Evolution has never been observed

[Acim]

I don't have a lot of love for you so-called skeptics either. You conclude that evolution is a fact, so there is no God.

Name a single example of anyone here saying that. Or in fact, anyone almost anywhere who makes such a claim.

Which part?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which part?

"You conclude that evolution is a fact, so there is no God."

 

[Photonic]

"You conclude that evolution is a fact, so there is no God."

Is he wrong?

 

[PolyHedral]

Is he wrong?

Yes. That argument is a non-sequitor. The arguments against God have nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Photonic]

Yes. That argument is a non-sequitor. The arguments against God have nothing to do with evolution.

Depends on what God you are talking about, it's certainly a strong case to hold against parts of the Bible, I personally don't believe it's the full proof, but it's a start.

Running on Evolution alone though I can come to this:

1. A theists Holy Book is often their word of God.
2. If God is Infallible, the book should therefore be infallible.
3. If parts are proven wrong, the book is not infallible.
4. One can therefore come to the conclusions that the God in question is either fallible, or the book was written by humans, for humans.
5. Therefore it's just another Harry Potter.

Abiogenesis would be proof against God. Just a matter of time till scientists get that one right too.

People sometimes confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution sadly.

 

[fantome profane]

Abiogenesis would be proof against God. Just a matter of time till scientists get that one right too.

People sometimes confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution sadly.

This is just nonsense. It is not true that understanding abiogenesis would be proof, or even evidence against “God”. Science is just not equipped to make determinations concerning the supernatural. Science can only deal with the natural world.


It is true that many people don’t understand the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. But it is also true and equally sad that many people don’t understand the distinction between science and metaphysics.

 

[Photonic]

This is just nonsense. It is not true that understanding abiogenesis would be proof, or even evidence against “God”. Science is just not equipped to make determinations concerning the supernatural. Science can only deal with the natural world.


It is true that many people don’t understand the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. But it is also true and equally sad that many people don’t understand the distinction between science and metaphysics.

One's real and one isn't?

 

[johnhanks]

Depends on what God you are talking about, it's certainly a strong case to hold against parts of the Bible, I personally don't believe it's the full proof, but it's a start.

Running on Evolution alone though I can come to this:

1. A theists Holy Book is often their word of God.
2. If God is Infallible, the book should therefore be infallible.
3. If parts are proven wrong, the book is not infallible.
4. One can therefore come to the conclusions that the God in question is either fallible, or the book was written by humans, for humans.
5. Therefore it's just another Harry Potter.

Creationists tend to equate acceptance of evolution with atheism more or less because of your points 1-3: more rational religious believers are able to accept Genesis as poetic rather than literal, and so feel less threatened by ToE.
Either way, PolyHedral is right - the fact of evolution does not in itself imply atheism.

Abiogenesis would be proof against God. Just a matter of time till scientists get that one right too.

Not even that is necessarily true; the best we can possibly do with abiogenesis is to demonstrate that it is physically possible for life to start without divine intervention. This would not prove that it did, or that no divine agency exists. As before, the need for abiogenesis to be physically impossible resides only with the most blinkered biblical literalists.

If anything, creationists should feel more threatened by the reality of evolution than by that of abiogenesis: after all, the bible has nothing to say on the origin of bacteria or their precursors, but is very specific (and wrong) about the origin of humans...

People sometimes confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution sadly.

Sometimes? Among this forum's creationists, it's the rule rather than the exception.

 

[fantome profane]

One's real and one isn't?

Fine, if that is your conclusion i will not argue. But what you don't seem to understand is that this conclusion is a metaphysical conclusion, not a scientific one.

 

[Photonic]

Fine, if that is your conclusion i will not argue. But what you don't seem to understand is that this conclusion is a metaphysical conclusion, not a scientific one.

Perhaps I should enunciate more, one is based on a philosophical conclusion and one is based on an empirical conclusion.

 

[fantome profane]

Perhaps I should enunciate more, one is based on a philosophical conclusion and one is based on an empirical conclusion.

Perfect, very well stated. And seeing as how you understand that you will of course also understand that abiogenesis would not be proof against God.

 

[Photonic]

Perfect, very well stated. And seeing as how you understand that you will of course also understand that abiogenesis would not be proof against God.

I will conceded to you that abiogenesis may not be a complete proof against God. But it would certainly be an invalidation of some of the foundations upon which the faith of a God is based.

