My issues with Athiests.

[Korskin]

Show me how evolution conflicts with your religion.

 

Why? So that we can have another religion vs evolution debate?

 

 

 

If you really want to know, just read genesis.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Show me how evolution conflicts with your religion.

 

Why? So that we can have another religion vs evolution debate?

 

 

 

If you really want to know, just read genesis.

 

No. We have never had a religion vs evolution debate because religion and evolution do not contradict each other. All of the debates on this forum have been evolution vs ignorance of evolution. I would now like to get to the root of the problem by bringing in religion. Please show me even one example where genesis contradicts evolution. Keep in mind that evolution, like all science, is purely on a physical plane and does not attempt to affirm or deny a supernatural creator.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Evolution is clearly an issue as pretty much every religious debate revolves around evolution. Just because it's a part of science doesn't mean it has nothing to with religion. There is always the Demarcation problem.

 

 

 

 

The demarcation problem has nothing to do with evolution since evolution is a part of biology, and biology is a core science. The demarcation problem is based around subjects such as psychology or social sciences which have aspects of a science but aren't pure sciences.

[Skully]

Im an Athiest, but no chance in hell am I being open-minded that "God" as you call it, exists.

[Defender2516]

Show me how evolution conflicts with your religion.

 

Why? So that we can have another religion vs evolution debate?

 

 

 

If you really want to know, just read genesis.

 

No. We have never had a religion vs evolution debate because religion and evolution do not contradict each other. All of the debates on this forum have been evolution vs ignorance of evolution. I would now like to get to the root of the problem by bringing in religion. Please show me even one example where genesis contradicts evolution. Keep in mind that evolution, like all science, is purely on a physical plane and does not attempt to affirm or deny a supernatural creator.

 

 

 

 

 

Well since you don't care to touch the holy book since it might burn your hands, i'll give you a heads up.

 

 

 

In Genesis, it says that God created man by the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. He was created in the image of God.

 

 

 

Therefor man was created by the Dust of the earth, formed and shaped like God in physical and spiritual appearance.

 

 

 

 

 

If we evolve from monkeys to humans, then the Bible is false, because Gods image is not evolutionary, it does not change, hence why Humans will never "evolve" or change because then they would lose that image.

 

 

 

Therefor, if its true we just evolved down the generations and eventually became a human, Gods word would be false because then we would have to claim that Gods image is evolving all the time to including evolution with the Bible.. hence.. against the religion.

[BlueTear]

If we evolve from monkeys to humans, then the Bible is false, because Gods image is not evolutionary, it does not change, hence why Humans will never "evolve" or change because then they would lose that image.

What skin colour does the image of God have?

[Korskin]

The demarcation problem has nothing to do with evolution since evolution is a part of biology, and biology is a core science. The demarcation problem is based around subjects such as psychology or social sciences which have aspects of a science but aren't pure sciences.

 

I'm saying that in an evolution vs religion debate we have a demarcation problem. Example is Intelligent design which is not pure science but has some aspects of science. Evolution might be pure science but when it conflicts with the Bible we can no longer have a pure scientific debate as the Bible isn't science.

[Defender2516]

If we evolve from monkeys to humans, then the Bible is false, because Gods image is not evolutionary, it does not change, hence why Humans will never "evolve" or change because then they would lose that image.

What skin colour does the image of God have?

 

 

 

Apparently you lack defintion of color and image.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

The demarcation problem has nothing to do with evolution since evolution is a part of biology, and biology is a core science. The demarcation problem is based around subjects such as psychology or social sciences which have aspects of a science but aren't pure sciences.

 

I'm saying that in an evolution vs religion debate we have a demarcation problem. Example is Intelligent design which is not pure science but has some aspects of science. Evolution might be pure science but when it conflicts with the Bible we can no longer have a pure scientific debate as the Bible isn't science.

 

Intelligent design is evolution + god. It is not a science because it includes the supernatural, but that does not mean it is wrong. As I said in my previous post, science deals only with the physical environment. It does not affirm or deny god. There is no demarcation problem. Evolution is science, and Intelligent Design is science + religion.

