The Word Evolutionists

Im a huge fan of Dawkins. Because he is so consistent in his beliefs. Evolution means athiesm. No designer only natural processes. Then if his asked something about morals and where do they come from etc He'd say something like oh well we must face the facts. Much respect for the men that take the ToE consistently.

almeyda,You just proved Schraf's point, which is that creationists use the 'evolution=atheism' equation far more frequently and seriously than people who affirm Darwin's theory.Despite your claim to being a 'huge fan of Dawkins,' I suspect all you've read of his extensive and fascinating work are the blurbs that make it onto the creationist websites. The Blind Watchmaker was one of the books responsible for fanning the flames of my amateur interest in natural history, and I've read various other titles that restate his basic views: that Design can emerge through the workings of undirected processes; that any seemingly-abrupt evolutionary transition can be accounted for by small changes; that natural selection is a more powerful design engine than even most evolutionary theorists realize; and that what we truly know about Nature is more dazzling and unbelievable than the mythology we make up in our ignorance.Dawkins dealt with the evolutionary model of moral and cultural issues in The Selfish Gene, but I personally think Unweaving the Rainbow would be a more unsettling work for the likes of you. In it, he examines the way we think denying reality is the only way we can truly see magic and retain a sense of wonder. Dawkins makes a convincing case that the true wonders of Nature are the ones we can affirm rationally, and that's the staggering part of exploring the world around us. If you feel that Dawkins's views on religion (or what you think they are) are the be-all and end-all of his appeal for readers, you're wrong. And if you feel that his opinions are the last word on Darwinism, you're just as mistaken.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Im a huge fan of Dawkins. Because he is so consistent in his beliefs. Evolution means athiesm. No designer only natural processes. Then if his asked something about morals and where do they come from etc He'd say something like oh well we must face the facts. Much respect for the men that take the ToE consistently.

---

So, what you are actually saying is that you see the world in black and white; shades of gray, duality, and mystery are things you do not accept.The Theory of Evolution and Biologists SAY NOTHING ABOUT GOD NOT EXISTING.It's you and others like you who manufacture this false problem.

Well hopefully ill be back, but not for a few months like a said.That pray you bullied me into is still in theory carrying on, im not sure as to its success so far, although i suspect this weekend will put it truly to the test, and it ends when i get back from bolivia, so if i return and we both remember ask me then. Whether or not it coming true will return me to a faith or not, well that we shall have to see, but id say it may help, but i wouldnt place any bets on me believing again.It doesnt surprise me that your not part of a social group really, to me that just makes your faith even better from my point of view, less waste as such. And quite simply if your faith causes you to ask many questions, the answers (evolution for instance) you accept then that is excellent.Maybe one day i'll believe again tho i doubt it. I just hope that in times of desperate fear that i have the strength of my convictions not to try praying.Im afraid atheist is truly a good description of myself, and i dispute being under anyones command . If anything your the one being commanded, by something that doesnt even exist Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

I dont know about your God, but it does say something about the God of the Bible. Which is it puts death, bloodshed and disease before the fall of man. Survival of the fittest is the ToE, over billions of yrs. The God of the Bible however made a perfect world that was ruined by sin. This was the whole point of Jesus, and why he was called the last adam. So really evolution undermines the foundation of the Bible and renders it useless so yes in a way evolution does say no God. Moreover it means we cant trust nothing on Genesis, If the first man Adam was a literal man how can we believe that if Genesis is merely a fairy tale. Evolution and Genesis contradict each other way too many times to be compatible. And the fact that evolution is natural processes without a designer or supernatural intervention necessary shows that no God is really necessary. Unless you want to believe in God on your own behalf.

quote:

---

So really evolution undermines the foundation of the Bible and renders it useless so yes in a way evolution does say no God.

---

But that only applies to your particular mythology; other gods might not have this purpose. So, evolution is not inherebntly opposed to god, even if it does falsify some/many of the claims of christianity.

quote:

---

And the fact that evolution is natural processes without a designer or supernatural intervention necessary shows that no God is really necessary. Unless you want to believe in God on your own behalf.

