Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Sapiens]

You are begging the question. Who has a better grasp on reality, you or Son of Sam? Why?

 

[Willamena]

Yes. I am familiar with the term with astrology, but I missed the reference.

Astrology itself is still meaningless.

Now, if you want to make up stuff about the Magi, fine, as long as you understand that you are just making sh!t up.

But a star still could not lead them anywhere.

I'm not making **** up. People really do see signs.

 

[Jose Fly]

What other people believe or disbelieve is entirely up to them. No one can tell us what to believe. That comes from our own heart, so what we end up accepting is what determines our worthiness for what God is offering. If you think its nonsense, then so be it.

I believe that the God of the Bible is the only true God....if you don't believe that, then that is your prerogative. It is not my job to convert you....only to enlighten you. Accept the message or reject it.....God's purpose will go ahead with us or without us.

All that and you didn't even come anywhere near answering the question.

Seems to be a habit of yours.

 

[Deeje]

You are begging the question. Who has a better grasp on reality, you or Son of Sam? Why?

And you are dodging my question. What has the son of Sam got to do with anything? Back to the topic....

I asked you..."If something is "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" does that mean it "can't" exist?"

It was a reasonable question, can you not answer me?

 

[Jose Fly]

The cichlids were still fish....a new variety within the species perhaps, but not morphing into something else.

The mouse on the Faeroe Islands was still a mouse.

The flies adapted and became a new species of hawthorn fly.....still Hawthorn flies though. No?

Did everyone catch that? Deeje actually thinks "fish", "mouse", and "fly" are species designations.

Wow. Her understanding of biology is at the elementary school level.

All the rest are the same. You have examples of adaptation, not evolution.

Well isn't this nice.....Deeje repeating the same talking point, even after it's been exposed as a dishonest word game.

Remember Deeje when I asked you what the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation" was and you cited the Encyclopedia Britannica? Do you remember how they described them as effectively the same, even saying that populations adapt by evolving? Remember how you never responded to that?

And now here you are acting like none of that ever happened.

Why do you persist in claiming that it is evolution?

The more obvious question is, why do you persist in such dishonest tactics? Do you think you're doing yourself and your faith any favors being so habitually dishonest?

Do you think these lurkers see you act like this and come away with a positive impression of Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

[Deeje]

All that and you didn't even come anywhere near answering the question.

Seems to be a habit of yours.

I most certainly did answer the question.

You asked....

Wait.....are you really unaware that people believe in other creators besides the one you believe in? Are you really under the impression that if someone doesn't believe in the Jehovah's Witness God, then that person must be an atheist?

To which I responded....

What other people believe or disbelieve is entirely up to them. No one can tell us what to believe. That comes from our own heart, so what we end up accepting is what determines our worthiness for what God is offering. If you think its nonsense, then so be it.

I believe that the God of the Bible is the only true God....if you don't believe that, then that is your prerogative. It is not my job to convert you....only to enlighten you. Accept the message or reject it.....God's purpose will go ahead with us or without us.

I can see where scientific types get their power of suggestion from and why they cannot see past the end of their noses.

Tell us what you believe Jose Fly.......so that we might scrutinize your beliefs. Who are your "gods"? By all means, lets hear about these "other creators".

 

[Darkstorn]

I most certainly did answer the question.

I disagree. For one, you never mentioned anything about atheism, yet his question DIRECTLY was about it.

My conclusion, which i think is based on enough logic, is that you definitely didn't answer what he was asking for. You GAVE an answer. But it had nothing to do with what he was asking. It was a VERY simple yes or no question.

Tell us what you believe Jose Fly.......so that we might scrutinize your beliefs. Who are your "gods"? By all means, lets hear about these "other creators".

Tell you what. I'm Buddhist, but i agree with Jose's assessment. In particular when it comes to you. So, scrutinize my beliefs. I am not an atheist but i do accept evolution as fact.

Just like i accept gravity as fact.

And i accept that there are theories supporting facts. But i'm definitely NOT stupid enough to think that fact supercedes theory.

 

[Jose Fly]

I most certainly did answer the question.

Only in the same sense that "peanut butter and jelly" is technically an answer to the question "is it raining outside".

To recap....you seemed to suggest that people who don't believe in the same God as you must be atheists. I asked if you really think that way, and your answer didn't do anything to clarify. You basically said people can believe whatever they want, which everyone here already knows.

So again, do you think that people who don't believe in the same God as you are atheists?

Tell us what you believe Jose Fly.......so that we might scrutinize your beliefs. Who are your "gods"? By all means, lets hear about these "other creators".

First, I'll just keep my beliefs to myself. I'm here to stand up for science against the dishonest attacks that come from people like you. Whatever religious beliefs I have are irrelevant to that.

Second, are you really not aware of "other creators" besides the one you believe in?

 

[Sapiens]

And you are dodging my question. What has the son of Sam got to do with anything? Back to the topic....

I asked you..."If something is "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" does that mean it "can't" exist?"