 

 

 

To Recap:

 

 

 

1) Evolution: Correct Science

 

2) Intelligent Design: Correct Science, Accurate Religion

 

3) Creationsm: Incorrect Science, Accurate Religion

 

 

 

Science classes should teach: Evolution

 

Religion classes should teach: Intelligent Design

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well since you don't care to touch the holy book since it might burn your hands, i'll give you a heads up.

 

 

 

In Genesis, it says that God created man by the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. He was created in the image of God.

 

 

 

Therefor man was created by the Dust of the earth, formed and shaped like God in physical and spiritual appearance.

 

It doesn't say physical appearance. Why would God have a single physical appearance anyway, when there are so many different skin colors and appearances among humans? We are all made in God's spiritual appearance, and that does not interfere with evolution at all.

 

 

 

 

If we evolve from monkeys to humans, then the Bible is false, because Gods image is not evolutionary, it does not change, hence why Humans will never "evolve" or change because then they would lose that image.

 

Again, nowhere in the bible is there a description God's physical image, and nowhere does it say that we are made in his physical image.

 

 

 

 

Therefor, if its true we just evolved down the generations and eventually became a human, Gods word would be false because then we would have to claim that Gods image is evolving all the time to including evolution with the Bible.. hence.. against the religion.

 

 

 

Once again, there is no talk of God's physical image in the bible, and no talk of us reflecting his physical image.

 

 

 

Also, just for your knowledge, we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to both monkeys and humans.

[Defender2516]

 

Also, just for your knowledge, we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to both monkeys and humans.

 

 

 

I hear this alot, but not yet 1 person has been able to name that "common ancestor" that we seemed to have evolved from.

[Kiriyama]

 

Also, just for your knowledge, we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to both monkeys and humans.

 

 

 

I hear this alot, but not yet 1 person has been able to name that "common ancestor" that we seemed to have evolved from.

 

 

 

Thats the missing link.

 

 

 

However it evolved from monkeys I bet.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

Also, just for your knowledge, we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to both monkeys and humans.

 

 

 

I hear this alot, but not yet 1 person has been able to name that "common ancestor" that we seemed to have evolved from.

 

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-90 ... yopithecus

 

 

 

Please address the other parts of my post.

[Defender2516]

 

Also, just for your knowledge, we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to both monkeys and humans.

 

 

 

I hear this alot, but not yet 1 person has been able to name that "common ancestor" that we seemed to have evolved from.

 

 

 

Thats the missing link.

 

 

 

However it evolved from monkeys I bet.

 

 

 

Well, in my opinion, its probably missing because its not true.

 

 

 

I think if we can discover 50 million year old dinosuars, a few early "humanoids" won't be far off from finding.

[Kiriyama]

 

Also, just for your knowledge, we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to both monkeys and humans.

 

 

 

I hear this alot, but not yet 1 person has been able to name that "common ancestor" that we seemed to have evolved from.

 

 

 

Thats the missing link.

 

 

 

However it evolved from monkeys I bet.

 

 

 

Well, in my opinion, its probably missing because its not true.

 

 

 

I think if we can discover 50 million year old dinosuars, a few early "humanoids" won't be far off from finding.

 

 

 

Maybe we can't find any fossils?

 

 

 

You do know what oil comes from? What if their fossils were turned into oil over millions of years under the sea? We'd have a hell of a time finding them.

[BlueTear]

I'd go on, but PaperClips brought up the point I was working towards, so QFE

 

It doesn't say physical appearance. Why would God have a single physical appearance anyway, when there are so many different skin colors and appearances among humans? We are all made in God's spiritual appearance, and that does not interfere with evolution at all.

 

 

 

Nor is there any mention of the manner in which humanity was created. For a being in which eternity is naught, willing a species into existance over the course of several million years of evolutionary process is hardly a problem. If anything, putting togheter the universe and giving the exact right starting conditions to go from nothingness to present state via evolutionary processes requires an omnipotence far beyond taking a bit of clay, shaping it and calling it "man".

 

 

 

Evolution in no way excludes the existance of God.

[assassin_696]

Defender, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We're pretty lucky to have the plethora of fossils that we do, considering what a statistically tiny amount of dead stuff is fossilised.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

what's up with everybody saying there's no evidence?

