The Fallacies of Evolution Redux Irony

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution-redux.504291/page-52

While there are some reasonable, open minded Theists I know of here on these forums, I know many Theists seem to love debunking the theory of evolution. I'm always curious about finding out their reasons. I know of a few who have allegedly studied the Theist brain extensively. Scanned for activity, opened it to see how it functions, etc.
Now I have no issue with the fact that someone does not find evolution convincing. My issue has more to do with the ideology of those who reject it. Often it has been members of the Christian agenda who lead the debunking process. It is clear that while many Theists try to use the idea of requiring complete, absolute scientific evidence to debunk the theory of evolution, their own beliefs are ironically lacking that same evidence. Just something I thought was important to bring to people's attention.

 

Don't worry all Theists have to do is accept 'deity did it' and this being created everything and ignore bothering to compete. Fundamentalist Christians I respect the most I know Quiverfull families and frankly they take the Bible literally and don't bother with 'worldly' thinking the Bible is largely IT and science the kind they do support is simple observational science. They don't accept Evolution with BIG E and don't argue about it they just don't believe in it. Why do Theists bother that is the best position type to hold and no need to rage on Evolution.

 

Thank you, tkolter. I do worry though. I never cared for sharing this world with ideological opposition.

But to answer you're question, some Theists "rage" on evolution to try and sound objective and scientific. Put simply, it makes them feel smart. As you can see on the link in my first post, Prunepicker tries doing the same. But backs away when asked to share his or her evidencd for the Bible's claims. It would be ammusing were it not for the fact that his/her kind run more than half the world.

 

Your not likely to change their minds they get them young, hammer Creationism into the children's minds and many parents try not to teach them anything about Evolution or limit it to observed changes which to them is not Evolution but adaption or some other term. When I was raised in this I was a well read young person and inquisitive and worked my way out of that line of thinking. But most children to teens won't and as adults pass this kind of thinking to their children. But its a sincere and honest position that is simple and hard to compete with if they don't bother to examine other positions.

This to me is the 'ideal' religious position or one must accept modern science and Evolution and change their religious views to other positions such as the Bible is allegorical or something.

 

When I was young, age 9, I learned quickly, how foolish it was to believe things just because.
I was a sappy silly lad that believed the Beetles lyrics, all you need is love.

Then I saw a left back twice 10 year old brute, help a 7 year old fall and smash most of his teeth out.

My parents told me not to fight, and yet not fighting got more children injured than pacifism.

Keep labelling people and putting them in cubby holes, massive fail.

Religion is a contruct made up by and of humans as philosophy or any other teaching.

 

So prove to us God doesn't exist.

Shouldn't be hard for you.

 

*crickets*

 

Which of the thousands of gods?

 

Please define the attributes of your imaginary god and we can take it from there.

 

Any of them.

I'm sure science has disproven God.

Go ahead.

 

You can find it here.

 

In which case that makes it even easier.

This is your SINGULAR "evidence" for the existence of your imaginary god, right?

Given that it is riddled with contradictions, superstitions, mythology and fables it is an UNRELIABLE source for anything remotely resembling "evidence" of your god.

Since you cannot provide credible evidence for your god there is nothing further for me to do since I am not beholden to prove the nonexistence of something that you cannot prove exists in the first place.

 

Oh my

Looks like Game, Set, Match for DT...

 

For those who accept the theory of evolution, you always have to remember that there is, to date, no explanation for the spark of life, or for that matter, the progenesis of the universe itself. The curious part of the theory is that it, in and of itself requires a substantial portion of faith. Why? Because, so far, nothing explains the genesis of either matter/energy, or life.

I suppose that once created, the idea that things always remain constant is the thing evolution explains more clearly. I can surely accept that over time, given better conditions, etc, that modifications do in fact happen. Simply look at observable trait changes, like human height, or species variation, etc. We see it. We can try to explain it given some principles like competition or ecosystem abundance, etc.

But, what we cannot explain is why given the many branches of the species genesis of the spontaneous creation of the different branches. Like what makes a fish into a bird? Or a rodent into a primate, etc. I wouldn't suggest that it isn't possible that random mutation may not have created these, but at some point, those types of species leaps should be still occurring today, no? And if not, why not?

 

That theists don't know the difference between evolution and the origin of life says volumes.

 

What an amazingly pejorative thing for you to say. Clearly, it tells me that you don't understand evolution theory. Darwin, you know the guy who created "evolution theory" is known to have had the conversations and has been documented in his writings in the following way:
'When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. However, analysis of some other texts written by Darwin, and of the correspondence he exchanged with friends and colleagues demonstrates that he took for granted the possibility of a natural emergence of the first life forms. As shown by notes from the pages he excised from his private notebooks, as early as 1837 Darwin was convinced that “the intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable”. Like many of his contemporaries, Darwin rejected the idea that putrefaction of preexisting organic compounds could lead to the appearance of organisms. Although he favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life."

Clearly, this is a flaw in the evolutionary theory which then requires the prescription of faith in the progenisis of life, and matter/energy.

 

It isn’t a flaw in evolutionary theory because it only describes the development of existing species. It doesn’t matter to evolution where the initial species came from and wouldn’t significantly impact evolutionary theory if it was proven they were magically created by so god, if they developed via some form of abiogenesis or some other means we’ve not even considered.

It’s like having a recipe telling you how to mix flour, eggs and sugar to make a cake. You wouldn’t say the recipe is flawed if it doesn’t also tell you how to grow wheat and sugar cane or how to raise chickens. The recipe stands on its own merits from the stated starting point of already having flour, sugar and eggs and works just as well regardless of where the ingredients actually come from.

 

You will hopefully note your need to differentiate Darwins personal views and correspondence from his theories on the origin of species. This would be because Evolution and Origin of life are separate discussions and topics. Regardless, he likely believed in Abiogenesis because he tended to use data and science when forming opinion and there simply wasn't any to study for "Creation".

 

Seems incredibly limiting then, doesn't it. If you cannot use the theory to explain things like progenesis of species, or diversification, what value then does it really have? Like Darwin said himself, he supports the idea of spontaneous creation. So, using your analogy, the cake would spontaneously arrive without having to have had a recipe in the first place, because nature would have produced it spontaneously.

 

I don't think it's limiting but I don't see why it matters. You can't dismiss a theory just because you don't think it has a wide enough scope. Some scientific theories will have infinitely tighter scopes of interest. Evolution, covering the development of every living thing that ever existed, seems quite wide.

I don't care what Darwin might have said, I'm not making any claims about the origins of life so your attempt to belittle me is a failure.

 

Fails to take criticism well, got it. No one is belittling you. The logic of the theory establishes the outcomes.

 

I was referring to how you twisted my cake example to talk about "spontaneous creation" (which I hadn't even mentioned) was just was just to try to make my example, and by extension me, look stupid. You can criticise what I actually say all you like, you can't make something up then attack me for saying it.

 

Unless you are a polytheist you have disproved all the other gods bar the one you believe in. So rather than waste our time on gods we agree do not exist, lets talk about the one you believe does.

 

Perhaps they are all the same God, just appealing to different groups in different forms.

Perhaps its not what name you call Him but that you believe and follow Him.

 

Just accept the Bible on Faith as inerrant and literally true then you can ignore worldly evidence.