheating others, and so forth. This is not being inconsistent.

Yeah.

 

[crjmurray]

There is no logical reason for materialists to have logical reason if their worldview is true. If they hold true to their belief that we are just material beings and our mind is just the brain, then they should have no rational thought but only that which has been caused by the physics that came before. There is no logical error in a materialistic worldview. There are no values as there is no right or wrong or good or evil.

No.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let me repeat that I am not a materialist, but you simply do not recognize the philosophical options available to a materialist. Materialists could very well view morality as being based on the necessary instinctive concessions that must be made by individuals to live together socially; Materialists could very well personally value moral choices even while not believing they have eternal consequences for an immortal soul they don't believe they are. By way of example, Materialists could easily fall in love, be grateful for falling in love, remain faithful to their spouse even while considering that an instinctive response built into them by evolution. In like manner, they can avoid killing others, avoid cheating others, and so forth. This is not being inconsistent.

You are making the mistake of what they actual can do and do with what their beliefs would or should necessitate. They can not say that something is good or evil as they don't exist when someone has no control over what they do. IF one is only able to do what they have to do they are not responsible for what they do. One can't call it evil if one likes to torture babies as it is only that which came before would allow for them to do. Avoiding killing others is not based on charity of others, or love of others it is a basic action of self survival and can't be called good. If one kills, it only comes from the same physics that another acted with not taking a life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Be careful, man. Your coming dangerously close to suggesting that Once has some problems when it comes to arguing things. Only atheists do that. Wouldn't want you to become one.

This quote wasn't even posted to me.

 

[joshua 1 9]

...so? So what?

The claim is that science gave us so much. Yet a huge amount of the modern world started with Edison. You can not consider him to be a part of science because he was not a part of their indoctrination in the education system. It was because he was not a part of science that he was able to do what he did. Edison's good friends Firestone that reinvented the wheel and his good friend Ford gave us modern transportation. Ford was a machinist not a scientist. Firestone also did not have a college education. Bill Gates droped out of college and considered a formal education a waste of time. So when it comes to the people who make a difference in this world, science had little if anything to do with it.

 

[lasthero]

The claim is that science gave us so much. Yet a huge amount of the modern world started with Edison. You can not consider him to be a part of science because he was not a part of their indoctrination in the education system. It was because he was not a part of science that he was able to do what he did.

What do you think science is?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But it is our point that you actually mischaracterize the atheistic Darwinist point of view. You falsely claim that it must mean there is no meaning to life.

How does he mis-characterize the atheistic Darwinist point of view? If the sac of chemicals has no real emotions other than neurons firing in our brains, how do you arrive at meaning of life?

Now I could turn the tables and say why does believing in God mean there is meaning to life? Why would what God thinks about things have anything to do with what my life is?

If love and loyalty, charity and trust are real as they are in the Christian worldview and as we experience they give real meaning to life. We really do love our spouse and children and really care about their well being rather than just passing on our genes that has meaning. IF I give my life for another, it is meaningful as a heroic act of self sacrifice and not a meaningless act of passing on my genes.

Are we like little children who must believe one way only or else we will be spanked? Is that really what gives meaning to life?

Talk about misrepresentation! I have a very hard time understanding how a Christian would even make this misrepresentation of Christianity playing the devil's advocate.

I'm not suggesting my own opinions here . . . I'm raising logical questions for you to answer, if you can.

You feel Christians are like little children and must believe one way only or else we will be spanked is raising logical questions? Where does your logic arise?
Just, I hope you don't mind me responding on this one.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What do you think science is?

Creationists are concerned with the science in the education system. Esp the public education system.

 

[lasthero]

Creationists are concerned with the science in the education system. Esp the public education system.

Okay, but what do you think science is, exactly?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You are making the mistake of what they actual can do and do with what their beliefs would or should necessitate. They can not say that something is good or evil as they don't exist when someone has no control over what they do. IF one is only able to do what they have to do they are not responsible for what they do. One can't call it evil if one likes to torture babies as it is only that which came before would allow for them to do. Avoiding killing others is not based on charity of others, or love of others it is a basic action of self survival and can't be called good. If one kills, it only comes from the same physics that another acted with not taking a life.

Atheists show by living it out that they can do all the things you say they cannot do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Atheists show by living it out that they can do all the things you say they cannot do.

No, I am not saying they cannot do it, I am saying that they are not living their own belief system when they do.

 

[Armoured]

The claim is that science gave us so much. Yet a huge amount of the modern world started with Edison. You can not consider him to be a part of science

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, I am not saying they cannot do it, I am saying that they are not living their own belief system when they do.

Oh, sometimes you can be right about that and sometimes you can be wrong. It's striking that you have nothing to add to your mere assertion that they cannot do what they do. You cannot conceive of someone asserting that a sack of chemicals can be complex enough and dynamic enough to be of great value. And yet, for someone to assign a value is up to them to assign the value, and you have no logical reason to deny them that personal right.