 

 

 

 

Also, just for your knowledge, we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to both monkeys and humans.

 

 

 

I hear this alot, but not yet 1 person has been able to name that "common ancestor" that we seemed to have evolved from.

 

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-90 ... yopithecus

 

 

 

Please address the other parts of my post.

[FalconBomba]

Anyone ever heard of a Suffi? They are pretty much the old term for most Atheists now. It means that they don't particularly believe in any religion but, don't count it out and accept it as a possibility alongside the possibility of having no god and that there is only science. I think that is pretty open minded and I have some Atheist friends who are like this so don't make fun of them, they are just looking for the "truth" just like Christians, Muslims, etc. only in a way combing them all without ruling any one out or totally accepting any.

 

 

 

I don't really care what you believe in, its what you do while your here on Earth that matters to me.

 

 

 

p.s. that includes not doing 1337 speak, that is a BIG plus in my book... just saying my pet peeve...

[Korskin]

Intelligent design is evolution + god. It is not a science because it includes the supernatural, but that does not mean it is wrong. As I said in my previous post, science deals only with the physical environment. It does not affirm or deny god. There is no demarcation problem. Evolution is science, and Intelligent Design is science + religion.

 

 

 

To Recap:

 

 

 

1) Evolution: Correct Science

 

2) Intelligent Design: Correct Science, Accurate Religion

 

3) Creationsm: Incorrect Science, Accurate Religion

 

 

 

Science classes should teach: Evolution

 

Religion classes should teach: Intelligent Design

 

 

And you of course think everyone agrees with you? Problems generally don't arise when one person expresses his views. Problems generally arise when there is a conflict of views among people. If you don't accept that evolution is an issue in the religion vs atheism debate, I don't really have much more to say to you.

 

 

 

We should also all listen to the Simpsons:

 

Attorney: "So does this theory of evolution necessarily mean that there is no god?"

 

 

 

Prof Frink: "No, of course not.

 

 

 

It just says that god is an impotent nothing from nowhere with less power than the undersecretary of agriculture, who has very little power in our system."

[Bloodstain]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

~ Stephen Roberts

[Rebdragon]

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

~ Stephen Roberts

 

Problem is, most Christians don't learn enough about other religions to properlly dismiss their gods.

[warri0r45]

The demarcation problem has nothing to do with evolution since evolution is a part of biology, and biology is a core science. The demarcation problem is based around subjects such as psychology or social sciences which have aspects of a science but aren't pure sciences.

 

I'm saying that in an evolution vs religion debate we have a demarcation problem. Example is Intelligent design which is not pure science but has some aspects of science. Evolution might be pure science but when it conflicts with the Bible we can no longer have a pure scientific debate as the Bible isn't science.

 

Of course we can have a purely scientific debate and I for one welcome it. You just recognised that the Bible is not scientific so you shouldn't have any problem looking at the issue from a scientific position.

[warri0r45]

 

Also, just for your knowledge, we did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to both monkeys and humans.

 

 

 

I hear this alot, but not yet 1 person has been able to name that "common ancestor" that we seemed to have evolved from.

 

 

 

Thats the missing link.

 

 

 

However it evolved from monkeys I bet.

 

 

 

Well, in my opinion, its probably missing because its not true.

 

 

 

I think if we can discover 50 million year old dinosuars, a few early "humanoids" won't be far off from finding.

 

 

 

Setting aside any fossil evidence of 'humanoids' (you should actually search to see what you find, there are many humanoid fossils that have been found), you can easily allign chimp and human genomes to find a plethora of genetic homologies, i.e. elements that make no sense functionally based on thier structure except in light of common genetic inheritance. Some examples would be that if we share some of the same redundant pseudogenes, some of the same endogenous retroviruses in the same loci, some of the same SINE elements in the same loci or identical nucleotide sequence for some of the same genes, then the only explanation to avoid the miniscule chance of all of these elements having been inserted in the same locations and order along the genome or having come about independantly of each other would be inheritence via common ancestry. Any suggestion that we don't share common ancestry with the great apes can only lead me to suggest that someone is screwing with my head by planting fake redundant genetic markers in specific locations and orders in primate genomes. They are a strong element in reconstructing primate phylogenies. I've got extra info if neccessary.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Intelligent design is evolution + god. It is not a science because it includes the supernatural, but that does not mean it is wrong. As I said in my previous post, science deals only with the physical environment. It does not affirm or deny god. There is no demarcation problem. Evolution is science, and Intelligent Design is science + religion.

