Evidence for theistic evolution

[Kurieuo]

AbleCain, of course, I do not believe man evolved from any other species. I, mostly, only challenge evolutionists (whatever evolutionary scenarios they accept) who insist the process could have been Godless, because WAY prior to any such processes, they have FAR more difficult things to explain. As their actual choices are only one of two possible "causes."

When you say "the process" what do you mean? And what by "godless"?

Seriously! It may be that a god made the universe, but is one needed, for example, to
supervise and direct every raindrop to its destination?

To put an argument in a nutshell that is sure to and has annoyed many irrational Atheists.

Evolution without God is a purely random, unplanned and/or undirected process along with all that it causes.
If you believe in a purely unguided and random process guiding evolution, then you have a defeater for trusting in your evolved rationality and as such any belief that you hold as being true.
BUT, if you believe your rationality leads you to truth (for example that evolution is true), then a godless random process must be false for it can't provide you with rational grounding in your beliefs.

In summary, you can't rationally ground your beliefs if you exclude God from the picture. Including the belief that raindrops don't need supervision.

This is one reason why I say anyone who believes in evolution as the cause of life's diversity (and believes such is true), ought to rationally believe in God rather than believe in Naturalism.

[Audie]

AbleCain, of course, I do not believe man evolved from any other species. I, mostly, only challenge evolutionists (whatever evolutionary scenarios they accept) who insist the process could have been Godless, because WAY prior to any such processes, they have FAR more difficult things to explain. As their actual choices are only one of two possible "causes."

When you say "the process" what do you mean? And what by "godless"?

Seriously! It may be that a god made the universe, but is one needed, for example, to
supervise and direct every raindrop to its destination?

To put an argument in a nutshell that is sure to and has annoyed many irrational Atheists.

Evolution without God is a purely random, unplanned and/or undirected process along with all that it causes.
If you believe in a purely unguided and random process guiding evolution, then you have a defeater for trusting in your evolved rationality and as such any belief that you hold as being true.
BUT, if you believe your rationality leads you to truth (for example that evolution is true), then a godless random process must be false for it can't provide you with rational grounding in your beliefs.

In summary, you can't rationally ground your beliefs if you exclude God from the picture. Including the belief that raindrops don't need supervision.

This is one reason why I say anyone who believes in evolution as the cause of life's diversity (and believes such is true), ought to rationally believe in God rather than believe in Naturalism.

So you find its rational to think that there is some being, greater than the entire universe / multiverse, who makes it his business to guide every little raindrop?

[Storyteller]

Audie?

Why is that belief any more nuts than believing it all happens by chance?

[Audie]

Good illustration of how knowing nothing about a subject makes it look boring. I do agree with you to the extent that discussing it
with the know-zero-creo is senseless.

Well, I'm glad you enjoy seeing endless posts about theorized processes is intellectually stimulating. And I also wonder why you think endless conjecture is so important?

So blinded by arrogance! Defiant, yet without answers to the root questions. Audie, you are immensely inconsistent! You love to deride others asserted lack of scientific knowledge and yet when called upon to answer important questions that you glaringly cannot answer, you attack with smugness. Or you go on about the limits of what science can know, while at the same time insinuating your thinking is the more intellectually honest and superior Why? Because of your scientific background, which you clearly hold in far higher regard than is reasonable - and, which you, yourself admit has no way of answering certain foundational questions. Or, you assert knowing the answers to the questions I submit aren't critical to the credibility of your position or are irrelevant. It's very obvious that what you don't know is key to what you THINK and assert that you DO know. And you well know scientific views about origins - especially evolution - are all over the map, with great, contentious debate amongst relevant scientists. Arguments have key components and building blocks, regardless of their nuances. So, regardless of the complexity of various nuances, there are inescapable gateways for the nuances to even be possible. Don't confuse the two! It's not nearly as impressive as you appear to think.

