Anti evolutionists

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…you might invent a let's say self moving fan to cool yourself. but real progress is made out of necessity. …

Why do you believe that to be necessarily true?

doesn’t that simply depend on how you define “progress”?

-if you define “progress” as nothing more than overcoming difficulty then, yes, by that narrow definition, ...[text shortened]... removed.
-and I would like to add that I would want to live in such a wonderful civilization![/b]

i just meant to say that with no hardships, people grow weak. and if a common flu appears later, they will be defenseless. just like the native americans were when the europeans arrived.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…you might invent a let's say self moving fan to cool yourself. but real progress is made out of necessity. …

Why do you believe that to be necessarily true?

doesn’t that simply depend on how you define “progress”?

-if you define “progress” as nothing more than overcoming difficulty then, yes, by that narrow definition, ...[text shortened]... removed.
-and I would like to add that I would want to live in such a wonderful civilization![/b]

======================================
The discovery of evolution is just one example of such a thing -I could define the discovery of evolution as “progress” because it increases our understanding
========================================

I think Darwin's main contribution to history is that he furnished the atheist with a plausible if not tenable alternative to Paley's argument for God because of design in nature. Darwin and his theory are perhaps the atheist's best friend.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
The discovery of evolution is just one example of such a thing -I could define the discovery of evolution as “progress” because it increases our understanding
========================================

I think Darwin's main contribution to history is that he furnished the atheist with a plausible if not ten ...[text shortened]... od because of design in nature. Darwin and his theory are perhaps the atheist's best friend.[/b]

let's just say darwin is the thinking man's best friend. i do not think that darwin says god is not real. darwin may simply explain how god created the world. it is an idea, one that is supported by most of the scientists today and by facts observed. religious people have nothing to fear from evolution.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i just meant to say that with no hardships, people grow weak. and if a common flu appears later, they will be defenseless. just like the native americans were when the europeans arrived.

Were the Native Americans lacking hardships?
The common flu is so successful because we only gain immunity to those varieties we are exposed to. We are hardly defenseless but not because of exposure to previous flus.

The Native Americans were affected by other diseases such small pox.

But your argument boils down to "hardships protect us against hardships" which really doesn't add up.
I like the phrase "that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" but it doesn't deal which the situations which kill you, nor does it excuse beating someone to within an inch of death just to make them stronger.

Originally posted by jaywill
I think Darwin's main contribution to history is that he furnished the atheist with a plausible if not tenable alternative to Paley's argument for God because of design in nature. Darwin and his theory are perhaps the atheist's best friend.

Rather it is science is the atheists best friend as it provides an way of finding out about our universe with lower risks of being taken in by 'magic men' trying to take advantage of our ignorance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Were the Native Americans lacking hardships?
The common flu is so successful because we only gain immunity to those varieties we are exposed to. We are hardly defenseless but not because of exposure to previous flus.

The Native Americans were affected by other diseases such small pox.

But your argument boils down to "hardships protect us against ha ...[text shortened]... nor does it excuse beating someone to within an inch of death just to make them stronger.

situations which kill you aren't relevant to the whole species. it is important we don't grow weak so that when the potential threat that could wipe the ENTIRE human race we wouldn't be defenseless.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
situations which kill you aren't relevant to the whole species. it is important we don't grow weak so that when the potential threat that could wipe the ENTIRE human race we wouldn't be defenseless.

But if God could remove both the current threat and the potential threat then we would all be better off would we not?

Many threats do not make us stronger for other potential threats only stronger for other identical threats. In fact some threats make us weaker with regards to other threats. For example many Africans carry a gene which provides some protection against malaria whilst simultaneously carrying the risk of giving offspring sickle cell anemia.

Your native Americans example in fact proves the point, life was surely tough for them too, but it didn't help them meet new threats.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
The discovery of evolution is just one example of such a thing -I could define the discovery of evolution as “progress” because it increases our understanding
========================================

I think Darwin's main contribution to history is that he furnished the atheist with a plausible if not ten ...[text shortened]... od because of design in nature. Darwin and his theory are perhaps the atheist's best friend.[/b]

Are you aware that Darwin was a theist?

Are you aware that many theists believe evolution happens and see no logical contradiction between their religion and evolution?
-it is only people that are unwilling to adapt their beliefs to the known scientific facts that have a problem with evolution (and a number of other scientific theories).

The purpose of the theory of evolution is purely to explain how living things diversified into many forms -note that the word “atheist” was not mentioned there; the “purpose” of the theory has nothing to do with “atheism” or “theism” or “god” etc.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Are you aware that Darwin was a theist?