 

 

 

To Recap:

 

 

 

1) Evolution: Correct Science

 

2) Intelligent Design: Correct Science, Accurate Religion

 

3) Creationsm: Incorrect Science, Accurate Religion

 

 

 

Science classes should teach: Evolution

 

Religion classes should teach: Intelligent Design

 

 

And you of course think everyone agrees with you? Problems generally don't arise when one person expresses his views. Problems generally arise when there is a conflict of views among people. If you don't accept that evolution is an issue in the religion vs atheism debate, I don't really have much more to say to you.

 

 

 

We should also all listen to the Simpsons:

 

Attorney: "So does this theory of evolution necessarily mean that there is no god?"

 

 

 

Prof Frink: "No, of course not.

 

 

 

It just says that god is an impotent nothing from nowhere with less power than the undersecretary of agriculture, who has very little power in our system."

 

You are welcome to disagree with me as long as you give me some explanation of what your view is. I have already given you my explanation. Now you have to give me yours.

 

 

 

Yes, I know you told me to read Genesis (and I have read Genesis, thank you for your concern), but I have already shown you that Genesis does not interfere with Evolution in my replies to you and Defender.

 

 

 

Your simpsons quote is also inaccurate. Intelligent Design states that God created and guides evolution. It does not undermine his power in any way.

[BlueTear]

We should also all listen to the Simpsons:

 

Attorney: "So does this theory of evolution necessarily mean that there is no god?"

 

 

 

Prof Frink: "No, of course not.

 

 

 

It just says that god is an impotent nothing from nowhere with less power than the undersecretary of agriculture, who has very little power in our system."

Warning: Incoming philosophical example.

 

 

 

If I have a tennisball 50m from where I have a needle, and wanted to throw the tennisball is amanner so that when it lands, it is impaled by the needle in the exact center, so the needle is left standing exactly where it is, I could throw it til I die and I'd never manage. The feat is theoretically possible, but practically impossible.

 

 

 

However, assume I could keep track of all the wind changes, air pressure, heck, even the movements of the individual atoms in the space between me and the needle, as well as control my muscle fibres for delivering the throw in a perfect manner, I could do it. I could even do it repeatedly, because as long as I know enough about the system in which I do the feat and have the control neccesary to do that which has to be done, it's perfectly possible. In fact, ignoring the quirks of quantum mechanics (yes, I'm sorry about the "quirk" pun - We're assuming the entity who designed quantum mechanics knows a few more string theory tricks than humanity has as of yet uncovered, possible even of such multidimensional order that we never will) if I knew enough about the system - henceforth refered to as the "universe" - I could do a whole lot of interesting stuff. I mean really, with perfect knowledge of the starting conditions - from which all stems, unless we get deep into the aforementioned quantum mechanics - I could predict everything. If I also happened to be the entity - henceforth refered to as "God" - that decided how those starting conditions were going to be, and had the raw mental processing power required to calculate billions of years in advance how various changes would influence development within the universe... Done right, and the omnipotent way is the right way, God would only need to start the Big bang and then he could lean back and watch as this cosmic event starting on a particle scale works it's way to a primordial soup of acid that forms DNA on this ball of interstellar dust, and eventually leads out to a being with the fabled Free Will. Because the way God set up this originial event, everything else would unfold exactly how God willed it. Like the example with the tennisball, once the grip on the ball has been released in the perfect throw, no further adjustments would be neccesary as it flies along the path towards the needle, the intended target.

 

 

 

Unless you intend to argue that God, who designed quantum physics and time itself, would have been _unable_ to do this, which is denying the omnipotence of God, evolution does not disprove God. On the contrary, accepting the idea that God willed the big bang Just So to create an evolutionary process over billions of years that would lead to Gods intended target is accepting Gods omnipotence by order of magnitude on a scale far larger than "well, he said so, and then it happened".