Christian Response To Vid Needed.

[mcdaddy]

WHY SHOULD WE TRUST YOU WHEN YOU'RE ALWAYS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNm9vXVRd8M&NR=1&feature=endscreen

[LivingLife]

Look up Irreducible complexity and Theistic evolution.

 

This is the latest craze in the xian folk that claim to believe in evolution but insist there is a "something" behind it all. It is a pseudo science.

 

They are still woo creationists trying to dress up their turd with science sounding hyperbole, IOW BS.

 

The god of the gaps argument suggest that science does not know everything therefore god. Science does not claim to have all the answers but does claim and has overwhelming evidence for an old earth and evolution.

 

Both boil down to "siyance iz hard, therefore godunnit" OR as I like to say, taking their big yellow godunnit stickers and pasting them all over real science making the claim it was always so.

[freeasabird]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

[Adam5]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

[mcdaddy]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

 

Basically that it happened exactly as if there was no god in existence. there was no miraculous interjection of any sort. Now if you want to say god is "pushing the little molecules together invisibly", then sure, that could be possible, but it could also be IPU's doing it.

[Spectrox]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

 

I think a fairer way of putting it is that evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet and a designer God is not necessary. What we really have is the illusion of design. Scientifically speaking, evolution isn't going anywhere - there is no ultimate goal. It's just species adaptation to fill particular environmental niches over long time periods.

 

Certain vestigial features in some animals would be considered crazy from a design standpoint e.g. the tortuous route taken by the laryngal nerve of a giraffe; the leg bone of a whale; the blind cave fish that has eyes; the human appendix. It's all very inefficient but evolution as a process has done it's best to adapt to the ever-changing environment that underpins it in an attempt to solve problems. The result is a continuum of species complexity - from bacteria to mammals.

 

For God to create something as complex as the universe and be able to keep it running, then God would have to be at least as complex as the universe is now. Where did God's complexity originate?

 

As Dawkins would put it, to get complexity it's a choice between believing in either a skyhook or a self-supporting crane.

[freeasabird]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

 

Generally accepted tenets of theistic evolution:

• god used evolution as the process to create humans.
  
• god had a hand in the process.
  
• humans are the end result of the process.
  

Evolution

• More formally know as the theory of evolution by natural selection
  (natural selection, not supernatural selection.)
  
• Evidence shows that evolution through history sped up and slowed down as resources competed and climates changed during the natural process. It wasn't some linear path with a straightforward beginning and end.
  
• Human evolution is continuing, it has not ended.
  
• Vestigial organs which are still in the process of weeding themselves out (not a scientific term I realize) - tails, wisdom teeth, plantaris muscle, appendix, Darwin's point. And these are just the ones I can come up with off the top of my head. There are many more; this will be some good reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
  
• Other vestiginal organs like the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which show zero forward thought and planning into the final design.
  
• Interbreeding of Homo neanderthalensis with Homo sapien.
  
• In conclusion, every piece of evidence you find shows that the process was completely and utterly natural and there was no intervening force.
  

[freeasabird]

Certain vestigial features in some animals would be considered crazy from a design standpoint e.g. the tortuous route taken by the laryngal nerve of a giraffe; the leg bone of a whale; the blind cave fish that has eyes; the human appendix. It's all very inefficient but evolution as a process has done it's best to adapt to the ever-changing environment that underpins it in an attempt to solve problems. The result is a continuum of species complexity - from bacteria to mammals.

 

 

For clarity, and please forgive me if this is a mistake, but the recurrent laryngeal nerve exists in all mammals, and maybe even more animals as well. The example of the giraffe is most commonly used because it is the most extreme example of this completely unnecessary detour - a 15 foot round trip!

