Does evolution contradict the idea of theistic creation?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I do not. Now do you have any actual objections to what I posted earlier or are you going to keep arguing with people who aren't here?

Maybe you could tell me more about yourself and what you believe before we proceed if you don't mind? Are you an atheist?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Maybe you could tell me more about yourself and what you believe before we proceed if you don't mind? Are you an atheist?

Yes, I am atheist. If you didn't know that, then have you been responding to my posts all this time without reading them?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Maybe you could tell me more about yourself and what you believe before we proceed if you don't mind? Are you an atheist?

And you, are you a Christian? (I ask as you seem oddly reluctant to use the word 'God', but keen to say 'ad hominem' )

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I am atheist. If you didn't know that, then have you been responding to my posts all this time without reading them?

If you don't mind me asking have you always been an atheist or has this been a relatively recent occurance? If not may I ask what is the basis of your atheism?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you don't mind me asking have you always been an atheist or has this been a relatively recent occurance? If not may I ask what is the basis of your atheism?

I was brought up Christian and became atheist at the age of about 12 because I realised it just didn't add up. That was a long time ago.
What does this have to do with fossils on mountain tops? Will the reasons for my atheism affect what evidence you have? Will it change the nature of the fossils?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was brought up Christian and became atheist at the age of about 12 because I realised it just didn't add up. That was a long time ago.
What does this have to do with fossils on mountain tops? Will the reasons for my atheism affect what evidence you have? Will it change the nature of the fossils?

Hmmm we have something in common I was also brought up Christian. Sorry to be nosy but what didn't add up? Will get to the fossils I promise.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
For example?

There is no god?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
There is no god?

Agreed.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ad hominem strikes again.

Don't be silly. Ad hominem arises when someone tries to build an argument on a personal attack. It is a fallacious way to reason. I did not do that. I just said I was sick of the person and his endless wittering rubbish masquerading as opinion. As such, it was a personal attack and not an ad hominem fallacy.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Uniformatarianism is not a religion genius. Like most religious people atheists also believe certain unprovable presuppositions.

In fairness I agree that it is an unprovable assumption that there is no God. However it is also an unprovable assumption that the typewriter that it appears to me that I am typing this post on exists and is not just a Berkeleyan idea [1]. Other than religious scripture there is an absence of evidence, what is more there is no longer an explanation gap, in the sense that before 1,900 (to pick a fairly arbitrary date) we could not explain the existence of Life, the Universe and Everything in any other way. So while the non-existence of God may be unprovable, it's not unreasonable. Personally, I'm an agnostic, I do not see any reason why there should not be a God, but I don't see any reason there should be either. I do see good reasons why the narrative of the Old Testament up to the start of Kings should be regarded with extreme skepticism, but that is not connected with the existence question.

[1] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley if you don't know what I'm on about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was brought up Christian and became atheist at the age of about 12 because I realised it just didn't add up. That was a long time ago.
What does this have to do with fossils on mountain tops? Will the reasons for my atheism affect what evidence you have? Will it change the nature of the fossils?

No but your presuppositions affect how you interpret fossils. Fossils don't speak for themselves. When we observe fossils in the present, we can take measurements and determine composition, but the real interest in fossils is interpreting where they came from. Once we start attempting to explain how the organisms came to be fossilized or how and where they lived before they died, we must remember that we are using presuppositions in that explanation—we have gone from operational to historical science.

Originally posted by finnegan
Don't be silly. Ad hominem arises when someone tries to build an argument on a personal attack. It is a fallacious way to reason. I did not do that. I just said I was sick of the person and his endless wittering rubbish masquerading as opinion. As such, it was a personal attack and not an ad hominem fallacy.

If you were not trying to rebut Kelly's argument by launching a personal attack on him instead of focusing on the substance of his argument then we are agreed.

Originally posted by DeepThought
In fairness I agree that it is an unprovable assumption that there is no God. However it is also an unprovable assumption that the typewriter that it appears to me that I am typing this post on exists and is not just a Berkeleyan idea [1]. Other than religious scripture there is an absence of evidence, what is more there is no longer an explanation gap ...[text shortened]... n.

[1] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley if you don't know what I'm on about.

Are you saying we can now explain the existence of life?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
No but your presuppositions affect how you interpret fossils.

Presupositions based on science and common sense, not religion or atheism.

Fossils don't speak for themselves.
Yes they do.

When we observe fossils in the present, we can take measurements and determine composition, but the real interest in fossils is interpreting where they came from.
Its usually quite obvious where they came from. The question in this thread is when they came from. Again, that is fairly obvious if you know anything about the fossilisation process.

Once we start attempting to explain how the organisms came to be fossilized or how and where they lived before they died, we must remember that we are using presuppositions in that explanation—we have gone from operational to historical science.
But still science. Not religion. So why would my religion be relevant?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Agreed.

Not so fast.

He said, "Like most religious people atheists also believe certain unprovable presuppositions."

You then said, "For example?" Presumably meaning, "What kind of unprovable presuppositions?"

He then said, "There is no God?" Presumably meaning, "The unprovable presupposition that there is no God?"

Now you say you agree. So are you saying that you agree that "there is no God" is an unprovable presupposition that atheists believe in?