Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution guided by god

bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 9:45:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

The people that believe God used evolution to make life adapt, usually say Genesis is a book of poetry when it comes to the beginnings. The people in the group I know of don't claim to say "We have evidence that God is behind it." This just goes to say we are like the Intelligent Design movement, when we just say "It's a theory, but not a scientific theory, for God or a God to be involved." I'd let those think evolution is guided by God, so at least they can accept the true science of evolution
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 9:58:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For some reason I just don't have the heart to attack Theistic Evolutionists.... I am guessing because I used to be one myself. Strange... I need to become more of an arsehole.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 10:08:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

I think that we need to let theistic evolution go for now (but never say that it is valid) in order to address the IDers. When people realize that ID is complete bull**** (which I am surprised has not yet happened), then we can focus more on theistic evolution.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 10:19:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 10:08:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

I think that we need to let theistic evolution go for now (but never say that it is valid) in order to address the IDers. When people realize that ID is complete bull**** (which I am surprised has not yet happened), then we can focus more on theistic evolution.

OK, just thought I'd start a discussion.
No probs, I can drop it.
Does this mean I've left the dark side?
Say it ain't so.
Nah I just had a look, momentary aberration was the reading in the schwartz.
Phew.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 10:56:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 9:45:41 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

The people that believe God used evolution to make life adapt, usually say Genesis is a book of poetry when it comes to the beginnings. The people in the group I know of don't claim to say "We have evidence that God is behind it." This just goes to say we are like the Intelligent Design movement, when we just say "It's a theory, but not a scientific theory, for God or a God to be involved." I'd let those think evolution is guided by God, so at least they can accept the true science of evolution

I get what you're saying but I think you're not understanding what bulproof is saying. The Theory of Evolution is finished. It's full... it's all explained via natural processes and we know what those natural processes are. There isn't any hole into which God may be inserted. I was trying to explain this to you a day or two ago. The theory of evolution holds that because DNA can and does mutate via natural processes (cosmic rays, neutrinos, etc.), and because life tends to replicate in its mature form (adults, rather than children), those changes in the DNA which are most beneficial to the organism will improve the odds that it will live long enough to replicate, thereby passing those changes in the DNA on to future generations. Harmful changes are less likely to lead to reproduction and will thus fade away from future generations.

Everything is already explained in this theory and trying insert God is like trying to explain how a combustion engine works, and asserting that God creates the spark. You see; we already know what creates the spark and it isn't God. Anywhere you insert God, you're ignoring the actual cause listed and explained in the theory.

So if you insert or "assert" God in evolution, you're no longer talking about evolution. You're talking about fairytales, for which you have no evidence. It's like saying that the baker mixes flour, sugar, eggs, yeast, baking powder, etc., to make a cake, but fairies make it taste good.

If you take germ theory and assert that somehow the harmful microbes are controlled by "evil spirits", it's the same mistake you're making by trying to insert God into evolution. There's simply no place for God in the theory, and nothing for God to do. The entire process is already explained, and it's explained by natural processes which are also explained - none of which require, imply or leave room for God.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 11:01:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 9:58:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
For some reason I just don't have the heart to attack Theistic Evolutionists.... I am guessing because I used to be one myself. Strange... I need to become more of an arsehole.

Or just a teacher. The problem with this kind of situation is that while the "evolutionist" (I hate that word), understands both concepts and knows why one is valid and the other is... well... "rubbish", the whole time you're trying to explain it, the theist is trying to play the part of instructor and trying to teach you why you're wrong. It's like trying to teach a 5-year old how to ride a tricycle while the 5-year old is insisting that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about. That's when patience starts to thin.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:17:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My favorite story in the Theory of Evolution is how that one 900 year old man and his three 600 year old sons built a giant boat, that they loaded 5 million species of animals onto in one day. Also that every single animal was miraculously indigenous to within five miles of the boat.

When you try to put God and science in a blender, you fail. You're just doubling back on your idiocy; it would be like saying God rounded the earth for Christopher Columbus's journey, or that God rearranged the universe once the telescope was invented.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:23:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:17:12 AM, Praesentya wrote:
My favorite story in the Theory of Evolution is how that one 900 year old man and his three 600 year old sons built a giant boat, that they loaded 5 million species of animals onto in one day. Also that every single animal was miraculously indigenous to within five miles of the boat.

When you try to put God and science in a blender, you fail. You're just doubling back on your idiocy; it would be like saying God rounded the earth for Christopher Columbus's journey, or that God rearranged the universe once the telescope was invented.

Too bad God didn't know that all he needed to do is place one microbe in a corked bottle and "set evolution in motion"... again. ;-)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:26:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Too bad God didn't know that all he needed to do is place one microbe in a corked bottle and "set evolution in motion"... again. ;-)

I think that atheists and theists can at least agree that God failed Bio 101. Right?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:30:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:26:23 AM, Praesentya wrote:
Too bad God didn't know that all he needed to do is place one microbe in a corked bottle and "set evolution in motion"... again. ;-)

I think that atheists and theists can at least agree that God failed Bio 101. Right?

