Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh....sudden means gradual, then? No, it doesn't, but then you have 'punctuated equilibrium' to fall back on. There'll always be some far-fetched idea for you guys to cling to.

Faith, anyone?

What's far-fetched with the idea of punctuated equilibrium? It's just the acknowledgement of the fact that ecosystems - and therefore evolutionary pressures - are part of a feedback system.

When a species is well-adapted to its environment, random mutations have a lower chance of being beneficial than when a species is less well-adapted (e.g. after a major change in the environment). The result is that species will tend to be more stable when the environment is stable, and less stable when the environment is less stable.

If you think this is far-fetched, please point out the part that's giving you trouble.

 

[Shad]

First of all...

faith
fāTH/
noun
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

To bad I wasn't talking about that definition.

[The very first definition applies to me, and you.

This does not apply to me as I do not have complete trust in science.

Whereas I put my confidence in the Bible as God's Word (for many reasons), you seem to put your confidence in men who interpret the evidence to **fit** their beliefs.

Nope I do not. You are projecting your views on to me without cause.

Curious: do you think all paranormal activity is fake?

I have rejected many of the claims about it. This point undermines your so-called trust I have. After all if I had complete trust in men why would I reject the claims about paranormal activities when there are scientists supporting such claims.

Second point:

sud·den
ˈsədn/
adjective

1. 1.
   occurring or done quickly and unexpectedly or without warning. [/quote]

the definition of sudden

occurring without transition from the previous form, state, etc.; abrupt:

However you apply the word, it is anathema to predictions based on the CD evolutionary model. But it does **fit** the Biblical creation model.

Nope as I use more than the definition you want me to. Try again.

Your model is not a model but a religious belief you mislabel in order to convince yourself your idea is scientific. It isn't.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I competely agree. Most YEC's really are simple minded. Just my observation.

But then I live a country where most Christians also accept the findings of science. The very few who don't tend to be members of the JW's and SDA's. And they are a very small minority getting paid to write stuff in newspapers under different names pretending that they are in the majority.

You know that JWs are not YEC's, right? I don't know about SDA.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What's far-fetched with the idea of punctuated equilibrium? It's just the acknowledgement of the fact that ecosystems - and therefore evolutionary pressures - are part of a feedback system.

When a species is well-adapted to its environment, random mutations have a lower chance of being beneficial than when a species is less well-adapted (e.g. after a major change in the environment). The result is that species will tend to be more stable when the environment is stable, and less stable when the environment is less stable.

If you think this is far-fetched, please point out the part that's giving you trouble.

Please name a species that is not well-adapted to its environment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please name a species that is not well-adapted to its environment.

I said "less well-adapted", not "not well-adapted."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please name a species that is not well-adapted to its environment.

You'll be seeing more and more of that soon. The corals of the Great Barrier Reef are bleaching (dying), and polar bears will find themselves ill-suited to their environment

Coral bleaching affects over 90% of Great Barrier Reef - CNN.com
Climate Change - Polar Bears International

 

[viole]

Please name a species that is not well-adapted to its environment.

The dinosaurs.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If god created them "perfect," then that would mean Satan is more powerful than god as he managed to "un-Perfect them." And because God is powerless to fix the corruption, he punishes those who don't bow to him. Some god he is.

If god created them "perfect," then that would mean Satan is more powerful than god as he managed to "un-Perfect them."

Do you really think that? If you raise your kids to follow the law, but then a criminal lies to them about the consequences, and encourages them to steal and break it, and they do.... does that mean the criminal is "more powerful" than you? No, maybe just more influential. Especially if they're promised a reward.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And because God is powerless to fix the corruption, he punishes those who don't bow to him. Some god he is.

Again, it has nothing to do with power (or lack of.)

(Ex.: Are police 'powerless' in fighting crime? Or are they held back at times from using deadly force, due to laws enacted to protect citizens rights?)

