Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motivation for Denying God and Accepting Evolution
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 39 (673254)
09-17-2012 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
09-17-2012 5:01 PM


(Replying to Genologist's message, reposted by Admin)
quote:
I have through observation and discussion discovered that the removal of even the mere notion of a higher being is considered attractive to "some" people because they can live with a free albeit numbed or diminished conscience in this area at least. In most of those cases their answer to life is that they go with science as opposed to Christianity for example, in the context that science becomes almost a belief system or religion to them.
I would like to know these "observations" since I suspect that they are circumstantial at best.
In my experience, I would say that Fundamentalist Christianity is more likely to lead to a numbing of the conscience. The need to justify Biblical atrocities is an obvious example, but there are more.
quote:
I believe that true science is compatible with Christianity when we point out definite evidence,
We have plenty of definite evidence for evolution. That is why it is accepted by the vast majority of experts - including many Christians, such as Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller and Simon Conway Morris.
quote:
but we must then proceed not to "so readily" let our ideas generated from compiling such evidence become "theory and even fact". I find it sad that people consider theories such as evolution FACT, fait accompli, as if there were some ageless being with a clipboard documenting the whole thing.
Of course that last is your invention. Evolution is accepted as fact because of the vast weight of evidence supporting it. And I suspect that you are quite willing to accept other beliefs with less support as fact.
Edited by PaulK, : Clarify that this is a reply to Genologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-17-2012 5:01 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 18 of 39 (673452)
09-19-2012 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Genologist
09-19-2012 12:31 PM


Re: Evolution is a FACT.
quote:
When speaking of evolution it is my understanding that it logically should at least be very closely associated with abiogenesis, (it invariably continues to be taught as connected by teachers, why?)
That really depends on what you are talking about. In terms of the history of life on earth they are closely connected, one follows on from the other. If we define life to exclude early chemical replicators that developed into life (and I prefer not to) then evolution may play a part in abiogenesis. We might evenuse our knowledge of evolution to try to inform studies of abiogenesis by trying to reconstruct the first life.
However they are logically separate when dealing with anything following abiogenesis since it really isn't relevant exactly how the first life got here. As I pointed put in my prior posts we don't need to know how the planets formed to observe their movements or even reconstruct the paths of those orbits through history.
quote:
...and for the purposes of clarity, it certainly needs to be at least strongly emphasised that the ToE effectively has no known beginnings other than that the idea started with a common ancestor, a "simple", ALREADY EXISTING (Intelligently- Created?) life form
That certainly doesn't, add any clarity to the teaching of evolution. And really, we have no good rival to abiogenesis on Earth right now.
quote:
Incidentally, and surely to the embarrassment of secular evos, there is in fact no such thing as a "simple" life form- indeed the genome of the much touted "simple" amoeba proteus, (the amoeba traditionally is taught as being the likely common ancestor), has 290 billion units of DNA- some one hundred times that of the human bein
No, modern amoebas are certainly not represented as the actual ancestors of modern life. And why should it be embarrassing ? It really fits in much better with evolution than creation...
quote:
The ToE with its current ambiguity, (such as is widely taught in schools/mainstream education), coupled with an insistence that every genetic transaction in evolution is unguided or random is why I assert that there is a religious ambition to exclude a Creator.- Ask a bunch of high school students today if they feel that they have been taught the TOE as fact and I'm pretty sure most will say yes, indeed if you observe the exam questions, they at the very least treat the theory as fact
So, a good scientific education is evidence that there is "a religious ambition to exclude a Creator" ?
quote:
There has also appeared over time to generally be a subtle (why subtle?) "evolution" within the theory of evolution from ideas to fact, often with little or no tangible evidence (eg the on-going controversy with transition across species), this is similar (albeit less blatant) to the following typical example of "transition" in another aspect of science: "The Earth is thought to be 4.6 billion years old". "Therefore since [fact] the Earth is 4.6 billion years old,"
So, as favourable evidence accumulates we become more certain of our ideas. This is a problem ?
quote:
As stated elsewhere, the religious pursuit by some to obviate a Creator from science or even from the origins of scientific theories stems from the dislike for accountability or relationship with a being higher than ones-self (pride?)
The constant complaint of the creationist "Scientists are so proud that they refuse to worship ME!"
But as I have pointed out before, the vast majority of qualified experts - including Christians - accept evolution. If evolution was simply a fraud concocted to deny the existence of God that even someone as uninformed as yourself can see through, how could this possibly be the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Genologist, posted 09-19-2012 12:31 PM Genologist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2012 1:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 26 of 39 (673632)
09-20-2012 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Genologist
09-20-2012 6:08 PM


Re: Evolution is a FACT.
quote:
What other general reason has there ever been for rejecting any authority?
You've yet to support the claim that it is all about rejection of authority. You need to do that first.
quote:
By the way, could somebody please explain how the simple common ancestor life form, traditionally taught as being the "humble" amoeba could have 290 billion units of DNA- some one hundred times that of the human being when evolution clearly teaches a progression in complexity (and a gaining of genetic information) from simple life forms to the most complex such as yours truly! Perhaps this simple thing will confound the wise, and the "Fact" of evolution will once more "need" to be "in evolution".
I already answered that. Nobody teaches that modern amoebas are the common ancestor of all life. And evolution does not teach a progression in complexity. And if it did, amoebas have been evolving as long as everything else. Which is one reason why we don't say that modern amoebas are the common ancestor - they've had a lot of time to evolve away from that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Genologist, posted 09-20-2012 6:08 PM Genologist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 32 of 39 (673653)
09-21-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
09-21-2012 1:51 AM


Re: Evolution is a FACT.
quote:
Abiogenesis is relevant because without abiogenesis there would be no evolution as there would be nothing to evolve.
In other words it has very little relevance to the actual course of evolution
quote:
But without knowing how either began to exist you can not make a statement that life and the universe was not created by a spiritual being.
Which only says that abiogenesis is relevant to abiogenesis....
quote:
The scientific answer for how life or the universe began to exist is "WE DON'T KNOW".
You don't know how it began to exist but you know that a spiritual being did not create either.
That is blind faith. Which makes your belief that of a cult.
Oh, have you turned into one of those arrogant agnostics who proclaims the superiority of his own position by lying about anyone who disagrees ?
You neither know my position, nor understand the basis for it - or even understand the meaning of the word "cult".
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2012 1:51 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024