Audie, knowing about various theorized processes - which we all know are hotly debated by various academics - really doesn't prove very much - which you often admit. But then you are quick to act as if knowledge about various theorized processes matters far more than they actually do. You keep running into the brick wall of not being able to explain where the elemental building blocks (that provided so many unfathomably complex processes their necessary components) came from, and where their functionality and design, there at the VERY beginning, originated. So, as nothing you have argued has an answer to these critical questions, don't act as if you have a superior understanding or answers to them. As clearly, you do not! Also, as to those key questions, while inconvenient, they most certainly are key, no matter how prolifically you ignore or "cleverly" dismiss them. I truly believe that your unbelief is far more emotional and volitional than intellectual or evidence-based.

The string of insulting falsehoods that you made up about me in this personal attack was totally uncalled for. I wish no further contact with you.

[Audie]

Audie?

Why is that belief any more nuts than believing it all happens by chance?

"It"? What is "it"?

And when did I say "chance" or "all"?

[Storyteller]

"It" being the raindrop being guided.

Personally, yes, I do think it`s rational to believe that every raindrop could be guided by God. Why not? I am NOT saying I am definitely right, just that I believe that I am. There are stranger things in this world.

You know I love you dearly and I respect your opinion but that doesn`t mean we have to agree does it?

Can I be honest with you honey?

Many people on here challenge you to defend your beliefs, as you do them, which is right to do but I am still at a loss as to what you really believe.

I appreciate you have a solid scientific background, I don`t, but if you ask me to defend what I believe, I think I do. All I see is you arguing without backing it up.

You are like a little hedgehog, all spikes and prickles with a soft center.

[Audie]

"It" being the raindrop being guided.

Personally, yes, I do think it`s rational to believe that every raindrop could be guided by God. Why not? I am NOT saying I am definitely right, just that I believe that I am. There are stranger things in this world.

You know I love you dearly and I respect your opinion but that doesn`t mean we have to agree does it?

Can I be honest with you honey?

Many people on here challenge you to defend your beliefs, as you do them, which is right to do but I am still at a loss as to what you really believe.

I appreciate you have a solid scientific background, I don`t, but if you ask me to defend what I believe, I think I do. All I see is you arguing without backing it up.

You are like a little hedgehog, all spikes and prickles with a soft center.

There is such a difference between "could be " and "is".

IF there is a being bigger than the universe, omnipresent, omnipotent, a concept I personally think is not so, but if there is, it could not only direct every raindrop but
the spin of every electron within it.

Thats pretty weird that it would care to but fine, if it chose to so amuse itself I guess it could.

If you do think that every raindrop is directed to its precise impact point, all part of a plan conceived before the beginning of time, well, we dont think the same things, but we can leave it at that.

If a person believes in above mentioned being, its a rational logical outcome of same belief that every raindrop might well be directed to its destination.

[Storyteller]

"It" being the raindrop being guided.

Personally, yes, I do think it`s rational to believe that every raindrop could be guided by God. Why not? I am NOT saying I am definitely right, just that I believe that I am. There are stranger things in this world.

You know I love you dearly and I respect your opinion but that doesn`t mean we have to agree does it?

Can I be honest with you honey?

Many people on here challenge you to defend your beliefs, as you do them, which is right to do but I am still at a loss as to what you really believe.

I appreciate you have a solid scientific background, I don`t, but if you ask me to defend what I believe, I think I do. All I see is you arguing without backing it up.

You are like a little hedgehog, all spikes and prickles with a soft center.

There is such a difference between "could be " and "is".

Of course, which is why I said could be, not is.

IF there is a being bigger than the universe, omnipresent, omnipotent, a concept I personally think is not so, but if there is, it could not only direct every raindrop but
the spin of every electron within it.

Why do you think it is not so?

Thats pretty weird that it would care to but fine, if it chose to so amuse itself I guess it could.

Again why is it weird?

If you do think that every raindrop is directed to its precise impact point, all part of a plan conceived before the beginning of time, well, we dont think the same things, but we can leave it at that.

I`m not sure I do think that but it`s just as plausible as evolution.
If a person believes in above mentioned being, its a rational logical outcome of same belief that every raindrop might well be directed to its destination.

Why are we here Audie?

Man has always wondered that. Where do our emotions come from? Why do we feel? Why does beauty affect us? Why do we cry, laugh, dance (well some of us do anyway, me, I can`t dance), sing? Why do we celebrate life so if it has no purpose, no creator?

