U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-31-2017, 11:11 AM
 
32,713 posts, read 8,144,298 times
Reputation: 4619

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
You're too kind, as you're not mentioning the fact that the theory of evolution does not address or deal with origins, so objecting to the TOE on the basis of Abiogenesis (which is not even a scientific theory, merely a scientific hypothesis at this point) is rather less valid than objecting to Microsoft Word by criticizing Charles Babbage.
'Abiogenesis is not part of evolution -theory' is an argument I don't use myself. In terms of evolutionary biology, it certainly isn't (though I suspect that if and when they discover the evolutionary processes that enabled Abiogenesis, it will be ) in terms of the Evolution vs, Bible debate, it certainly is.

Indeed, in the Creationism vs Evilooshun debate, Cosmology, Geology and even ancient history (where it conflicts with the Bible) is "Evilooshun'. The actual disagreement has always been about the origins of specied according to Darwin or according to Genesis, but the actual Creationism debate is about Bible literalism vs, scientific data that contradicts.

Si the key to dealing with the religion opposition is understanding them. It does no good to argue about different things using the same words. I have always played using their pieces, if not always by their rules. And in terms of the Creationist debate as distinct from the Evolution debate, 'Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution theory' sounds like an evasion, because we have no answer, or rather no explanation. We have to bite the bullet on that one, not try to dodge it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2017, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,355,684 times
Reputation: 5992
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
'Abiogenesis is not part of evolution -theory' is an argument I don't use myself. In terms of evolutionary biology, it certainly isn't (though I suspect that if and when they discover the evolutionary processes that enabled Abiogenesis, it will be ) in terms of the Evolution vs, Bible debate, it certainly is.

Indeed, in the Creationism vs Evilooshun debate, Cosmology, Geology and even ancient history (where it conflicts with the Bible) is "Evilooshun'. The actual disagreement has always been about the origins of specied according to Darwin or according to Genesis, but the actual Creationism debate is about Bible literalism vs, scientific data that contradicts.

So the key to dealing with the religion opposition is understanding them. It does no good to argue about different things using the same words. I have always played using their pieces, if not always by their rules. And in terms of the Creationist debate as distinct from the Evolution debate, 'Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution theory' sounds like an evasion, because we have no answer, or rather no explanation. We have to bite the bullet on that one, not try to dodge it.
I don't dodge it, but I treat it as the separate issue that it is.

I understand that, out of ignorance and desperation, literalists conflate the two, and, as you point out, other areas as well.

Does it "sound like a dodge?" I long ago gave up defending my honor against the specious claims of the disingenuous. It's not as if they will suddenly think me virtuous or persuasive if I allow them to drag origins into a TOE discussion.

I actually don't mind discussing them in the same breath, or acknowledging that they are related concerns at least to a theist because both don't see god as necessary or helpful in explaining either topic. But I'll be dad-burned if I am going to foster their ignorant conflations either. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Next thing you know they will be be blaming premarital sex on the TOE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2017, 11:36 AM
 
32,713 posts, read 8,144,298 times
Reputation: 4619
Atheist apologetics has to be squeaky clean. We cannot afford to give the opposition even the smigeon of an evasion. And after all, if we just play their game and explain frankly what we know, or don't know, or suspect or hypothesize and ask 'so what?' they have nothing. If we give them anything that even looks like they can use it (everything else they have to lie about - and lies will bite them in the ass, eventually) it's going to help them, not us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2017, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,355,684 times
Reputation: 5992
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Atheist apologetics has to be squeaky clean. We cannot afford to give the opposition even the smigeon of an evasion. And after all, if we just play their game and explain frankly what we know, or don't know, or suspect or hypothesize and ask 'so what?' they have nothing. If we give them anything that even looks like they can use it (everything else they have to lie about - and lies will bite them in the ass, eventually) it's going to help them, not us.
Well you do what you think best of course but I can't agree.

