An Idiosyncrasy of Atheism

[EarlyActs]

This is not a question of taking sides.

When I interjected about Israel's land promises, it was about bad logic, if I remember correctly. Not about taking sides.

But what's going on now, is not just bad logic, but you violating the rules.
--------------------------------------------------------

But to return to the subject at hand:

I don't know @DialecticSkeptic 's reasoning concerning Genesis 1, etc. It might be worth starting a new thread on that, or dealing with it in short-fashion in order to return to the subject of the OP. It is off-topic at this point.

--------------------------------------------------------
Back to the subject of the OP:

On topic.

Red Herring. Off Topic.

Please explain how referring to the evolutionary source of biologically life automatically means a person is referring that which is (or potentially is) on earth?

 

[EarlyActs]

Since you didn't link to it nor even give it a post # here, I'm not going back through the last two pages to find it. But I'm not just talking about that—I was referring to your general demeanor here.
--------------------------------------------------------

So, let's get back to the OP.


I like that, because it does point out a certain irony that I have seen too.

I understand that some born again believers can believe also in a certain view of evolution that more closely resembles atheistic evolution than the 6-day week of Genesis 1. And some combine them, somehow.

But as a generality, I think your point is correct, or least applicable: If a person is an atheist or even Deistic, and rejects the Genesis account as irrelevant legend, they are also likely to mock the notion that God has designed anything, by pointing out what seem to them errors (in design, effectiveness, purpose, etc) in whatever actually occurs.

I've argued with some of them, even in other subjects, like God's handling of human events, ending up having to say something along the lines of, "What makes you think you know God's purposes?" (At which they then go into, "Well, Christians say...")

When the identifying thing is but a few posts above, that's your problem.

 

[EarlyActs]

A slight correction, if I may. Pretty much nobody believes that "biological life is explained by evolution." Rather, what is believed is that the "continuity of life is explained by evolution." The theory of evolution presupposes the existence of life. It is a biological theory, hence life is presupposed.

Allow me to use different terms to clearly express the salient point as I understand it: Notwithstanding how life arose, it has nevertheless evolved. Let us assume for the moment that, for whatever reason, we are never able explain scientifically how life first arose. Let us assume that it remains forever impossible to explain. Does that mean life doesn't exist? Of course not. Life is everywhere—and this vast biodiversity is a scientific curiosity. Evolution is one answer, and our best scientific one.

Incidentally, atheists are hardly the only ones who affirm the theory of evolution. The vast majority of Christendom does, too—including yours truly.

[MOD EDIT: Material not relevant to the topic of the thread has been deleted. Sufficient warnings were given. -- DialecticSkeptic]

Maybe go back to Lewis' 'slur of speech.' One example of it is the constant banging on 'evolution is only a process about development today' when from one field to another it is meant as the cosmological authority. The universe is imbued with life; always has been, they say. What happened here, they say, could easily have, and maybe has, happened elsewhere. They don't like to hear about Farrellian probability.

[MOD EDIT: Material not relevant to the topic of the thread has been deleted. Sufficient warnings were given.]

What are you talking about?

[MOD EDIT: Material not relevant to the topic of the thread has been deleted. Sufficient warnings were given.]

 

[makesends]

When the identifying thing is but a few posts above, that's your problem.

Are we going to deal with the subject of your OP, or continue with the bickering?

 

[makesends]

The earth has some 8 billion. Islam about 1B; Christians about 1B (diluted by the shear fact of popularity of the oxymoron 'theistic evolution'); Christendom maybe 2B (pretty much follows the secular education standards of Oxford, for centuries).

Public education universally endorses the atheistic presuppositions of evolution; have done so since Huxley pressed Darwin to publish something he didn't want to. 'Anything to get rid of the Bugger.'

The 1860s push to kill God followed the loss by atheists earlier that century to Christians about the prediction of Jesus of the destruction of Israel in his generation. This surfaced in a Crown case, The Crown vs Williams, which was actually a blasphemy case, that we today would call a media censorship case. Perhaps this is why, in the same early 1800's time period, novelist J Austen had a line about the open debates at Bath (sort of a resort city full of public events/attractions) that a group of characters had gone to listen to the debates and "the atheists lost again."

