To anyone who doubts that evolution excludes God
Shiny Noctowl
God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
Ken Shackleton
Auto mechanics does not include God either. The theory behind the
internal combustion engine explains how the engine works without
mentioning God at all.....therefore, if engines work, God doesn't
exist.
:)
Shiny Noctowl
If auto mechanics is true, God might exist, or God might not exist;
there's no way to draw a conclusion from this fact. However, if
evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true, they fully and completely
explain everything that God was meant to explain, and therefore make
God's existence unnecessary.
Will in New Haven
All of things might mean that god is not necessary but do not prove
that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
Also, and of great importance, if anything DID prove god didn't exist,
and it was accurate, would you be in favor of suppressing it?
--
Will in New Haven
bpuharic
amazingly enough, there are some folks who take this argument
seriously...not the least of whom are creationists
Frank J
Do the alternatives to evolution proposed by Schwabe and Senapathy
exclude God too?
Ken Shackleton
At one time, God was "meant" to explain everything.
Evolution is true. Get used to it.
If a scientific theory explains some aspect of nature well, even if
that aspect of nature was once explained by God, it does not follow
that God does not exist. The best that one can say is that we now know
*how* this aspect of nature operates.
Evolution explains the diversity of life, and provides us with a
powerful explanation for the history of life that we observe. This
says nothing about God, but it might say a few things about some silly
ideas that some people have about the Nature of God.
Davej
> On Dec 13, 6:26 pm, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 5:16 pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains
> > > the origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
> >
> > Auto mechanics does not include God either. The theory behind the
> > internal combustion engine explains how the engine works without
> > mentioning God at all.....therefore, if engines work, God doesn't
> > exist.
>
> there's no way to draw a conclusion from this fact. However, if
> evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true, they fully and completely
> explain everything that God was meant to explain, and therefore make
> God's existence unnecessary.
You're quite unnecessary and yet you exist. Strange how these ID'ers
can't seem to imagine that their designer could be smart enough to
design things so that development could smoothly and automatically
unfold without constant hands-on tweaking, hammering, and cursing. I
guess that's because the Bible presents their "designer" as a rude,
vain, mean-spirited, bumbling asshole.
All-seeing-I
Steven L.
news:8feae657-940a-42b1...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
My dad is quite religious,
but that's not what he believes "God was meant to explain."
He believes God was meant to uphold love, mercy and moral goodness, and
to keep alive the hope that our souls might be eternal.
And my dad accepts the Theory of Evolution.
If you look upon religion as a moral and ethical guide, and not as an
explanation of the workings of the natural world, then Ockham's Razor is
largely inapplicable.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
All-seeing-I
>
> > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> All of things might mean that god is not necessary but do not prove
> that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
> lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
> doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
How is that any different? It don't matter if you "lead" people to
believe God does not exist or if you "show" them God does not exist.
The results is the same.
Tim DeLaney
Occam's Razor does not have the standing of a
logical principle, IMO; it is merely a guide to be used
in formulating a hypothesis. It most certainly doesn't
doesn't imply the non-existance of God.
If you accept as valid ToE, abiogenesis, and the Big
Bang, Occam's Razor only says that God need not be
part of your theory.
Why do I sense that a strawman is being crafted here?
Tim
Desertphile
<shiny.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> god.
Evolution doesn't explain anything; perhaps you mean evolutionary
theory. And as for gods, all correct explanations of every natural
phenomena don't have gods in them: why mention just a few?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 13, 6:43�pm, Will in New Haven
><bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 7:16�pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
>> > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
>> > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
>> > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
>> > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
>> > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>>
>> All of things might mean that god is not necessary but do not prove
>> that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
>> lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
>> doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
>
>How is that any different? It don't matter if you "lead" people to
>believe God does not exist or if you "show" them God does not exist.
>The results is the same.
the proper response is to show why, if you believe this is wrong, it
is wrong.
that's what logic is about.
David Hare-Scott
You have destroyed a straw god because the godly have many other roles for
Her to play including determining the nature of the universe that permitted
abiogenesis and evolution.
David
Dave Oldridge
4382-a2b8-5...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
The "Big Bang" so-called, could equally be termed "The very, very bright
flash." And both would be somewhat short of a good description. There
was no "bang" as there was no medium initially for there to be sound in.
The flash was actually somewhat leter than the very beginning.
There are about as many stars in the cosmos as there would be grains of
sand on 40 million copies of our planet. Yet that entire mass began as
something smaller than a proton, we think. Necessarily that small
because all of space was that small. There is no "before" because this
is when time began. Just what began it is currently a mystery.
Claiming that God is "necessary" to some explanation or other is what is
termed the God of the gaps argument. It is not a very useful apologetic,
as there will always be something unexplained and it will always be
potentially explainable. If that's all that will sustain your faith,
then I suggest it is not really faith at all, but just a social pretense
of faith and that you feel threatened when called to justify it.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Fiery
Your premise is wrong. Evolution, abiogenesis, cosmogenesis etc. are
not everything "God was meant to explain". Thus, finding a natural
explanation and/or cause for all of these doesn't disprove God.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> ...Therefore, by
> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
I don't need knowledge of quantum physics to eat an apple, does that mean
that quantum physics is bunk?
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Kermit
Abiogensis science is rather immature at this point. Evolution and
cosmology would only disprove any gods to the extent that their
existence depends of evolution (and the big bang) not being true. Even
most biblical literalists might hesitate to insist that this is the
major function of their deity.