It was a reasonable question, can you not answer me?

Can't exist? We've dealt with your insistance that a negative be proved to take an additional request seriously.

What has the son of Sam got to do with anything? Simple, Son of Sam exhibited much of the same symptomology that you display. There is universal agreement that he was nuts because he communicated with a god. You make the same claim ...

 

[Thumper]

I disagree. For one, you never mentioned anything about atheism, yet his question DIRECTLY was about it.

My conclusion, which i think is based on enough logic, is that you definitely didn't answer what he was asking for. You GAVE an answer. But it had nothing to do with what he was asking. It was a VERY simple yes or no question.



Tell you what. I'm Buddhist, but i agree with Jose's assessment. In particular when it comes to you. So, scrutinize my beliefs. I am not an atheist but i do accept evolution as fact.

Just like i accept gravity as fact.

And i accept that there are theories supporting facts. But i'm definitely NOT stupid enough to think that fact supercedes theory.

Actually unless you believe Buddha is a god, technically you are an atheist in that you have no belief in a god.

Dalai Lama XIV — 'We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected.'

 

[Thumper]

I'm not making **** up. People really do see signs.

If you want to believe that, you certainly can. But if you don't want people laughing at your beliefs, you shouldn't have funny beliefs.

And you are still making stuff up about the story of the Magi as it is told in Matthew.

 

[Deeje]

Did everyone catch that? Deeje actually thinks "fish", "mouse", and "fly" are species designations.

Wow. Her understanding of biology is at the elementary school level.

Well, this is familiar......when you have no reply be sure to reduce your opponent to a lower educational level in order to elevate yourself. Bit sad really.

Well isn't this nice.....Deeje repeating the same talking point, even after it's been exposed as a dishonest word game.

Whoa...here's the 'dishonesty' card getting played again.

That's getting a bit old as well.

If you need to use these tactics, we know you are out of ammo. Give it up......your just digging a bigger hole for yourself. I am getting embarrassed for you.

Remember Deeje when I asked you what the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation" was and you cited the Encyclopedia Britannica? Do you remember how they described them as effectively the same, even saying that populations adapt by evolving? Remember how you never responded to that?

And now here you are acting like none of that ever happened.

Must have been memorable....because no, I don't remember it but since you insist, here it is.....

Second, and more commonly, the word adaptation refers either to the process of becoming adapted or to the features of organisms that promote reproductive success relative to other possible features. Here the process of adaptation is driven by genetic variations among individuals that become adapted to—that is, have greater success in—a specific environmental context. A classic example is shown by the melanistic (dark) phenotype of the peppered moth (Biston betularia), which increased in numbers in Britain following the Industrial Revolution as dark-coloured moths appeared cryptic against soot-darkened trees and escaped predation by birds. The process of adaptation occurs through an eventual change in the gene frequency relative to advantages conferred by a particular characteristic, as with the coloration of wings in the moths.

The third and more popular view of adaptation is in regard to the form of a feature that has evolved by natural selection for a specific function. Examples include the long necks of giraffes for feeding in the tops of trees, the streamlined bodies of aquatic fish and mammals, the light bones of flying birds and mammals, and the long daggerlike canine teeth of carnivores.
So "adaptation" is a process where populations undergo changes in allele frequencies, due to natural selection acting on heritable traits that arise via mutation. Well guess what? That's evolution!

Thus, your argument "that's adaptation, not evolution" makes absolutely no sense.

OK, so where in this reply you posted to me pages ago, is there supposed to be something that proves your point? It first cites the Peppered Moth, which remained a Peppered Moth throughout the whole process as far as I can see. It was a small cosmetic change.....programmed adaptation.

The other examples of 'the giraffe's long neck designed to reach the tops of trees....or the streamlines bodies of aquatic fish and mammals....or the light bones of flying creatures....or the teeth of carnivores'. These are all clear examples of design IMV. I see no evidence for macro-evolution in any of those. To suggest that "populations undergo changes in allele frequencies, due to natural selection acting on heritable traits that arise via mutation." is assumed by scientists seeking to back up their theory.
They have no proof that it ever took place.

Well guess what? That's evolution!"...

Well guess what?.....All of that is speculation that has no solid evidence to back it up. The changes in allele frequencies have another explanation.....they were designed.....beautifully and skillfully designed.

 

[Deeje]

Can't exist? We've dealt with your insistance that a negative be proved to take an additional request seriously.

Another dodge. Why can't you just answer the question? Was it too difficult?

What has the son of Sam got to do with anything? Simple, Son of Sam exhibited much of the same symptomology that you display. There is universal agreement that he was nuts because he communicated with a god. You make the same claim ...

And here is another example of shooting the messenger. You guys seem to have to put your opponent down in order to elevate yourself. Is it a common tactic when you've run out of argument?

I communicate with my God every day. Can you prove he doesn't exist?

Those scientists who claim to be theists and who pray to their god(s) but believe in evolution....are they nuts too?