Failed? He never even found the classroom.

He failed physics, astrophysics and thermodynamics as well. They he wrote a book telepathically... after failing transcription classes.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:36:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:17:12 AM, Praesentya wrote:
My favorite story in the Theory of Evolution is how that one 900 year old man and his three 600 year old sons built a giant boat, that they loaded 5 million species of animals onto in one day. Also that every single animal was miraculously indigenous to within five miles of the boat.

When you try to put God and science in a blender, you fail. You're just doubling back on your idiocy; it would be like saying God rounded the earth for Christopher Columbus's journey, or that God rearranged the universe once the telescope was invented.

Wait!! You mean he didn't?? My world is shattered. ROFL.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:37:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Most importantly, if God had just placed one microbe in a bottle, then Noah wouldn't be a Russell Crowe movie, it would be a Jesse Eisenberg film...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:38:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:17:12 AM, Praesentya wrote:
My favorite story in the Theory of Evolution is how that one 900 year old man and his three 600 year old sons built a giant boat, that they loaded 5 million species of animals onto in one day. Also that every single animal was miraculously indigenous to within five miles of the boat.

Who said that all the animals entered the Ark during a single day? But ultimately, the incident was miraculous.

When you try to put God and science in a blender, you fail. You're just doubling back on your idiocy; it would be like saying God rounded the earth for Christopher Columbus's journey, or that God rearranged the universe once the telescope was invented.

Unlikely, but possible.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:44:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:38:31 AM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/27/2014 12:17:12 AM, Praesentya wrote:
My favorite story in the Theory of Evolution is how that one 900 year old man and his three 600 year old sons built a giant boat, that they loaded 5 million species of animals onto in one day. Also that every single animal was miraculously indigenous to within five miles of the boat.

Who said that all the animals entered the Ark during a single day? But ultimately, the incident was miraculous.
Ultimately, the incident is a fable. If it was miraculous, why would God use a natural process like rain, geysers and drowning? Why not just miracle all of the evil people away, and leave the poor animals alone?

When you try to put God and science in a blender, you fail. You're just doubling back on your idiocy; it would be like saying God rounded the earth for Christopher Columbus's journey, or that God rearranged the universe once the telescope was invented.

Unlikely, but possible.
It's easy to make assertions. It can be harder to support them, especially when they're wrong. So explain how you've arrived at the conclusion that it would be possible for God to rearrange the universe once the first telescope was built.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:59:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

You have now shouldered the burden of proof.
I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary

I say contrary, do not confuse it with "contradictory". The difference between the two is pointed out rather adeptly in the "Traditional Box of Opposition" (A philosophical tool).

Wishing you luck,
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 5:14:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 10:08:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

I think that we need to let theistic evolution go for now (but never say that it is valid) in order to address the IDers. When people realize that ID is complete bull**** (which I am surprised has not yet happened), then we can focus more on theistic evolution.

And thus you have exposed the grand atheist strategy.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 6:16:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 2:59:28 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

You have now shouldered the burden of proof.
I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary
This has already been explained repeatedly. Read the theory of evolution. Where does God fit?
If one wants to imply God as involved in evolution, they need to be specific as to what God did.


I say contrary, do not confuse it with "contradictory". The difference between the two is pointed out rather adeptly in the "Traditional Box of Opposition" (A philosophical tool).

Wishing you luck,
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

This is very simple. Every causal component of evolution is accounted for without God. When you try to insert God as a causal agent, you're violating the theory of evolution, not just adding to it.

Do cake-fairies make cake sweet? Or is that due to the sugar? Trying to wedge cake-fairies into baking is the same as trying to wedge God into evolution. He simply doesn't fit. The theory of evolution isn't lacking and there is no place for God within the process therein described.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 6:18:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 5:14:24 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/26/2014 10:08:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

I think that we need to let theistic evolution go for now (but never say that it is valid) in order to address the IDers. When people realize that ID is complete bull**** (which I am surprised has not yet happened), then we can focus more on theistic evolution.

And thus you have exposed the grand atheist strategy.
We have a "grand strategy"? Please... do tell!

Our only strategy is reasoned, rational explanations for evidence, and the hope that this will lead to a more rational society, which will begin to move away from legislating ancient barbarity, and begin to make decisions on dispassionate reason, rather than ancient superstition.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:54:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 2:59:28 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

You have now shouldered the burden of proof.
I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary

I say contrary, do not confuse it with "contradictory". The difference between the two is pointed out rather adeptly in the "Traditional Box of Opposition" (A philosophical tool).

