Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

OK, I take back the part about it being problematical. This is not the sort of God that counts the hairs of the head, I take it?

So you still deny the fraud. Amazing. Sorry but the facts are on my side. Never been trounced on this, and if you guys would ever just admit fully to the truth, maybe it wouldn't keep coming up, but you asserting "self-correcting" which is patently false when it comes to evos. Evos were forced to correct their fraudulent claims by a sustained barrage of creationist criticism pointing out the indefensible, namely evos relying on faked data.

quote:

---

It is not Darwin's fault. It is not science's fault. It is the fault of those theologians that mislead their followers and put silly limits on how God can accomplish His creation.

---

I think this is perhaps the most important point to make.Faith said,

quote:

---

Since they'd already accepted science over the Bible they had no problem keeping their vague God in the picture.

---

Aren't we talking about the Complexity of Simplicity here? In other words, by your position, the theory of evolution is to complex to support the Christian version of creation and thereby presents a vaguer picture of who God is. That is, if I understand your position correctly.An interesting article I read once when using google to check my spelling on the word "Simplicity". - Babelfish

Very, very little help. Other than...God I hate saying this...other than...arrrrg...other than Haeckal...how have creationists corrected the ToE? And let me point out that my disdain for mentioning this has absolutely nothing to do with who "discovered" and/or "who criticized" the error. It's simply that I am sick (to the point of popping a vessel in my head) of fucking reading about it time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again from randman! Of course, we all know that the biggest critics of evolutionary theory are evolutionary biologists themselves. More "correcting" of the theory has been as a result of additional research than any creationist criticism(s). blah, blah, blah. That fucking horse is dead randman.Hey Admins...can't this be stopped? He has brought this bull shit up in every fucking thread he has participated in since the whole thing got started. How long are you going to let him continue to do this? I know I'm going to regret this...but what ole myths are those randman? And don't mention Haeckal...please...for the love of God...don't mention Haeckal!

We should consider their evidentiary claims and analysis, when it comes to science we should ignore their opinions.Likewise, when playing chess I consider the analysis of Bobby Fischer as something to be seriously bourne in mind. However, his opinions are something I largely ignore.

RR, the fact is that if you're going to say that the theory indicates no God, that's fine. Yet the actual theories don't indicate anything other than what they seek to conclude.Simplistic Example, as I can't be bothered with a good one; This fish sure is colourful,
therefore I bet there's more colours of fish.There are, as predicted.END OF THEORY...... Person's belief outside of theory; that means fish built mountains afterall, as this theory indicates it.Another person's belief: I knew God painted fish with oil paints, as this theory seems to indicate it.Another: Oh my, fish are radiant pink bubbles of cosmic dust orgasms afterall.RR, obviously anything you see will have nihilism written all over it, and to another, like Jar, it might have God written all over it. It is of no consequence or relevance to the theory, and it's form.This is what Faith and Randman don't understand.There isn't a real contradiction in Jar's theology because he qualified God as a creator, or instigator of the universe. God would still be able to count without using his fingers if he can create a universe. Also, evolution would be none contradictive because if Jar seeing evolution coming about increases his belief or whatever, this would be fine, and impressive from the point of view that God made it possible.

I'm fairly sure that science largely disregarded Haeckel's claims, it was education that relied on them. That is all we managed to establish in the extensive amount of debate over this. Feel free to revisit the thread(s) if you have any further data.

TOE technically has nothing to do with the origin of life, but nonetheless you will find in a book called "What Evolution Is" a discussion of the origin of life---all of it put forth very tentatively of course. Why is such a discussion in this book? Why? Because the concept of evolution lends itself to the idea of abiogenesis, that's why.In the same way, TOE technically has nothing to do with the concept of God. Nonetheless, it suggests that all of life developed naturally and accidentally, with no need for God and The Great Chain of Being created by Him, in which all the gaps of possible beings are filled in, from the angels to the lowly worm.So I would disagree that TOE suggests theism just as much as it suggests nihilism.Darwinism is an earth-shaking idea, once we fully grasp all its implications.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 03:25 PM

I already outlined the historical facts that have been well recognized for a hundred years. You've got the cart before the horse. God came first, and gave His written word to us first, and in fact that written word had a great deal to do with inspiring science in the West. God is God. As I've said elsewhere many times, we are talking about a fundamental clash of worldviews -- either God trumps Science or Science trumps God. Science has taken the position that God is subject to Science, and acted accordingly. It is not true that this was necessary though they convince themselves it was.Nobody is NECESSARILY accusing scientists of motivation in this respect -- there may or may not have been in particular cases -- I assume basic honesty even if they simply gave into superficial impressions and deluded themselves in the process. Anyone with a strong faith in the God of the Bible would not give in so easily, however, so at least we know they were people of weak faith. All this proves is that you hold the presuppositions of the Science worldview as I said. God has spoken, theologians didn't make him up. Science must submit to God. That's the OTHER worldview.

This doesn't matter unless you say that God was needed. It assumes that the theist is saying that he is.There is no need of a cow, when I am making a cheese sandwhich.The fact is that parsimoniously, God is an addage from a biased perspective; but then if one never stated God was needed for evolution, then it's vacuous. God would be the instigator of the universe. How can he be an addage, if the Theistic claimant doesn't claim him to be necessary in the first place? Therefore you cannot infer he doesn't exist, from these premisses.Nevertheless, one could say that evolution requires God because God created the universe. And if there was no universe, then there'd be no evolution that could take place. Thus in this way, God is required. Like with my cheese sandwhich. Sure, when I make it I don't need the cow, but if there was never a cow, I couldn't make the sandwhich. So you see, it's how you look at it. And how we all look at it, is quite irrelevant as we can't prove anything.Your argument seems to be that mere absence favours the negative.If this is correct, then if I murder someone and there's no evidence, then there was no murderer.Can you see how that is faulty? Mere absence doesn't favour the negative. Yet if one expects to see evidence and it isn't there, then it is a genuine evidence of absence.But this depends on an incredible amount of speculation as to what would constitute "evidence of God".We could argue all day as to what would evidence God.You think you have a better argument for nihilism instantly, because of absence. Logically, I think you can't be right. You might have a persuasive argument, but that's a different thing altogether.Your argument can be incredibly persuasive, but that won't effect the logic that one cannot conclude as to which scenario is true with the information involved. I have made many persuasive arguments favouring God. But it doesn't matter because it's all vacuous if there is no proof.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-19-2005 04:57 PM

Please focus your attention on the topic and not on what you perceive as the shortcomings of those you're debating with.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Please do not allow yourself to become personal in the discussion. Keep your attention focused on the topic.This message has been edited by Admin, 12-19-2005 05:20 PM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

My argument is Occam's Razor.Evolution and abiogenesis show us that God is not necessary for life.

I suggest you look at the Great Debate thread I had with nuggins where Richardson specifies as late as 1997, that scientists did rely on Haeckel's data for the claim of a phylotypic stage. It's OT here, but that point is well-established.

Apparently, some of Haeckel's data was valued within embryology long after it had stopped being used as evidence for evolution.Why do you consider that a legitimate criticism of evolution?

---

Impeach Bush.