If I do the math, the education of nearly 7B in round figures, is mostly atheists who mostly endorse evolutionary cosmology. I found it in a rural Costa Rica public school 2 years ago, because public education 'cannot mention God or a creator.' That's called mostly atheists mostly endorsing evolutionary cosmology.

But you say they are "hardly the only ones who affirm evolution."

Maybe go back to Lewis' 'slur of speech.' One example of it is the constant banging on 'evolution is only a process about development today' when from one field to another it is meant as the cosmological authority. The universe is imbued with life; always has been, they say. What happened here, they say, could easily have, and maybe has, happened elsewhere. They don't like to hear about Farrellian probability.

Now we can come back to the relevance of the dismal Webb figures. In the radius from its observation point, it has only found water in one 'nursery' and that nursery is 1000LY from us. Are evolutionary thinkers simply pathological liars about the universe being steeped in life, even (for benefit of doubt) at the most elementary level?

What are you talking about?

Other than putting your quote in bold, and asking about that, I'm not aware of any "habit of aggressive vehemence" in this post, and I have not mentioned anything of mine.

I thought the point @DialecticSkeptic was making was a short objection to certain terms within your OP. He didn't say anything that changes the point of your OP, but only amends its generalities.

In other words, your discussion with him has by now long since grown inane and off-topic.

Let's get back to the OP.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Maybe go back to Lewis' 'slur of speech.' One example is the constant banging on "evolution is only a process about development today," when from one field to another it is meant as the cosmological authority.

I am trying to explain to you that evolution is a scientific theory about the "origin of species" and the "continuity of Earth's biodiversity." It is not about the origin of life, or the origin of the solar system, or the origin of the universe, much less the origin of everything. I have several evolutionary science textbooks from which I can cite and quote relevant experts to that effect.

I understand that there are atheists who talk about the origin of life or the universe in evolutionary terms (e.g., Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Jerry Coyne, etc.) THEY ARE WRONG, TOO. But they are handicapped by their atheism, so they have little choice in the matter. God has given them over to a reprobate mind, so they are ever more enslaved to their delusional thinking.

As Denis R. Alexander said in his book, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (2008; emphasis mine):

... [T]here is nothing that I can see in evolutionary theory that supports atheism. Of course, if we view evolution through an atheistic lens, we shall inevitably interpret it within an atheistic framework, as Dawkins does when he writes that in evolution he sees "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." How could it be otherwise? The conclusions are built into the starting presupposition. This is what the atheistic worldview delivers; it is not what evolution itself delivers." (p. 182)
​

The universe is imbued with life; always has been, they say. What happened here, they say, could easily have, and maybe has, happened elsewhere. They don't like to hear about Farrellian probability.

No scientist (including atheist ones) so definitively says that the universe is imbued with life. They suspect it is, hope it is, even expect it to be, but they all admit that they have no idea. They speak in terms of probability (e.g., "could easily have, and maybe has")—even high probability—but never certainty.

And I have no idea what this "Farrellian probability" is supposed to be, and neither does Google.

What are you talking about?

Your opening post targeted atheists in the context that such people who "[believe that] biological life is explained by evolution" use it to cast aspersions on God.

My criticism of your opening post made two points:

(1) Hardly anyone (including atheists) believes that biological life is explained by evolution. The theory explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. It was my hope that you would amend your argument to take that into consideration—because if accurately representing the opposing view causes your argument to fall apart, then your argument is fallacious. So, either amend your opening post or admit that it would fall apart if you did so.

(2) Your opening post hits a larger target than perhaps you realized, since the vast majority of Christianity—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant—believes that the origin of species is explained by evolution, yet they are not rushing out to cast aspersions on God. There is something amiss with your argument, and it was my hope that exploring this with you might expose where the error lies—since doubling down on atheists can only lead to a No True Scotsman fallacy.

In both cases, I am trying to HELP your argument.

 

[EarlyActs]

What characteristic do you think is shown, or at least proposed, by the OP?

In "Man Or Rabbit?" Lewis showed that most people's beliefs, from their cosmology to their bedroom, are simply things they desire; that they are "rabbits." He defines a true man at the end of the 2nd paragraph. This essay is also in GITD.

re: thorough-going atheists, AzSU's Kraus put it best: 'we are no more significant than an icicle on a window.' Or this: 'The thing about God is there is no content there; nothing.' This is, of course, slightly different from saying evolution is just concerned with 'adaption and change.'

