Good point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: Does Evolution Disprove the Existence of God?
- Thread starter Kilgore Trout
- Start date
mordorf
Member
Idon't use that claim....
Most atheists and all scientists claim that they can't know if there is a god or not.
Most theists and creationists don't use the word "i don't know" because they are afraied of "not knowing". This is the sad part about religion that they are told that the bible says so, and there for it is true, that is why they are so afraied of the simple word "i don't know".
There is no questioning why the bible says so, and they don't use reasoning and try to figure out the calims in the bible, no they simply accept them as true for the pastor and the bible says so.
We can't calim absolute certainty simply because we don't know everything.
That is the only thing we can be absolute certain about is that we don't know everything.
And remember that evolution is a therory aboout how life could have evoveld.
But it doesn't prove or disprove god, no it just shows how life by the biggest posabillity evolved on earth, now here comes the fun part of my argument...
Remember the evolution is a theory and science looks for evidence to prove or disprove the theory.
But science has found more and more evidence of how life could have evoveld on earth.
And creationsts and theists has for 150 years tried to disrove the theory. and they can't because they have no evidence to show for.
If we find life on another planet then we have dissproved god..
As the bible claims god created the earth... and if he is all knowing then god should have told those who wrote the bible that there is life on other planets.....
another thing is the dinosaures why are they not mentioned in the bible or the egyptian pyramides or the mesopotaniens mentioned in the bible, or something as important as germs and viruses.
And it still makes me mad when theists and creationists don't understand what we mean by evolution, when they say no it's just a theory but what they still don't understand is in science a theory is something that has been proven by facts and evidence and scientific research, a fact in science is an idea wich hasen't been proven to be true or false, and when they try to prove the bible with the bible it cannot be done.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I've seen atheists argue that evolution negates most versions of god. Specifically, Jason Rosenhouse at Evolutionblog often makes that case.
Their main point is that evolution describes billions of years of death, suffering, and bloodshed, plus millions of years' worth of evolution all wiped away by mass extinctions...IOW, massive waste. This is all incompatible with any version of god that sees humans as special or unique in any way, or any version of god that has any level of sense or compassion. Basically, all you end up with is a "god" that has no defining characteristics at all.
Their main point is that evolution describes billions of years of death, suffering, and bloodshed, plus millions of years' worth of evolution all wiped away by mass extinctions...IOW, massive waste. This is all incompatible with any version of god that sees humans as special or unique in any way, or any version of god that has any level of sense or compassion. Basically, all you end up with is a "god" that has no defining characteristics at all.
I agree that any claims of an omnibenevolent deity become suspect and the just plain bad "designs" in nature raise concerns about a competent interventionist deity.
As Themadhair mentioned earlier about evolution negating any god concepts that rely on evolution not being true, it also applies to other sciences. All of the sciences negates any god concept that rely on that specific science being false: from geology and chemistry and astrophysics and so on. If a particular brand of theism requires Brownian Motion to be a lie or tectonic plates to be imaginary then physics and geology are equally fatal to that particular flavour of theism.
It's just that Book of Genesis inerrantists require evolution to be false if their belief system is to be sustained. I wonder why they're not as vocal about the godless science of genetics; why not also rally around the animal husbandry tactics of Jacob in Gen. 30:25-31:13 in contrast to secular genetic science?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I agree that any claims of an omnibenevolent deity become suspect and the just plain bad "designs" in nature raise concerns about a competent interventionist deity.
As Themadhair mentioned earlier about evolution negating any god concepts that rely on evolution not being true, it also applies to other sciences. All of the sciences negates any god concept that rely on that specific science being false: from geology and chemistry and astrophysics and so on. If a particular brand of theism requires Brownian Motion to be a lie or tectonic plates to be imaginary then physics and geology are equally fatal to that particular flavour of theism.
It's just that Book of Genesis inerrantists require evolution to be false if their belief system is to be sustained. I wonder why they're not as vocal about the godless science of genetics; why not also rally around the animal husbandry tactics of Jacob in Gen. 30:25-31:13 in contrast to secular genetic science?
Few of them realize that their biggest problem is not with Biology, it's Geology.
Exactly. Deep time is the biggest threat to creationists whose theism relies on a young planet, yet few fully realize the implications.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Agreed. So what sort of "god" are we left with?
