Evidence for theistic evolution

[RickD]

Audie: Maybe its because educated people know there is no 'gap theory". There is a guess, falling far short of even a hypothesis. And its a guess so thoroughly disproved in all details that it is a discredit and embarrassment to any religion that harbors such.

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense is not one destined for a great future.

Philip's Response: Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

Audie's Response: There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up something stupid then claiming someone believes it.

Audie's further response: Plenty believe WHAT? The "gap theory" or the ridiculous caricature of what (all) atheists must believe, according to P?
It was a caricature, and the "gap theory" is what I said it is. Neither is a "just because I". Neither does that "lots" believe something have the least evidentiary value, else belief in Atlantis and astrology need be taken as significant.

Further, I commented on the "gap" theory for being what it is, and P jumped in with irrelevant insulting falsehoods, which I rightly said was neither intelligent nor admirable.

What I wanted to point out in my assertion about atheists and agnostics (which would seem to include Audie), is that while Audie is basically ridiculing the (mostly) theologically derived Gap Theory (which I reject, both scientifically and Scripturally) of AbelCainsBrother, how ironic, as to what anyone who doesn't believe in God MUST believe, as their parameters are locked, despite whatever personal nuances they might assert. Those choices for the reason the universe exists are ONLY:

1) A God or gods created, began and designed it; 2) Something not alive and uncreated, of great intelligence and power, that stands outside of the Creation, designed and guided it; 3)That the core essentials of what suddenly burst into existence at the beginning of the Big Bang have ETERNALLY existed, uncreated, and subsequently, and suddenly, popped into a physical existence, including time, space, matter, dimension, etc and that such essentials blindly organized themselves and all that came to physically exist with extraordinary power, complexity, awesome design, specificity, interactively, etc; 4) That from NOTHING previously existing, immediately and with unfathomable power, an incredible universe of immensely complex organization, design, order, function, and astounding mechanisms simply popped into existence without any cause or being created.

You forgot one:
5) That nothing just popped into existence, that nothing was ever created without using existing materials, that there was never a point in history when nothing existed, and that matter has always existed in one form or another; and just evolved into what we have now.

Ken

Kenny,
That's basically what #3 says.

[Kenny]

Audie: Maybe its because educated people know there is no 'gap theory". There is a guess, falling far short of even a hypothesis. And its a guess so thoroughly disproved in all details that it is a discredit and embarrassment to any religion that harbors such.

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense is not one destined for a great future.

Philip's Response: Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

Audie's Response: There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up something stupid then claiming someone believes it.

Audie's further response: Plenty believe WHAT? The "gap theory" or the ridiculous caricature of what (all) atheists must believe, according to P?
It was a caricature, and the "gap theory" is what I said it is. Neither is a "just because I". Neither does that "lots" believe something have the least evidentiary value, else belief in Atlantis and astrology need be taken as significant.

Further, I commented on the "gap" theory for being what it is, and P jumped in with irrelevant insulting falsehoods, which I rightly said was neither intelligent nor admirable.

What I wanted to point out in my assertion about atheists and agnostics (which would seem to include Audie), is that while Audie is basically ridiculing the (mostly) theologically derived Gap Theory (which I reject, both scientifically and Scripturally) of AbelCainsBrother, how ironic, as to what anyone who doesn't believe in God MUST believe, as their parameters are locked, despite whatever personal nuances they might assert. Those choices for the reason the universe exists are ONLY:

1) A God or gods created, began and designed it; 2) Something not alive and uncreated, of great intelligence and power, that stands outside of the Creation, designed and guided it; 3)That the core essentials of what suddenly burst into existence at the beginning of the Big Bang have ETERNALLY existed, uncreated, and subsequently, and suddenly, popped into a physical existence, including time, space, matter, dimension, etc and that such essentials blindly organized themselves and all that came to physically exist with extraordinary power, complexity, awesome design, specificity, interactively, etc; 4) That from NOTHING previously existing, immediately and with unfathomable power, an incredible universe of immensely complex organization, design, order, function, and astounding mechanisms simply popped into existence without any cause or being created.

You forgot one:
5) That nothing just popped into existence, that nothing was ever created without using existing materials, that there was never a point in history when nothing existed, and that matter has always existed in one form or another; and just evolved into what we have now.

Ken

Kenny,
That's basically what #3 says.

Not quite; #3 mentions stuff uncreated, then suddenly popping into physical existence.

Ken

[Storyteller]

Wouldn`t your point 5 be an argument for God?