 

[idav]

I will conceded to you that abiogenesis may not be a complete proof against God. But it would certainly be an invalidation of some of the foundations upon which the faith of a God is based.

If god wasn't necessary to seed the earth it does put a damper on the image of god as a creator. That's when creationists typically move the goal posts to the beginning of the universe.

 

[fantome profane]

I will conceded to you that abiogenesis may not be a complete proof against God. But it would certainly be an invalidation of some of the foundations upon which the faith of a God is based.

Perhaps, but the thing is that “faith in God” can be based on just about anything at all, in fact it can be based on nothing at all. And some theists have based their “faith” on some pretty silly things. But those are precisely the kind of theists who are not going to be shaken by any scientific evidence.


If you think anyone is going to look at some new breakthrough in abiogenesis and suddenly say to themselves “Oh, I guess God doesn’t exist after all” you are deluding yourself.

 

[Photonic]

Perhaps, but the thing is that “faith in God” can be based on just about anything at all, in fact it can be based on nothing at all. And some theists have based their “faith” on some pretty silly things. But those are precisely the kind of theists who are not going to be shaken by any scientific evidence.


If you think anyone is going to look at some new breakthrough in abiogenesis and suddenly say to themselves “Oh, I guess God doesn’t exist after all” you are deluding yourself.

Maybe, but at least I won't be the one who is delusional.

 

[Acim]

"You conclude that evolution is a fact, so there is no God."

You mean the whole thing. That no one is saying, "evolution is a fact, therefore God doesn't exist." When I asked, 'which part?' I was asking which part of those two assertions, as it seems like both are said often, separately.

Together, it isn't said that way. Perhaps it is, but not sure if I can find it. Instead what is said, I think, is in vein of 'evolution doesn't need a supernatural agent (like God) to explain its process.'

I'm sure many, if not all proponents of TOE, would concede that. That is not same thing as was said earlier. And is more or less an unwritten rule of scientific explanation of the materialistic variety. I'm sure many think I can find that, though not up for searching for it right now (or anytime real soon) as I really think that is common argument.

I do also think some, but not most, will say the above 'doesn't need God to explain process' and then add on, 'therefore God doesn't exist.' But admittedly, I don't know if I can find that. I'll just be on lookout for it, as I think it does come up periodically from certain type (called atheists). If it doesn't come up in next next 10 days, I'll not lose any sleep over whether or not my claim here is accurate. I really do think such a claim is made, but not frequently. More like occasionally.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You mean the whole thing.

Actually, I put the "so there is no God" part in italics. Perhaps I should have used bold instead.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You mean the whole thing. That no one is saying, "evolution is a fact, therefore God doesn't exist." When I asked, 'which part?' I was asking which part of those two assertions, as it seems like both are said often, separately.

Together, it isn't said that way. Perhaps it is, but not sure if I can find it. Instead what is said, I think, is in vein of 'evolution doesn't need a supernatural agent (like God) to explain its process.'

I'm sure many, if not all proponents of TOE, would concede that. That is not same thing as was said earlier. And is more or less an unwritten rule of scientific explanation of the materialistic variety. I'm sure many think I can find that, though not up for searching for it right now (or anytime real soon) as I really think that is common argument.

I do also think some, but not most, will say the above 'doesn't need God to explain process' and then add on, 'therefore God doesn't exist.' But admittedly, I don't know if I can find that. I'll just be on lookout for it, as I think it does come up periodically from certain type (called atheists). If it doesn't come up in next next 10 days, I'll not lose any sleep over whether or not my claim here is accurate. I really do think such a claim is made, but not frequently. More like occasionally.

The natural world around us has and is being explained to using the scientific method. What we don't know does not mean it's a blank line to insert "God". There were and are plenty of instances where we lack(ed) the answers and a god occupied the blank but due to the scientific method we were able to answer those questions and insert a factual answer based on evidence and not one based on superstition.

As far as Evolution it is a theory based on a multitude of facts. Change in allele frequency, adaption, variation, descent with modification...etc...etc.. These are all facts of Evolution that can't be explained with ("God did it").

 

[atanu]

As far as Evolution it is a theory based on a multitude of facts. Change in allele frequency, adaption, variation, descent with modification...etc...etc.. These are all facts of Evolution that can't be explained with ("God did it").

Are these then explained better with "Nature did it"?

 

[PolyHedral]

Are these then explained better with "Nature did it"?

Yes. Doesn't it?