Are you aware that many theists believe evolution happens and see no logical contradiction between their religion and evolution?
-it is only people that are unwilling to adapt their beliefs to the known scientific facts that have a problem with evolution (and a number of other scientific theories).

The ...[text shortened]... ed there; the “purpose” of the theory has nothing to do with “atheism” or “theism” or “god” etc.

[qs]===================================
Are you aware that Darwin was a theist?
====================================[/b]

I am aware that he was a theological student at one time, I recall.

But you have to understand me. He could still be a theist and do a great favor for the atheists.

======================================
Are you aware that many theists believe evolution happens and see no logical contradiction between their religion and evolution?
=======================================

I am aware of this. And I think that evolution plays some part in bio development if we are talking about change in living things.

How far we can take the theory causes some problems to me.

========================================
-it is only people that are unwilling to adapt their beliefs to the known scientific facts that have a problem with evolution (and a number of other scientific theories).
===========================================

Really ?

So you think I am just being plan old stubburn about it ?

======================================
The purpose of the theory of evolution is purely to explain how living things diversified into many forms -note that the word “atheist” was not mentioned there; the “purpose” of the theory has nothing to do with “atheism” or “theism” or “god” etc.
=======================================

I was just commenting on what I think future historians will eventually say about Darwinism. That is his most powerful impact was the alternate plausible idea he furnished to athiests to dispute arguments for the existence of God by design, like what Paley offered.


I could be wrong. I am not too worried about it because "No lie can live forever." This is directed to the atheists who go out of their way to come to a Spirituality Forum to use Evolution dispute the existence of God.


For such an atheist to declare, even rightly, there are theists who believe in Evolution does lend the sound of objectivity to their belief. But I think their real attraction to the theory is that plausibly it may do away with the necessity of a creating God.

That is why they come to the Spirituality Forum to talk about it. They have a metaphysical stake in Evolution replacing God.

Truth will eventually prevail. God created life and designed life, however God did or does it.

Originally posted by jaywill
[qs]===================================
Are you aware that Darwin was a theist?
====================================

I am aware that he was a theological student at one time, I recall.

But you have to understand me. He could still be a theist and do a great favor for the atheists.

======================================
Are you a ruth will eventually prevail. God created life and designed life, however God did or does it.

I said:

==========================
That is why they come to the Spirituality Forum to talk about it. They have a metaphysical stake in Evolution replacing God.
=============================

Okay. To be fair. Some probably come to address errors they perceive in some opinions of people of faith on the subject. At least apparently it seems so.

Originally posted by jaywill
Okay. To be fair. Some probably come to address errors they perceive in some opinions of people of faith on the subject. At least apparently it seems so.

My original arrival here started with the court case over ID in the US and I made a comment about it in Debates and was told to bring it here.

Originally posted by sonhouse
DNA responds to stress like heat or lack of food by selectively activating a treasure trove of backup plans that alter the lifeform undergoing the stress. So the next generation has a slightly better chance of survival and the DNA knows it is on to a good thing and continues in like fashion. DNA is like a computer, it responds to inputs and self directs the organization of genes during stressful periods.

So DNA in your opinion isn't about random mutations there is a
hidden design within DNA that sees what it needs and reacts to the
need?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Rather it is science is the atheists best friend as it provides an way of finding out about our universe with lower risks of being taken in by 'magic men' trying to take advantage of our ignorance.

This statement annoys me so much. Because it could lead to the assumption that science is only friend to atheist and you statement can't be claimed by theists too.

Science was and still my friend, and it always provides me with a way to find out about the universe. And for many theists it is the same. The second part of your statement "with lower risks of being taken in by 'magic men' trying to take advantage of our ignorance. is not clear for me.

If you refer to GOD(s) with "magic men", then it is not correct at all.

But if you refer to ignorant religious people by "magic men", then this part of your statement is not accurate, because they will not differentiate between theists and atheists in this matter.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Are you aware that Darwin was a theist?

Are you aware that many theists believe evolution happens and see no logical contradiction between their religion and evolution?
-it is only people that are unwilling to adapt their beliefs to the known scientific facts that have a problem with evolution (and a number of other scientific theories).

The ...[text shortened]... ed there; the “purpose” of the theory has nothing to do with “atheism” or “theism” or “god” etc.

-it is only people that are unwilling to adapt their beliefs to the known scientific facts that have a problem with evolution (and a number of other scientific theories).

I think you are wrong here, Is the evolution theory a scientific fact?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My original arrival here started with the court case over ID in the US and I made a comment about it in Debates and was told to bring it here.

I noticed the way the Media hype tried to portray Dr. Behe as slinking away from the court case in weary humiliation.

Some of these Media types love to convince the masses that every one whose not a Darwinist is a fool.

You guys have a tremendous propoganda machine going.