[Audie]

Audie: Maybe its because educated people know there is no 'gap theory". There is a guess, falling far short of even a hypothesis. And its a guess so thoroughly disproved in all details that it is a discredit and embarrassment to any religion that harbors such.

A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense is not one destined for a great future.

Philip's Response: Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"

Audie's Response: There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up something stupid then claiming someone believes it.

Audie's further response: Plenty believe WHAT? The "gap theory" or the ridiculous caricature of what (all) atheists must believe, according to P?
It was a caricature, and the "gap theory" is what I said it is. Neither is a "just because I". Neither does that "lots" believe something have the least evidentiary value, else belief in Atlantis and astrology need be taken as significant.

Further, I commented on the "gap" theory for being what it is, and P jumped in with irrelevant insulting falsehoods, which I rightly said was neither intelligent nor admirable.

What I wanted to point out in my assertion about atheists and agnostics (which would seem to include Audie), is that while Audie is basically ridiculing the (mostly) theologically derived Gap Theory (which I reject, both scientifically and Scripturally) of AbelCainsBrother, how ironic, as to what anyone who doesn't believe in God MUST believe, as their parameters are locked, despite whatever personal nuances they might assert. Those choices for the reason the universe exists are ONLY:

1) A God or gods created, began and designed it; 2) Something not alive and uncreated, of great intelligence and power, that stands outside of the Creation, designed and guided it; 3)That the core essentials of what suddenly burst into existence at the beginning of the Big Bang have ETERNALLY existed, uncreated, and subsequently, and suddenly, popped into a physical existence, including time, space, matter, dimension, etc and that such essentials blindly organized themselves and all that came to physically exist with extraordinary power, complexity, awesome design, specificity, interactively, etc; 4) That from NOTHING previously existing, immediately and with unfathomable power, an incredible universe of immensely complex organization, design, order, function, and astounding mechanisms simply popped into existence without any cause or being created.

So, I would say that ANY theist, despite how their theories about the details of how some god, gods or GOD created might differ with ones I hold, are at least on a plane of reasonable conjecture and basic logic as to the core ORIGIN behind such unfolding of created things, their functions and mechanisms. Because logic shows nothing could eternally exist of great intelligence that is not akin to a thinking and intelligent being, beings or Being. And NOTHINGNESS does not create and design an awesome universe. EVERYTHING has an origin. Time and chance does not produce unguided, unacquired and immense intelligence. Time and chance have no power. Those scientific laws there at the Big Bang's beginning? They didn't CAUSE anything, as LAWS are only detailed observations about how things actually work. Laws don't explain the design or functionality of WHY things work or what causes them, they only are detailed observations of HOW things work.

So, despite the nuances of what Audie or any unbeliever might personally think, the parameters of what they might or must entertain can be found ONLY within the four possibilities above. And all except #1 above are totally illogical, unscientific and inexplicable. To see anyone believing premise numbers 2-4 as even possibilities or that perhaps assert premise #1 to be impossible while they make fun of those believing somewhere within the parameters of premise #1, are not to be taken seriously. Premises numbers 2-4 are not only impossible, unscientific, and illogical, but to even entertain that their parameters might contain the answers takes extraordinary faith in "pop metaphysics." Can you get a Ph.D in that?

Norman Geisler loves to rhetorically ask: "Do you know what 'nothing' is? It's what ROCKS dream about!"

There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up something stupid then claiming someone believes it.

And that is still true.

Despite what you may personally think those are neither the only possibilities nor is your "god' logical except within parameters set so that it will appear to be. ALL CAPS not with, as they say, standing.

As there is nothing good to be said about caricatures such as yours, nuanced or otherwise, I will refrain from indulging in equivalent caricatures of Christianity or other religions. Its a real soft target, another reason to refrain.

I make no claim to being some sort of physicist, but I have read and listened to talk concerning such things as the "origin", the structure, extent, basic composition etc of the universe / multiverse. I am satisfied that its far deeper, weirder and more complex than could your "possibilities" could possibly touch except in the most facile and cartoonish sort of way.

If "irony" is your thing, perhaps you could work on why it is that people who nominally present as Christians feel free to make up things about other people, or for that matter, wish to attempt some sort of intellectual high ground while clinging to such crude absurdities as the "flood" as an actual event.

[Philip]

Audie: Despite what you may personally think those are neither the only possibilities nor is your "god' logical except within parameters set so that it will appear to be.

Well, Audie, what other possibilities exist beyond my stated parameters? We're all ears!