When the Big Bang was first described to the public, many Creationists
saw it as scientific *vindication of their myths.
Kermit
Michael Siemon
<0dd13d67-72b8-4382...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Shiny Noctowl <shiny.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ummm, for most of the last few millennia "God" is not reasonably
described as "the explanation for modern life or biogenesis." That
has (in actual religious controversy) been a peculiarly narrow
corner of any actual theological discussion. :-) Yes, "conventional"
religion ascribes those origins to God (and there is no reason not
to continue doing so, even given chemical abiogenesis and evolution);
but the _issues_ are quite other. The main one is "the problem of
evil". I don't think that has really been dealt with (unless you
adopt a Spinozan take on "God") adequately in the last 2500 years
or so (which is to say, since the question was initially raised,
with some possible hints of it going back earlier in Egypt and a
few other "advanced" places ...)
Within certain liturgical/doctrinal contexts, that problem has
(at least in the opinions of some or most "believers" :-)) been
"controlled." Much good may that do ...
R. Baldwin
4382-a2b8-5...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
Ockham's Razor cannot demonstrate that something does not exist.
Mike Dworetsky
Ockham's Razor is not an absolute; for example, it assumes that all relevant
information is available. Sometimes the simple obvious explanation is not
the correct one, just because our knowledge is incomplete. It's a guide to
rational explanation that works most of the time, but not a way to decide
"ultimate truth."
Science is about seeking the best explanation consistent with the
observations.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
All-Seeing-I
That is because it was presented as such in the media. Then as time
went by the big bang was presented as "no god needed".
The matter just *blew itself into existence by magic
TomS
<8feae657-940a-42b1...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Shiny
Noctowl stated..."
God is the Creator and Redeemer of each individual human being,
according to traditional Christian theology.
Reproductive biology (and genetics, development, and so on) explains
the "complete origin" of each individual human body.
But few people find any conflict between reproductive biology and
the existence of God.
Traditional Christian theology has no concern with species or
populations, the subject matter of evolutionary biology.
But even if it did, if there is no conflict between reproductive
biology and the existence of God, why should there be any conflict
when evolution is concerned?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
bpuharic
creationists still said 'god did it'
scientists? we said we didn't know how it happened.
that's the difference
Kleuskes & Moos
That's what i call blasphemous. Do you thing God is needed ONLY as an
explaination?
What a poor and wretched religion you must have.
Nashton
> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> organisms, once again without needing God.
How can something never scientifically elucidated such as abiogenesis,
explain anything? And what does it have to do with evolution?
The Big Bang explains the
> origin of existence without requiring God.
Therefore, God is
> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
This is the quality of the evolutionist activist, who thinks abiogenesis
is a fact and goes around proclaiming that it is.
The ToE is indeed in dire straits.
Nashton
> On Dec 13, 7:16 pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
>> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
>> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
>> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
>> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
>> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> All of things might mean that god is not necessary but do not prove
> that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
> lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
> doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
and faith does not require this tool.
Can you distinguish between the two, you illiterate dumb ACTIVIST?
>
> Also, and of great importance, if anything DID prove god didn't exist,
> and it was accurate, would you be in favor of suppressing it?
Further proof that most simpleton posters in this ng do not understand
science and possibly never will.
Science does not "disprove" anything, you stupid fuck, if anything it
either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't.
Kleuskes & Moos
> Shiny Noctowl wrote:
> > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > organisms, once again without needing God.
>
> How can something never scientifically elucidated such as abiogenesis,
> explain anything?
There is no theory of abiogenesis, just a couple of hypotheses.
> And what does it have to do with evolution?
Nothing. Evolution explains what happened after life arose.
> The Big Bang explains the
>
> > origin of existence without requiring God.
> Therefore, God is
> > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> This is the quality of the evolutionist activist, who thinks abiogenesis
> is a fact and goes around proclaiming that it is.
Abiogenesis itself must be a fact, since life must have arisen
somewhere. Where and how exactly is still a question to be answered.
You could win a Nobel-Prize by providing that answer.
> The ToE is indeed in dire straits.
Only in your dreams.
alextangent
Ye Old One
What would you know about science you illiterate moron.
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>The ToE is indeed in dire straits.
>
Only in your dreams trollslob.
Ye Old One
No magic, in fact no matter for quite some time.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Desertphile
> The ToE is indeed in dire straits.
Yes, for 150 years it was goingto be demonstrated incorrect "any
day now." Just how much longer must we wait? Will Jesus "return"
before or after?
Desertphile
> On Dec 13, 10:30�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 4:16�pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
> > Abiogensis science is rather immature at this point. Evolution and
> > cosmology would only disprove any gods to the extent that their
> > existence depends of evolution (and the big bang) not being true. Even
> > most biblical literalists might hesitate to insist that this is the
> > major function of their deity.
> >
> > When the Big Bang was first described to the public, many Creationists
> > saw it as scientific *vindication of their myths.
> That is because it was presented as such in the media.
Who gives a bloody fuck what "the media" says? For the facts, one
should ignore "the media" and examine the actual evidence.
> Then as time went by the big bang was presented as "no god needed".
Only by morons who don't understand the fact that science doesn't
have any opinion about the gods.
> The matter just *blew itself into existence by magic
No: that's Creationism.
Will in New Haven
> On Dec 13, 6:43�pm, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 7:16�pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> > All of things might mean that god is not necessary but do not prove
> > that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
> > lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
> > doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
>
> How is that any different? It don't matter if you "lead" people to
> believe God does not exist or if you "show" them God does not exist.
