Why would God create Evolution?

[Bunyip]

Just who the HELL are you talking about? I am talking about William Lane Craig, the world's LEADING Christian Apologist.

Yes. And he debates about the existence of god, not about evolution or creationism.

You must be confusing him for somebody else, WLC accepts the great age of the earth and evolution. WLC is not a creationist.

WLC does not participate in the creation/evolution debate.

 

[Thief]

Have we ever seen a dog produce a non-dog?

More important....
Can the non-living beget the living?

If evolution is not allowed.....
Then God created all that you see....as is.

I don't believe that.
God created chemistry.
The chemistry has rules.....God created the rules.

So....
First the simple things.....
THEN the more complex.

God created evolution.
AND God can tweak His creation whenever He wants to.

 

[metis]

Have we ever seen a dog produce a non-dog?

Again, just further evidence that you know so little about the ToE.

This is "nonsense of the gaps". Kinda like "god of the gaps"....."I don't understand what was said, therefore it is nonsense".

Did you ever stop and think that maybe you are saying something wrong? I taught anthropology for 30 years, spending 1/3 of the time in my introductory class on human evolution, so you think I really don't understand the ToE?

BTW, I took confidential surveys of my students at the beginning of that course and also at the end of it, and I asked them if they believed in the ToE. At the beginning, it was roughly 1/3 yes, 1/3 no, and 1/3 uncertain. At the end of the course, only one student in 30 years said they didn't agree with it. Now, either I'm the world's greatest snake-oil salesman, or the evidence speaks for itself.

I have two reasons for this...the first is; I think most cosmologists (non-theists) don't believe in God is because deep down inside they feel if God were to exist, it would take the "fun" out of science.

Except, according to cosmologist Leonard Susskind, most were brought up to believe in God, so according to him, you're wrong. BTW, a theistic causation would in no way logically take the "fun" out of science as many theistic scientists could attest to.

The second reason is for the same reason every other unbeliever doesn't believe...because people don't like the idea of someone telling the what to do...the thought of being accountable for your actions to a higher power is troubling to some people.

To some, yes, but that still doesn't explain the numbers.

Also, me personally, it is my honest to God opinion that every single intelligent human being knows deep down inside that God exist. Everyone knows it. Everyone can feel it. What they do is they go against their intuition. They fight it. They deny it. They pretend there isn't any evidence and have a continual life of justifying why they don't believe. But they know deep down inside that God exists. Everyone does.

Surveys clearly indicate the opposite, so your opinion is unfounded.

That is the problem. If there isn't a timeless cause, then the default position is that nature is all that exist, and it existed eternally in time with the stretching infinitely out. There is no way out of it. That is the implication, the default position if you negate the existence of God. No way out...and the position is quite logically absurd, and if that is the price of atheism, by all means, have at it.

Except that most cosmologists think that it's logically possible.

That is what evolution is, trial, and error.

Again false, especially to any who are "theistic evolutionists". There are many in each faith, including Christianity, who feel that God made all and then allowed things to evolve.

Lol Dawkins? What a joke. Tell him to stop hiding under the table and debate the likes of WLC.

I knew this would be the response from you as it's at least somewhat clear that you're quite prejudicial, and people who are like that tend to be prejudicial and jump to unwarranted conclusions in more than just one area. You stereotype the ToE and now a person, and yet you do so in the name of your religious belief.

One may disagree with Dawkins on a variety of matters, including at least one point that I question him on, but the man is a genius in his field and recognized as such by geneticists throughout the world.

So, instead of taking my advice to read his book, or maybe even just writing back something like "I really don't want to read anything by him", you instead choose instead to demean him. Do you honestly believe Jesus would approve of that disingenuous tactic of yours, namely laughing at another person just because you disagree with him/her? The reality by using such tactics, you end up demeaning yourself and your religious beliefs

BTW, you did not answer my follow-up post about literalism and what Thomas Aquinas stated, so why don't you give that a shot. Are you going to demean him as well since he probably is of a different Christian denomination?

