Evolution book

[The_Barbarian]

(Ricmat suggests that many atheists don’t believe in God)

Barbarian asks:
Ya think? So how many atheists do you think believe in God?

As I said, none, and there are a lot of them who rely on science to maintain their non belief in God.

And in the United States, many relied on Christianity to maintain their belief in racism. But in neither case did they actually accept what those things meant.

Barbarian regarding finding God in creation:
Science can’t. But nature can. Science is a method that won’t do it for you.

For many atheists, science is their god. If their god leads them closer to God, then perhaps they’ll take the last leap of philosophical faith and believe in him.

Too bad. As you know, science can’t say anything at all about the supernatural. But any faith based on science is no faith at all.

ID looks for signs of a designing intelligence in nature,

No, they assume design. They reject the notion of a Creator, because they want to sneak God into public school. If they make Him a bit smaller, they hope to fit him in.

Barbarian observes:
He’s already given you everything you need. You don’t need any more help. And science can’t give it to you.

It may not help you come to God Barbarian, but it does help some people come to the next to the last step, from which they can make the final leap of faith.

But ID is a religion, not science. But it brought Jonathan Wells to the Unification Church. I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

Read Wisdom 13.

 

[edwest2]

Poppycock. People accept evolution it because it is true, and God because God is Truth.

Textbook evolution is incomplete. God is truth? What does that mean? Truth is a two-way street. It does not flow in one direction. Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution. The textbook describes a process that does not require God in any way, shape or form.

Peace,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution.Peace,Ed

Of course not – you couldn’t be a Catholic if you were an atheist. And Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic geology, or electronics, or plumbing, or croquet either!

P.

 

[edwest2]

Catholics are not allowed to believe in an evolutionary theory that does not include God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Now I know what you mean, Petrus. I went and looked at the instructions for my croquet set. Nothing about God. I guess croquet is an atheistic game.

Who would have guessed?

 

[drpmjhess]

Catholics are not allowed to believe in an evolutionary theory that does not include God.Peace,Ed

That’s what I said --.just like Catholics are not allowed to believe in the game of croquet that does not include God,

Peace, Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Now I know what you mean, Petrus. I went and looked at the instructions for my croquet set. Nothing about God. I guess croquet is an atheistic game.

Who would have guessed?

Yeah – so is baseball, and outdoor barbeque,

 

[garysibio]

Not even a particulary good attempt, rossum.

Hey, I like that argument. How about “As long as The Bible cannot account for anything, it must be ruled out. The Bible can also not answer the question of the name of Seth’s wife.” Does your argument look as good phrased like that? No, I thought not.

First of all, with regards to evolution and biochemical processes taking place within the cell, this is exactly what evolution is supposed to explain – the development of these features. I’m not asking Darwinism to explain tha ratioanal behind the names of the state capitals, I’m asking it to explain what it professes to explain and fails to.

Bs far as where Seth’s wife came from, it’s rather obvious. She is a descendant of Adam and Eve just like everyone else. She may or may not have been their daughter.

A while back a columnist in Scientific American did the math and demonstrated how, assuming one child per year, evenly distributed by gender and allowing for the time necessary to reach puberty, the descendants of Adam and Eve could have numbered over a million within 100 years. Seth had a lot to pick from.

And yes, that means there must have been incestuous marriage at the time but that was prior to the Mosaic Law. The problem of genetic abnormalities from inbreeding would not exist yet.

I would also remind you that creationists have no explanation for the origin of life. Be careful, this question is not as easy as it might appear. The answer you will probably think of first is wrong; it is not an explanation for the origin of life.

Read Genesis chapter 1; it’s all there.

Two points. Firstly if you are going to make a mathematical argument, “mathematically impossible”, then you have to show your model and the working that led to your conclusion. If you have a faulty model or if your calculation is wrong then you result is worthless - GIGO. Secondly, mutations do not have to appear “at just the right time”, the Luria-Delbrück experiment shows that mutations can arise before they are needed, and persist in the population as neutral mutations until the environment changes and they become beneficial.

I’m not going to write a book here. Secondly, evolutionists have laid out this huge system with absolutely no evidence and much evidence to the contrary. You are hardly in a position to be griping that I don’t provide every detail.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Poppycock. People accept evolution it because it is true, and God because God is Truth.

