Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)

PurpleYouko responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

God can't create life that evolves?

---

​

Sure he could, if he existed. That was one of my options, remember?

---

I didn't see you mention that at all in your post. Instead, you made it seem perfectly clear that you were saying that evolution and god are incompatible. Did you or did you not say: So it would seem to me that no, you didn't include it as an option. So if you agree that god can create life that evolves, one has to wonder how you come to the conclusion that "evolutionist = Atheist."You may have your other reasons for rejecting the existence of god, but it isn't because of evolution.

quote:

---

The version I am most familiar with is the literal Genesis where God made everything exactly as it is today.

---

But surely that isn't the most common vision. Heck, the official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only valid scientific theory we have concerning the diversification of life on this planet. The idea that god and evolution are incompatible doesn't withstand scrutiny. Plenty of people agree with both. Just because one believes in god does not mean he believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

LinearAq writes:

quote:

---

If evolution is true then death was here before the original sin.

---

From a theoretical point of view, this isn't true. You do not need death in order to have populations evolve. You simply need to have enough resources for them to live. While death of populations has a huge effect upon evolutionary processes (it opens up niches to exploitation by surrounding species, spurring the creation of new species to take advantage of the peculiarities of the new niche), it is not required.Now, I will handily agree that from a practical standpoint, there is no way that life could have evolved for billions of years on this planet without death.But then again, death was in the garden before Adam sinned. It had to be. How else did Adam and Eve eat? Plants are alive, too. Pull a carrot out of the ground and eat it and you kill it. And unless they are saying that carnivorous plants like the Venus Flytrap or the Pitcher Plant or the Sundew only came about after the fall, then even animals were dying before the fall.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

So you believe that you can follow the word of god perfectly? Even when they contradict?This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 12-26-2004 03:15 AM

edit to kill double postThis message has been edited by sidelined, 12-25-2004 12:52 PM

Rrhain

quote:

---

PurpleYouko responds to me:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God can't create life that evolves?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Sure he could, if he existed. That was one of my options, remember?

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I didn't see you mention that at all in your post. Instead, you made it seem perfectly clear that you were saying that evolution and god are incompatible. Did you or did you not say:

​

In my view evolutionist = Atheist and I cannot understand how anyone can rationalize beleif in both systems.

---

Yes I said that. I also said.. Way back in an earlier post.I will try to explain my position a little more clearly. Here are my reasons for saying that the two viewpoints are incompatable.First of all I would say that it is obvious that the fundamental Christian position of literal genesis in 6 days has to be incompatible with TOE and the fossil record. Would anyone disagree with that?let's look at the possibility that god did as described in my earlier quote. This would go something like...In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. Next he created the primevil ooze and breathed life into it. Then he sat back for over 3 billion years and watched the natural processes of evolution shape all of the various lifeforms that have ever existed until finally the first Man came along. etc. etc.The trouble I have with this scenario is that it doesn't gel with any of the bible in which God is described repeatedly as being omnipotent and all knowing of future, present and past. This scenario sounds more like a scientific experiment to see what comes out the other end and not the act of an omnipotent being who knows full well exactly what the outcome will be. It just wouldn't make sense to do it that way unless he were just messing about through shear boredom.I just don't think an omnipotent God would do it this way so my conclusion in this scenario is that God would NOT be omnipotent. hence in disagreement with biblical Christianity.The other possibility that I see is that God simply created everything as it is today with old appearing rocks, fake fossils, old photons that appear to come from vast distances, conspicuously missing isotopes and all the evidence necessary to prove the TOE.This concept is a God that is playing tricks on us by deliberately deceiving us all. Gives "father of the lie" a whole new meaning, wouldn't you say? Either way this scenario points to a God that is most definitely not good, truthfull and loving. This god is just playing games with us for his own amusement and is most definitely taking the piss. If this scenario is the way that thing really happened then I will most definitely put myself into any camp that directly opposes such a nasty, cheap, petty little God who would be indistinguishable from the devil as described in the bible. I would much rather think that he simply doesn't exist.Any way I look at it, If TOE is true then God isn't, at least in any way recognisable from Christian, Islam or any other monotheistic religion that I am familiar with.
A God that IS there but doesn't match these teachings is the same thing as saying that ALL the leading religions are false anyway so my point stands.I cannot see any way to be Christian and to simultaineously accept the TOE unless you radically redefine God!PY

PurpleYouko responds to me:

quote:

---

Any way I look at it, If TOE is true then God isn't, at least in any way recognisable from Christian, Islam or any other monotheistic religion that I am familiar with.

---

Then how do the Catholics manage to do it?The official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only valid scientific theory we have to explain the diversification of life upon this planet.Are you saying the Pope is an atheist? That the Pope isn't Christian?

quote:

---

I cannot see any way to be Christian and to simultaineously accept the TOE unless you radically redefine God!

---

Do not confuse your inability to do something with a universal. It may simply be you aren't clever enough to figure out how. If someone tells you he is Christian and also agrees with evolution, why can't you simply accept it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

catholic ≠ christian.i've actually heard people use this argument before, and before the acceptance of evolution too. personally, i think it's pretty funny.