 

[Parsimony]

Also, me personally, it is my honest to God opinion that every single intelligent human being knows deep down inside that God exist. Everyone knows it. Everyone can feel it. What they do is they go against their intuition. They fight it. They deny it. They pretend there isn't any evidence and have a continual life of justifying why they don't believe. But they know deep down inside that God exists. Everyone does.

Even as a theist, I get so tired of hearing people say this. I wish I did know for certain that God exists. If I knew for certain that God exists, then I wouldn't be in the spiritual crisis I'm in right now. I wouldn't have to search for rational reasons to believe. I would just "know". But I don't just "know". To say that everyone does would require you to be some kind of psychic empath who knows what everyone's thoughts and feelings are like. Where there is absolute knowledge, there can be no doubt. Where there is doubt, there is not absolute knowledge. I have doubts, so I must not have absolute knowledge.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

More important....
Can the non-living beget the living?

If evolution is not allowed.....
Then God created all that you see....as is.

I don't believe that.
God created chemistry.
The chemistry has rules.....God created the rules.

So....
First the simple things.....
THEN the more complex.

God created evolution.
AND God can tweak His creation whenever He wants to.

I like what your signature says. Can I use it? If you came up with it, I'll quote you.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Even as a theist, I get so tired of hearing people say this. I wish I did know for certain that God exists. If I knew for certain that God exists, then I wouldn't be in the spiritual crisis I'm in right now. I wouldn't have to search for rational reasons to believe. I would just "know". But I don't just "know". To say that everyone does would require you to be some kind of psychic empath who knows what everyone's thoughts and feelings are like. Where there is absolute knowledge, there can be no doubt. Where there is doubt, there is not absolute knowledge. I have doubts, so I must not have absolute knowledge.

Well, you said you are a theist so obviously you have some inkling that God exists...and I think we all have doubts at some point in our lives. I do believe that theism is more rational than naturalism, and I would love to talk to you on a one-on-one basis...this is not for any spiritual counseling or anything...as I am in no position for that...but even though I stumble and sometimes fall from time to time, my spiritual foundation is with that of Christian theism and if I can, I would like to bring people to Christ, and if they are already with Christ, we can always go over some of the tough questions regarding our faith.

What do you think?

 

[Parsimony]

Well, you said you are a theist so obviously you have some inkling that God exists...and I think we all have doubts at some point in our lives. I do believe that theism is more rational than naturalism, and I would love to talk to you on a one-on-one basis...this is not for any spiritual counseling or anything...as I am in no position for that...but even though I stumble and sometimes fall from time to time, my spiritual foundation is with that of Christian theism and if I can, I would like to bring people to Christ, and if they are already with Christ, we can always go over some of the tough questions regarding our faith.

What do you think?

My reasons for believing in God are based on things that I have learned and experienced, not something that I was instinctively born with. That's the point that I was making. I thank you for your offer, but based on what I've read of your posts, I think that any one-on-one talk between us about this would probably devolve into a debate since I know that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of matters.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Again, just further evidence that you know so little about the ToE.

The only way you can explain the absolute origin of a dog, is for it to come from a non-dog. I understand you guys like to mix the simplistic theory in with a lot of bio-babble, but once you take away the bio-babble and the fluff and feathers, that is what you have.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe you are saying something wrong? I taught anthropology for 30 years, spending 1/3 of the time in my introductory class on human evolution, so you think I really don't understand the ToE?

I neither said nor implied you don't understand ToE.

BTW, I took confidential surveys of my students at the beginning of that course and also at the end of it, and I asked them if they believed in the ToE. At the beginning, it was roughly 1/3 yes, 1/3 no, and 1/3 uncertain. At the end of the course, only one student in 30 years said they didn't agree with it. Now, either I'm the world's greatest snake-oil salesman, or the evidence speaks for itself.

Fallacy based on appealing to popularity.

Except, according to cosmologist Leonard Susskind, most were brought up to believe in God, so according to him, you're wrong. BTW, a theistic causation would in no way logically take the "fun" out of science as many theistic scientists could attest to.

My arguments are against those that hold the position of naturalism, not those that hold to theistic evolution.

To some, yes, but that still doesn't explain the numbers.



Surveys clearly indicate the opposite, so your opinion is unfounded.