Wishing you luck,
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The burden of proof concerning what?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:57:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

God made His illusions so real and evolutionary that His people thought they were real. Everything will change after this dream is over. All His new illusions will behave under new laws. Gravity won't have the same effect on us in the next age.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 8:46:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
God made His illusions so real and evolutionary that His people thought they were real. Everything will change after this dream is over. All His new illusions will behave under new laws. Gravity won't have the same effect on us in the next age.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:

F=G(m1m2)/r^2

It remains the same, no matter what sky ghost tries to tinker with it.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 8:52:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 9:58:31 PM, Envisage wrote:
For some reason I just don't have the heart to attack Theistic Evolutionists.... I am guessing because I used to be one myself. Strange... I need to become more of an arsehole.

Is your picture from Hajime no Ippo?

Great anime. I wish they'd make a season 4.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 9:24:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 8:46:07 PM, Praesentya wrote:
God made His illusions so real and evolutionary that His people thought they were real. Everything will change after this dream is over. All His new illusions will behave under new laws. Gravity won't have the same effect on us in the next age.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:

F=G(m1m2)/r^2

It remains the same, no matter what sky ghost tries to tinker with it.

God's Law remains invisible no matter how many of His scientists and religious people try convince you that His illusions are real.
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 9:24:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 7:54:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:59:28 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

You have now shouldered the burden of proof.
I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary

I say contrary, do not confuse it with "contradictory". The difference between the two is pointed out rather adeptly in the "Traditional Box of Opposition" (A philosophical tool).

Wishing you luck,
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The burden of proof concerning what?

"I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary"
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 9:39:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 6:16:02 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:59:28 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

You have now shouldered the burden of proof.
I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary
This has already been explained repeatedly. Read the theory of evolution. Where does God fit?
If one wants to imply God as involved in evolution, they need to be specific as to what God did.


I say contrary, do not confuse it with "contradictory". The difference between the two is pointed out rather adeptly in the "Traditional Box of Opposition" (A philosophical tool).

Wishing you luck,
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

This is very simple. Every causal component of evolution is accounted for without God. When you try to insert God as a causal agent, you're violating the theory of evolution, not just adding to it.

Do cake-fairies make cake sweet? Or is that due to the sugar? Trying to wedge cake-fairies into baking is the same as trying to wedge God into evolution. He simply doesn't fit. The theory of evolution isn't lacking and there is no place for God within the process therein described.

Actually, I have read Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as several more modern ones. If you think that the theory does not leave ample room for God, then I would encourage you to read books by Christian authors that attempt to combine the two. Or, you could even talk to a Christian Biologist- most of them simultaneously believe in Christianity and evolution, and these are not idiots by any stretch of imagination. They can start off the conversation as I will: Evolution is as dependent on a beginning as creation. As it happens, it is well-argued, the origin of evolution. No one on the secular side can agree as to how it all started, which certainly leaves room for God. Even the origin of that leaves room for God, as now there is a universe that you have to explain.
Now, they will go further into the science of it than I will, which is why you should talk to them.

I have said the following:
1. The theories of evolution leave ample room for God.
2. Not every part of evolution has been accounted for.
3. "Adding" God to evolution does not at all violate the theory.

Now I will say that you have not taken up my original point, which is that if you are going to defend the belief that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary, then you need to provide an argument for such. If it has been done multiple times, then you should have no problem presenting it.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 9:49:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 9:24:44 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/27/2014 7:54:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:59:28 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

You have now shouldered the burden of proof.
I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary

I say contrary, do not confuse it with "contradictory". The difference between the two is pointed out rather adeptly in the "Traditional Box of Opposition" (A philosophical tool).

Wishing you luck,
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The burden of proof concerning what?

"I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary"

There are a couple of things to address here.
If concepts are mutually exclusive then they are by definition contradictory and not contrary, even though they may be contrary. They are, in fact, contradictory.

My argument, as are many others, is that the ToE has no mention of a god.
If you wish to insert a god into the theory then you need to remove the already known influence and explain how that influence is no longer valid and is therefore replaced by your god.
Find a place where you can insert your god into the ToE and then explain how it replaces the already established knowledge.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 10:06:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 9:49:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:24:44 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/27/2014 7:54:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:59:28 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

You have now shouldered the burden of proof.
I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary

I say contrary, do not confuse it with "contradictory". The difference between the two is pointed out rather adeptly in the "Traditional Box of Opposition" (A philosophical tool).

Wishing you luck,
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The burden of proof concerning what?

"I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary"

There are a couple of things to address here.
If concepts are mutually exclusive then they are by definition contradictory and not contrary, even though they may be contrary. They are, in fact, contradictory.