Genesis 1-6 is an account of mankind deciding not to let 'everything produce after their kind' (God's created order) and instead to mix them (interbreed, possibly experiment with DNA). One evidence of this outside the Bible is found on a paleo sketch near El Paso, TX: a penis is being inserted into a dog-like creature. We are not shown which creature is doing so. It's the kind of sketch that is meant to show a culture's champion achievement.

The idea that 'all that harmless little evolution is about is species adaption and change' is not what fired up Huxley, is it? What Darwin said was combined with Lyell and with Sutton, and a totally antagonistic cosmology was invented, sans the vital starting point, which later became the BB, or at least that was tried. So I must ignore your tidy categories that prevent these parts from dirtying each other. You would need to demonstrate that 'adaption and change' is such a burning issue in itself that a theory was needed for it totally apart from fundamental explanations. It was not. Huxley: 'we need to get rid of the Bugger once and for all.'

In Boorstin's massive history of scientific discoveries, evolution is never simply a matter of figuring out 'adaption and change.' It is always dealing with the fundamental reality of our world, and Boorstin believes they won the day. It is strange, then, that this text would be used by a robust Christian homeschool curriculum (where I came across it). It leaves the student 'believing the theology of Genesis, even though it is historically false.' I hope you know Schaeffer's material well enough to know what that means.

Or to quote a French Revolution tenet: 'what we need is an equality of godless men.' They got it! The FR spawned Marxism, uniformitarian sciences, and even Obama's homosexual transformationalism.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I have reached the end of my willingness to continue this discussion with EarlyActs. As stated in the Rules & Guidelines (5.3), "Recognize the limits of debate. ... If a discussion becomes repetitive, overly contentious, or unproductive, members should consider agreeing to disagree rather than escalating conflict." It is evident that this discussion has hit all three of those markers, so this is where I will take my leave—unless EarlyActs responds with something on-topic and substantive, which I don't anticipate.

I have explained in the clearest terms possible what I understood to be the context of the opening post, and then explained as clearly as I can the relevance and intent of my criticism. EarlyActs has not contested the former and has all but ignored the latter, choosing instead to go on these tangents that are simply not relevant to the opening post, just as he has done once more here.

Yes, atheists look for any excuse to cast aspersions on God while trying to pretend they don't believe he exists. And it's only one example of their delusions, and it tells you much about their atheism but not a thing about evolution. The latter is a biological theory which EarlyActs does not appear to understand in the first place, which he demonstrates by consistently trying to connect it with cosmology and physics and so forth. He would do well to learn a new term: "evolutionism." That is worldview level stuff. That is what those atheists are playing at. And it is categorically separate from the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[Mr GLee]

The law power of faith as it is written (sola scriptura)

Christ, eternal God is not known after the rudiments of this world. He cannot be found under a microscope or through a telescope.

He is not a man as us. His thoughts and ways not ours.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

The religion of atheism, no faith coming from the Holy Father not seen. All religions have a written law to protect their lack of Christ's faith or labor of His love.

All Pagan religions have some sort of written or pictorial law to show their foundation, the pagan nations "out of sight out of mind" as in. Who believes in the living word of an invisible God.? . The Christian chaste virgin bride the religious foundation.

No power comes by looking at lusting after dying things. . rudiments of the universe,

The religion God sets his approval on the care the household of faith of the chaste virgin bride. She once without Christ the Holy Father Abba adopted into the spiritual family

No such thing a no religion (belief)

Beautiful parable

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Galatians 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

 

[EarlyActs]

I am trying to explain to you that evolution is a scientific theory about the "origin of species" and the "continuity of Earth's biodiversity." It is not about the origin of life, or the origin of the solar system, or the origin of the universe, much less the origin of everything. I have several evolutionary science textbooks from which I can cite and quote relevant experts to that effect.

I understand that there are atheists who talk about the origin of life or the universe in evolutionary terms (e.g., Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Jerry Coyne, etc.) THEY ARE WRONG, TOO. But they are handicapped by their atheism, so they have little choice in the matter. God has given them over to a reprobate mind, so they are ever more enslaved to their delusional thinking.