Fallacy based on appealing to popularity.

Except that most cosmologists think that it's logically possible.

Then ask any one of those cosmologists how can infinity be traversed.

Again false, especially to any who are "theistic evolutionists". There are many in each faith, including Christianity, who feel that God made all and then allowed things to evolve.

I've made it clear one more than one occasion that my beef is not with theistic evolutionists.

I knew this would be the response from you as it's at least somewhat clear that you're quite prejudicial, and people who are like that tend to be prejudicial and jump to unwarranted conclusions in more than just one area. You stereotype the ToE and now a person, and yet you do so in the name of your religious belief.

One may disagree with Dawkins on a variety of matters, including at least one point that I question him on, but the man is a genius in his field and recognized as such by geneticists throughout the world.

So, instead of taking my advice to read his book, or maybe even just writing back something like "I really don't want to read anything by him", you instead choose instead to demean him. Do you honestly believe Jesus would approve of that disingenuous tactic of yours, namely laughing at another person just because you disagree with him/her? The reality by using such tactics, you end up demeaning yourself and your religious beliefs

BTW, you did not answer my follow-up post about literalism and what Thomas Aquinas stated, so why don't you give that a shot. Are you going to demean him as well since he probably is of a different Christian denomination?

Dawkins is probably the most prominent atheist/evolutionists out there...and WLC is undoubtedly the most prominent Christian apologists out there. WLC challenged Dawkins to a debate, and Dawkins hasn't accepted the challenge as of yet...yet he is constantly debating other folks..so why not WLC? Makes no sense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

My reasons for believing in God are based on things that I have learned and experienced, not something that I was instinctively born with. That's the point that I was making. I thank you for your offer, but based on what I've read of your posts, I think that any one-on-one talk between us about this would probably devolve into a debate since I know that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of matters.

This is nonsense, since we have back and forth exchanges on here...but whatever.

 

[Parsimony]

This is nonsense, since we have back and forth exchanges on here...but whatever.

It's mostly based on my assumption (be it valid or invalid) that you would try to use the cosmological argument, argument from design, maximally great being argument, etc. to try to further convince me of God's existence when I find none of those arguments particularly compelling. That's why I think it would turn into a debate. If I'm wrong in that assumption, I would be happy to be corrected.

...and I'm derailing the thread. I'll try not say anything further on this matter if I can.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's mostly based on my assumption (be it valid or invalid) that you would try to use the cosmological argument, argument from design, maximally great being argument, etc. to try to further convince me of God's existence when I find none of those arguments particularly compelling. That's why I think it would turn into a debate. If I'm wrong in that assumption, I would be happy to be corrected.

Well, that would depend on what your position is. If you are a Christian, then we would discuss Christian doctrine that we disagree on. If you are a non-Christian theist...then we can discuss the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus...if you are a naturalist..then we will discuss the reasons why you believe naturalism is true and why I believe theism is true.

So, it depends. And yes, those arguments you've mentioned are classic theistic arguments that, in my humble opinion, are valid and sound. Nothing new under the sun.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The only way you can explain the absolute origin of a dog, is for it to come from a non-dog. I understand you guys like to mix the simplistic theory in with a lot of bio-babble, but once you take away the bio-babble and the fluff and feathers, that is what you have.

Read post #199.

 

[Bunyip]

The only way you can explain the absolute origin of a dog, is for it to come from a non-dog. I understand you guys like to mix the simplistic theory in with a lot of bio-babble, but once you take away the bio-babble and the fluff and feathers, that is what you have.



I neither said nor implied you don't understand ToE.



Fallacy based on appealing to popularity.



My arguments are against those that hold the position of naturalism, not those that hold to theistic evolution.



Fallacy based on appealing to popularity.



Then ask any one of those cosmologists how can infinity be traversed.



I've made it clear one more than one occasion that my beef is not with theistic evolutionists.



Dawkins is probably the most prominent atheist/evolutionists out there...and WLC is undoubtedly the most prominent Christian apologists out there. WLC challenged Dawkins to a debate, and Dawkins hasn't accepted the challenge as of yet...yet he is constantly debating other folks..so why not WLC? Makes no sense.