It's a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. If you play their game, they get to argue that the TOE fails because it doesn't explain something (origins) that it isn't designed to, and doesn't pretend to, explain, and they get to say "checkmate" as a result. If you don't play their game, they whine that you're not letting them bring an extraneous argument in. I feel I at least maintain my integrity with the latter approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2017, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,642 posts, read 3,914,044 times
Reputation: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Because you're doing your 'Defending' the wrong way. Going after Evolution by way of Abiogenesis claims does not do a single thing to help defend your faith. It is a basic piece of Religious apologetic wrongheadedness to think that, if they can prove that we don't know where the Universe, Life and everything came from, God' has to be the answer.
Well people can draw whatever conclusions they want to, all I point out is that creation is just as viable alternative to understanding life as evolutions hypothesis on life is and it is ones personal worldview which side of that equation one will side with.


Quote:
Well it doesn't and it looks increasingly like there is No Planning Mind behind it. Therefore a Natural origin (whatever it is) seems the better guess.
Dawkin in his book the blind watchmaker stated" “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” Then goes on about it is only the appearance of design.




Quote:
Don't you see that this attempt to undermine Abiogenesis or pick holes in evolution theory gets you nowhere, even if you could make it stick the way you want to?*
On the contrary, if evolutionist would admit that creation of life is just as viable as an answer to life as evolution much of the debates concerning life would not be an issue and maybe some of the mocking atheists and evolutionist do towards Christians would stop.

Quote:
And even if - which we will all concede - including Dawkins - that a case can be made for a creator -god of some kind (though it's not one we feel we have to accept) so what? It's academic.
Well if a case can be made for a creator then why all these threads saying things like Christians Cannot Defend What They Claim. You guys make claims, then yell foul when someone tires to answer those claims through the only viable means you guys will accept.




Quote:
What affects us are these claims that the particular religions make about Their God and Their Holy Book and Their Afterlife -beliefs.*
Like?

Quote:
And that is what (as we see in debate after debate) they can't defend. Don't get sucked into this Fundy -creationist canard that if you can just discredit evolution -theory, then it proves a god, and even a particular religion. It doesn't.
Those who believe in creation do not discredit the theory of evolution, they have issues with the hypothesis evolutionist claim about life and they do so lumping everything under the heading of the theory of evolution.

Quote:
I shouldn't discuss the Mod decision -making on Science, but as I recall it came out of spending far too long on arguing about whether science is valid. It was the same as finding some apologists argued that logic is only human opinion and that everything (science, logic) should be dismissed in favour of Faith.*
Well faith is all some people can understand, I have no problem with science or logic and neither do most Christians. However by stopping any Christian from speaking in the only language you guys will accept (scientific ) the mods handy cap the Christian from defending their belief and how science plays a huge roll in that belief.



Quote:
Science has made its' case and so has evolution.
As long as you are only talking about the theory of evolution I can agree, however if you are lumping the hypothesis of origins in your statement we are going to disagree.

Quote:
It doesn't disprove a god, or Jesus, but it does relegate Genesis to 'metaphor' and so you have to choose; A Christianity that accepts that not all the stories in the Bible are literally true, or a Bible -literalist Fundamentalism. The lie that the Creationists are putting about that the choice is 'believe evolution or believe Jesus - you can't do both' is garbage. The choice is 'Bible literalist Christianity or a non Bible -literalist Christianity'.
Well if it does not disprove God then why all the threads like this one?

And the lie that atheist and evolutionist are putting forth is you cannot believe in creation and the theory of evolution, you have to choose one or the other, which is what matadora said to me in the last thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2017, 12:30 PM
 
32,713 posts, read 8,144,298 times
Reputation: 4619
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Well you do what you think best of course but I can't agree.

It's a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. If you play their game, they get to argue that the TOE fails because it doesn't explain something (origins) that it isn't designed to, and doesn't pretend to, explain, and they get to say "checkmate" as a result. If you don't play their game, they whine that you're not letting them bring an extraneous argument in. I feel I at least maintain my integrity with the latter approach.
That's ok. There are some who will not discuss the gospels because "Jesus is a myth'. Just so long as there is someone who will do it

Your stance is of course perfectly correct. I'm just seeing a possible Genesis -apologist loophole and plugging it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2017, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,642 posts, read 3,914,044 times
Reputation: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
You're too kind, as you're not mentioning the fact that the theory of evolution does not address or deal with origins, so objecting to the TOE on the basis of Abiogenesis (which is not even a scientific theory, merely a scientific hypothesis at this point) is rather less valid than objecting to Microsoft Word by criticizing Charles Babbage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
'Abiogenesis is not part of evolution -theory' is an argument I don't use myself. In terms of evolutionary biology, it certainly isn't (though I suspect that if and when they discover the evolutionary processes that enabled Abiogenesis, it will be ) in terms of the Evolution vs, Bible debate, it certainly is.