> The results is the same.
If it turns out to be true, are you in favor of suppressing it?
Evolution did happen/is happening. All of your hysterical evasiveness
cannot change that. I don't think that proves or disproves _anything_
about the metaphysical. If you think it is true but disproves the
metaphysical, including god, are you in favor of ignoring reality and
suppressing the knowledge of reality. Is this the apple in the Garden
all over again?
--
Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> > Also, and of great importance, if anything DID prove god didn't exist,
> > and it was accurate, would you be in favor of suppressing it?
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 7:16 pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> >> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> >> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> >> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> >> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> >> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> > All of things might mean that god is not necessary but do not prove
> > that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
> > lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
> > doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
>
> Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
> and faith does not require this tool.
>
> Can you distinguish between the two, you illiterate dumb ACTIVIST?
Right. But the original poster in this thread seems to think that
evolution will destroy faith. I will remain active in defense of the
human mind as long as feeble-minded shit likes you attacks it.
>
>
> > Also, and of great importance, if anything DID prove god didn't exist,
> > and it was accurate, would you be in favor of suppressing it?
>
> Further proof that most simpleton posters in this ng do not understand
> science and possibly never will.
> Science does not "disprove" anything, you stupid fuck, if anything it
> either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't
But the original poster did say that science disproves this god thingy
you guys care so much about, my good he-whore. I was taking his
argument on its own terms, you piece of shit. So I was asking him her
or it, "what if it did?"
TomS
<03jci5d309e052v6o...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
>
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:19:40 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>> The ToE is indeed in dire straits.
>
>Yes, for 150 years it was goingto be demonstrated incorrect "any
>day now." Just how much longer must we wait? Will Jesus "return"
>before or after?
>
>
The Imminent Demise of Evolution
Glenn R. Morton
<http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm>
Reddfrogg
That's what creationism teaches. Science, however doesn't accept
magic as a mechanism.
DJT
Kermit
> On Dec 13, 10:30�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 4:16�pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> > Abiogensis science is rather immature at this point. Evolution and
> > cosmology would only disprove any gods to the extent that their
> > existence depends of evolution (and the big bang) not being true. Even
> > most biblical literalists might hesitate to insist that this is the
> > major function of their deity.
>
> > When the Big Bang was first described to the public, many Creationists
> > saw it as scientific *vindication of their myths.
>
> That is because it was presented as such in the media.
Creationists take their cues from the public media?
>Then as time
> went by the big bang was presented as "no god needed".
Only in the sense that not every event is a miracle. For most theists,
they would insist that their god (or one of their gods) was ultimately
behind it all. But that doesn't mean that they require their creator
god to explain every event. No god is needed to explain rainfall.
Saying that "God did it" is no explanation at all. It provides no
understanding, and no choices. My daughter got stabbed in the ankle by
a branch while camping some years back, and it got infected. If it
weren't for Pasteur and Fleming, she'd be dead now. Instead, an
analysis of the infection and a course of the proper antibiotics fixed
her right up. Praying wouldn't have done anything for her. We *know
this as well as we know anything, for we have done studies over and
over.
>
> The matter just *blew itself into existence by magic
No, all proposed explanations that I've heard of uses a model that
describes an infinite series of universes. It is not yet clear whether
or not any of these will be testable. Proposing a shy but omnipotent
creator entity who acts like a Persian king at war, built like a
tetrapod adapted for the African Savannah, and is male (!) sounds more
like a bronze age myth than an explanation.
Kermit
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Shiny Noctowl" <shiny.no...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0dd13d67-72b8-4382...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
Thank you for sharing that.
Unfortunately, the only thing it proves is your ignorance.
el cid
> On Dec 13, 6:26�pm, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> > internal combustion engine explains how the engine works without
> > mentioning God at all.....therefore, if engines work, God doesn't
> > exist.
>
> > :)
>
> If auto mechanics is true, God might exist, or God might not exist;
> there's no way to draw a conclusion from this fact. However, if
> evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true, they fully and completely
> explain everything that God was meant to explain, and therefore make
> God's existence unnecessary.
You keep using that word ("therefore"). I do not think it
means what you think it means.
heekster
sweet.
heekster
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
Either provide a cite, or retract this latest imbecility.
Christopher Denney
> On Dec 13, 6:26�pm, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> > internal combustion engine explains how the engine works without
> > mentioning God at all.....therefore, if engines work, God doesn't
> > exist.
>
> > :)
>
> If auto mechanics is true, God might exist, or God might not exist;
> there's no way to draw a conclusion from this fact. However, if
> evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true, they fully and completely
> explain everything that God was meant to explain, and therefore make
> God's existence unnecessary.
God doesn't explain anything, god is an excuse. A substitute for "I
don't know" for people who are pathologically incapable of saying "I
don't know".
snex
> "Shiny Noctowl" <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8feae657-940a-42b1...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 6:26�pm, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 5:16�pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > > > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > > > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > > > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > > > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > > > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> > > Auto mechanics does not include God either. The theory behind the
> > > internal combustion engine explains how the engine works without
> > > mentioning God at all.....therefore, if engines work, God doesn't
> > > exist.
>
> > > :)
>
> > If auto mechanics is true, God might exist, or God might not exist;
> > there's no way to draw a conclusion from this fact. However, if
> > evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true, they fully and completely
> > explain everything that God was meant to explain, and therefore make
> > God's existence unnecessary.