Except that evolution is not true.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Utter rubbish. I accept evolution and I strongly believe that I am accountable for all my actions. There is no “forgiveness of sins” in Buddhism; if I do anything wrong then I will suffer for it. My acceptance of science is based on the overwhelming evidence it has to back it up and is nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

rossum

Thanks for making my point. Buddha was an atheist.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Don’t ever take a theology course in a seminary – you would be shocked and disillusioned if you think Catholic exegesis is literal.

So the resurrection should not be taken literally?

If the early chapters of Genesis are not literal, how do we know the latter chapters are? Once you deny the history in Genesis, where do you stop?

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Catholics are not allowed to believe in an evolutionary theory that does not include God.

That’s the only evolutionary theory there is.

Gary

 

[ricmat]

Barbarian said:

You don’t need any more help. And science can’t give it to you.

So, Barbarian. If someone you believed was an atheist came to and said “Barbarian, science was the scaffolding upon which I climbed higher and higher until I saw God and thus came to believe in him. And then I was able to throw the scaffolding away, so I no longer need it to maintain my belief in God” — would you try to convince him of the errors in his logic?

 

[The_Barbarian]

So, Barbarian. If someone you believed was an atheist came to and said “Barbarian, science was the scaffolding upon which I climbed higher and higher until I saw God and thus came to believe in him. And then I was able to throw the scaffolding away, so I no longer need it to maintain my belief in God” — would you try to convince him of the errors in his logic?

If a man was convinced by his abuse of prescription painkillers to believe in God, I’d not try to dissuade him. However, I would not advise people to start abusing drugs as a means to Christianity. Neither would I advise them to start trying to use science as a means to discover God.

Historically, the Church’s way has been most reliably successful. If someone comes to God by a logical error, then hopefully, the “Scaffolding” can be replaced by a foundation on firmer ground, so that his faith is strong enough to survive.

Luke 6:48 He is like to a man building a house, who digged deep, and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and it could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock.

But what happens if the trial of his faith happens before that scaffolding is replaced?

Ironically, an atheist on another board started his journey toward belief, precisely because I told him that science could neither confirm nor deny God. He started out calling me a “rational theist”, but is now learning what Christianity actually is. He is no longer hostile to it, and with God’s grace will become one of us.

 

[ricmat]

Ricmat said:

So, Barbarian. If someone you believed was an atheist came to and said “Barbarian, science was the scaffolding upon which I climbed higher and higher until I saw God and thus came to believe in him. And then I was able to throw the scaffolding away, so I no longer need it to maintain my belief in God” — would you try to convince him of the errors in his logic?

Barbarian’s response:

If a man was convinced by his abuse of prescription painkillers to believe in God, I’d not try to dissuade him. However, I would not advise people to start abusing drugs as a means to Christianity. Neither would I advise them to start trying to use science as a means to discover God.

Historically, the Church’s way has been most reliably successful. If someone comes to God by a logical error, then hopefully, the “Scaffolding” can be replaced by a foundation on firmer ground, so that his faith is strong enough to survive.

Luke 6:48 He is like to a man building a house, who digged deep, and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and it could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock.

But what happens if the trial of his faith happens before that scaffolding is replaced?

Ironically, an atheist on another board started his journey toward belief, precisely because I told him that science could neither confirm nor deny God. He started out calling me a “rational theist”, but is now learning what Christianity actually is. He is no longer hostile to it, and with God’s grace will become one of us.

So you equate scientific investigation to the abuse of prescription painkillers? Certainly, pursuing science is not that bad. You are grasping at straws here, Barbarian. And in typical fashion, you answer questions of your own making rather than answering questions asked by others. My question had to do with someone who had already found God, using science as a scaffolding.

We are told to search for God in everything we do, and to dedicate everything we do to God. Many find God through art and music, and science. As I stated previously, the last final step to belief requires faith (and is a philosophical leap, not a scientific one), but these other paths can get some people close enough to make the final step.

 

[rossum]

First of all, with regards to evolution and biochemical processes taking place within the cell, this is exactly what evolution is supposed to explain – the development of these features. I’m not asking Darwinism to explain tha ratioanal behind the names of the state capitals, I’m asking it to explain what it professes to explain and fails to.

