1) The fundamental problem I have with the theory of atheistic-evolution is that it fails to answer some of the deeper meta-physical questions
Uh-huh, which it’s not designed to do... okay...
concerning the origination of life.
Erm, evolution doesn’t have anything much to do with that either...
I have not seen an adequate explanation that can hold up to science,
Really? What do you know of the science, may I ask?
logic , reason
Ditto...
and that can account for the various meta-physical realities that exist in our world today.
Now you’ve lost me. What realities do you have in mind? Maybe I’m just thick, but I don’t see any problems with the science, logic and reason of evolution.
To reiterate here, I understand that a true evolutionist does not intend to explain that which I am asking it too.
And there was me thinking I was a True Evolutionist. This is an interesting twist: atheism and evolution being incompatible. Hell, I usually have to argue that theism and evolution
are compatible, even though I don’t hold with that theistic hogwash myself.
That is why the intended audience is for an evolutionist who believes that God could not have used evolution in order to populate the world as we know it today, perhaps better put--an atheistic evolutionist.
What you seem to have there, old chap, is a straw man argument. You’ll be hard pressed to find an ‘evolutionist’ (whateverthehell one of those is: it’s not a faith position, y’know!) who says that gods
could not have been involved. IOW, I doubt that there is such a critter as an ‘atheistic evolutionist’ as you seem to mean it.
What atheists and ‘evolutionists’ such as myself say is that gods are superfluous, and that certain definitions of god are actually refuted by evolution. Some sorts of god(s) may have been involved, but since their involvement looks exactly like non-involvement, we may as well ignore them. Your beef is with atheism, not evolution.
Um, what actually was the first of your questions/observations?
2) The theory of evolution is grounded on more unproven pre-suppositions than most theistic interpretation of the world in which we live and the originations of life on this planet.
That’s nice. Which unproven presuppositions are those? Broadly, if you compare theistic evolution with no-god-required evolution, I can see one plain unproven presupposition in the former that the latter lacks: a god. Having one less presupposition, I’d have thought, meant that theistic evolution has at least one more presuppositions. That’s pretty basic maths really.
And what’s with this The theory of evolution is grounded on more... stuff? Just now you seemed to be fine with evolution and just wanted to smuggle gods back into it. Now there’s presuppositional problems with the theory itself?
The problem with this approach is that in the world view it exists in (atheistic), unproven assumptions are not allowed.
So again, let’s see these unproven assumptions. The poor benighted scientists, the stupid buggers, seem entirely unaware of them. Pray carry on, your Nobel prize awaits...
In many peoples opinion,
Since when was science decided by popularity vote?
as well as mine,
Sorry, but I have to ask: what exactly do you know of it? Could you perhaps define evolution for us, describe some of its mechanisms, perhaps explain the reasoning behind the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and the significance of, say, biogeography?
this places evolution in a tremendous dilemma and starts it out in a logical bind. It wants to use the laws of science and logic, but in doing so it presupposes the existence of such things. It assumes that they exist in advance without proving them. In order to prove that the laws of logic or science are valid tools, one must use the laws of logic. In order to do this, one must use that which is trying to be proved in order to prove the assumption. That is, you use logic to prove logic exists.
What laws of science and logic? Science and logic are
tools, which either work or they don’t. As it happens, they do. You seem to be criticising scientists for thinking like scientists....?
And where does evolution fit into all that? I don’t recall ever seeing evolution used to justify the principles of logic.
3) Creationism (with evolution or without) does not have the same logical dilemma. This is because in the theistic interpretation of the world, these things are allowed. That is, entities that are pre-supposed
Yup. There you are, you see. One more presupposition than atheism.
Kindly demonstrate the mere existence of your gods,
then we can start to talk about what they can and cannot, did and did not do.
as well as evidenced
Wheee! Let’s see this evidence!
are allowed since they reflect the nature and character of God.
What, science and logic do? How do you figure that out? What friggin’ god?
One can use the laws of logic since they are in fact universal laws.
You know this how?
The atheistic approach does not have that same argument since it does not make sense in their world. No-one can say there are any universal absolutes (laws of logic, science or morality) since they don't exists.
No, no-one can say there are universal absolutes because we’ve not investigated every corner of the universe. They may well exist -- with some deity’s help of not -- but we don’t know for sure.
Again, to reiterate, these universal absolutes are allowed within theism since they reflect the nature and character of God.
How do you know this?
Because of these arguments
Sorry, were there arguments there then? Half-baked ersatz-philosophical navel-gazing, sure, but arguments...?
as well as around a hundred others,
Uh-huh, then let’s see th... nah, don’t bother.
It is my humble opinion that the theistic approach to the world in which we live (in particular Christianity for other reasons I have not listed) is the intellectual high ground.
So because science and logic seem to be useful tools, they reflect the nature of god. And so the intellectual high ground belongs to the theist, because science and logic seem to work.
Nah, no circular logic there...
The others while on the surface appear to make sense or to be possible, as one analyzes the metaphysical realities in this world
And these are...?
and thinks about the implications of an atheistic world, atheism becomes much more difficult to defend against(since meta-physical realities can not be accounted for).
You really don’t get it, do you?
For the last time, please state clearly and plainly what these metaphysical realities are, your evidence for them and/or your justifications for believing they are realities.
Furthermore, the world is either atheistic or theistic. While it is possible for someone to be agnostic, the world can not be. Given this, and the impossibility and logical inconsistencies contained within atheism,
... neither of which you have demonstrated...
the only rational decision in my mind is the a God centered universe.
So tell me: how would you know whether you are being irrational in making that decision?
What your claims seem to boil down to is, we can do science because god allows us to. Well, scientific investigations reveal no need for a god’s involvement. Since this god has gone to such trouble to hide himself and to deceive us into thinking he’s not really there, surely we should do him the courtesy of being deceived?
TTFN, DT
™ Version 4.2