>
> but that's not what he believes "God was meant to explain."
>
> He believes God was meant to uphold love, mercy and moral goodness, and
> to keep alive the hope that our souls might be eternal.
>
> And my dad accepts the Theory of Evolution.
>
> If you look upon religion as a moral and ethical guide, and not as an
> explanation of the workings of the natural world, then Ockham's Razor is
> largely inapplicable.
socrates dealt with this silliness over 2000 years ago.
Nashton
> On 14 dec, 12:19, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> Shiny Noctowl wrote:
>>> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
>>> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
>>> organisms, once again without needing God.
>> How can something never scientifically elucidated such as abiogenesis,
>> explain anything?
>
> There is no theory of abiogenesis, just a couple of hypotheses.
Tell that to your fellow activist.
>
>> And what does it have to do with evolution?
>
> Nothing. Evolution explains what happened after life arose.
Evolution is a tentative theory, irrelevant given that's its useless,
that explains how life *might* have "evolved". Only in an ACTIVIST'S
brain does it mean anything else.
But the Evolution ACTIVIST, just like yourself, takes it to be the
gospel of the Holy Truth of Dawkins.
>
>> The Big Bang explains the
>>
>>> origin of existence without requiring God.
>> Therefore, God is
>>> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
>>> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>> This is the quality of the evolutionist activist, who thinks abiogenesis
>> is a fact and goes around proclaiming that it is.
>
> Abiogenesis itself must be a fact, since life must have arisen
> somewhere. Where and how exactly is still a question to be answered.
> You could win a Nobel-Prize by providing that answer.
We are not disputing the fact that life started somewhere, cretin. I was
discussing the fact that another clueless activist, your own kind, after
all, commented on his delusions that the ToE has anything to do with the
beginning of life on Earth.
>
>> The ToE is indeed in dire straits.
>
> Only in your dreams.
Yawn. Almost broke my jaw.
>
John Stockwell
> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
Not really. First of all, abiogenesis and the Big Bang, are not part
of evolution.
Second, of course, scientific theories are not worldview philosophies,
but are, rather tentative structures that organize observatons into a
coherent system that we can study, describe, and make further
observations within.
Finally, science is about processes, not ultimate origins, so, while
we may model the process of origins of objects, we cannot state
the nature of their ultimate origins, becuase those ultimate origins
are invariable not accompanied by physical evidence that would
allow either the formulation, or testing of those theories.
-John
Ye Old One
Try breaking your finger so we can have a rest from your stupidity.
bpuharic
>Will in New Haven wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 7:16 pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
>>> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
>>> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
>>> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
>>> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
>>> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>>
>> All of things might mean that god is not necessary but do not prove
>> that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
>> lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
>> doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
>
>Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
>and faith does not require this tool.
>
>Can you distinguish between the two, you illiterate dumb ACTIVIST?
>>
>> Also, and of great importance, if anything DID prove god didn't exist,
>> and it was accurate, would you be in favor of suppressing it?
>
>Further proof that most simpleton posters in this ng do not understand
>science and possibly never will.
says the creationist who thinks the flintstones is a documentary
it would be funny if it weren't tragic
>Science does not "disprove" anything, you stupid fuck, if anything it
>either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't.
wrong asshole. it disproves stuff all the time. it does not PROVE
anything.
fuck you're stupid. honestly.
creationism said demons causd earthquakes. that's disproven.
LT
> >> is a fact and goes around proclaiming that it is.
Abiogenesis is a fact. It happened. Life is here. HOW it happened is
the question.
Evolution is a fact. It happened, happens, and will continue to
happen. Species divergence is here. HOW it happened is best defined by
what we call the Theory of Evolution.
With abiogenesis, we don't know much about the HOW yet, it is a much
less understood area of biology.
> > Abiogenesis itself must be a fact, since life must have arisen
> > somewhere. Where and how exactly is still a question to be answered.
> > You could win a Nobel-Prize by providing that answer.
>
> We are not disputing the fact that life started somewhere, cretin.
Yes, you did right above my previous comment. You just lack the mental
capacity to be aware of it, apparently.
> I was discussing the fact that another clueless activist, your own kind, after
> all, commented on his delusions that the ToE has anything to do with the
> beginning of life on Earth.
No one said that the ToE had anything to do with the beginning of
life, just the divergence into variant species. There's that weak
mental capacity of yours again.
> >> The ToE is indeed in dire straits.
>
> > Only in your dreams.
>
> Yawn. Almost broke my jaw.
>
Trying to release all that hot air are you?
LT
Kleuskes & Moos
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> > On 14 dec, 12:19, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> Shiny Noctowl wrote:
> >>> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> >>> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> >>> organisms, once again without needing God.
> >> How can something never scientifically elucidated such as abiogenesis,
> >> explain anything?
>
> > There is no theory of abiogenesis, just a couple of hypotheses.
>
> Tell that to your fellow activist.
Which ''fellow activist''? You are hoping that by calling everyone
oppsing your narrowminded views ''activist'', it will eventually
become true?
> >> And what does it have to do with evolution?
>
> > Nothing. Evolution explains what happened after life arose.
>
> Evolution is a tentative theory, irrelevant given that's its useless,
> that explains how life *might* have "evolved".
Oh... The Modern Synthesis is far from "tentative". In fact, it's the
commonly accepted theory that binds biology as a science. Without it
biology would be no more than stamp-collecting.
> Only in an ACTIVIST'S brain does it mean anything else.