One search on Google Scholar pulled up 12,000 hits on the evolution of the Krebs cycle (aka citric acid cycle). The first hit was Variation and evolution of the citric-acid cycle: a genomic perspective. The abstract says:The presence of genes encoding enzymes involved in the citric-acid cycle has been studied in 19 completely sequenced genomes. In the majority of species, the cycle appears to be incomplete or absent. Several distinct, incomplete cycles reflect adaptations to different environments. Their distribution over the phylogenetic tree hints at precursors in the evolution of the citric-acid cycle.
Just because you are not aware of the explanations does not mean that they do not exist. Be aware that creationist websites are not the best source of scientific information. Try Google Scholar or PubMed instead.

Bs far as where Seth’s wife came from, it’s rather obvious. She is a descendant of Adam and Eve just like everyone else. She may or may not have been their daughter.

You have misread my question - I asked for her name, not her origin. My point was that the inability to answer certain specific questions does not invalidate Darwin’s work.

And yes, that means there must have been incestuous marriage at the time but that was prior to the Mosaic Law. The problem of genetic abnormalities from inbreeding would not exist yet.

So much for an absolute and unchanging morality then. Morality can be changed according to the genetic makeup of the population, how very … convenient.

I’m not going to write a book here. Secondly, evolutionists have laid out this huge system with absolutely no evidence and much evidence to the contrary. You are hardly in a position to be griping that I don’t provide every detail.

Science does have the detail, it is just that creationist websites only provide you with the details that are convenient to their preconceived ideas. Going to the real science will show you a lot more information. And yes, you do need to show your working. As an example of the kind of thing I am looking for from you have a look at my own piece on The Evolution of Boojumase. I am not expecting you to do anything that I have not done myself.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

So you equate scientific investigation to the abuse of prescription painkillers?

You’re certainly consistent. Rarely a post without you inventing a strange opinion and pretending I said it. I equate the misuse of science to support religion with the abuse of prescription painkillers. They both have safe and legitimate uses, but if abused can have disasterous effects. I have to admit, it’s getting harder and harder to believe you don’t know what you’re doing when you post these falsehoods.

And, as the Pope has noted, when you try to take science beyond its proper boundaries, it is as often misused to deny God and His providence as it is to support Him.

And in typical fashion, you answer questions of your own making rather than answering questions asked by others. My question had to do with someone who had already found God, using science as a scaffolding.

And the point is, that building faith on a shaky foundation is a very bad idea. Believing in God, because you believe something false, is problematic, because you can lose belief, when you realize the premise on which you accepted Him was false.

Nature can get you there, but science can’t. It’s a method. It has no philosophical or religious functions. It’s just a way of figuring out how things work.

If you lack faith, science can’t get it back for you. If this puzzles you, then you have no idea what science is.

 

[rossum]

Thanks for making my point. Buddha was an atheist.

That depends on how you define “atheist”.[The Buddha said:] “When a monk’s mind is thus freed, O monks, neither the gods with Indra, nor the gods with Brahma, nor the gods with the Lord of Creatures (Pajaapati), when searching will find on what the consciousness of one thus gone (tathaagata) is based.”

Source: Alagaddupama sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 22
Indra, Brahma and Pajaapaati are all gods. I do not think that those words would be attributable to an atheist in the usual sense of the word.

I will agree that the Buddha did not see gods as being of any great importance to the religious path, but that is not the same as being an atheist.

Whatever the Buddha thought about gods, you have failed to refute my point that acceptance of evolution and (im)morality are not connected.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Christ died for the sin of our first parents, not a bunch of hominids. Just repeating the same propaganda is not increasing knowledge. The creationist web sites mentioned here have become discredited for me, since they are being used as tools to advance an atheist agenda.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

So, Barbarian. If someone you believed was an atheist came to and said “Barbarian, science was the scaffolding upon which I climbed higher and higher until I saw God and thus came to believe in him. And then I was able to throw the scaffolding away, so I no longer need it to maintain my belief in God” — would you try to convince him of the errors in his logic?

So you still didn’t answer the question Barbarian. It’s a simple yes or no answer.

Instead, you invent your own questions and answer them. How about answering the above. Yes, or no.