Well because Dawkins has no real interest in WLC style philosophical argument, he is a scientist.

Furthermore WLC accepts evolution. WLC is an evolutionist, why would you want an evolutionist to debate another evolutionist?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well because Dawkins has no real interest in WLC style philosophical argument, he is a scientist.

Dude, just stop it.

Victor Stenger...Lawrence Krauss...Sean Carrol...Francisco Ayala...all four of these men debated WLC...and all four are scientists. So whatever point you were trying to make, don't.

Furthermore WLC accepts evolution. WLC is an evolutionist, why would you want an evolutionist to debate another evolutionist?

[youtube]d9h-hmlMz5c[/youtube]
William Lane Craig describes EVOLUTION from a christian standpoint - YouTube

No he doesn't. Just stop with the inaccurate statements, will ya?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We could just as easily give the two varients of dogs their own species name, such as canis x and canis y.

Giving them their own name doesn't make the animal something that it isn't.

Elephants came from basal proboscidea. Elephants are still a variation of probscidea, just like mammoths were as well as deinotherium and many more.

DeEbolushunObDeEddapant

It is clear that except from the very small animal in the lower left corner, every single one of the animals listed above are the same "kind" of animal. They are all different varieties of the same kind of animal. It is as clear as day. You can categorize each animal under a different "species" or whatever you want, but it is the same kind of animal. This is microevolution. According to Darwinism, we all share a common ancestor, every single animal. This means that if you start from the very beginning, the elephant "kind's" great great great great grandfather looked totally different than any animal above. You can believe that all you want, but that isn't science, it is speculation/religion/faith.

 

[Bunyip]

Dude, just stop it.

Victor Stenger...Lawrence Krauss...Sean Carrol...Francisco Ayala...all four of these men debated WLC...and all four are scientists. So whatever point you were trying to make, don't.



[youtube]d9h-hmlMz5c[/youtube]
William Lane Craig describes EVOLUTION from a christian standpoint - YouTube

No he doesn't. Just stop with the inaccurate statements, will ya?

I have made no inaccurate statements. WLC is an evolutionist, he is not a YEC.

This thread is about evolution, and WLC does not deny evolution. He argues about the existence of god, not creationism.

Your quote and pic of elephants was from Kent Hovind by the way, not WLC.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Giving them their own name doesn't make the animal something that it isn't.

Again, no one is saying an animal stops being something it descended from as it evolves. I don't know why you're so stuck on that.

Humans never stopped being apes. Elephants never stopped being proboscidea. Fruit flies never stopped being insects.

"Kinds" evolve, and emerge variations within kinds. Those variations emerge even more variations within the variations. And the process keeps repeating.

Nothing stops being something as it evolves. It only starts being something.

That's why every primate is a mammal. There's no reptilian primate. That's why birds and mammals together are vertebrate. There's no arthopod version of a bird.

The first vertebrates arrived. It gave rise to multiple variations within the kind called vertebrate.

DeEbolushunObDeEddapant

It is clear that except from the very small animal in the lower left corner, every single one of the animals listed above are the same "kind" of animal.

It is clear that humans, primates, whales, dogs, cats, bats are all the same kind called mammals.

If any group stopped being mammals, it wouldn't be evolution. Evolution means a process of development. Animals develop on top of existing features.

This is microevolution.

Okay sure. Mammals evolving into primates is microevolution. Primates evolving into simians is microevoultion. Simians evolving into apes is microevolution. Apes evolving into humans is microevolution. Why? Because humans are still apse, simians, primates, mammals and vertebrates.

But it still happened no matter what you want to call it.

This means that if you start from the very beginning, the elephant "kind's" great great great great grandfather looked totally different than any animal above.

Looks aren't everything.

Despite looks, a dolphin has far more in common with a cow than a fish. If you judge similarities of things soley on looks, I feel bad for you.

 

[metis]

The only way you can explain the absolute origin of a dog, is for it to come from a non-dog. I understand you guys like to mix the simplistic theory in with a lot of bio-babble, but once you take away the bio-babble and the fluff and feathers, that is what you have.