[merck]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

 

Here's a great video of Neil deGrasse Tyson on "Stupid" Design:

[freeasabird]

Um duh, I also forgot one of the biggest ones that's not found in biology books. Evolution spent 3.5 billion years programming us to fuck anything that moves, and then 6,000 years ago god comes down from on high and says "STOP THAT!"??? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

[Guest Valk0010]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

Tell that to people like Ken Miller, who was a catholic that argued for evolution at the Dover Trial recently, or Francis Collins. Its beyond me how they square the two.

 

Anyway, the idea of theistic evolution makes no real sense to me because it violates Occams Razor. Recently, I was watching the BBC documentary, the incredible human journey and thought to myself. There is no fucking way that the Christian god, if he existed, would have used evolution. It makes the Old testament nonsensical.

[Guest Valk0010]

Also plate tectonics, destroys the idea of YEC.

[freeasabird]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

Tell that to people like Ken Miller, who was a catholic that argued for evolution at the Dover Trial recently, or Francis Collins. Its beyond me how they square the two.

 

Anyway, the idea of theistic evolution makes no real sense to me because it violates Occams Razor. Recently, I was watching the BBC documentary, the incredible human journey and thought to myself. There is no fucking way that the Christian god, if he existed, would have used evolution. It makes the Old testament nonsensical.

 

I'm very familiar with Ken Miller, and he makes no assertions that god played any role in the process, iIn fact he mocks those that do. I agree, I don't know how he can square the two ideas, but I have to respect him for keeping his religion 100% out of his science.

[Guest Valk0010]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

Tell that to people like Ken Miller, who was a catholic that argued for evolution at the Dover Trial recently, or Francis Collins. Its beyond me how they square the two.

 

Anyway, the idea of theistic evolution makes no real sense to me because it violates Occams Razor. Recently, I was watching the BBC documentary, the incredible human journey and thought to myself. There is no fucking way that the Christian god, if he existed, would have used evolution. It makes the Old testament nonsensical.

 

I'm very familiar with Ken Miller, and he makes no assertions that god played any role in the process, iIn fact he mocks those that do. I agree, I don't know how he can square the two ideas, but I have to respect him for keeping his religion 100% out of his science.

Ahh my mistake. I knew Collins did, and the little I know about the Catholic Church's thoughts on evolution, made me think Miller must of thought the same. I am not very familar with Ken Miller outside of all of what I said here. Francis Collin's is a classic example of what this thread describes.

[freeasabird]

For anyone not familiar with Dr. Miller:

 

[midniterider]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

 

What is the crystal clear evidence that there is a god whom had a part in evolution?

[hereticzero]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

Does Santa cause Christmas or does Christmas come once a year whether Santa is a real person or not? It is the same argument for evolution and a god. Scientific data shows evolution of stars, planets, animals, everything in existence can be explained scientifically using data whereas creationism or intelligent design stops at 'god did it.' A god is not necessary for life to exist or for the universe to continue as it is.

[hereticzero]

For anyone not familiar with Dr. Miller:

 

One of my favorite people to refer someone to who does not know evolution, Dr. Ken Miller is cool.

[freeasabird]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

Tell that to people like Ken Miller, who was a catholic that argued for evolution at the Dover Trial recently, or Francis Collins. Its beyond me how they square the two.

 

Anyway, the idea of theistic evolution makes no real sense to me because it violates Occams Razor. Recently, I was watching the BBC documentary, the incredible human journey and thought to myself. There is no fucking way that the Christian god, if he existed, would have used evolution. It makes the Old testament nonsensical.

 

I'm very familiar with Ken Miller, and he makes no assertions that god played any role in the process, iIn fact he mocks those that do. I agree, I don't know how he can square the two ideas, but I have to respect him for keeping his religion 100% out of his science.

Ahh my mistake. I knew Collins did, and the little I know about the Catholic Church's thoughts on evolution, made me think Miller must of thought the same. I am not very familar with Ken Miller outside of all of what I said here. Francis Collin's is a classic example of what this thread describes.

 

I think the confusion comes from not having a clear cut definition of theistic evolution, since one doesn't really exist (since it completely made up anyway).