That makes a whollotta people activists. You know... The kind of
activists who are trying to cude all kinds of nasty deseases, or
better prevent them or at least try to stop the man in the street from
taking antibiotics for viral deseases, lest it causes immunity in
bacteria, and such...
Nasty people, those activists.
> But the Evolution ACTIVIST, just like yourself, takes it to be the
> gospel of the Holy Truth of Dawkins.
Dawkins wrote a book, and personally i've not read it. Nor will i, in
the forseeable future. However, i do know that his statements on god
are not supported by the ToE, but rather by the actions of ID-
supporters and creationists like yourself.
> >> The Big Bang explains the
>
> >>> origin of existence without requiring God.
> >> Therefore, God is
> >>> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> >>> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
> >> This is the quality of the evolutionist activist, who thinks abiogenesis
> >> is a fact and goes around proclaiming that it is.
>
> > Abiogenesis itself must be a fact, since life must have arisen
> > somewhere. Where and how exactly is still a question to be answered.
> > You could win a Nobel-Prize by providing that answer.
>
> We are not disputing the fact that life started somewhere, cretin.
Language, language...
> I was discussing the fact that another clueless activist, your own kind, after
> all, commented on his delusions that the ToE has anything to do with the
> beginning of life on Earth.
Did he now? Gosh, golly... 0h my, oh my, oh my... Paint me dazzled and
slap me with a red herring...
And of course a Knight in Shining Armour like yourself came galloping
to the Rescue of Science in General and Abiogenesis and the ToE in
Particular...
David Hare-Scott
>
> Further proof that most simpleton posters in this ng do not understand
> science and possibly never will.
> Science does not "disprove" anything, you stupid fuck, if anything it
> either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't.
>
Science does not prove anything because it is always subject to new evidence
becoming available which may contradict the current theory. You are
assuming that the corollary is that science cannot disprove anything either.
The situation is not symmetrical. Any number of confirming instances do not
prove a theory. One or more incontrovertible contradictory instances does
disprove it.
Say that the hypothesis is that all swans are white and new exploration
discovers a continent populated by black swans. Thus this hypothesis is
clearly false. There is no uncertainty provided that we agree on the
meanings of "black", "white" and "swan". There is no possible future
discovery that will make the hypothesis true again, it has been falsified
once and for all. According to my understanding a hypothesis that is false
now and will for ever be false has been disproved.
Perhaps you will now want to argue about the meaning of "disprove" but check
a few dictionaries before you go down that path.
-: "to show that something is not true or correct" (OneLook)
-: "prove to be false ("The physicist disproved his colleagues' theories")"
(Encarta)
-: " to prove to be false or wrong : refute <disprove a theory>" (Webster
Merriam)
Note that the references to "theory" are in the original.
Would you like to do to the right thing and apologise to Will now?
David
SkyEyes
> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
And this would be bad because...why, exactly?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Nashton
Free Lunch
<shiny.no...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
>God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
>organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
>origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
>unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
>Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
God loses to the Razor anyway. You came to the right conclusion, but for
poor reasons.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Shiny Noctowl
<shiny.no...@gmail.com>:
>Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
>God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
>organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
>origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
>unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
>Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
Interesting. Where did you say you studied logic?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Eric Root
> On Dec 13, 10:30�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> > cosmology would only disprove any gods to the extent that their
> > existence depends of evolution (and the big bang) not being true. Even
> > most biblical literalists might hesitate to insist that this is the
> > major function of their deity.
>
> > When the Big Bang was first described to the public, many Creationists
> > saw it as scientific *vindication of their myths.
>
> That is because it was presented as such in the media. Then as time
> went by the big bang was presented as "no god needed".
>
Can you list any examples at all of scientists thinking it happened by
magic?
Eric Root
Eric Root
Blah blah blah activist blah blah blah activist....looks like
Nashiepoo learned a new word. I can't wait for him to get out of the
"A's"
Eric Root
Desertphile
The cart is before the horse here. The question is, what
difference does it make to anyone if gods exist?
Desertphile
wrote:
> "On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:33:09 -0700, in article
> <03jci5d309e052v6o...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
> >
> >On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:19:40 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> The ToE is indeed in dire straits.
> >
> >Yes, for 150 years it was goingto be demonstrated incorrect "any
> >day now." Just how much longer must we wait? Will Jesus "return"
> >before or after?
> The Imminent Demise of Evolution
> Glenn R. Morton
> <http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm>
And a damn fine web page it be, too. Charles Hodge wrote, 135
years ago, about "darwinism" being a passing fad because, he
believed, it was "atheism."
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:16:16 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Shiny Noctowl
> <shiny.no...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> >God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> >organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> >origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> >unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> >Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
> Interesting. Where did you say you studied logic?
Patriot Bible University.
Desertphile
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>> Evolution explains what happened after life arose.
> Evolution is a tentative theory
No: evolutionary theory is. And every theory is tentative.
Now then: why don't you provide some evidence that shows
evolutionary theory is wrong? What are you waiting for?
> irrelevant given that's its useless,
... except that it saves lives (non-human and human)....
> that explains how life *might* have "evolved".
We observe the fact that all life on Earth evolved. There is no
room for "might" in that observation.
> Only in an ACTIVIST'S brain does it mean anything else.
Non sequitur.
> But the Evolution ACTIVIST, just like yourself, takes it to be the
> gospel of the Holy Truth of Dawkins.
Non compos mentis.
