Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

Dodging the issue because you're trapped.

--Dave

No, I am demonstrating that you are the one who is actually equivocating.

Are you or are you not trying to establish "ultimate or divine purpose" by using the empirical evidence in science?

Because if you are not, I have no problem with your use of teleological in that context. I already explained that life has a purpose, "to continue". That purpose is inherent in the first life form that reproduced. This does not mean that all components in nature are aware of that purpose. It may be that we as humans are the only ones aware of that purpose, because we can sit back and look at the bigger picture. It does not even mean that purpose can be equated to other human ideas of purpose.

 

[noguru]

My God is not pure actuality a.k.a. Unmoved Mover. What is the nature of God is not the subject at the moment, or hadn't you noticed, or have you no answer?

--Dave

Why? Because you say so?

I know it is much easier for you to focus your energies on other issues outside of your own irrational and illogical thought processes. But then again, people do not always have to follow you down your wacky path.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I addressed this already in the earlier post. But you chose not to respond to that. So here it is again;

The law of non-contradictions can also apply to the state of something, IOW an object cannot be both hot and cold at the same time. But this does not apply to genetic variation coupled with natural selection. The "random" genetic variation creates a physical canvas with an image. Then natural selection the "non-random" part acts on that physical image, through reproductive advantage. Your twisted mind might not be able to conceive of this reality, but it is still there.

And I've explained why none of this makes any sense.

All DNA are cells, and no cell is without function or purpose in living things.

There is no such thing as a "random" purposeless cell.

There is no such thing as "purposeless" non random selection.

These are contradictory terms and concepts.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, I am demonstrating that you are the one who is actually equivocating.

Are you or are you not trying to establish "ultimate or divine purpose" by using the empirical evidence in science?

Because if you are not, I have no problem with your use of teleological in that context. I already explained that life has a purpose, "to continue". That purpose is inherent in the first life form that reproduced. This does not mean that all components in nature are aware of that purpose. It may be that we as humans are "the "only ones aware of that purpose, because we can sit back and look at the bigger picture. It does not even mean that purpose can be equated to other human ideas of purpose.

You are continuing to ignoring the point made.

"In natural selection there is no intentional choice. In other words, artificial selection is teleological and natural selection is not teleological."--Wiki

--Dave

 

[noguru]

And I've explained why none of this makes any sense.

All DNA are cells, and no cell is without function or purpose in living things.

There is no such thing as a "random" purposeless cell.

There is no such thing as "purposeless" non random selection.

These are contradictory terms and concepts.

--Dave

You may have explained, but only through fallacious equivocation.

The cell itself has a purpose. It is to continue life. The copying error or genetic variation is not directed by that same purpose. If the made copy (exact or not) serves its function it will reproduce, if it does not serve its purpose it will die and not reproduce. This is the empirical evidence we have, despite your inability to grasp that.

According to your logic all cells/organisms would live forever, or all would reproduce before dying. This is clearly not the case. Hence your argument is fallacious.

I bet you are going to want to talk about your ideas of God now, and your interpretation of Genesis.

Maybe your understanding of God can get you out of the corner you painted yourself into.

 

[noguru]

You are continuing to ignoring the point made.

"In natural selection there is no intentional choice. In other words, artificial selection is teleological and natural selection is not teleological."--Wiki

--Dave

So now you want to add the additional qualifier of "intentional" to this contextual use of teleological?

If a tree unintentionally falls across a river, can it still serve the purpose of a bridge for humans who come by later?

If a human fells the tree with the intention of creating a bridge, does that increase it's purpose over one that fell without "intention"?

And you accuse me of equivocating.

:rotfl:

 

[Hedshaker]

My God is not pure actuality a.k.a. Unmoved Mover. What is the nature of God is not the subject at the moment, or hadn't you noticed, or have you no answer?

--Dave

I see. Only evolution can be questioned when it suits you, right?

You know what would be really cool? Instead of jumping through hoops, trying (and failing miserably), to discredit evolution, why don't you actually present positive evidence for creationism?

Come on Dave. Stay with the science theme. Forget the mindless preaching and religious platitudes for a bit and present some sound scientific, falsifiable evidence for creationism. And don't forget to provide links to back up your peer reviewed conclusions .

It's much easier to knock down than build up Dave, so here's your chance. In your own time.....

 

[alwight]

If God is doing all of the selecting in evolution then is that artificial or natural selection? :liberals:

 

[gcthomas]

There is no such thing as "purposeless" non random selection.

These are contradictory terms and concepts.

--Dave

You can equivocate until you are blue in the face, but your high-school pseudo-logic is getting you nowhere.

You are aware of the meaning of the word selection in the context of Darwinian evolution, aren't you? You know that it is only used as an analogy to the selection by plant and animal breeders and that there is no purpose to it?

Dave, you are so over confident in your own inerrancy that you are in danger of idolising yourself as you just ignore all arguments against you.

 

[noguru]

You can equivocate until you are blue in the face, but your high-school pseudo-logic is getting you nowhere.

You are aware of the meaning of the word selection in the context of Darwinian evolution, aren't you? You know that it is only used as an analogy to the selection by plant and animal breeders and that there is no purpose to it?