[Exevolt]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

 

Here's a great video of Neil deGrasse Tyson on "Stupid" Design:

Neil deGrasse made me lawl so hard.

[♦ ficino ♦]

For anyone not familiar with Dr. Miller:

 

One of my favorite people to refer someone to who does not know evolution, Dr. Ken Miller is cool.

 

But... but... GOD must have fused those two chromosomes on day 6 of creation! Glory!

[Antlerman]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

I've read through the responses to your question and no one has actually answered this. Pretty much all that has be talked about is how a particular notion of what God is in a certain subset of religious thought, namely literalist, Evangelical Christianity, is inconsistent philosophically with the ToE. There are many iterations of thought regarding God and Evolution, not just one. People who state that there is 'crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution', are defining God as one understanding. As the understanding changes, so does the compatibility of views in the relationship of science and faith. Again, the best that can actually be said is that the ToE is inconsistent with a literalist view of Genesis and the Bible, but that's about it.

[Guest Valk0010]

Evolution doesn't need god into the design, so why add it. Really for god to be apart of evolution, you need proof that God was part of evolution. To borrow a phrase from Dawkins, its "sneaking god in thru the back door."

[Spectrox]

Theistic evolution is ignorance at its absolute worst. People who believe in it don't know anything about evolution. A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process.

 

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance. But what is the crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution?

I've read through the responses to your question and no one has actually answered this. Pretty much all that has be talked about is how a particular notion of what God is in a certain subset of religious thought, namely literalist, Evangelical Christianity, is inconsistent philosophically with the ToE. There are many iterations of thought regarding God and Evolution, not just one. People who state that there is 'crystal clear evidence that god had no part in evolution', are defining God as one understanding. As the understanding changes, so does the compatibility of views in the relationship of science and faith. Again, the best that can actually be said is that the ToE is inconsistent with a literalist view of Genesis and the Bible, but that's about it.

 

I thought I gave a reasonable answer Antlerman in terms of a designer God. That a designer God is redundant because living creatures aren't designed in the normal sense of the word (i.e. a mind has planned it all out). If "God" is something other than a designer then I don't think this type of God is particularly powerful or relevant to us and is probably meaningless as something that really exists. Unless we're talking Raellianism?

[Antlerman]

I thought I gave a reasonable answer Antlerman in terms of a designer God. That a designer God is redundant because living creatures aren't designed in the normal sense of the word (i.e. a mind has planned it all out).

Yes, which is what I said is addressing a particular narrow definition of God. The point was made that, "A few hours of research show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process." This doesn't account for the vast majority of those who believe in God in one way or another who do not have to play gymnastics with science or faith in order to accept evolution. Evolution doesn't threaten "God" for them. So, in fact, a few hours of research doesn't say anything in regard to God for them as far as showing if science validates or invalidates their views. How someone chooses to see or not see God in the process is for all intents and purposes, a matter of faith, not science.

 

If "God" is something other than a designer then I don't think this type of God is particularly powerful or relevant to us and is probably meaningless as something that really exists. Unless we're talking Raellianism?

Well, there are a whole lot more alternative ways of looking at God in this than the Raelians! To those other non-Extraterrestrialist believers, God is very relevant and meaningful. It's just that in their minds they see God very differently than that particular narrow subset of Christianity I mentioned, the literalist, evangelical American Protestant group. How things happen in nature has little to do with upsetting the essence of what their beliefs entail. Hindus and Buddhists, and even Jews by and large have no issues at all with evolution. It's not until you start sinking down into the categories below mainline protestants where you have a real anti-evolutionary stance. See the Pew chart on this Wiki article on theistic evolution: http://en.wikipedia....istic_evolution

 

So my point again is that to state that the details of how evolution works will "show with crystal clarity that god had no part in the process", is to start with a definition of God defined by literalists and limit the question to a highly overly-simplistic matter of either true or false, based on that criteria alone as though it represents all beliefs about God. How God fits into anything in the world is a not scientific matter for most people.