As Denis R. Alexander said in his book, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (2008; emphasis mine):

​

... [T]here is nothing that I can see in evolutionary theory that supports atheism. Of course, if we view evolution through an atheistic lens, we shall inevitably interpret it within an atheistic framework, as Dawkins does when he writes that in evolution he sees "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." How could it be otherwise? The conclusions are built into the starting presupposition. This is what the atheistic worldview delivers; it is not what evolution itself delivers." (p. 182)​

​

No scientist (including atheist ones) so definitively says that the universe is imbued with life. They suspect it is, hope it is, even expect it to be, but they all admit that they have no idea. They speak in terms of probability (e.g., "could easily have, and maybe has")—even high probability—but never certainty.

And I have no idea what this "Farrellian probability" is supposed to be, and neither does Google.




Your opening post targeted atheists in the context that such people who "[believe that] biological life is explained by evolution" use it to cast aspersions on God.

My criticism of your opening post made two points:

(1) Hardly anyone (including atheists) believes that biological life is explained by evolution. The theory explains the origin of species, not the origin of life. It was my hope that you would amend your argument to take that into consideration—because if accurately representing the opposing view causes your argument to fall apart, then your argument is fallacious. So, either amend your opening post or admit that it would fall apart if you did so.

(2) Your opening post hits a larger target than perhaps you realized, since the vast majority of Christianity—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant—believes that the origin of species is explained by evolution, yet they are not rushing out to cast aspersions on God. There is something amiss with your argument, and it was my hope that exploring this with you might expose where the error lies—since doubling down on atheists can only lead to a No True Scotsman fallacy.

In both cases, I am trying to HELP your argument.

‘No scientist says the universe is imbued with life’
Kraus at AzSU said that there was specifically to illustrate the Buddhism of his wave theory of meaningless expansions and contractions of plasmas ‘found’ through Bs of evolutionary history. Ie, not the innocent, confined realm you speak of.

As far as being a major representative goes, he was chosen to exchange on cosmology with S Meyer, by Wycliffe College , Ontario, as a North American-wide rep of evolutionary cosmology.

I’m sorry but I’m finding so little based material in what you say, I may have to mark you ignore.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

‘No scientist says the universe is imbued with life’
Kraus at AzSU said that there was specifically to illustrate the Buddhism of his wave theory of meaningless expansions and contractions of plasmas ‘found’ through Bs of evolutionary history. Ie, not the innocent, confined realm you speak of.

Provide an exact quote of what he said, and cite the source so the quote and context can be verified. Since you have misrepresented what I've said, I don't trust your paraphrase of what Kraus said.

I’m sorry but I’m finding so little based material in what you say, I may have to mark you ignore.

Not exactly a wise move to put a moderator on ignore. You could unexpectedly find yourself banned because you never saw the antecedent warnings. Better to skip over my posts than ignore me entirely.

 

[EarlyActs]

I have reached the end of my willingness to continue this discussion with EarlyActs. As stated in the Rules & Guidelines (5.3), "Recognize the limits of debate. ... If a discussion becomes repetitive, overly contentious, or unproductive, members should consider agreeing to disagree rather than escalating conflict." It is evident that this discussion has hit all three of those markers, so this is where I will take my leave—unless EarlyActs responds with something on-topic and substantive, which I don't anticipate.

I have explained in the clearest terms possible what I understood to be the context of the opening post, and then explained as clearly as I can the relevance and intent of my criticism. EarlyActs has not contested the former and has all but ignored the latter, choosing instead to go on these tangents that are simply not relevant to the opening post, just as he has done once more here.

Yes, atheists look for any excuse to cast aspersions on God while trying to pretend they don't believe he exists. And it's only one example of their delusions, and it tells you much about their atheism but not a thing about evolution. The latter is a biological theory which EarlyActs does not appear to understand in the first place, which he demonstrates by consistently trying to connect it with cosmology and physics and so forth. He would do well to learn a new term: "evolutionism." That is worldview level stuff. That is what those atheists are playing at. And it is categorically separate from the scientific theory of evolution.

And yet Kraus was chosen to speak and respond to Meyer etc.


who invented the new term? If I go up to U Alaska and ask, will the know it?

 

[EarlyActs]

It’s good to hear the refutation of evolution as science though. Agreed.

People used to refer to micro vs macro, but I didn’t hear that either. Are those obsolete for some reason?

A professor Kartic says evolutionism is actually a societal development view, part of anthropology. But I’m referring to the scientists themselves with their effort to preclude a higher power, intelligence, god by evolution.