Desertphile
wrote:
And thus deny me the only entertainment I get?! Please, gods, no!
bpuharic
>Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>> On 14 dec, 12:19, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Nothing. Evolution explains what happened after life arose.
>
>Evolution is a tentative theory, irrelevant given that's its useless,
in your opinion because you're a taliban christian
>that explains how life *might* have "evolved". Only in an ACTIVIST'S
>brain does it mean anything else.
>But the Evolution ACTIVIST, just like yourself, takes it to be the
>gospel of the Holy Truth of Dawkins.
meaningless....
typical of a creationist. can't explain what he means so attaches
useless ideas to his descriptions. he hates truth so says it's
'useless'
>
>We are not disputing the fact that life started somewhere, cretin. I was
>discussing the fact that another clueless activist, your own kind, after
>all, commented on his delusions that the ToE has anything to do with the
>beginning of life on Earth.
>
the creationist by the name of 'george' says this very thiing
David Fritzinger
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 7:16 pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> >> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> >> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> >> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> >> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> >> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
> >
> > All of things might mean that god is not necessary but do not prove
> > that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
> > lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
> > doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
>
> Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
> and faith does not require this tool.
>
> Can you distinguish between the two, you illiterate dumb ACTIVIST?
> >
> > Also, and of great importance, if anything DID prove god didn't exist,
> > and it was accurate, would you be in favor of suppressing it?
>
> Further proof that most simpleton posters in this ng do not understand
> science and possibly never will.
> Science does not "disprove" anything, you stupid fuck, if anything it
> either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't.
I suggest, Nicky, that you look up Maxwell's experiments. Also, science
has disproven Phlogisten theory. It has also disproven the Noachian
deluge. Science has disproven many things. Your problem is that you are
both to arrogant and too ignorant to realize how much you don't know.
RAM
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 7:16 pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> >> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> >> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> >> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> >> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> >> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> > All of things might mean that god is not necessary but do not prove
> > that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
> > lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
> > doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
>
> Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
> and faith does not require this tool.
>
> Can you distinguish between the two, you illiterate dumb ACTIVIST?
>
>
>
> > Also, and of great importance, if anything DID prove god didn't exist,
> > and it was accurate, would you be in favor of suppressing it?
>
> Further proof that most simpleton posters in this ng do not understand
> science and possibly never will.
> Science does not "disprove" anything, you stupid fuck, if anything it
> either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't.
I've found this to mostly a problem with Creationists. Your best
friend ASSinine should be attacked even more strongly since he has
been told this several times but his rigid reactionary religious
emotions freeze his ability to understand this. When he does it again
I'll signal you it's time to attack.
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:56:04 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:18:56 -0400, Nashton <na...@no.ca> enriched this
>> group when s/he wrote:
>
>>> Yawn. Almost broke my jaw.
>
>> Try breaking your finger so we can have a rest from your stupidity.
>
>And thus deny me the only entertainment I get?! Please, gods, no!
It would give you more time to make videos.
--
Bob.
Rolf
> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
A short circuit in your brain. There's plenty of room for God, but he is not
the magician worshiped by fundamentalists. That god is a Fata Morgana, an
illusion you suffer from fundamentalist teachings. Home schooling is
damaging to free thought.
Like Hitler and his Hitlerjugend, fundies know that children must be
corrupted from an early age lest they shoulg get fancy ideas about using
their rational mind.
VoiceOfReason
> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
Maybe that's why most Christians accept evolution. ;-)
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:18:56 -0400, Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:
>
> >Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> >> On 14 dec, 12:19, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Nothing. Evolution explains what happened after life arose.
> >
> >Evolution is a tentative theory, irrelevant given that's its useless,
> in your opinion because you're a taliban christian
And yet he greatly benefits from evolutionary theory. Naffoff is
the worse of hypocrites.
> >that explains how life *might* have "evolved". Only in an ACTIVIST'S
> >brain does it mean anything else.
> >But the Evolution ACTIVIST, just like yourself, takes it to be the
> >gospel of the Holy Truth of Dawkins.
> meaningless....
Yes, but oddly humorous.
(CUT)
Will in New Haven
> >> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> >> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> >> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> >> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> >> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> >> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> > that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
> > lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
> > doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
>
> Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
> and faith does not require this tool.
>
> Can you distinguish between the two, you illiterate dumb ACTIVIST?
>
>
>
> > Also, and of great importance, if anything DID prove god didn't exist,
> > and it was accurate, would you be in favor of suppressing it?
>
> Further proof that most simpleton posters in this ng do not understand
> science and possibly never will.
> Science does not "disprove" anything, you stupid fuck, if anything it
> either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't.
"You can't prove all swans are white by counting white swans but you
can prove that not all swans are white by counting one black swan."
Karl Popper
Science doesn't PROVE anything but disproving things is a big part of
what it does, oh prolific cocksucker. You were seduced by seeing
"science doesn't prove things" into thinking that it doesn't disprove
them either. Poor illiterate thing.
Mitchell Coffey
> In article
> <0dd13d67-72b8-4382-a2b8-5c608ca14...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> �Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
> described as "the explanation for modern life or biogenesis." That
> has (in actual religious controversy) been a peculiarly narrow
> corner of any actual theological discussion. :-) Yes, "conventional"
> religion ascribes those origins to God (and there is no reason not
> to continue doing so, even given chemical abiogenesis and evolution);
> but the _issues_ are quite other. The main one is "the problem of
> evil". I don't think that has really been dealt with (unless you
> adopt a Spinozan take on "God") adequately in the last 2500 years
> or so (which is to say, since the question was initially raised,
> with some possible hints of it going back earlier in Egypt and a
> few other "advanced" places ...)