Dave, you are so over confident in your own inerrancy that you are in danger of idolising yourself as you just ignore all arguments against you.

Yep, that's because he thinks he has got Jesus on his side. He thinks that all he has to do is claim belief in God and his logic becomes invincible. This is what these wacked out fundies are taught. And he is just parroting what he was taught. This stance makes them incapable of recognizing their own errors.

 

[doloresistere]

If God is doing all of the selecting in evolution then is that artificial or natural selection? :liberals:

Here is my opinion. God is not doing any selection. Here is what I do believe He is doing: He is not allowing all possible mutations to take place, but he is allowing a wide range of them. He is not allowing all possible environments in which selection takes place. He is, however, allowing a wide range of them. I believe there are several routes that evolution could have taken in the past that were stopped dead in their tracks by God. This thinking also applies to the course of human events. God does not allow all possible courses of history to take form. For instance, the third reich was allowed to proceed up to a certain point, but it was not allowed to completely rule the world or even Germany indefinitely.

 

[doloresistere]

Yep, that's because he thinks he has got Jesus on his side. He thinks that all he has to do is claim belief in God and his logic becomes invincible. This is what these wacked out fundies are taught. And he is just parroting what he was taught. This stance makes them incapable of recognizing their own errors.

It is a powerful brainwashing that is done. The brain is locked into a certain mode of thinking and cannot escape it. I know. I was there before. The way that I think now was absurd to me before. If I could transplant my brain into another person who would have debated with me in 2009, I would have thought that person was evil and blind. Education was what flipped the switch for me. Education does not work on everyone however, there is still a creationist at my college who has learned all that I have, albeit poorly, (cannot spell) and still is a strict YEC.

 

[Jukia]

Here is my opinion. God is not doing any selection. Here is what I do believe He is doing: He is not allowing all possible mutations to take place, but he is allowing a wide range of them. He is not allowing all possible environments in which selection takes place. He is, however, allowing a wide range of them. I believe there are several routes that evolution could have taken in the past that were stopped dead in their tracks by God. This thinking also applies to the course of human events. God does not allow all possible courses of history to take form. For instance, the third reich was allowed to proceed up to a certain point, but it was not allowed to completely rule the world or even Germany indefinitely.

But your god purposely allowed the third reich, then ended it after lots of death and destruction?

So your god's allowing the death of children in WWII is OK because, to use Pastor Bob's reasoning, they were going to a better place?

 

[doloresistere]

But your god purposely allowed the third reich, then ended it after lots of death and destruction?

So your god's allowing the death of children in WWII is OK because, to use Pastor Bob's reasoning, they were going to a better place?

My God allows not only the death of children in WWII but the death of many species, including human ones. My God does not impose authoritarian rule upon his creation. He allows a tremendous amount of suffering and evil. I would not use the word "purposefully". He allowed. What he intentionally purposed was what he did not allow.

 

[MichaelCadry]

If God is doing all of the selecting in evolution then is that artificial or natural selection? :liberals:

Dear alwight,

You got it. God is doing the 'natural' selection. He's in control of any cell building or changing. He is the Master Chemist and if He wants to change a cell, He does it. Get it through your heads. God is in control of everything. Not one genome is changed without Him being involved and doing it. I know you don't believe me, but that's the way it goes.

In Christ's Love For You,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

My God allows not only the death of children in WWII but the death of many species, including human ones. My God does not impose authoritarian rule upon his creation. He allows a tremendous amount of suffering and evil. I would not use the word "purposefully". He allowed. What he intentionally purposed was what he did not allow.

Death is not such a thing as you think. It is just energy or spirit leaving the earthly body and getting a heavenly body. It is not a bad thing. The devil makes you think it's bad and makes men fear it. Not God. All of the children, and adults, are in a better place when they die. They rest in their lot until the time comes for the first resurrection. No problem. Just wanted to let you know. Suffering comes before some die. But when they die, the suffering ends.

God Bless You Tons!!

Michael

:zoomin:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

You'd all rather believe in being atheists still? I'd advise against that, but it is every man's/woman's choice. You can get burned though, so make the right decision. Don't dally, because Jesus is returning very soon. Make peace with God and Jesus. It's up 2 U.

Michael

 

[Jukia]

Dear alwight,

You got it. God is doing the 'natural' selection. He's in control of any cell building or changing. He is the Master Chemist and if He wants to change a cell, He does it. Get it through your heads. God is in control of everything. Not one genome is changed without Him being involved and doing it. I know you don't believe me, but that's the way it goes.

In Christ's Love For You,

Michael

Your god causes cancer? How much love is that?

 

[Tyrathca]

Your god causes cancer? How much love is that?

Not only that but he creates whole families which are doomed to have most of its members get cancers. Like some sick twisted divine vendetta (actually this seems to be a running theme with God in the bible - the whole "I shall smite thine descendent for no good reason other than they share an ever smaller % of your DNA")

 

[alwight]

Your god causes cancer? How much love is that?

Love is apparently in allowing or causing congenital dysfunction to happen too. lain:
The supreme being has no duty of care?