EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[sandy whitelinger]

Everything evolves. You were a child at one point, and now you are an adult. Evolution is as simple as that.

Except that what you describe is not evolution.

 

[MysticPhD]

oops, I'm always typing faster than my brain processes. yes accept. I'm not sure that I meant to put better, but what I meant was it gives an explanation without the need for a god, you can put a god into the equation, but there is no need for it to be there. When people say, well it was god who got the ball rolling for evolution. Their doing it mostly to fill a personal feeling of what they would like to be true.

When people say, well there was NO god who got the ball rolling for evolution. They're doing it for the same reason.

 

[Magic Man]

When people say, well there was NO god who got the ball rolling for evolution. They're doing it for the same reason.

No, I don't do it because I want it to be true. I say that's the most likely scenario because from all of the evidence we have, that's the most likely scenario. I don't want there not to be a God, it just seems extremely unlikely.

 

[DarkSun]

When people say, well there was NO god who got the ball rolling for evolution. They're doing it for the same reason.

Exactly. I tried to point this out a while ago, but then that lead to my understanding of science being challenged. Go figure.

 

[DarkSun]

No, I don't do it because I want it to be true. I say that's the most likely scenario because from all of the evidence we have, that's the most likely scenario. I don't want there not to be a God, it just seems extremely unlikely.

Isn't it the same for everyone, though? People will believe that which they see as being supported by the evidence. Whether the justification for that belief is based on past experience or thorough experimentation is irrelevant. This will always be the case.

People who believe that a creator was responsible for the success of abiogenesis and evolution only do so because they believe such a thing is supported by their past experience. Likewise, people who believe that adding God into the equation complicates things don't see any reason for God to be in the picture in the first place.

But here's the thing. Both interpretations of the world are just that: personal interpretations. Neither disbelief in God or belief in God are supported by the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Magic Man]

Isn't it the same for everyone, though? People will believe that which they see as being supported by the evidence. Whether the justification for that belief is based on past experience or thorough experimentation is irrelevant. This will always be the case.

People who believe that a creator was responsible for the success of abiogenesis and evolution only do so because they believe such a thing is supported by their past experience. Likewise, people who believe that adding God into the equation complicates things don't see any reason for God to be in the picture in the first place.

But here's the thing. Both interpretations of the world are just that: personal interpretations. Neither disbelief in God or belief in God are supported by the Theory of Evolution.

The comment was "They're doing it mostly to fill a personal feeling of what they would like to be true". I don't necessarily want there not to be a God. I just don't think it's very likely. As opposed to some who believe in God, and want him to be the one who started evolution. They believe God was behind it because they want to believe that God is real.

There are many people who believe in God because of personal experience or other evidence. There are people who believe in God because they want it to be true. We're talking about the latter group. The opposite can't really be said of atheists. I can't imagine anyone saying God didn't start evolution simply because they don't want to believe in him. It's much more likely that they would say that because the evidence we have, or lack thereof, points in that direction.

 

[DarkSun]

The comment was "They're doing it mostly to fill a personal feeling of what they would like to be true". I don't necessarily want there not to be a God. I just don't think it's very likely. As opposed to some who believe in God, and want him to be the one who started evolution. They believe God was behind it because they want to believe that God is real.

No, I disagree with you there. I don't think that anyone who believes something, believes it because they really want to, because they're stubborn or anything of the sort. Belief in God is based on exactly the same premise as your disbelief in God. That is to say, people will either believe that one of the two alternatives -- God's existence or His nonexistence -- is most likely.

There are many people who believe in God because of personal experience or other evidence. There are people who believe in God because they want it to be true. We're talking about the latter group.

I personally haven't ever met anyone like this. I'll have to take your word for it.

 

[Magic Man]

No, I disagree with you there. I don't think that anyone who believes something, believes it because they really want to, because they're stubborn or anything of the sort. Belief in God is based on exactly the same premise as your disbelief in God. That is to say, people will either believe that one of the two alternatives -- God's existence or His nonexistence -- is most likely.



I personally haven't ever met anyone like this. I'll have to take your word for it.

One word for you: Creationists.

 

[DarkSun]

One word for you: Creationists.

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

Hahaha!

Even then, I'd just say that they're taking their evidence from scripture and completely ignoring science. That's not to say that they're obstinately believing something just because they want it to be true. Instead, they're believing something because they genuinely believe it to be the most viable answer. Personally, I think they're a bit deluded, but that's just me.

But well-done. That made me laugh so much.

 

[Magic Man]

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

Hahaha!

Even then, I'd just say that they're taking their evidence from scripture and completely ignoring science. That's not to say that they're obstinately believing something just because they want it to be true. Instead, they're believing something because they genuinely believe it to be the most viable answer. Personally, I think they're a bit deluded, but that's just me.

But well-done. That made me laugh so much.

That's where you're wrong, though. Why else would they continue to believe such things so obstinately? They want it to be true. That's it. I'm not sure there's even a viable argument for anything else.

