What we must accept if we accept evolution

No, it does not. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Their view is sentimental, not logical. They are trying to have it both ways, and you can't have it both ways.

OK, but who cares for this discussion that the YEC view has logical problems? I said the Roman Catholic view has logical problems. And you say, well, even if we dismiss evolution, there are still problems with the idea of a good God. But that does not affect my argument which is that evolution shows there is no god.

This strikes me as double-talk.

That's funny, Prophex.

I don't see what difference it makes if I put the words "I believe" in front of the statement. Obviously it's my belief; otherwise I wouldn't have said it. But it's not a belief based on faith or whim or sentiment. It's a belief based on logic.

Paulk, there are various reasons for rejecting the concept of a good God. But evolution is one of them. And because it's scientific and not merely philosophical, it is a very strong reason.

You make a good point, jar. My attribution of "sentiment" to the belief of Christian evolutionists is my own speculation about the reason they would believe what they do. I think it's logically inconsistent to be a Christian and to also believe in evolution, so I thought perhaps the reason why people would believe such an idea is for sentimental reasons. It makes them feel good to believe it. But that's just my speculation.

Absolutely.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting post, Modulus. I enjoyed it. I will respond later. Right now I have to grade some papers.

I seriously doubt it, but give it a whirl if you like. Men don't have minds; they just have brains (thus saith evolution).Whether they employ them or not doesn't matter in the least, objectively speaking, any more than it "matters" whether or not the leaves fall from the trees. Such happenings are of equal significance or insignificance. Of course it matters to THEM, but that's just subjective.

Yes, a person might think it's true, but the reasons one does so are emotional not logical. Let's say there's this woman who has the belief that her husband is a fine, upstanding individual, whereas all the evidence points to the fact that he is a coldhearted crook.Her belief is sentimental. Sentimentality can also be negative, but it's still sentimentality.There might be this woman who WANTS to believe and therefore does believe that her husband is a coldhearted crook (she's in love with another man, say), whereas in fact her husband is a fine, upstanding individual. Her belief is also sentimental.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-22-2006 12:31 PM

It strongly implies materialism.

It means, Brenn, that your comment makes no sense.

How very amusing.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I'll make a case for it. It is impossible for physicality to evolve into mentality. We have two different types of reality here.The physical world is about automatic reactions to stimuli. Everything that happens is like water running downhill. The logical mental world is quite different. It seems to be about grounds and consequents. One cannot evolve into another. Therefore, since evolution is obviously true, there is no mental world. It's an illusion.If our aura of incorporeality was accurate, then we would have a distinct self which makes these logical deductions or inferences. But this cannot be because our thoughts are physically caused. If they are physically caused, then our conclusions are not logical except by accident. But logical thoughts are not supposed to be true just by accident; they are supposed to follow ineluctably, as the night follows the day. Therefore, our sense of logic is an illusion.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-22-2006 09:04 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-22-2006 09:05 PM