As there is nothing good to be said about caricatures such as yours, nuanced or otherwise, I will refrain from indulging in equivalent caricatures of Christianity or other religions. Its a real soft target, another reason to refrain.

Audie, despite your determination that your thinking about this matter is unique only to you, your assertions most certainly are necessarily found withing the confines of my stated parameters of possible choices. Again, what other possibilities are there???!!! Is it a caricature to show parameters that exist for ALL persons. And ALL non-theists must fit into premises 2 - 4. If there is another possibility, please enlighten us!

Audie: I make no claim to being some sort of physicist, but I have read and listened to talk concerning such things as the "origin", the structure, extent, basic composition etc of the universe / multiverse. I am satisfied that its far deeper, weirder and more complex than could your "possibilities" could possibly touch except in the most facile and cartoonish sort of way.

OK, so your faith may be in something "deeper, weirder and more complex," but it nonetheless HAS to be within the stated parameters. Audie, I hate to tell you, but your assertion that you don't know/we can't know the truth of this matter just puts you in the category of a non-theist and, at best, an agnostic. How is that cartoonish? Do you really think that your satisfaction with the unstated/unknown/unproven details of all of the possible nuances of how a Godless, incredibly complex and intricately designed universe might have come into existence unguided by an intelligent Being makes your views in ANY way unique. You have redundantly shown you are a mere agnostic, no more sophisticated or unique than many others. You don't state details, as you yourself admit you don't know them. And so this means your belief in mere possibilities of how the universe came into being, (though likely "weirder and more complex") is like anyone else's belief in such mere possibilities. I've not seen you state one thing on this forum that makes your beliefs unique amongst non-theists and agnostics. And not one thing you've stated supersedes the definitive parameters I stated. If so, HOW so? I can guarantee you that you don't have ANY rebuttal that will transcend it. Calling my stated parameters a collective "caricature" in no way helps or makes your stated views to be outside of them. And there's nothing I've read that you've written that is even remotely unique - those of us on this board have seen your stated views over and over by many agnostics, atheists, and ALL of their views (as well) are necessarily found within my stated parameters.

Audie: If "irony" is your thing, perhaps you could work on why it is that people who nominally present as Christians feel free to make up things about other people, or for that matter, wish to attempt some sort of intellectual high ground while clinging to such crude absurdities as the "flood" as an actual event.

Audie, dear girl, what have I made up???!!! What about my stated parameters doesn't place your views firmly within my stated premises 2 - 4? Your reference, "clinging to such crude absurdities as the 'flood,'" is very telling, as you well know that there are many possibilities as to the nuances of what God may or may not have done. IF such a powerful God exists, logically, NOTHING is physically impossible, and we must agree that His existence and what He has done would clearly be, yes, "weirder and more complex," than we humans could understand. But my premises have to do with the hard bookends of inescapable parameters concerning the ORIGINS and what (or WHO) is behind the Creation, not the nuances or details of HOW God (or even some non-living/pre-existent thing or things) created/caused/designed/implemented. You are basically asserting that something absolutely beyond human understanding is responsible for the creation of this universe, but at the very same time also saying the cause couldn't be God, and that if He really exists, He couldn't have created except in some way that YOU could understand and agree with. But you don't even understand and can't explain the universe's origins to begin with. Now that is really ironic. And I find it terribly insecure that you find offense at being logically lumped in within the basic parameters of what ALL agnostics and atheists MUST believe.

Audie, none of the above has anything to do with being haughty, rude, attacking you personally - it's a simple stating of what the facts are. The details of possibilities that you might uniquely entertain - even if you can't state them (or even if you do) - still place you firmly within the parameters I've stated. Your views make you no more (or less) intelligent or unique than any other non-theists, atheists or agnostics, as they all fall within my premises 2-4. Why can't you just accept that without taking it as being disrespectful or a personal attack?

[RickD]

Uh oh! It looks like someone is back on Audie's naughty er...ignore list! Welcome back on the list Philip! We're growing in numbers every day! Byblos and I were wondering when you'd be back!

[Kenny]

Wouldn`t your point 5 be an argument for God?

Not the Christian version of God, the Christian God is neither matter nor is he evolved.

Ken

[Philip]

Seriously, I am in NO way intending to personally attack Audie. I actually find her quite interesting, sometimes fun, even funny. But I am trying to highlight the hypocrisy of her constant "clever" put downs of various creation views without her having a clue as to a rational or even scientifically based alternative. And I don't see the targets of her frequently arrogant attacks getting all upset as if they are being PERSONALLY attacked.