 

[MysticPhD]

Isn't it the same for everyone, though? People will believe that which they see as being supported by the evidence. Whether the justification for that belief is based on past experience or thorough experimentation is irrelevant. This will always be the case.

People who believe that a creator was responsible for the success of abiogenesis and evolution only do so because they believe such a thing is supported by their past experience. Likewise, people who believe that adding God into the equation complicates things don't see any reason for God to be in the picture in the first place.

But here's the thing. Both interpretations of the world are just that: personal interpretations. Neither disbelief in God or belief in God are supported by the Theory of Evolution.

Absolutely true, DarkSun . . . it is disturbing how many scientists abandon the neutral position and believe the default is their "No God" position. It is very frustrating. So refreshing to see someone else "get it."

 

[DarkSun]

Well, can you prove that they don't genuinely think that they are right?

Everyone is entitled to a different opinion, you know? I mean, you and I both know that the world was not made in seven days, but that belief is based on a completely different collection of evidence to what Creationists use.

 

[DarkSun]

Hang on... I'm an advocate for Intelligent Design. Does that put me in the same category as the Creationists that you're referring to? :sad:

 

[DarkSun]

Absolutely true, DarkSun . . . it is disturbing how many scientists abandon the neutral position and believe the default is their "No God" position. It is very frustrating. So refreshing to see someone else "get it."

Heh... Thanks, I think.

 

[MysticPhD]

Hang on... I'm an advocate for Intelligent Design. Does that put me in the same category as the Creationists that you're referring to? :sad:

Not remotely. The Discovery Institute was exposed in court as a front for the Creationists . . . they fraudulently misrepresented the generic ID position in an attempt to get Creationism into science curricula.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, can you prove that they don't genuinely think that they are right?

I didn't say they don't believe they're right. They believe they're right because they want to be right. That's the claim here.

Everyone is entitled to a different opinion, you know? I mean, you and I both know that the world was not made in seven days, but that belief is based on a completely different collection of evidence to what Creationists use.

Yes, they're entitled to an opinion. All I'm saying is that that opinion is based on their desire for it to be true.

Hang on... I'm an advocate for Intelligent Design. Does that put me in the same category as the Creationists that you're referring to? :sad:

There's a big difference between being a creationist and believing that the universe was designed. Also, I'm assuming you're an advocate of the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligent being, not that you're an advocate of the ID movement, which is much different. Is that right?

The best way to find out whether you fit that category is whether or not you think evolution is true.

 

[DarkSun]

I didn't say they don't believe they're right. They believe they're right because they want to be right. That's the claim here.

Yes, they're entitled to an opinion. All I'm saying is that that opinion is based on their desire for it to be true.

Well, I will vehemently disagree and leave things there, because neither of us have a way of definitively proving whether we're right.

As it is, we could both keep saying: "yah-huh" and: "nuh-uh" all day, and it would get us no where.

My view is that no belief is held just because the holder is stubborn and wants to be right. Creationists and everyone who would disagree with you or I are just using a very different line of reasoning to us.

There's a big difference between being a creationist and believing that the universe was designed. Also, I'm assuming you're an advocate of the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligent being, not that you're an advocate of the ID movement, which is much different. Is that right?

The best way to find out whether you fit that category is whether or not you think evolution is true.

I believe that the universe was designed, but I don't necessarily "support" the ID movement.

And yes, I believe that evolution is undeniably, irrevocably true. It is a reality that is extremely hard to deny, in my opinion.

The reason why I asked if you classed me as a Creationist is because some would argue that the notion of Intelligent Design is just another form of Creationism.

 

[DarkSun]

Speaking of Intelligent Design....

Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

:biglaugh:

Oh, and while I'm at it....

Church Of The One Winged Angel |

 

[Magic Man]

Well, I will vehemently disagree and leave things there, because neither of us have a way of definitively proving whether we're right.

As it is, we could both keep saying: "yah-huh" and: "nuh-uh" all day, and it would get us no where.

My view is that no belief is held just because the holder is stubborn and wants to be right. Creationists and everyone who would disagree with you or I are just using a very different line of reasoning to us.

OK, I just don't understand what your objection is. I thought it was pretty obvious that some people only believe things because they want them to be true.

I'm an believe that the universe was designed, but I don't necessarily "support" the ID movement.

That's what I figured.

And yes, I believe that evolution is undeniably, irrevocably true. It is a reality that is extremely hard to deny, in my opinion.

Then that's what separates you from those creationists I mentioned.

The reason why I asked if you classed me as a Creationist is because some would argue that the notion of Intelligent Design is just another form of Creationism.

Well, "Intelligent Design" capitalized is just another form of creationism, but you just said you don't support it. That's why I was making the distinction.

 

[darkendless]

Absolutely true, DarkSun . . . it is disturbing how many scientists abandon the neutral position and believe the default is their "No God" position. It is very frustrating. So refreshing to see someone else "get it."

Adding God to any equation just makes it philosophical, we broke away from this 400 years ago.