It's just that Book of Genesis inerrantists require evolution to be false if their belief system is to be sustained. I wonder why they're not as vocal about the godless science of genetics; why not also rally around the animal husbandry tactics of Jacob in Gen. 30:25-31:13 in contrast to secular genetic science?
They love genetics because it's so complicated, it's beyond 95% of their targeted audience. That allows them to point to it and say, "Gosh, look at how complex this all is. No way anyone can believe this came about without Gawd!"
MSizer
MSizer
The irony in that is that genetics is probably actually the strongest clue supporting the ToE. It's so frustrating.That's right- then they insist on "irreducibly complex" processes to justify their personal theism then balk when biologists point out the sheer stupidity of many designs, and how humans could come up with an architecture less convoluted and more efficient.
In other words, the biological world looks exactly like the cobbled together bits and pieces of natural selection at play.
Alceste
Vagabond
IMO, this is because evolution presents the greatest, most visceral affront to the human ego. It implies we are related to all the creepy crawlies on the earth - one of a potentially infinite number of "animals" in the universe. The most telling response I've ever had from a Christian, after mentioning (innocently - I had no idea of her views) some interesting evolutionary trait that primates all share. She got instantly angry and said "I am NOT an animal". The discussion ended there, with her ticked off about the very suggestion we have some kinship with other primates and me shocked with the force and fury of her rejection of that particular interesting factoid.
MSizer
MSizer
That attitude pi$$es me off big. I hate that. I can't figure out whether it's a lashing out of one who is insecure, or what the heck it is, but it makes me angry. I find it also very stupid.
Alceste
Vagabond
It just surprised me. I don't have that particular... I don't know what you call it other than "vanity" or "arrogance", but I suppose if you sincerely believe mankind is specially created in the image of some god, the fact that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor could be seriously insulting / threatening. An intolerable, painful, awful suggestion. I imagine it's like parents of an adopted kid springing the truth about his / her origins after the child is fully grown. Except in the case of evolution, it's just complicated enough that you don't HAVE TO believe it if it's too painful. Adopted kids don't have that luxury.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
What a non-animalistic reaction from her reptilian brain.
Alceste
Vagabond
* snort * - no kidding. I started going on about the hypothalamus being responsible for emotion yesterday to a Pentecostal friend. I wasn't sure how far I could go before it got awkward, but she's lovely. She just said it was "interesting" and we had a laugh about my suggestion that when I'm feeling down and somebody asks "what's wrong", I can honestly say I don't know. It might be that I'm just hungry for a raw squirrel.
I've always been fascinated by the similarity of the octopus' eye to humans. Convergent evolution in action: Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human
Evolution is just plain awesome.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
But the bigger question about god raised by an evolutionary history of life on earth is still, "What kind of god are we left with?"
Basically, a "god" who, upon being shown billions of years of bloodshed, suffering, waste, and inefficiency, responds, "Yep, that's how I operate".
All I can say is....that's a "god"? Really?
Basically, a "god" who, upon being shown billions of years of bloodshed, suffering, waste, and inefficiency, responds, "Yep, that's how I operate".
All I can say is....that's a "god"? Really?
Amill
Apikoros
The definition of god doesn't really have any limits, so if someone claims that god's existence is outside of our Universe and not detectable, then it is outside of the realm of science, and it is impossible to tackle the question in a scientific way.
It'll be impossible for science to ever prove that god doesn't exist, because the definition of god makes it impossible. An all seeing god that exists outside our realm and is completely undetectable. All science can say is that there isn't any known evidence to suggest that an intelligent creator exists, or that one must exist.
And that's what people do with evolution. They just fit the definition of god around the science.
It'll be impossible for science to ever prove that god doesn't exist, because the definition of god makes it impossible. An all seeing god that exists outside our realm and is completely undetectable. All science can say is that there isn't any known evidence to suggest that an intelligent creator exists, or that one must exist.
And that's what people do with evolution. They just fit the definition of god around the science.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
nothing in science even addresses god(s) (usually)
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I've always been fascinated by the similarity of the octopus' eye to humans. Convergent evolution in action: Comparative Analysis of Gene Expression for Convergent Evolution of Camera Eye Between Octopus and Human
Evolution is just plain awesome.
I will play "creationists advocate" for a minute.
There is nothing similar about an octopus and human eye. Humans don't have 8 arms and legs, we only have 2 of each.