[Storyteller]

PS No idea why that bit is in colour tho it is pretty

[Byblos]

"It" being the raindrop being guided.

Personally, yes, I do think it`s rational to believe that every raindrop could be guided by God. Why not? I am NOT saying I am definitely right, just that I believe that I am. There are stranger things in this world.

You know I love you dearly and I respect your opinion but that doesn`t mean we have to agree does it?

Can I be honest with you honey?

Many people on here challenge you to defend your beliefs, as you do them, which is right to do but I am still at a loss as to what you really believe.

I appreciate you have a solid scientific background, I don`t, but if you ask me to defend what I believe, I think I do. All I see is you arguing without backing it up.

You are like a little hedgehog, all spikes and prickles with a soft center.

There is such a difference between "could be " and "is".

IF there is a being bigger than the universe, omnipresent, omnipotent, a concept I personally think is not so, but if there is, it could not only direct every raindrop but
the spin of every electron within it.

Thats pretty weird that it would care to but fine, if it chose to so amuse itself I guess it could.

If you do think that every raindrop is directed to its precise impact point, all part of a plan conceived before the beginning of time, well, we dont think the same things, but we can leave it at that.

If a person believes in above mentioned being, its a rational logical outcome of same belief that every raindrop might well be directed to its destination.

In fact that is precisely the inescapable and undeniable conclusion of logic and reason, i.e. that motion (change of any kind) is impossible without first necessarily reaching the conclusion of an unchanged changer. But, of course, that would require delving into a subject you avoid like the plague, and understandably so.

[Audie]

"It" being the raindrop being guided.

Personally, yes, I do think it`s rational to believe that every raindrop could be guided by God. Why not? I am NOT saying I am definitely right, just that I believe that I am. There are stranger things in this world.

You know I love you dearly and I respect your opinion but that doesn`t mean we have to agree does it?

Can I be honest with you honey?

Many people on here challenge you to defend your beliefs, as you do them, which is right to do but I am still at a loss as to what you really believe.

I appreciate you have a solid scientific background, I don`t, but if you ask me to defend what I believe, I think I do. All I see is you arguing without backing it up.

You are like a little hedgehog, all spikes and prickles with a soft center.

There is such a difference between "could be " and "is".

Of course, which is why I said could be, not is.

IF there is a being bigger than the universe, omnipresent, omnipotent, a concept I personally think is not so, but if there is, it could not only direct every raindrop but
the spin of every electron within it.

Why do you think it is not so?

Thats pretty weird that it would care to but fine, if it chose to so amuse itself I guess it could.

Again why is it weird?

If you do think that every raindrop is directed to its precise impact point, all part of a plan conceived before the beginning of time, well, we dont think the same things, but we can leave it at that.

I`m not sure I do think that but it`s just as plausible as evolution.
If a person believes in above mentioned being, its a rational logical outcome of same belief that every raindrop might well be directed to its destination.

Why are we here Audie?

Man has always wondered that. Where do our emotions come from? Why do we feel? Why does beauty affect us? Why do we cry, laugh, dance (well some of us do anyway, me, I can`t dance), sing? Why do we celebrate life so if it has no purpose, no creator?

Why not celebrate life? I seem able to do all those things, while none of the time thinking that there is a god.

The nature of the human mind is a totally different topic than the one I posted about.

As for what is plausible, the mechanism of evolution is well understood, and the evidence trail is there in abundance. Real things, directly amendable to study.
The existence and nature of god is not.
AND, if there is a god, then the mechanism of evolution is still well understood, and the evidence trail is still there, and the things are still real and amendable to study.

Just as rain making rivers is there to study, whether or not anyone guided them.

[Audie]

"It" being the raindrop being guided.

Personally, yes, I do think it`s rational to believe that every raindrop could be guided by God. Why not? I am NOT saying I am definitely right, just that I believe that I am. There are stranger things in this world.

You know I love you dearly and I respect your opinion but that doesn`t mean we have to agree does it?

Can I be honest with you honey?

Many people on here challenge you to defend your beliefs, as you do them, which is right to do but I am still at a loss as to what you really believe.

I appreciate you have a solid scientific background, I don`t, but if you ask me to defend what I believe, I think I do. All I see is you arguing without backing it up.