So I said "liberal Christianity" because there seemed to be a need to make a distinction from the "literalist Christianity" that you seem to have only been exposed to. Let me try to explain what I believe in a nutshell.I believe that the bible is a collection of accounts and mythologies that do contain a measure of truth. In particular, I believe that the accounts given to us of Christ in the Gospels are true and that the only way to be with God is through Christ. I also believe that as you get into the old testament what you have is a bunch of mythologies borrowed from other cultures and some religious justification for imperalism and/or war worshiping. Mixed in with this is some good scripture and knowledge. The important point here is that I reject parts of the bible that are historically shown to be borrowed/false (i.e. Genesis) but still believe that Christ is the son of God and saviour of mankind.I also think that you are unjustifiably forcing the Christian God to be omnipotent. If God is omnipotent that seems to induce some interesting contradictions like the ability for God to sin. In particular, God is actually limitied by his own nature and the gift to us of our free will. God cannot make me love him without first destroying my free will and in turn my ability to love which is a paradox.So there you have it. Bible is mostly true and a pretty good guide to God. God is not omnipotent. That is what I believe. Why is that and the acceptance of evolution invalid?

Please see my recent response to Purple for a summary of what I believe. I do not take the Bible to be literal. I still believe in Christ.I am saying that I am not an atheist. I am also saying that I accept the theory of evolution. Why must you or others like you continue to call me an atheist or to say that evolution is my religion?Why instead of calling me misguided or calling me wayward because I don't follow the specific tenants of your flavor of Christianity must I be labeled a secularist/humanist/atheist/whatever?

If someone tells me that he beleives that then I will accept it just like I will accept that somebody beleives in purple flying chipmunks and little green men from Mars. People can beleive whatever the hell they want to.
Doesn't mean it makes any kind of sense though.And I see the usual response coming through here. Personal insults! Maybe I'm not clever enough? That doesn't even dignify a response.Face it, the only argument for the existance of God is that all this stuff must have been created. If it wasn't then what possible reason is there for even beleiving in God in the first place, let alone being Christian?If God was simply the catalyst for the Big Bang and just seeded life all over the place like a scientist with a petri dish then again, why bother with religion? Do you think germs and bacterial ook up at us from their little petri dish and worship us while they feed and grow on the "mana from heaven" that we have placed them in? By pretty much making stuff up as they go along and not encouraging any form of free thought is my experience of it. My Wife is a catholic (as is her entire family)and she is very strongly urged NOT to read the bible (particularly the OT)in case it gives her any ideas that would cause her to stray from the "one true path". the whole family all keep bibles by their beds but never open the bloody things. I doubt if they even know that the pages aren't blank. Sometimes I really wonder. And how long did it take them to come to that realization after spending such a long time condemning TOE as anti-Christian propeganda or some such crap?
That was the U-turn of the millenia.PY

Thanks for the explanation. Within the frame of your own beleif system there would not appear to be any direct contradictions. I am not about to call you a bad or misguided Christian or try to put you into any kind of compartment as many seem to do.I just have a couple of comments. I understood that the entire point of God was to be omnipotent. He would certainly have had to design every last little peice of Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. And he would need to understand all of the forces of nature everywhere in a way that would make him indistinguishable from omnipotent.Or if God didn't actually create the universe then where does he fit into all of this at all? Where did he come from? What right does he have to order us about at all?I respect your right to believe in any way that you feel is right for you, but I will never understand the logic that allows you to do so.PY

Extremely powerfull beyond our imagination and omnipotent are two different things. I believe God is the former. My previous example about the paradox in free will I felt showed the difference pretty well. Omnipotent means "all powerfull" and I do not believe that God has the power to forcibly make me love Him. Thanks. My purpose though was not to explain my logic though. Faith in God defies logic and that is okay for most everyone that does believe in God. I believe in God and I will be the first to admit that that belief is not founded in logic.Overall I think we really do agree on most of this issue. I just got the feeling that you are arguing from a very narrow perspective of God and Christianity.

I was. I don't deny that.And we probably do agree on a lot of stuff.except for this. I would have said they were one and the same for all the difference we are able to discern from it.Now that you have made your own position clear, the position I was arguing from is plainly not relevent from your perspective.
To be perfectly honest, I really wasn't aware that a viewpoint such as yours existed. I don't think I have ever met any religious person who didn't beleive in the complete omnipotence of the creator and the literal beleif in the entire bible. And I have had this conversation with 100s of people.
With a bunch of my family being Jehovah's witnesses and my wife's being Catholic, along with growing up with English forced religious education for more years than I would like to remember. It is only since coming to the USA that I have come across these kind of relaxed Christian beleifs.It is a whole lot more difficult to argue with people like you. PY

don't say things like that... you'll only confuse them.but don't forget fungi which actively create and live off of decay.i do recall asking about that way back in sunday school and getting a weird answer which was something like "the functions of things changed after the fall to accommodate the new circumstances". this is a bullshit answer obviously but it kinda sounds like evolution to me lol.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-03-2005 15:03 AM

Extremely powerfull beyond our imagination and omnipotent are two different things. I believe God is the former. My previous example about the paradox in free will I felt showed the difference pretty well. Omnipotent means "all powerfull" and I do not believe that God has the power to forcibly make me love Him.i think you just made my life a lot easier. thanks.