---

Which some people do. I am not among them.

quote:

---

But that only applies to your particular mythology; other gods might not have this purpose. So, evolution is not inherebntly opposed to god, even if it does falsify some/many of the claims of christianity

---

Spot on. You can add Allah or any God you want to evolution. But ive only got a problem when its included with the God of the holy Bible.

quote:

---

Spot on. You can add Allah or any God you want to evolution. But ive only got a problem when its included with the God of the holy Bible.

---

Excellent. Thank you for agreeing that Evolution is not anti-god; the fact that christian claims are wholly unprovable is the problem, not anything that evolution or science says.

Good luck trying to fit a natural processes scientific theory with the supernatural. And you think life coming from non-life is provable?.

I think we all agree that life came after a time of non-life. What we disagree on is how it came about.There is good reason to accept that there was a time on earth with no life. Now there is. Do you agree?

Are you talking about materialistic theory?. If you are then yes since evolutionists say the universe is all that theres been etc. If i was an evolutinist yes i would agree.

Actually on further thinking I may have misread your post that I responed to.There are two issues, one having nothing to do with materialism or not.That is was there every a time when there was no life? Read your Bible. What does it say?But that isn't exactly what you were talking about in the post where you talked about "life from non-life. It isn't life after nonlife (which I'm sure we all agree on). Some think life came about without devine intervention so we might say life arose from non-living matter (life from non life). Others might insist that there was devine work afoot. What then occurs to me is to ask if God is "alive". He isn't in any way that any living thing we know of is, that's for sure. Unless you think he eats and shits.In fact, go back to the Bible again. Did humans not come from dust? Isn't that life from non-life??The question isn't if life came after and from non-life but how it happened. Isn't it?

Hey Almeyda,I hope that you at least take away from this thread that evolution does not equal atheism.I tried to explain to you the definition of evolution in another thread, but you didn't seem to want to listen.Evolution says NOTHING about the origins of life. Here's the definition of evolution from the forum glossary, again: Please stop and read it, and consider it for a moment. I'm not asking you to believe it - just read what it says.What interests me is that in other threads your position is that genetic changes can accumulate in populations in response to new environments and natural selection, as long as there is no change in "kind."This agrees with the scientific definition of evolution, which does NOT state that changes have to be progressive, NOR that one kind changes into another, NOR that all life descended from a single ancestor.So it seems to be a problem of words and definitions, since from other posts you agree with the true scientific definition of evolution.I think this might be the third time I'm writing this to you, so I hope you'll contemplate it this time - especially since you are a Christian and you believe in evolution, albeit with certain limits (no changes between kinds).I hope you won't give me the same knee-jerk reaction you have in the past, that "No, I'm not an evolutionist!"I think it is important because "evolutionist = atheist" will surely offend people who have the exact same views as you (evolution within kind), but know the definitions.Also, hopefully it will keep us from arguing past each other when we actually agree on the ideas, but not on the words.Thanks.

quote:

---

The question isn't if life came after and from non-life but how it happened. Isn't it?

---

Yes thats true. But the 2 views are between an infinite intelligence. Or life coming from non-life by itself.

quote:

---

Evolution - Genetic changes in populations of organisms through time that lead to differences among them.

​

Please stop and read it, and consider it for a moment. I'm not asking you to believe it - just read what it says.

---

What you need to understand is natural selection works fine in already living things and kinds. But when we go back to that premeval pond. And that single cell. There is no information in its genes to bring about more complex things. Theres nowhere it can get more information from. Living things today are complete, and have brains, blood, eyes. Therefore can reproduce and using natural selection can change over time. Not into different kinds but mutations. If evolution is just mutations and natural selection then it is not evolution. As we need single celled organism that can then add to itself blood, lungs etc. This is not possible. If your child was taller than you, that would just be a change in genes. It wouldnt be that it evolved into a different kind.