It has to do with God's right to rule, an issue that was raised when Satan questioned (Genesis 3:1-5) God's right to tell Adam and Eve what to do, i.e., "don't eat from that (one) tree." Not hard to follow, since there were tons of others! -- Genesis 2:16.

The only way this issue of sovereignty could be settled satisfactorily to everyone watching (the Angels included), was to allow mankind time to rule themselves! And what has man's self-rule brought to humans?

There's a lot more about this subject to consider and to reason on.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I said "less well-adapted", not "not well-adapted."

Ok, my bad. Can you provide some examples?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You'll be seeing more and more of that soon. The corals of the Great Barrier Reef are bleaching (dying), and polar bears will find themselves ill-suited to their environment

Coral bleaching affects over 90% of Great Barrier Reef - CNN.com
Climate Change - Polar Bears International

And I just wonder, how much of this can be attributed to human involvement. Left on our own, humans would eventually destroy all life. Fortunately, that won't be allowed.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The dinosaurs.

Ciao

- viole

Were they really not well-adapted? Or did a catastrophe overtake them? Too much is unknown. (Now, a few scientists think some had feathers!)

 

[viole]

Were they really not well-adapted? Or did a catastrophe overtake them? Too much is unknown. (Now, a few scientists think some had feathers!)

Catastrophe is so question begging, i am sure the little rats looking like creature that became primates, and eventually us, would not call it so.

So, what you call catastrophe was just a new environment. And no, they were not well adapted to it, otherwise they will still be here.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Catastrophe is so question begging, i am sure the little rats looking like creature that became primates, and eventually us, would not call it so.

So, what you call catastrophe was just a new environment. And no, they were not well adapted to it, otherwise they will still be here.

Ciao

- viole

Well-adapted to a catastrophe? What or who is? You're building a strawman.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And I just wonder, how much of [global climate change] this can be attributed to human involvement.

Probably all of it, but certainly most of it.

 

[littlefire]

Haven't read the whole thread so I'm not 100% sure where I'm jumping in on this conversation. But, to respond to the OP, from my experience as someone raised in an "evolution = atheism" household, the argument was based on the supposition that evolution was theorized for the express purpose of removing God from study of the natural world. In the minds of many prominent YECs (e.g., Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis), it is a spiritual bankrupt position to be Christian and an evolutionist because you're "pulling for the wrong team" against a literal understanding of the Bible and are thus on a slippery slope towards atheism personally and further secularism societally, neither of which are positive outcomes.

 

[gnostic]

To be brutally frank...I think anyone who mix evolution with "atheism" is a bloody idiot, as if they are one and the same thing.

That there are many biologists, who accept evolution as mechanics for biological changes, are theists, e.g. Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, would make it very clear that evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

To ignore those non-atheists, it to put his or her head in the sand like an ostrich.

Evolution is biology and science; it isn't a religion.

And that's another thing, people who think evolution is a religion, are also bloody idiots too.

I have loss count the many times I have tried to explain the distinctions between evolution and atheism, but they, particularly those that called themselves - Young Earth Creationists (YEC) - will never learn, or they refused to learn it.

Unfortunately, anyone who don't understand these now, won't understand the distinctions any time soon. Stubborn or wilful ignorance is not a virtue.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It has to do with God's right to rule

What "right" does God have to rule?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If god created them "perfect," then that would mean Satan is more powerful than god as he managed to "un-Perfect them."

Do you really think that? If you raise your kids to follow the law, but then a criminal lies to them about the consequences, and encourages them to steal and break it, and they do.... does that mean the criminal is "more powerful" than you? No, maybe just more influential. Especially if they're promised a reward.

If Adam and Eve and the rest of Creation had been truly "perfect," this corruption could not have happened.

 

[viole]

Well-adapted to a catastrophe? What or who is? You're building a strawman.

As I said, catastrophe is meaningful only to the ones who are not well equipped to survive it. So, it is a relative term.

For our ancestors, it was not a catastrophe. Being able to leave their stinking hole without fear of being eaten by the next velociraptor, is one of the main reasons how we are here.

Ciao

- viole