So wrong. Yes, dogs come from dogs, but that's ignoring the fact that dogs came from organisms much further back that were different. It's pretty much common sense that all things change over time, so even simple logic implies you cannot be correct.

Fallacy based on appealing to popularity...

Fallacy based on appealing to popularity.

Writing it twice doesn't mean your position is more correct. The reality is that, even though scientific truths are not contingent on "popularity", the fact that something like the ToE is pretty much universally accepted amongst the vast majority of scientists suggests that maybe they know something you don't.

Then ask any one of those cosmologists how can infinity be traversed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "traversed" in this context.

Dawkins is probably the most prominent atheist/evolutionists out there...and WLC is undoubtedly the most prominent Christian apologists out there. WLC challenged Dawkins to a debate, and Dawkins hasn't accepted the challenge as of yet...yet he is constantly debating other folks..so why not WLC? Makes no sense.

I have no clue why he chooses not to debate WLC, so I can't answer that question. I doubt it's because that Dawkins is worried about being overwhelmed, however, since he is pretty much tops in his field. Maybe it's because he feels nothing good could come out of such a debate? There's a few people here at RF that I choose not to engage with because of this.

I've made it clear one more than one occasion that my beef is not with theistic evolutionists...

My arguments are against those that hold the position of naturalism, not those that hold to theistic evolution.

I put these two quote of yours together because they seem inconsistent with most of your other posts. How can you not have a "beef" with theistic evolutionists if you don't accept the ToE?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So wrong. Yes, dogs come from dogs, but that's ignoring the fact that dogs came from organisms much further back that were different.

Dude, are you crazy? I specifically said "In order for you to explain the absolute origins of a dog, is for it to come from a non-dog".

You responded to that by saying "So wrong", and in the same sentence said "Yes, dogs come from dogs, but that's ignoring the fact that dogs came from organisms much further back that were different".

Well, if they came from "organisms much further back that were different" (which is a bio-babble way of saying they came from non-dogs), then all dogs OBVIOUSLY came from a non-dog. So you said I was "so wrong" and then ultimately conceded the very point that I made. With all due respect, I don't know whether you are that naive or you are just deliberately being ignorant...either way, I refuse to entertain that kind of nonsense.

It's pretty much common sense that all things change over time, so even simple logic implies you cannot be correct.

Yeah, I agree that things change over time..but there are limits to the changes. Which is why over time, you have many different varieties of dogs, but they are all the same kind of animal.....a DOG. In order to believe in macroevolution, you have to ADDITIONALLY believe something that goes against everything that you've ever seen occur. If that is what you believe, fine..but that isn't science.

Writing it twice doesn't mean your position is more correct.

I was writing it as it applied

The reality is that, even though scientific truths are not contingent on "popularity", the fact that something like the ToE is pretty much universally accepted amongst the vast majority of scientists suggests that maybe they know something you don't.

There was a time when the majority of the people on earth thought that the universe was eternal and static...but they were all proven wrong. Not only that, but the fact of the matter is anyone that believes in evolution is relying on faith..the unseen.

I'm not sure what you mean by "traversed" in this context.

In other words, infinity cannot be crossed. You cannot possess or cross an infinite set of anything.

I have no clue why he chooses not to debate WLC, so I can't answer that question. I doubt it's because that Dawkins is worried about being overwhelmed, however, since he is pretty much tops in his field. Maybe it's because he feels nothing good could come out of such a debate? There's a few people here at RF that I choose not to engage with because of this.

Nothing good can come out of debating the very best of the opposing positon? Wow. So what was John Lennox, chop liver?

I put these two quote of yours together because they seem inconsistent with most of your other posts. How can you not have a "beef" with theistic evolutionists if you don't accept the ToE?

Well, with Christian theism in particular, I don't see any kind of reconciliation that one can make between the Genesis account and evolution. But that is just me...but we can disagree with that and agree on everything else, which I can accept. We should not be expected to agree with every single thing regarding Christian doctrine (even though it is prefered), so that is just something we will have to live with.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

@Call_of_the_Wild

So you're just gonna totally dodge my post?