 

[Darkstorn]

Actually unless you believe Buddha is a god, technically you are an atheist in that you have no belief in a god.

It's not this simple. Many Buddhist texts actually talk about other deities. There is no "official" stance regarding deities, except that IF there are such things, they are probably a distraction from a Buddhist standpoint. This being said, technically, you can both be a Buddhist and pray to Shiva.

The thing is; Buddhism is essentially ignostic (or even agnostic.) It's very different from atheism.

Buddha himself was a man. Exalted, maybe, glorious, perhaps, but man.

Dalai Lama XIV — 'We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they don't stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected.'

Exactly. And we all know science doesn't actually say there ISN'T a god... So neither can Buddhism say that.

Another dodge. Why can't you just answer the question? Was it too difficult?

Let's see how you dodge the post i gave you in your thread. You've done it before, so much that i feel whenever you accuse others of dodging, you are only showing your hypocrisy and dishonesty towards other people.

You JUST dodged Jose's question in this very same thread earlier... ""

Those scientists who claim to be theists and who pray to their god(s) but believe in evolution....are they nuts too?

I'm going to say, no, they're not nuts. But you're not like those people. You don't believe in evolution. So...?

 

[Thumper]

It's not this simple. Many Buddhist texts actually talk about other deities. There is no "official" stance regarding deities, except that IF there are such things, they are probably a distraction from a Buddhist standpoint. This being said, technically, you can both be a Buddhist and pray to Shiva.

Good point.

The thing is; Buddhism is essentially ignostic (or even agnostic.) It's very different from atheism.

That is not different from atheism. Atheism is nothing more than a category for everybody who is not specifically a theist. This is one of the many reasons people say organizing atheists is like hearding cats. The only thing that can be said that generally applies to all atheists is that they hold no specific belief in deity.

I am an ignostic atheist.

 

[Darkstorn]

That is not different from atheism. Atheism is nothing more than a category for everybody who is not specifically a theist. This is one of the many reasons people say organizing atheists is like hearding cats. The only thing that can be said that generally applies to all atheists is that they hold no specific belief in deity.

I am an ignostic atheist.

Guess i'm one of those who thought atheism only refers to those who specifically reject theism. I think it's even more confusing when a lot of theists are also equally misinformed as myself about it... :/

Basically, i have no position regarding any kind of deities in any way or form. I don't ask myself the question. So i guess that also makes me an ignostic atheist. Shame i get clumped together with those who actually hold the belief that there definitely aren't any gods.

Oh well, it's just labels.

I don't think we can definitely know anything to one hundred percent certainty anyway.

 

[Willamena]

If you want to believe that, you certainly can. But if you don't want people laughing at your beliefs, you shouldn't have funny beliefs.

And you are still making stuff up about the story of the Magi as it is told in Matthew.

I'll take that as a sign that you're stubborn.

 

[Darkstorn]

I'll take that as a sign that you're stubborn.

Just to be fair, considering the subject matter, i don't think that's an entirely fair assessment. As it also makes you look stubborn, seeing as his argument was more convincing than yours.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But a star still could not lead them anywhere.

The magi in Jesus' story, but indeed stars have been used as guides for a very long time. From ships at sea to run away slaves, a star (or stars) did indeed lead people somewhere. In the story of Jesus' birth, I see nothing really extraordinary about the claim of the star leading the magi. Of course it wouldn't lead them to any one specific location, but stars have been used for navigation and it seems a normal story element, even one almost that is to be expected to have a star guiding someone in this case. Sort of like how when you remove the references to Jehovah and Satan from the Gospels, what we are left with is a character who appears more-or-less like any other shaman, and is killed for getting too loud about peace and love and unity, something we know people tend to get killed over. Nothing more than a normal story with a supernatural twist.

If something is "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" does that mean it "can't" exist?

No, but it would require extraordinary evidence to confirm its existence, which would then thus make it a part of the laws of nature and scientific understanding.

 

[Thumper]

Guess i'm one of those who thought atheism only refers to those who specifically reject theism. I think it's even more confusing when a lot of theists are also equally misinformed as myself about it... :/

Basically, i have no position regarding any kind of deities in any way or form. I don't ask myself the question. So i guess that also makes me an ignostic atheist. Shame i get clumped together with those who actually hold the belief that there definitely aren't any gods.

Oh well, it's just labels.

I don't think we can definitely know anything to one hundred percent certainty anyway.

That makes you more agnostic, but none of these labels are as black and white as people want to believe.

Ignostics take the position that the term "god" itself is so ill defined as to be meaningless, therefore consideration of existence is absurd ... At least until a clear definition is available.

The agnostic position usually takes 1of 2 forms - either the firm position that we can never have knowledge of deity OR general ambivalence to the question itself. Again, lots of grey area.

And in spite of all the insistence, I have never met an atheist who firmly holds that there is no possibility of deity ... Just that the probability is so remote as to be beyond serious consideration.