Indeed, in the Creationism vs Evilooshun debate, Cosmology, Geology and even ancient history (where it conflicts with the Bible) is "Evilooshun'. The actual disagreement has always been about the origins of specied according to Darwin or according to Genesis, but the actual Creationism debate is about Bible literalism vs, scientific data that contradicts.

Si the key to dealing with the religion opposition is understanding them. It does no good to argue about different things using the same words. I have always played using their pieces, if not always by their rules. And in terms of the Creationist debate as distinct from the Evolution debate, 'Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution theory' sounds like an evasion, because we have no answer, or rather no explanation. We have to bite the bullet on that one, not try to dodge it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I don't dodge it, but I treat it as the separate issue that it is.

I understand that, out of ignorance and desperation, literalists conflate the two, and, as you point out, other areas as well.

Does it "sound like a dodge?" I long ago gave up defending my honor against the specious claims of the disingenuous. It's not as if they will suddenly think me virtuous or persuasive if I allow them to drag origins into a TOE discussion.

I actually don't mind discussing them in the same breath, or acknowledging that they are related concerns at least to a theist because both don't see god as necessary or helpful in explaining either topic. But I'll be dad-burned if I am going to foster their ignorant conflations either. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Next thing you know they will be be blaming premarital sex on the TOE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Atheist apologetics has to be squeaky clean. We cannot afford to give the opposition even the smigeon of an evasion. And after all, if we just play their game and explain frankly what we know, or don't know, or suspect or hypothesize and ask 'so what?' they have nothing. If we give them anything that even looks like they can use it (everything else they have to lie about - and lies will bite them in the ass, eventually) it's going to help them, not us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Well you do what you think best of course but I can't agree.

It's a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. If you play their game, they get to argue that the TOE fails because it doesn't explain something (origins) that it isn't designed to, and doesn't pretend to, explain, and they get to say "checkmate" as a result. If you don't play their game, they whine that you're not letting them bring an extraneous argument in. I feel I at least maintain my integrity with the latter approach.
Well if the origins of life is not an issue with those who believe in the TOE why so many posts like this one?

And why do people get so bent out of shape when I tell them the origins of life has nothing to do with the TOE.

Seems to me, ( even though you two admit it is not a part of the TOE) that many do believe it is part of the TOE and take it as a whole.

Otherwise I would not be getting some of the responses I have gotten.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2017, 12:44 PM
 
32,713 posts, read 8,144,298 times
Reputation: 4619
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Well people can draw whatever conclusions they want to, all I point out is that creation is just as viable alternative to understanding life as evolutions hypothesis on life is and it is ones personal worldview which side of that equation one will side with.




Dawkin in his book the blind watchmaker stated" “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” Then goes on about it is only the appearance of design.






On the contrary, if evolutionist would admit that creation of life is just as viable as an answer to life as evolution much of the debates concerning life would not be an issue and maybe some of the mocking atheists and evolutionist do towards Christians would stop.



Well if a case can be made for a creator then why all these threads saying things like Christians Cannot Defend What They Claim. You guys make claims, then yell foul when someone tires to answer those claims through the only viable means you guys will accept.






Like?



Those who believe in creation do not discredit the theory of evolution, they have issues with the hypothesis evolutionist claim about life and they do so lumping everything under the heading of the theory of evolution.



Well faith is all some people can understand, I have no problem with science or logic and neither do most Christians. However by stopping any Christian from speaking in the only language you guys will accept (scientific ) the mods handy cap the Christian from defending their belief and how science plays a huge roll in that belief.





As long as you are only talking about the theory of evolution I can agree, however if you are lumping the hypothesis of origins in your statement we are going to disagree.



Well if it does not disprove God then why all the threads like this one?