>
> Within certain liturgical/doctrinal contexts, that problem has
> (at least in the opinions of some or most "believers" :-)) been
> "controlled." Much good may that do ...
In how many religions is the problem of evil really a problem? In the
European world and the Middle East it was only partly a problem with
classical Judaism, but became a major problem with one of Judaism's
branch religions. Zoroastrianism and related faiths had a built in
solution. Pagan faiths didn't as a rule expect gods to be anymore
moral than people. It wasn't until well into the common era until the
majority of people in that region expected decent behavior from their
objects of worship.
Mitchell
Kent Paul Dolan
> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern
> life without needing God.
Well, no.
The theory of evolution explains the origin of
_species_, both modern and extinct.
It has precisely _nothing_ to say about the origin
of _life_.
How do you pretend that you can argue sanely against
something when you lack even the most fundamental
understanding of what that something _is_?
> Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of
> the earliest organisms, once again without needing
> God.
Well, no, since there is so far no acceptable theory
of abiogenesis, just a bunch of hypotheses:
candidate theories looking for a way to choose among
them.
The good news is, new progress in this area is
published every month.
See this December's Scientific American, for
example, for a nice write-up on a new (to me)
abiogenesis hypothesis.
Again, you show ignorance of your subject matter at
the most profound level.
Why should anyone pay any attention to your opinions
on the matter, once again?
> The Big Bang explains the origin of existence
> without requiring God.
Well, no.
Science knows that there _was_ a big bang,
unquestionably, the facts are all there for anyone
to see.
Science as yet knows no reason _why_ the big bang
should have occurred.
"Oh, look, a gap, let's fake up a deity and jam it
in there. then worship the spit out of that gap.
Whose pantheon should we choose as our starting
point? They're all pretty much indistinguishably
evidence-free to a neutral observer."
It is to laugh.
> Therefore, God is unnecessary if evolution,
> abiogenesis, etc. are true.
Science doesn't say "true", science says "supported
overwhelmingly by all known facts".
Anyway, it doesn't take "science" to crush the
concept of deities.
That concept falls under the crushing weight of its
own monumental internal flaws, silliness, and
inconsistencies without need of outside assistance.
> Therefore, by Ockham's Razor,
Occam's Razor applies to science, not to the
supernatural, or religions would long ago have
eliminated all but one competing pantheon.
Religion, instead of Occam's Razor, chooses
"genocide" as the tool of choice for deciding among
deity pantheons.
Read your bible, for example, for lots of instances
of this tool in use long ago, or just read The Times
of India daily edition for instance of this tool in
use today.
> if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
Since evolution and the big bang have enormous
amounts of scientific evidence in their favor, and
no falsifying evidence contradicting them, and since
abiogenesis, lacking such supporting evidence, is
still a logical necessity (the big bang was just a
dandy autoclave, sterilizing the entire universe in
one go), your inescapable conclusion is...?
Just out of curiosity, what reward do you find in
writing postings where every single statement you
make is easily shown to be an error?
Has your religious upbringing made "living abjectly
in error" the only kind of existence you can endure
or even imagine?
xanthian.
el cid
It was all so much easier when men were asked to worship
the goddess. Nobody expected the goddess to be moral.
Just agreeing with you.
Steven L.
wrote in message news:e06bi5dk51thdoa9e...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:16:16 -0800 (PST), Shiny Noctowl
> <shiny.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > god.
>
> Evolution doesn't explain anything; perhaps you mean evolutionary
> theory. And as for gods, all correct explanations of every natural
> phenomena don't have gods in them: why mention just a few?
Because most religions have a creation myth.
The origin of life is much more central to most religions than is, say,
how electricity works or how the planets move.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Michael Siemon
<1ebc06c4-9c1c-4b23...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
Well, it was (eg. the presentation in _Euthyphro_) an issue to the
Greeks (not necessarily liturgically, but some aspects of tragedy --
as very public religion -- touch on it.) Wisdom literature (in Egypt,
before the Jews adopted it along with lots of others in the Near
East) also treats it, just not in the same heightened mode of the
conflict of omnipotence and benevolence. The dualist version is
not a "solution" to the problem, just a statement that it is basic
to reality[*]. Hmmm.... The problem with most fanatics (Christian or
Muslim) is that they really do act as if _their_ reality is a war
between two coequal and opposite "sides".
[*] and like the "Christian" sloughing off the blame on Satan, the
Zoroastrian model (from which Satan is mostly taken) leaves the
"good" God mostly of no use to His followers to _avoid_ evil, nor
even redress it except in the sweet and incaccessible bye-and-bye.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Desertphile
<deser...@invalid-address.net>:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:47:42 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:16:16 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Shiny Noctowl
>> <shiny.no...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
>> >God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
>> >organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
>> >origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
>> >unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
>> >Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>
>> Interesting. Where did you say you studied logic?
>
>Patriot Bible University.
Well, it couldn't have been in any university employing
Jesuits; those guys would rip him a new asshole for such
stupidity.
William Morse
> On Dec 13, 6:26 pm, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 5:16 pm, Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
>>> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
>>> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
>>> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
>>> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
>>> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>> internal combustion engine explains how the engine works without
>> mentioning God at all.....therefore, if engines work, God doesn't
>> exist.
