No such thing as "evolutionists"

[rlasater]

As Autodidact says the difference is one is supported by the evidence and the other is not. But another major difference is that evolution explains the process, how it happened, what mechanism caused the changes. Those who oppose evolution however have no such explanation.

You speak of the 7 (6) days of creation for example. Ok, so it was on the sixth day that “God” created the cattle and the creeping thing and the breast of the earth. Great, wonderful, fantastic. But the question is HOW? HOW did “God” create these things? Describe the process. Set aside for the moment the need to have evidence to back up this answer as to how “God” did it, and just give me a theory (that is theory in the common non-scientific sense of the word).

When people claim that an alternative theory is equal to evolution with out any evidence that is foolish. When they claim that an alternative theory is equal to evolution without an alternative theory that is absolutely irrational.

I honestly believe only God knows the exact process but what i do know is this: that a puzzle must be put together and that no matter what or however much time it could never do it it self. Now I know that a puzzle has no life in it but I see all the wonderful creatures that are on this earth and I think there could be no possible way for it to happen over time and certain events. And as complex as we and other creatures are I am led to the conclusion that only grand master puzzler could put us together.

 

[Tristesse]

I honestly believe only God knows the exact process but what i do know is this: that a puzzle must be put together and that no matter what or however much time it could never do it it self. Now I know that a puzzle has no life in it but I see all the wonderful creatures that are on this earth and I think there could be no possible way for it to happen over time and certain events. And as complex as we and other creatures are I am led to the conclusion that only grand master puzzler could put us together.

How do you know that it could never do it itself? And where did the "grand puzzler" come from?

 

[Autodidact]

I honestly believe only God knows the exact process but what i do know is this: that a puzzle must be put together and that no matter what or however much time it could never do it it self.

Like all religionists, you are assuming your conclusion before you start. I submit that you do not know any such thing.[/quote] Now I know that a puzzle has no life in it but I see all the wonderful creatures that are on this earth and I think there could be no possible way for it to happen over time and certain events. And as complex as we and other creatures are I am led to the conclusion that only grand master puzzler could put us together.[/quote] I submit that further study of science may (or may not) change your mind on this point.

But let's say you're right. Universe, life and all that is so complex, so elaborate, detailed, weird, complicated and all the other fascinating things it turns out to be, that it requires some explanation for how it all got here. For some reason the best explanation seems to you to be a being, or personality. (I suggest that you can't even surmise that. The most you can legitimtately conclude is that there's Something.) O.K., but your view is that stuff requires beings to make it. There's all this (complex, elaborate etc.) stuff, so there must be a being behind it somewhere, beyond our conception.

What can you legitimately, reasonably, conclude about that being?

 

[fantome profane]

I honestly believe only God knows the exact process but what i do know is this: that a puzzle must be put together and that no matter what or however much time it could never do it it self. Now I know that a puzzle has no life in it but I see all the wonderful creatures that are on this earth and I think there could be no possible way for it to happen over time and certain events. And as complex as we and other creatures are I am led to the conclusion that only grand master puzzler could put us together.

Ok fine. I have no issue with any of this. But if the evidence indicates that it happened through a process of evolution could you accept that “God” did it through a process of evolution? It seems that you really don’t have an alternative. Please keep in mind that I am just referring to the development and diversity of life. Would this be a reasonable conclusion? Could you accept this?

Of course this is dependent on the evidence. This question is only relevant if the evidence does in fact indicate that evolution happened. I believe the evidence does clearly indicate that evolution happened. But you are going to have to study the evidence and make this determination for yourself

Also keep in mind that the theory of evolution has nothing at all to do with whether “God” exist or not. Personally I am an atheist, but I am an atheist who has absolutely no interest in promoting or spreading atheism. I couldn’t care less whether people believe in “God” or not, and it makes no difference to the science.


btw have you noticed my signature? It is a book recommendation. If you really are interested in becoming more educated on the concepts of science (evolution specifically) please take a look.

 

[Autodidact]

I honestly believe only God knows the exact process but what i do know is this: that a puzzle must be put together and that no matter what or however much time it could never do it it self. Now I know that a puzzle has no life in it but I see all the wonderful creatures that are on this earth and I think there could be no possible way for it to happen over time and certain events. And as complex as we and other creatures are I am led to the conclusion that only grand master puzzler could put us together.

Oops, once again forgot what thread I was in. This is a question about whether God created the universe or not, in other words, theism vs. atheism. That is not under discussion in this thread. In fact, in this thread we can all agree to assume that God created everything. That is a question outside the scope of science, and a controversial one. This thread is only about how He did so, whether by magic poofing or via evolution.

Although if you want to talk about the other I'm happy to do so, in a different thread.

So, if you're trying to figure out something about the natural world, do you think the scientific method has proven itself to be a good way to do so?

Do you know what the scientific method is?

 

[Magic Man]

I honestly believe only God knows the exact process but what i do know is this: that a puzzle must be put together and that no matter what or however much time it could never do it it self. Now I know that a puzzle has no life in it but I see all the wonderful creatures that are on this earth and I think there could be no possible way for it to happen over time and certain events. And as complex as we and other creatures are I am led to the conclusion that only grand master puzzler could put us together.

I see. So, you like the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Just because you can't wrap your mind around it doesn't mean it didn't happen. All of the available evidence points to evolution with no design. My guess is that you haven't actually looked at said evidence, and you're just going on your feelings.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I honestly believe only God knows the exact process but what i do know is this: that a puzzle must be put together and that no matter what or however much time it could never do it it self. Now I know that a puzzle has no life in it but I see all the wonderful creatures that are on this earth and I think there could be no possible way for it to happen over time and certain events. And as complex as we and other creatures are I am led to the conclusion that only grand master puzzler could put us together.

As mball correctly points out, this is a logical fallacy called an "argument from ignorance". It's a fallacious argument because the basic notion you are proposing is that you cannot fathom something and therefore it isn't true.

There are many things I cannot fathom and probably are true. Take quantum mechanics. I slightly fathom it. But not to the point that I have an in-depth understanding and I am by no means an expert on the subject.

To fairly reject the Theory of Evolution, you would need to point out inconsistencies in it or point out where a prediction is made, but the outcome is not what was expected, for example.