And, this is not an issue over who is more intelligent - as Min is clearly highly intelligent. It's a matter of what observations the scientific method are based upon - and how a creation cause that is somehow "far deeper, weirder and more complex" than what can be scientifically observed, understood or proven" is neither scientific or follow basic logic of the redundantly observed understanding that "nothing" is not a cause or origin and that all things spring from something prior, and no known material thing has ever been known to always exist or to merely "pop" into existence. Belief that such things can come into existence without a living and intelligent Cause defies all observations. In fact, FAR from our scientific analysis revealing random processes, it reveals great consistency in how the basic chemistries, biologies, mechanisms, and physics of our world and universe were so designed and function. Belief these things came into existence without an intelligent Cause is pure FAITH in "Pop Metaphysics!" It's certainly not scientifically based on either observations, science or logic. It's necessarily descriptive and not prescriptive.

[RickD]

Seriously, I am in NO way intending to personally attack Audie. I actually find her quite interesting, sometimes fun, even funny. But I am trying to highlight the Hippocracy of her constant "clever" put downs of various creation views without her having a clue as to a rational or even scientifically based alternative. And I don't see the targets of her frequently arrogant attacks getting all upset as if they are being PERSONALLY attacked.

And, this is not an issue over who is more intelligent - as Min is clearly highly intelligent. It's a matter of what observations the scientific method are based upon - and how a creation cause that is somehow "far deeper, weirder and more complex" than what can be scientifically observed, understood or proven" is neither scientific or follow basic logic of the redundantly observed understanding that "nothing" is not a cause or origin and that all things spring from something prior, and no known material thing has ever been known to always exist or to merely "pop" into existence. Belief that such things can come into existence without a living and intelligent Cause defies all observations. In fact, FAR from our scientific analysis revealing random processes, it reveals great consistency in how the basic chemistries, biologies, mechanisms, and physics of our world and universe were so designed and function. Belief these things came into existence without an intelligent Cause is pure FAITH in "Pop Metaphysics!" It's certainly not scientifically based on either observations, science or logic. It's necessarily descriptive and not prescriptive.

Oh I know you're not attacking her. But whenever someone strongly disagrees with her, instead of dealing with the issue, she "puts them on ignore".

It would be kinda cute if it wasn't so annoying.
****edit**** although annoying, it's still kinda cute.

And btw Philip, where I underlined, what's Hippocracy ? Is that the rule of government among Hippos? I thought your anal retentiveness would've caught that before going to press!

[RickD]

Wouldn`t your point 5 be an argument for God?

Not the Christian version of God, the Christian God is neither matter nor is he evolved.

Ken

Wow Kenny! You have learned something being here!

[Audie]

In general the purpose of a gish gallop is to make it impractical to attempt to respond. Ok P, you succeeded. It would take too long even to sort out all the new things you made up.

[RickD]

In general the purpose of a gish gallop is to make it impractical to attempt to respond. Ok P, you succeeded. It would take too long even to sort out all the new things you made up.

Gish Gallop! *








* I'm only rofling because the pseudo fallacy term is funny. Not because I think philip's post is a Gish Gallop.

And I got a new one for you Audie. It's called the Audie sidestep. It happens when you don't want to deal with a tough question that's not in your comfort zone.

Here it is in a sentence.
When the question is outside the realm of science, an Audie sidestep is usually forthcoming.

[Kenny]

Wouldn`t your point 5 be an argument for God?

Not the Christian version of God, the Christian God is neither matter nor is he evolved.

Ken

Wow Kenny! You have learned something being here!

If you are surprised by that, you obviously haven't been listening to much of what I've been saying over the years.

Ken

[RickD]

Wouldn`t your point 5 be an argument for God?

Not the Christian version of God, the Christian God is neither matter nor is he evolved.

Ken

Wow Kenny! You have learned something being here!

If you are surprised by that, you obviously haven't been listening to much of what I've been saying over the years.

Ken

You're absolutely right Kenny. I haven't been listening to you over the years, because you only joined this forum last year.

[Philip]

And btw Philip, where I underlined, what's Hippocracy ? Is that the rule of government among Hippos? I thought your anal retentiveness would've caught that before going to press!

Well, somehow a few of your ex-girlfriends probably came to mind when you spotted my typo! Oops, pardon my political incorrectness, Rick, I meant to say a few of your "plus-sized model" girlfriends.