How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[Audie]

Another patently false statement.

A religion that relies on utter falsehood may not be a very good one.

 

[Colt]

Evolutionary religion. What a ridiculous idea.

Religion evolves, why is that not understandable?

 

[Audie]

Religion evolves, why is that not understandable?

It's an unknown term, but put that way it makes sense.

You say such nonsense about evolution,
it looked like more of the same.

 

[Reddwarffan]

How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

I do not see why it should. Why should it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If its true then its entirely rational and all things considered it would explain a lot.

Wheter or not a belief qualifies as "rational" has to do with the evidence in support of it and actually not with if the belief turns out to be true or not.


It's for example perfectly possible that a belief is irrational, yet turns out correct.

For instance: relativity. Before the evidence presented by einstein, it would have have been irrational to believe that the flow of time relative to the observer is related to speed and gravity. But in light of the evidence presented by Einstein, it's actually irrational not to accept that...

It also perfectly possible that a belief is rational, yet turns out incorrect.
Like back in the day with geocentrism. All the evidence, which basicly amounted to "the sun comes up there, flies across the sky and then sets at the other side), suggested that the sun orbitted the earth. So that would have been a rational thing to believe. Then other evidence was uncovered which off course proved that view wrong. But before that, geocentrism would have been the rational position.


So you see.... the rationality of a belief has to do with the evidence in support of it. And a belief being rational, doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct.

Having said that, you have no rational grounds whatsoever for the "belief" you expressed (no life before the cambrian and the earth being "tiny" for some reason).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheistic Science agenda.

There is no such thing as "atheist science".
Let alone an "atheist science agenda".

There is just science. (a)theism is wholly irrelevant to science.

 

[Reddwarffan]

Having said that, you have no rational grounds whatsoever for the "belief" you expressed (no life before the cambrian and the earth being "tiny" for some reason).

What??? I did not express any belief. I simply said I do not see a contradiction between the concepts of god and evolution respectively. A god could simply set up a system and let it run without micromanaging everything. Let so do without such projections.

 

[Colt]

You should look up what snark is, twice you have falsely accused me of it.[/QUOT

Wheter or not a belief qualifies as "rational" has to do with the evidence in support of it and actually not with if the belief turns out to be true or not.


It's for example perfectly possible that a belief is irrational, yet turns out correct.

For instance: relativity. Before the evidence presented by einstein, it would have have been irrational to believe that the flow of time relative to the observer is related to speed and gravity. But in light of the evidence presented by Einstein, it's actually irrational not to accept that...

It also perfectly possible that a belief is rational, yet turns out incorrect.
Like back in the day with geocentrism. All the evidence, which basicly amounted to "the sun comes up there, flies across the sky and then sets at the other side), suggested that the sun orbitted the earth. So that would have been a rational thing to believe. Then other evidence was uncovered which off course proved that view wrong. But before that, geocentrism would have been the rational position.


So you see.... the rationality of a belief has to do with the evidence in support of it. And a belief being rational, doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct.

Having said that, you have no rational grounds whatsoever for the "belief" you expressed (no life before the cambrian and the earth being "tiny" for some reason).

Fair enough, I've said before that rational, logical thinking is overrated.

 

[Colt]

There is no such thing as "atheist science".
Let alone an "atheist science agenda".

There is just science. (a)theism is wholly irrelevant to science.

I disagree, their are Atheist who use science in to support their faith in a Godless universe. Dawkins comes to mind.

 

[Reddwarffan]

I disagree, their are Atheist who use science in to support their faith in a Godless universe. Dawkins comes to mind.

Dawkins does not support "faith in a Godless universe". Dawkins simply disbelieves the God claim without proof.
Can we do without those silly misrepresentations? Please.

 

[ppp]

I disagree, their are Atheist who use science in to support their faith in a Godless universe. Dawkins comes to mind.

The fact is that both historically, and currently, most of the scientists in the world are theists. Most of the people who accept evolution are theists. Your ongoing screed against evolution is just an attempt to blame someone else for the fact that so many people do not find your god claims credible.

Evolution had nothing to do with why I stopped believing religious claims. It wasn't even a vague consideration.

 

[ppp]

Fair enough, I've said before that rational, logical thinking is overrated.

Overrated for doing what, exactly? It's certainly overrated for enjoying an apple pie. But for determining whether or not what some was says is justified and credible, it is the absolute best we have got.

 

[Colt]

Dawkins does not support "faith in a Godless universe". Dawkins simply disbelieves the God claim without proof.
Can we do without those silly misrepresentations? Please.

When an Atheist asserts and promotes their belief that religious people are deluded then that’s faith. Some Atheist may see themselves as enjoying a special exemption from scrutiny over the beliefs that they assert.

 

[Reddwarffan]

When an Atheist asserts and promotes their belief that religious people are deluded then that’s faith.

Nope. Firstly, Dawkins does not "assert and promote a belief" about religious people, he simply states his own position. Secondingly, even if he did that would not be the definition of "faith".
Can we do without such obfuscation? Thank you.

 

[Colt]

The fact is that both historically, and currently, most of the scientists in the world are theists. Most of the people who accept evolution are theists. Your ongoing screed against evolution is just an attempt to blame someone else for the fact that so many people do not find your god claims credible.

Evolution had nothing to do with why I stopped believing religious claims. It wasn't even a vague consideration.

I’m an evolutionist. I believe Life was created and fostered by the mechanism of evolution.

 

[McBell]

I’m an evolutionist. I believe Life was created and fostered by the mechanism of evolution.

and we see yet another definition for the buzzword "evolutionist"...

 

[ppp]

I’m an evolutionist. I believe Life was created and fostered by the mechanism of evolution.

You're punning. I am talking about the Biological theory of evolution . You are talking about something else.

The fact is that both historically, and currently, most of the scientists in the world are theists. Most of the people who accept evolution are theists. Your ongoing screed against evolution is just an attempt to blame someone else for the fact that so many people do not find your god claims credible.

Evolution had nothing to do with why I stopped believing religious claims. It wasn't even a vague consideration.

 

[Colt]

Nope. Firstly, Dawkins does not "assert and promote a belief" about religious people, he simply states his own position. Secondingly, even if he did that would not be the definition of "faith".
Can we do without such obfuscation? Thank you.

Dawkins must be terribly misunderstood. Maybe he should study English and learn how to write so as to communicate what he really thinks?

 

[Colt]

and we see yet another definition for the buzzword "evolutionist"...

Evolutionist= Simone who believes in the evolution of life.

 

[McBell]

Dawkins must be terribly misunderstood. Maybe he should study English and learn how to write so as to communicate what he really thinks?

Because it could not be even remotely possible for it to be you, right?