Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Fitbit
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Creationism vs Theistic Evolution


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 426-448 of 448 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Apr 2012, 15:56:35 BST
Huck Flynn says:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
so is god a bacterium ?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Apr 2012, 16:21:05 BST
Mr. Bde Wall says:
Hi Huck,

I don't follow?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Apr 2012, 16:54:46 BST
Huck Flynn says:
Hi Ben
glad to hear you're not a follower :-)
i just wondered (in a rather flippant way) that if simple bacteria were the first recogniseable lifeforms - were they created in God's image ?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Apr 2012, 16:57:00 BST
"if simple bacteria were the first recogniseable lifeforms "
Protobionts wouldn't have looked like bacteria. Bacteria are the first life complex enough to leave fossil evidence.

Protobionts would have first been indistinguishable from chemicals, and the protocell would have been something like a phospholipid bilayer with some chemicals in it. Far from a bacterium.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Apr 2012, 17:00:48 BST
Mr. Bde Wall says:
Hi Huck,

Asking the wrong guy, I have no idea tbh. It depends what you take 'God's image' to mean I guess.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Apr 2012, 17:05:13 BST
Huck Flynn says:
not on Facebook then ?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 12:58:43 BST
AJ Murray says:
Good afternoon Ben,

It is as i feared. Theistic Evolution is simply Theism restated. An attempt to take the curse of a piece of science that is problematic for some religious beliefs and nothing to do with observations in biology. Although you do note that more often than not theists will contradict themselves when it comes to the principle of uniformity, that is, when they desire their deity to do all manner of interventions. It is so revealing that on one hand they will argue that the consistency we observe is due to their pet deity, yet in the same breath will argue that this consistency doesn't exist really as their deity intervenes constantly by miraculous magical means. Only deists manage to be consistent. I once asked whether theists really do believe the universe is consistent or whether it is chaotic and in constant flux with these observed values of the constants shifting upon a whim of their creator.. i don't recall any consistent logic to the replies.

I view Theistic Evolution as the same as ID. It is difference of degree not kind. As you have articulated quite well the argument shifts from one of design and intent in evolutionary biology (which has been demonstrated to be false) to one of design and intent for the universe instead. I guess you could call it ID Cosmology.

As such it has the same flaws. Nothing that can be considered undesigned to compare the supposedly designed with and until the 'designer', 'architect', or 'creator' is defined there is no way of discerning intent or design. There is no evidence of this 'designer', 'architect', or 'creator' so nothing for it to explain that is not covered by the natural world so far.

-"Thiestic evolutionists often say God accounts for why the orderly universe, readable in scientific and mathematical language exists."

Theists make assertions. It rather comes with the territory. It's because they lack evidence and reasoning and fill that void with their beliefs and wish-thinking. How often will you hear a theist saying 'God is beyond space and time!', or 'God is non-physical!' or 'God is beyond human understanding!', that last is my favourite since it renders *all* statements about this supposed god moot.

As i said before, once we have the answer to *how* the universe came to be, the *why* will be shown to be yet another empty enquiry. Just as it was with human evolution, planetary formation and the solar system - which all were once asserted to be designed - so it will be with the universe. Another gap filled. Superstition replaced with knowledge.

Popper won over Ayer and was [partly] responsible for the paradigm shift away from confirmation of theories and the attendant bias that followed towards a more critical view that looked for means of falsifying hypotheses and testing them to destruction. But what caused a revolution in science was fatal for theology. Since it has no method for falsifying its propositions. Confirmation bias is the very means that it uses for ascertaining its many 'truths'. If you happen to believe in an all-powerful magical being then it is perfectly possible for it to have created the earth and the universe 6000 years ago and to make it appear as if this was an event that occured many billions of years ago, its ways are not our ways etc. It is always quaint to see Christians use the touchstone of the scientific method to refute young-earth creationism completely unaware that the same touchstone undermines their own magical theology of resurrections and miracles.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 13:30:15 BST
Jim Page says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 13:51:24 BST
AJ Murray says:
Wow Jim, just wow.

If it's not an impolite question... are you currently on medication?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 13:54:21 BST
G. Heron says:
Jim Guest

A Christian can believe in a good god or he can believe in a god who used evolution to produce the variety of life we see on the Earth but I don't see how a Christian can believe in a good god who used evolution.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 14:05:05 BST
Jim Page says:
Alice waves her white flag. :D

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 14:05:27 BST
Jim Page says:
Why not?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 14:13:40 BST
G. Heron says:
Jim Guest

Because of the millions of years of suffering and death involved.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 14:18:20 BST
Last edited by the author on 12 Apr 2012, 14:18:45 BST
H W says:
Because evolution has given us blind spots in vision, severe back issues, weaker limbs, an appendix; which has no purpose to serve by becoming a time bomb, a multitude of diseases etc.

And what G. said.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 14:33:52 BST
Jim Page says:
Fair enough. But the focus of Christianity is on the harm of bad moral decisions that affect eternal conscience, rather than ephemeral physical bodies. So while many millions of animals have died in fear, their suffering is accounted for in the end result; which is evidently, as the Bible indicates, greater than the human mind can imagine.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 14:35:19 BST
Jim Page says:
'evolution has given us blind spots in vision, severe back issues, weaker limbs, an appendix'

And the means to deal with them. Brains, hands and language.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 14:41:05 BST
G. Heron says:
Jim Guest

In other words the end justifies the means?

It is simply that god could have chosen any way of achieving the same result and chose the method that involved so much suffering in animals and humans. The evidence would suggest very questionable judgement.
Your reply to G. Heron's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 14:51:28 BST
Jim Page says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 15:03:59 BST
Ok, let's hear it, drum roll please...

Why not Jim?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 17:26:09 BST
AJ Murray says:
In your dreams sunny-Jim.

(or should that be delusions?)

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 17:35:08 BST
Huck Flynn says:
the end result is "greater than the human mind can imagine" - that's the worst piece of salesmanship i've ever heard Jimmy

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Apr 2012, 17:52:35 BST
Last edited by the author on 12 Apr 2012, 17:53:30 BST
Jim Page says:
The best, you mean. :)

It's actually your own logic, if you will admit it.

Posted on 20 Apr 2012, 00:44:52 BST
[Deleted by the author on 20 Apr 2012, 17:49:38 BST]
‹ Previous 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
166 22 days ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 1425 4 days ago
Discover Magazine article ("Earth's Water Is Older Than The Sun') matches the Bible book of Genesis 371 4 days ago
The Christian project has failed as Christians vote against everything Jesus stood for 464 4 days ago
"Transgender" folk accepted into the Anglican Church... 56 4 days ago
Gas Bag 714 5 days ago
How To Rule The Universe And Punish Evil 4 6 days ago
Jesus is the way and that way is the Gnostic Christian way. Not Christianity’s way. 2 9 days ago
If clergy were honest, would religions die? 27 9 days ago
EWTN.CO.UK is a very fine British Catholic Channel and website 7 12 days ago
Should religions be classified as Fake News? The bible seems to say yes. 2 19 days ago
Why do we select warrior gods who can only grow their religions by violence, --- instead of persuasion to a better way of life? 28 22 days ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  448
Initial post:  8 Mar 2012
Latest post:  20 Apr 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers