Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2017 9:49 AM
387 online now:
edge, NoNukes, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,202 Year: 16,808/21,208 Month: 2,697/3,593 Week: 164/646 Day: 42/62 Hour: 1/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Motivation for Denying God and Accepting Evolution
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5603
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 31 of 39 (673652)
09-21-2012 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
09-19-2012 1:39 PM


Re: Evolution is a FACT.
Hi Paul,

PaulK writes:

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.

Abiogenesis is relevant because without abiogenesis there would be no evolution as there would be nothing to evolve.

Yes you can observe the movements of bodies in the universe, without knowing how they began to exist.

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.

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.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2012 1:39 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 09-21-2012 2:10 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 09-21-2012 9:23 AM ICANT has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12769
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(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 yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9653
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 33 of 39 (673664)
09-21-2012 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
09-21-2012 1:51 AM


Science is a cult? Projection at its finest.
Abiogenesis is relevant because without abiogenesis there would be no evolution as there would be nothing to evolve.

The statement is both true and of little consequence. Your logic has a gaping hole, and I find it surprising that you cannot see it on your own.

Abiogenesis is of consequence from the standpoint of someone who wants to defend creationism. Both evolution and abiogenesis are separately contrary to a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. You believe that all life is specially created. So for you Genesis means no abiogenesis and no evolution. Evidence that man evolved is problematic for you even if abiogenesis never rises above speculation.

But that issue is of zero concern to scientists and to most Christians. I understand that it is hard for you to accept that, but it is the true reason why most Christians don't share your position and have no religious conflict with the theory of evolution.

We don't need to know the origin of everything to study biology any more than we need it to study chemistry.

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.

Again, your statement is true. But to know that however, life began, the origin of the human race is not as described by a fundamentalist Christian's reading of Genesis requires far less evidence. In fact, it requires nothing more than the evidence we do have for evolution and natural history.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2012 1:51 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2012 11:20 AM NoNukes has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5603
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 34 of 39 (673673)
09-21-2012 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
09-21-2012 9:23 AM


Re: Science is a cult? Projection at its finest.
Hi NoNukes,

NoNukes writes:

Abiogenesis is of consequence from the standpoint of someone who wants to defend creationism.

Abiogenesis is the word given to describe life beginning to exist.

I can find no scientific paper that describes how this took place.

After more than 50 years of research and experiments there is no workable, experimentally viable explanation of how life could start.

Sir Fred Hoyle, who recognized the impossibility of life arising spontaneously by chance, proposed that life came from outer space.

Had he said life came from out of our universe I would agree with him.

NoNukes writes:

Both evolution and abiogenesis are separately contrary to a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis.

Abiogenesis and evolution are the opposite of the literal interpertation of the first 4 chapters of Genesis.

NoNukes writes:

You believe that all life is specially created. So for you Genesis means no abiogenesis and no evolution.

I do not believe that life began to exist.

I believe that life was produced by life.

Genesis chapter 2 records that God formed man and creatures from the ground and placed life in them.

It is a scientific fact that life produces life.

It is a scientific assertion that life began to exist by chance.

NoNukes writes:

Evidence that man evolved is problematic for you even if abiogenesis never rises above speculation.

Man has not evolved. In fact he has devolved from a perfect being to the imperfect beings we encounter today.

Until you have life beginning to exist from non-life you have nothing to evolve.

The evolution spoken of here on EvC is based on the assumption that life began to exist from non-life for some reason, when there was no reason.

1. The begining to exist of a new creature as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

2. There is no known, proven mechanism that explains how new purposeful genetic information could arise. Which statistically is impossible.

Without these two evolution is relegated to being a hypothesis.

Without the beginning to exist of new genetic code evolution is impossible.

Since you made a play on my use of the word cult I will give the definition of cult, which is found here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cult

Cult. An organized group of people, religious or not, with whom you disagree. [Rawson]

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 09-21-2012 9:23 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 09-21-2012 11:40 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 09-21-2012 4:36 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15645
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 35 of 39 (673674)
09-21-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
09-21-2012 11:20 AM


Re: Science is a cult? Projection at its finest.
Could you post something about the topic next time?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2012 11:20 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13197
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 36 of 39 (673676)
09-21-2012 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Genologist
09-20-2012 6:08 PM


Re: Evolution is a FACT.
Genologist writes:

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!


The amoeba is your cousin. His grandfather was an amoeba-like organism and your grandfather was an amoeba-like organism. It happens that he looks more like grandpa than you do.

I think your motivation for denying evolution and accepting God is that you don't like your relatives.


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 37 of 39 (673679)
09-21-2012 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Genologist
09-20-2012 6:08 PM


Re: Evolution is a FACT.
What other general reason has there ever been for rejecting any authority?

Let's see . . .

1. The authority doesn't exist.

2. The authority commands people to do immoral acts.

3. The authority lacks the support of the community.

Those are just three off the top of my head. Perhaps you should try harder?

Sadly in the case of the Creator God many have misunderstood what type of authority He is, He is a God of love, he wants what is best for us, but we have been given free will, the chance to choose, and the time to do it in. However denying that He exists does not change His status, only ours.

Simply stating that God exists does not make it so. Surely you understand this? When you are naughty, are you worried that Santa Claus might have seen you do that naughty thing? Do you reject Santa's authority because you want to be naughty?

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".

We did not evolve from the modern amoeba. The modern amoeba is just as evolved as we are, so you might as well ask how the modern amoeba could have evolved from humans.


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

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9653
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 38 of 39 (673717)
09-21-2012 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
09-21-2012 11:20 AM


Motivation for accepting evolution
In the interest of staying on topic, I have to avoid responding to most of your message. But I think the following point is germane.

The motivation for accepting evolution is that the evidence leads to the conclusion that evolution is responsible for speciation on this planet. Period.

The evidence need not be of the type you would require or have outlined, as there are other lines of evidence available that while indirect, do not require a time machine. Denying those other lines of evidence and argument does not mean that they do not exist, or that the evidence is insufficient to reach a scientific conclusion.

I understand that such evidence is insufficient to convince you of the reality of evolution, but then you have fairly strong science denying mechanisms; like assuming that physics works differently when events take place behind your back.

Edited by NoNukes, : typo


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2012 11:20 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6635
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(8)
Message 39 of 39 (673732)
09-21-2012 5:48 PM


Cardinal Bellarmine
In discussions like these I can't help but think of Cardinal Bellarmine's reaction to Galileo's "heresy":

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/foscarini.html

Today we here the same about evolution. It's as if evolution was invented for the sole purpose proving the Bible wrong. Some people just can't accept the fact that this is where the evidence leads just as the evidence led to heliocentrism. It has nothing to do with needing to remove God from anything. Even I, as an atheist, do not believe that evolution disproves God. When I was a christian I accepted both the Bible and science, and saw no conflict between the two. The reasons that I left the faith have nothing to do with science, or with evolution specifically.


  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017