You are like a little hedgehog, all spikes and prickles with a soft center.

There is such a difference between "could be " and "is".

IF there is a being bigger than the universe, omnipresent, omnipotent, a concept I personally think is not so, but if there is, it could not only direct every raindrop but
the spin of every electron within it.

Thats pretty weird that it would care to but fine, if it chose to so amuse itself I guess it could.

If you do think that every raindrop is directed to its precise impact point, all part of a plan conceived before the beginning of time, well, we dont think the same things, but we can leave it at that.

If a person believes in above mentioned being, its a rational logical outcome of same belief that every raindrop might well be directed to its destination.

In fact that is precisely the inescapable and undeniable conclusion of logic and reason, i.e. that motion (change of any kind) is impossible without first necessarily reaching the conclusion of an unchanged changer. But, of course, that would require delving into a subject you avoid like the plague, and understandably so.

Ok byb, I think its beyond pointless to continue. You, like some others, choose to make up something about me as an argument, and Im tired of it. Please refrain from addressing me again.

[Storyteller]

"It" being the raindrop being guided.

Personally, yes, I do think it`s rational to believe that every raindrop could be guided by God. Why not? I am NOT saying I am definitely right, just that I believe that I am. There are stranger things in this world.

You know I love you dearly and I respect your opinion but that doesn`t mean we have to agree does it?

Can I be honest with you honey?

Many people on here challenge you to defend your beliefs, as you do them, which is right to do but I am still at a loss as to what you really believe.

I appreciate you have a solid scientific background, I don`t, but if you ask me to defend what I believe, I think I do. All I see is you arguing without backing it up.

You are like a little hedgehog, all spikes and prickles with a soft center.

There is such a difference between "could be " and "is".

Of course, which is why I said could be, not is.

IF there is a being bigger than the universe, omnipresent, omnipotent, a concept I personally think is not so, but if there is, it could not only direct every raindrop but
the spin of every electron within it.

Why do you think it is not so?

Thats pretty weird that it would care to but fine, if it chose to so amuse itself I guess it could.

Again why is it weird?

If you do think that every raindrop is directed to its precise impact point, all part of a plan conceived before the beginning of time, well, we dont think the same things, but we can leave it at that.

I`m not sure I do think that but it`s just as plausible as evolution.
If a person believes in above mentioned being, its a rational logical outcome of same belief that every raindrop might well be directed to its destination.

Why are we here Audie?

Man has always wondered that. Where do our emotions come from? Why do we feel? Why does beauty affect us? Why do we cry, laugh, dance (well some of us do anyway, me, I can`t dance), sing? Why do we celebrate life so if it has no purpose, no creator?

Why not celebrate life? I seem able to do all those things, while none of the time thinking that there is a god.

The nature of the human mind is a totally different topic than the one I posted about.

As for what is plausible, the mechanism of evolution is well understood, and the evidence trail is there in abundance. Real things, directly amendable to study.
The existence and nature of god is not.
AND, if there is a god, then the mechanism of evolution is still well understood, and the evidence trail is still there, and the things are still real and amendable to study.

Just as rain making rivers is there to study, whether or not anyone guided them.

Evolution is nature, it can be measured scientifically. I don`t think you can measure God or study God like that. God is supernatural.

I know it`s straying slightly off topic but does the fact we think like we do at least point to the possibility of God?

[Byblos]

Ok byb, I think its beyond pointless to continue. You, like some others, choose to make up something about me as an argument, and Im tired of it. Please refrain from addressing me again.

That's your MO Audie and it's so obvious to the point of being pathetic. When faced with the slightest challenge, claim a personal attack and dismiss the person (and by extension the subject matter).

Here's how it works here Audie, I will call you on any and every subject I darn well please. Unless instructed to do otherwise by a moderator of the site, I will continue to do so. It is not your call. You may not like it but hey, such is life, deal with it.

And no, it is not about you, don't flatter yourself. It is and always has been about the reader in general.

[Audie]

Im going to take a guess that byb cant even show me the small courtesy of respecting my request that he not address me again.

I dont like people making up things about me, as he has done over and over. Once too often from byb was enough.