Home » Forums » Religion and Irrationalities » Kill 'em with Kindness

Our Creationism Is Only Ever As Good As Your Evolutionism!

Posted on: February 25, 2007 - 3:03pm
newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Our Creationism Is Only Ever As Good As Your Evolutionism!

Creationists should really be applauding evolutionists. The strength of our position depends upon the thoroughness with which you attempt to show proof of yours. A sloppy evolutionist means a weak creationist.

Take code-breaking for example, a code-breaker can only be sure that any information he gleans from an intercepted message is real and not imagined, if randomness can be ruled out as an explanation of the product of any decryption. In other words, if the result of his efforts were actually allowed by probability, then he would have a very weak case. If the product of decryption were the defence in a court of law, and the calculation of probability were the prosecution. Then the strength of the defence is the thoroughness of the prosecution.

Similarly it is with creation and evolution except of course that it is nature and randomness acting together that has to be ruled out as opposed to just randomness on its own. Only if evolution is sufficiently ruled out will creation have any case at all (I am using creation in a general sense here and do not mean to imply genesis). The more rigorously evolutionists try to show that the forms of life we see around us (including ourselves) can be attributed to their model, the more creationism can be certain of its validity (I say this as one of them of course, evolutionists would disagree).

So the two models of the origin of species are actually partners so to speak. At least this is true (or should be true) from a creationist perspective. Evolutionism depends upon the skepticism of belief in the supernatural, ironically it would seem, so does creationism.

‹ Atheist Questions - and Answers Credibility ›

Posted on: March 1, 2007 - 6:22am #101
newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
No!!!! just checked. Still

No!!!! just checked. Still no response after over two and a half days!!

My original post on this thread you will notice does mention evolutionism but it is not directly about the science of the subject.


Posted on: March 1, 2007 - 8:00am #102
deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is not obviously

Evolution is not obviously streches of nothing followed by bursts of punctuated equilibrium. there are many linear periods. Punctuated Equilibrium models are used to explain seemingly quantum leaps, the last two of which occured at the end of the mesoproterozoic: That would be

a) Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes

b) Eukaryotes to multicelled organisms

These two can be explained in terms of an evolutionary function called endosymbioses, wherby small organisms can be incorporated into the Eukaryota, giving it new functions. I'll post some more information on Eukaryotic endosymbiosis when I finish writing

PS Trolling is when a user posts inflammatory, untruthful and often rude remarks just to get a response and then leaves the thread

PPS Yes, I can edit my posts after I write them, so long as I remained signed in since when I submitted the original 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Posted on: March 1, 2007 - 5:38pm #103
kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist wrote: I

newmodeltheist wrote:
I don’t think God could create evolution any more than you could design a roulette wheel that gives you the same number each time you spin whilst still maintaining a random probability for each number. These are mutually exclusive concepts. Anyway, why would he create a middleman when he could just do it himself?

What is your hangup with randomness? There may in fact be no randomness at all in this world. And if it's true, that does not invalidate evolution because evolution is not about randomness.

And also if this is true, god could have created evolution.

I find your question about why would god create a middleman fucking hilarious! Why would a god create anything at all since he would presumably already know all possible outcomes of anythign he created?

The only LOGICAL conlusion is that if we exist then there is no god. Or if there is a god then we do not exist. Since we do exist, I opt for the former.


Posted on: March 1, 2007 - 9:09pm #104
Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Yup. Here I am again to

Yup. Here I am again to remind everyone:

Please remember that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

 

No cursing. No insults. No name-calling.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Posted on: March 2, 2007 - 4:27am #105
newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote: What is your

kmisho wrote:

What is your hangup with randomness? There may in fact be no randomness at all in this world. And if it's true, that does not invalidate evolution because evolution is not about randomness.

And also if this is true, god could have created evolution.

I find your question about why would god create a middleman fucking hilarious! Why would a god create anything at all since he would presumably already know all possible outcomes of anythign he created?

The only LOGICAL conlusion is that if we exist then there is no god. Or if there is a god then we do not exist. Since we do exist, I opt for the former.

No Evolution is not randomness alone, the basis of the theory is natural selection.  But the engine of evolution is random mutation.  I have got no problem with randomness, I just recognize it as the opposite of specificity. 

If I wanted to put a pack of cards in suit and number order, I wouldn't rely on shuffling them.  I would just design the order of the pack the way I wanted it. 

Again, I don't see how evolution could be created.  It is a process that is supposedly the result of nature and random mutation.   The only thing that could be specified in advance is the first cell (but this is not evolution but abiogenesis) or the limits of the cell in minimising mutation error.  This is not the same as creating the outcome.  Your suggestion that God could have created evolution without randomness is in fact a version of the God of the gaps.  Actually it is even more illogical than the God of the gaps view.

 Your question about why would god create anything at all if he already knows the outcome is a theological question so I will give a theological answer.  Creation is not about finding something out.  But rather, it is a manifestation of his essential being.  He is the supreme enjoyer.  It would be like you saying "why on earth would I want to go to a party when I already know that I'm going to have a good time when i'm there".

I'll be honest, I don't understand your last sentence, could you elaborate?


« first‹ previous123