My argument, as are many others, is that the ToE has no mention of a god.
If you wish to insert a god into the theory then you need to remove the already known influence and explain how that influence is no longer valid and is therefore replaced by your god.
Find a place where you can insert your god into the ToE and then explain how it replaces the already established knowledge.

Contrary means that only one can be right, but that both can be wrong. Contradictory means that one of the two MUST be right. In both cases, the two things can be mutually exclusive.

your argument that evolution disproves God hinges on that no one has mentioned him in it yet? Not based on your own empirical evidential standard?

I know at least 6, and know of roughly 37 Christian biologists who would disagree that God has not been mentioned or inserted into the equation to positive results.

Now, you have not addressed how God and the ToE are mutually exclusive and contrary. You have stated that it the burden of proof is not on you, to which I have said that it is still on you. Now, show me a philosophical argument, or at least a biological one, that shows God being mutually exclusive and contrary to ToE.

It is rare for me to be the one demanding an intelligent argument of you, but here we are. It is now time for you, who delights in calling Christians stupid, to live up to the standards that you have placed on Christians.

Eagerly awaiting your response so that we may begin.
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 11:59:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 10:06:01 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:49:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:24:44 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/27/2014 7:54:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:59:28 PM, Arasa wrote:
At 9/26/2014 8:03:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Please desist from using this oxymoron.
If you don't know what evolution by natural selection is then look at some of the gazillion articles you can find on the interwebby thing.

If you inject god into evolution, you are no longer discussing evolution, you have started discussing fairy tales that make you feel better about the first few chapters of the fairy tale book you call the bible.

You possess the intelligence to realise that those chapters are in fact fairy tales but lack the self examination necessary to accept that if that is wrong, then the entire book probably is.

You have now shouldered the burden of proof.
I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary

I say contrary, do not confuse it with "contradictory". The difference between the two is pointed out rather adeptly in the "Traditional Box of Opposition" (A philosophical tool).

Wishing you luck,
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The burden of proof concerning what?

"I welcome your logical explanation that leads to the conclusion that God and Evolution are mutually exclusive and contrary"

There are a couple of things to address here.
If concepts are mutually exclusive then they are by definition contradictory and not contrary, even though they may be contrary. They are, in fact, contradictory.

My argument, as are many others, is that the ToE has no mention of a god.
If you wish to insert a god into the theory then you need to remove the already known influence and explain how that influence is no longer valid and is therefore replaced by your god.
Find a place where you can insert your god into the ToE and then explain how it replaces the already established knowledge.

Contrary means that only one can be right, but that both can be wrong. Contradictory means that one of the two MUST be right. In both cases, the two things can be mutually exclusive.
FALSE: Nothing about the term contradictory means that either proposition must be true.
1. Only male fairies can fly
2. Male fairies cannot fly.

The two statements above are contradictory. Neither one is correct.

your argument that evolution disproves God hinges on that no one has mentioned him in it yet? Not based on your own empirical evidential standard?

I know at least 6, and know of roughly 37 Christian biologists who would disagree that God has not been mentioned or inserted into the equation to positive results.
How is this done. How is God inserted? The "Theory of Evolution" explains all of the causes, mechanisms, etc. If one inserts God it is either a redundancy added to the theory, and therefore, not the theory of evolution but a modification; or as a replacement for a natural mechanism, which again means that it's not the theory of evolution but a replacement. And since there is no objective evidence for God, if you try to insert him into the "theory of evolution", it can no longer be considered a scientific theory. Theories are not allowed to point to that for which you have no supporting evidence.

Now, you have not addressed how God and the ToE are mutually exclusive and contrary.
This has been explained. The ToE is complete. It's not missing any causal factors. So if you insert God, you're replacing or altering a causal factor and the result is not the ToE, but a modification which no longer qualifies as a "theory" because it appeals to a causal factor for which there is no evidence.

You have stated that it the burden of proof is not on you, to which I have said that it is still on you. Now, show me a philosophical argument, or at least a biological one, that shows God being mutually exclusive and contrary to ToE.
DONE! (Above)

It is rare for me to be the one demanding an intelligent argument of you, but here we are. It is now time for you, who delights in calling Christians stupid, to live up to the standards that you have placed on Christians.
Any time ANYONE makes and assertion contrary to the default evidence (what is clearly evidence without advanced analysis), they assume the burden of proof. There is no evidence for God, so in asserting that God exists, the burden of proof is assumed. In the case of a tree, or a mountain or the sun, the 'default' evidence shows that these objects do exist (they're clearly visible, palpable, etc.), therefore the one asserting they do not exist, assumes the burden of proof. "Burden of proof" isn't just a popular phrase. It's a set of rules established in accordance with the interaction of evidence, and the evidenced.

If you assert that God exists, or plays a role in ANYTHING, then you assume the burden of proof.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 2:31:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll defend theistic evolution if anyone has objections to it. I'm not sure I would call myself one but it's certainly defensible.