Babyhood to adulthood

[FearGod]

I've never spoken to a creationist who is not convinced that accepting the fact of evolution would completely undermine their religious faith.

If you can prove that God doesn't exist then i have to agree with you that the evolution of species weren't in need for ID.

 

[idav]

Which is very ironical, come to think of it. Evolution can hardly be presented as a challenge to religion or to theism.

In fact, it can't even conceivably be an evidence against the existence of God. Ever.

Really depends on the education. If you are taught creation first as a fact, evolution tends to destroy that concept, and without proper religious foundation based on current knowledge then the religion fails. It can be reconciled if the believer is willing to get through the initial shock and not just throw out theism all together.

 

[idav]

If you can prove that God doesn't exist then i have to agree with you that the evolution of species weren't in need for ID.

It doesnt work that way. We already know evolution exists. Show us a creation or even godly intervention and it would be evidnece for god and against naturalistic evolution.

 

[FearGod]

That makes no sense whatsoever. ID is wrong because it makes statements about humanity's origin that have been demonstrated wrong.

How is that ?
Would you pls elaborate ?

As for proving that God does not exist, that is neither connected to matters of biology and evolution, nor possible in any case, regardless of whether he exists or not. It is no more possible to prove that God does not exist than it is possible to prove that three-legged dragons with red and green stripes do not.

If you can prove that God doesn't exist then ID will be wrong and then evolution will be the product of randomness and chances.

 

[FearGod]

It doesnt work that way. We already know evolution exists. Show us a creation or even godly intervention and it would be evidnece for god and against naturalistic evolution.

Knowing that it did exist, doesn't mean that you know who did it.

 

[idav]

If you can prove that God doesn't exist then ID will be wrong and then evolution will be the product of randomness and chances.

ID adherents have the burden of proof. Naturalistic believers have already shown their part, now theists just need to keep looking, hoping god is hiding somewhere behind the scenes making everything appear to be pure chance.

 

[YmirGF]

If you can prove that God doesn't exist then ID will be wrong and then evolution will be the product of randomness and chances.

C'mon, FearGod, let the proverbial cat out of the bag and tell them why you CANNOT accept the Theory of Evolution as fact. C'mon.... you know you want to....

 

[idav]

Knowing that it did exist, doesn't mean that you know who did it.

Yes I know. Knowing the mechanisms doesn't mean we know there is a 'who' that did it.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

That is the outcome when ones fails in a debate, he'll accuse the other of being wrong,irrational ..etc

LOL, if you were engaged in a debate I would agree. But when you refuse to except the consequences of a search for truth, fact, knowledge, and education, you are not debating. You are a denialist.

YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[FearGod]

Really depends on the education. If you are taught creation first as a fact, evolution tends to destroy that concept, and without proper religious foundation based on current knowledge then the religion fails. It can be reconciled if the believer is willing to get through the initial shock and not just throw out theism all together.

So do you believe that things can exist out of nothingness.
Can we see an apple and not thinking that it came from a tree, and if we see a tree not thinking that it came from a seed and if we see a seed then not thinking of the apple, but the question is where the first seed came from.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you can prove that God doesn't exist then ID will be wrong and then evolution will be the product of randomness and chances.

I have proven that God does not exist to my own satisfaction. That is far enough.

ID is wrong, regardless, and evolution is what it is.

That you fail to accept that changes it none.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes I know. Knowing the mechanisms doesn't mean we know there is a 'who' that did it.

Pretty much this.

Of course, FearGod seems to be implying that the Theory of Evolution either needs or denies the existence of a guiding will somehow. Neither is the case really. It neither challenges nor needs divine intervention.

 

[FearGod]

C'mon, FearGod, let the proverbial cat out of the bag and tell them why you CANNOT accept the Theory of Evolution as fact. C'mon.... you know you want to....

No secrets, i refuse science that based on randomness and chances,i don't have an issue with natural selection, it is the normal thing to happen.

 

[YmirGF]

It neither challenges nor needs divine intervention.

But from the Theist POV it DOES challenge the very core of their thinking. If they got this wrong, what else have they got wrong? It's a proverbial House of Cards syndrome. Hence, the denial.

 

[viole]

If you can prove that God doesn't exist then i have to agree with you that the evolution of species weren't in need for ID.

So, if God does not exist and you are convinced by this premise, then you would agree that life on earth took place without any designer.

If that is true, then you agree that it is possible, at least in principle, that life on earth developed by pure natural means without a God. You would not see an obvious contradiction or absurdity with that.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

So do you believe that things can exist out of nothingness.
Can we see an apple and not thinking that it came from a tree, and if we see a tree not thinking that it came from a seed and if we see a seed then not thinking of the apple, but the question is where the first seed came from.

Why something rather than nothing is a good philosophical place to start for theists or atheists. That isnt easily answered without speculation and imagination. I dont know is more an proper answer than theists or atheists can give. Just cause it is, is the best atheists and theists have come up with. At the very least the source is capable being its own existence as well as anything else that exists.

I have a question now for you. Why does god choose to exist?

 

[FearGod]

LOL, if you were engaged in a debate I would agree. But when you refuse to except the consequences of a search for truth, fact, knowledge, and education, you are not debating. You are a denialist.

YOU ARE WRONG.

But when you refuse to except the consequences of a search for truth.

refuse to except : English is evolving.

 

[YmirGF]

No secrets, i refuse science that based on randomness and chances,i don't have an issue with natural selection, it is the normal thing to happen.

Your getting closer.... now tell us why you cannot accept randomness and chance. You know you want to. Be honest!

 

[idav]

But when you refuse to except the consequences of a search for truth.

refuse to except : English is evolving.

Accept

Carry on.

 

[viole]

No secrets, i refuse science that based on randomness and chances,i don't have an issue with natural selection, it is the normal thing to happen.

And why would you refuse science that is based on randomness and chance? What motivates you from dismissing this possibility a-priori?

Ciao

- viole