May I ask: considering what is at stake with cosmology, why so much interest in adaption itself?

 

[His clay]

@EarlyActs
I've spent some time reading the exchange. I've read maybe 30-40 of the posts, and I'm done reading them. I hold to a young earth viewpoint, and I'm against evolution. But your tactics in addressing the issue are largely bankrupt; the fallacies alone are just over the top. I'm done reading this. Please stop and at least try to study some more; get better acquainted with the issues. I'm a sympathetic audience, and your approach is awful. I'm not here to engage in back and forth. I'm just firing a warning shot that I hope you observe. Just plain yikes!

 

[EarlyActs]

Provide an exact quote of what he said, and cite the source so the quote and context can be verified. Since you have misrepresented what I've said, I don't trust your paraphrase of what Kraus said.




Not exactly a wise move to put a moderator on ignore. You could unexpectedly find yourself banned because you never saw the antecedent warnings. Better to skip over my posts than ignore me entirely.

The Krause—Meyer—Lamouruex exchange is on YouTube , as I said. It was sponsored by Wycliffe College, as I said. Kraus was at AzSU astronomy as I said, but is not now.

 

[EarlyActs]

@EarlyActs
I've spent some time reading the exchange. I've read maybe 30-40 of the posts, and I'm done reading them. I hold to a young earth viewpoint, and I'm against evolution. But your tactics in addressing the issue are largely bankrupt; the fallacies alone are just over the top. I'm done reading this. Please stop and at least try to study some more; get better acquainted with the issues. I'm a sympathetic audience, and your approach is awful. I'm not here to engage in back and forth. I'm just firing a warning shot that I hope you observe. Just plain yikes!

For example?

 

[makesends]

@EarlyActs
I've spent some time reading the exchange. I've read maybe 30-40 of the posts, and I'm done reading them. I hold to a young earth viewpoint, and I'm against evolution. But your tactics in addressing the issue are largely bankrupt; the fallacies alone are just over the top. I'm done reading this. Please stop and at least try to study some more; get better acquainted with the issues. I'm a sympathetic audience, and your approach is awful. I'm not here to engage in back and forth. I'm just firing a warning shot that I hope you observe. Just plain yikes!

Are these criticisms of @EarlyActs 's points? If so, please take the time to deal with them one-at-a-time, unless the points themselves are off-topic. If so, point that out and be done. Let's get back on topic.

 

[EarlyActs]

@EarlyActs
I've spent some time reading the exchange. I've read maybe 30-40 of the posts, and I'm done reading them. I hold to a young earth viewpoint, and I'm against evolution. But your tactics in addressing the issue are largely bankrupt; the fallacies alone are just over the top. I'm done reading this. Please stop and at least try to study some more; get better acquainted with the issues. I'm a sympathetic audience, and your approach is awful. I'm not here to engage in back and forth. I'm just firing a warning shot that I hope you observe. Just plain yikes!

It’s fine for Dialectic to say he meant macro vs micro this whole time, but to represent the belief in evolution as a sweet kindly tame thing that is not seeking the destruction of Gods place as owner is specious at best. They were fallacies to me.

Who cares about adaption and development when that’s what is really going on?

“If we talk about everything about a topic except where the world is attacking the declarations of God, we are saying nothing?”—Schaeffer

What did you think of the Kraus—Meyer—Lamoreux exchange mentioned?

 

[EarlyActs]

Provide an exact quote of what he said, and cite the source so the quote and context can be verified. Since you have misrepresented what I've said, I don't trust your paraphrase of what Kraus said.




Not exactly a wise move to put a moderator on ignore. You could unexpectedly find yourself banned because you never saw the antecedent warnings. Better to skip over my posts than ignore me entirely.

I have some material which I'm not allowed to identify. I just produced the annual index list for it, which amounts to about 250 citations for the year, the productions only being about 70 pages. We'll just have to wait til someone else looks into it and mentions it here since I can't.

Or you could trust it. I'm not interested in opposing fiction, but in opposing what destructive people are actually saying.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The Krause–Meyer–Lamouruex exchange is on YouTube, as I said. ... [snip rest]

I asked you to provide an exact quote of what Kraus said. There is no exact quote in your response here.

I also asked you to cite the source, so the quote and context can be verified. You have barely done that, too. There is no title of the debate, no link to it, no date, no indication of where in the debate the quote can be heard, etc.