>>
>> :)
>
> If auto mechanics is true, God might exist, or God might not exist;
> there's no way to draw a conclusion from this fact. However, if
> evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true, they fully and completely
> explain everything that God was meant to explain, and therefore make
> God's existence unnecessary.
>
No, Ken has it right. His statement about auto mechanics, and your
statement about auto mechanics, are both germane. If you want to use
Occam's razor as proof (and it is not meant to be a proof), then either
evolution or auto mechanics will prove that God doesn't exist. If you
think that the truth of auto mechanics says nothing about the existence
of God, then logically the truth of evolution says nothing about the
existence of God. Arthur Clarke (and probably many others before him)
has already made the argument that God is not compatible with Occam's
Razor. Regardless of what phenomenon you are trying to explain,
introducing God as an explanation only increases the overall complexity
by adding another more complex entity to the system. Evolution adds
nothing to this argument. But as I said before, Occam's Razor is not a
proof.
Yours,
Bill Morse
William Morse
>>>> Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
>>>> God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
>>>> organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
>>>> origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
>>>> unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
>>>> Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist.
>>> that he doesn't exist. The way Occam's razor would be applied _would_
>>> lead many people to realize that god probably doesn't exist but that
>>> doesn't mean it proves god doesn't exist.
>> Occam's razor, you stupid schmuck, is a tool used by humans in science
>> and faith does not require this tool.
>>
>> Can you distinguish between the two, you illiterate dumb ACTIVIST?
>>> Also, and of great importance, if anything DID prove god didn't exist,
>>> and it was accurate, would you be in favor of suppressing it?
>> Further proof that most simpleton posters in this ng do not understand
>> science and possibly never will.
>
>
> it would be funny if it weren't tragic
>
>> Science does not "disprove" anything, you stupid fuck, if anything it
>> either supports a hypothesis or it doesn't.
>
> anything.
>
> fuck you're stupid. honestly.
>
> creationism said demons causd earthquakes. that's disproven.
>
This is supposedly a newsgroup based on intellectual discussion, and
this is the best you guys can come up with for insults? "fuck you're
stupid"? "you stupid schmuck"? " the flintstones is a documentary" at
least had some merit. If you are going to insist at hurling insults
as part of your posts, could you at least spend a little time in adding
some originality, or failing that some diversity? Mark Twain might be a
good place to start.
Yours,
Bill Morse
bpuharic
i guess you skipped over the part where i discussed the role of
empiricism in science, and its absence in creationism. you missed the
part where i referred to the historical development of empiricism its
challenge to the authoritarian nature of creationism.
but, if you're only reading to see what you want, i guess that's what
you get
>Yours,
>
>Bill Morse
Mitchell Coffey
In fact...
Mitchell Coffey
heekster
<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
<schnipp>
>>
>This is supposedly a newsgroup based on intellectual discussion, and
>this is the best you guys can come up with for insults? "fuck you're
>stupid"? "you stupid schmuck"? " the flintstones is a documentary" at
>least had some merit. If you are going to insist at hurling insults
>as part of your posts, could you at least spend a little time in adding
>some originality, or failing that some diversity? Mark Twain might be a
>good place to start.
>
>Yours,
>
>Bill Morse
Well, I strongly suspect that you don't read everything in here. I
know that I don't. I just don't have the time.
For the most part, I deal in inspired profanities, profound
philippics, and creative ethnic slurs.
But as you wish,
"Suppose you were a creationist, and then suppose that you were an
idiot; but I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain, were he alive today, and
posting to t.o.
William Morse
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:19:46 -0500, William Morse
> <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> <schnipp>
>> This is supposedly a newsgroup based on intellectual discussion, and
>> this is the best you guys can come up with for insults? "fuck you're
>> stupid"? "you stupid schmuck"? " the flintstones is a documentary" at
>> least had some merit. If you are going to insist at hurling insults
>> as part of your posts, could you at least spend a little time in adding
>> some originality, or failing that some diversity? Mark Twain might be a
>> good place to start.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Bill Morse
>
> Well, I strongly suspect that you don't read everything in here. I
> know that I don't. I just don't have the time.
Your suspicion is correct.
> For the most part, I deal in inspired profanities, profound
> philippics, and creative ethnic slurs.
For myself I prefer a simple desultory philippic.
> But as you wish,
> "Suppose you were a creationist, and then suppose that you were an
> idiot; but I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain, were he alive today, and
> posting to t.o.
Now that's what I was talkin' about!
heekster
heekster
Earle Jones
<c9069c75-53b6-46d7...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2:13�pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 11:25 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 14, 12:20 am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <0dd13d67-72b8-4382-a2b8-5c608ca14...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Shiny Noctowl <shiny.noctowl....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Evolution explains the complete origin of modern life without needing
> > > > > God. Furthermore, abiogenesis explains the origin of the earliest
> > > > > organisms, once again without needing God. The Big Bang explains the
> > > > > origin of existence without requiring God. Therefore, God is
> > > > > unnecessary if evolution, abiogenesis, etc. are true. Therefore, by
> > > > > Ockham's Razor, if evolution is true God doesn't exist...
*
Evolution excludes God only to the same extent that algebra excludes God.
The subject just doesn't come up.
It doesn't come up in chemistry, physics, geology, economics, biology,
and a few other disciplines.
It *does* come up for discussion in subjects like comparative religion,
divinity, and the like.
To claim that "evolution excludes God" is a trivial statement, like
saying that trigonometry excludes philosophy or economics excludes
astronomy.
earle
*