And the lie that atheist and evolutionist are putting forth is you cannot believe in creation and the theory of evolution, you have to choose one or the other, which is what matadora said to me in the last thread.
Pneuma ..mate... a case can be made, but it is not one Dawkins or I would accept, and I already said why: there is good reason to see life the universe and everything as NOT designed. It is the same with evolution vs creation.

That's quite apart from origin of species as per Darwin, vs origin of 'kinds' as per genesis, but more a theistic evolution.

The case (cosmic origin, orgins of life, and development of species) is that you cannot positively disprove a god, but examining the way it is (after all the claims about Order, complexity, constants, Goldilocks zones and infinite regression have been made and shown to have serious counters) favours a natural unplanned origin of the universe and life.

Logically that means that a natural origin (even if we don't know what or how) is the preferred one, and frankly old mate, opting for an intelligent creator even as a preferred hypothesis is not valid, based on what the evidence and logical reason actually indicates.

To go further and start talking of firm belief in such a creator is Faith. And going further to a specific religion is even more faith. And to start an argument with Faith -based assumptions like that..as I say..Pneuma...mate,,, your head is simply not able to argue the matter rationally. As we saw in you quotemining Dawkins (as indeed the apologists did at one time claiming that Dawkins was coming round to the Theistic point of view) and ignoring the rest "it isn't a case I'd accept" rather than asking (as you should) "Why wouldn't you accept it?

You see, my dear old mate, that Faith based mindset has you trying to find stuff to prop the faith up, even if it means cheating, really. It's what Godfaith does.

Oh btw - the thread was more on the Bible and specifically gospels that the Christians could not defend. As I recall, you dragged the evilooshun debate into it (despite us begging you not to) and of course played the Abiogenesis card pretty quickly.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-31-2017 at 12:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2017, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,642 posts, read 3,914,044 times
Reputation: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Pneuma ..mate... a case can be made, but it is not one Dawkins or I would accept, and I already said why: there is good reason to see life the universe and everything as NOT designed. It is the same with evolution vs creation.

That's quite apart from origin of species as per Darwin, vs origin of 'kinds' as per genesis, but more a theistic evolution.

The case (cosmic origin, orgins of life, and development of species) is that you cannot positively disprove a god, but examining the way it is (after all the claims about Order, complexity, constants, Goldilocks zones and infinite regression have been made and shown to have serious counters) favours a natural unplanned origin of the universe and life.

Logically that means that a natural origin (even if we don't know what or how) is the preferred one, and frankly old mate, opting for an intelligent creator even a preferred hypothesis is not valid, based on what the evidence and logical reason actually indicates.

To go further and start talking of firm belief in such a creator is Faith. And going further to a specific religion is even more faith. And to start an argument with Faith -based assumptions like that..as I say..Pneuma...mate,,, your head is simply not able to argue the matter rationally. As we saw you you quotemining Dawkins (as indeed the apologists did at one time claiming that Dawkins was coming round to the Theistic point of view) and ignoring the rest "it isn't a case I'd acept" rather than asking (as you should) |Why wouldn't you accept it?

You see, my dear old mate, that Faith based mindset has you trying to find stuff to prop the faith up, even if it means cheating, really. It's what Godfaith does.
Glad to see you still think of me as a mate trans.

Its like I said it depends on ones worldview which side one falls on. You see the evidence pointing to a natural origins, I see the evidence pointing to a creator and I don't have an issue with that. What I do have an issue with is people telling me that there is no evidence that points to a creator. Obviously if a case can be made (your words) for creation then there must be some evidence that points in that direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2017, 01:02 PM
 
32,713 posts, read 8,144,298 times
Reputation: 4619
Ok I'll bite. What is the evidence for Creation?(1) I once had a thread on this asking for evidence for creation. Do you know, there was only one person who after searching all the Creationist sites, came up with two bits of supportive evidence - and that was me. That was Polonium haloes and recent -date diamonds.

You are all my mates Even Arach, although I have him on ignore simply cause I don't have time to waste.

(1) it is not 'well science cannot prove how the universe started". That means 'Nobody knows" rather than "Must be Biblegod".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top