Rick Reuben wrote:

Bob wrote:The very first millisecond of matter appearing and acquiring energy is part of the evolutionary timeline.

True.

Bob wrote:If matter and energy appear in a total vacuum, then that is the first moment of progress in the history of the universe, and therefore, part of evolution.

True.

Bob wrote:Current theories of evolution do not explain the origin of matter, and that makes the theories incomplete.

True.

All right. Willful ignorance it is, then. So be it. No one can say I didn't try.

Van Pelt, if you and I agree that evolution does not answer the 'creator question', why are you only responding to my posts? Why are you not responding to Van Deel, who says that evolution answers the creator question?

I just reread all of van Deel's posts in this thread. I didn't find where he said that evolution answers the creator question. I found this:

Mark Van Deel wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:Van Deel is the one who thinks that evolution can be used to disprove a creator

I never said this.

I did find a quote in this thread from somebody other than van Deel who was relating evolution to the creator question. He was making what's known as the "argument from personal incredulity," a common logical fallacy when evolution and god are being discussed. As a bonus, there was also a strawman tossed in:

Somebody wrote:What makes the suggestion of a Creator's hand in the design of our universe 'extraordinary'? Shit looks pretty thought out to me. You think humans, polar bears, and potatos all evolved randomly from the same primordial ooze? That seems extraordinarily unlikely to me.

Weird.

You are very obsessed.

What gave away my obsession? Was it my posts in giant bold letters?

Van Deel does not think very well. You should help him, Linus.

Van Deel! If you think what Bob thinks you think, you are wrong! (Do you?)

Linus Van Pelt wrote:All of that makes sense, but here's what doesn't:

Bob wrote:The very first millisecond of matter appearing and acquiring energy is part of the evolutionary timeline.

Bob wrote:If matter and energy appear in a total vacuum, then that is the first moment of progress in the history of the universe, and therefore, part of evolution.

Bob wrote:Current theories of evolution do not explain the origin of matter, and that makes the theories incomplete.

Sorry, but I don't see how untrue statements like these square with the true statements you posted above in unnecessarily big bold letters.

The origin of the Universe is not part of the Theory of Evolution. They belong to two entirely different branches of science. Biology/Zoology do not concern themselves with such issues as the physical origin of the universe.

Rick Reuben wrote:You can't read, counselor VP.

Yay! I was wondering when the PRF's resident king of poor reading comprehension would accuse me of not knowing how to read.

Here is Van Deel, calling the suggestion that a creator designed evolution is as implausible as blaming ghosts for global warming:

So? Creator-designed evolution is as implausible as ghost-caused global warming. The evidence in favor of both is equal: nil. Van Deel's not saying evolution disproves god. If you think he is, you're the one who needs to read more carefully.

If you believe that evolution is as impossible to connect to a creator as global warming is to blame on ghosts, then say so, Van Pelt.

What do you mean by "impossible"? I believe that evolution has as much to do with a god as ghosts have to do with global warming. I also recognize that the honest answer to both questions is "I don't know." But saying "I don't know" doesn't foreclose you from saying "But I believe..."

If you do say so, that will contradict what you have already said: that evolution does not disprove a creator, so the best answer is "I don't know if there is a God."

There is no contradiction. Evolution does not disprove a creator. We can not know whether there is a god. I believe that evolution was not designed by god, but I recognize that I don't know. I believe that global warming is not caused by ghosts, but I recognize that I don't know. Where do you see a contradiction in this?

My guess: you think because billions of people believe in a god or gods, while no one believes in ghost-caused global warming, the former belief is more plausible than the latter. This is another fallacy. Popular support for a belief is not evidence supporting its truth. I repeat, the evidence for creator-designed evolution is exactly equivalent to the evidence for ghost-caused global warming: nil.

Earwicker wrote:But God is a much bigger idea than Big Foot.

...and therefore the burden of proof is much higher.

You really haven't addressed any of the points made.

You seem mistake anecdotal evidence for actual evidence, you seem to imply anything someone can think up qualifies for agnostic status.

Are you agnostic towards Thor? I'm sure your response will be something like, "but God is different, it's everything...". That's fine, but as I say, simply declaring that because the story has become more complex this somehow attributes a special status to this particular deity, it doesn't not imply evidence, quiet the contrary more evidence is required.

Rick Reuben wrote: If you tell me that evolution rules out a creator, then I will tell you that your theories are incomplete, and therefore, no judgement can be made about a designer from examining what we know about evolution.

Bob, all this tell us is that you don't really know much about Evolutionary Biology.

Gramsci wrote:

Earwicker wrote:But God is a much bigger idea than Big Foot.

...and therefore the burden of proof is much higher.

You really haven't addressed any of the points made.

We've been through this before and, as is often the case, it really seems to boil down to semantics.

You can say the burden of proof is higher and i can say - according to my conception - that the broader nature of the idea of 'God' makes it require less 'physical', 'objective' evidence to be a possibility.

I can also say - according to my conception - that modern physics does support or suggest (or certainly doesn't contradict) the idea of a 'god' (or higher consciousness or whatever you want to call it)

Gramsci wrote:You seem mistake anecdotal evidence for actual evidence

I don't think so (depending on what you mean by 'actual') I'm aware of the difference.
However I am also aware that there are things we experience which you could never prove with (as you call it) 'actual evidence'.
For example - prove to me that anyone anywhere has ever 'actually' had a dream.
Also if, in a court of law, a lot of people act as witness that they saw John Doe stab Jane Doe then a jury could legitimately conclude that Jane Doe was stabbed by John Doe. The accumulation of anecdotal evidence would suffice to sway the burden of proof.

Note - I am not saying this to try and prove that the biblical God exists but that there is an experience common to humans that seems to translate into something beyond the rational or scientific and this is often described or interpreted in such a way as to imply the conception of a 'God'.

Gramsci wrote:Are you agnostic towards Thor? I'm sure your response will be something like, "but God is different, it's everything...".

I would see Thor as a representation of certain human experiences and, as such, is not easily dismissable. Do I believe Thor is an objective actual solid reality? I'm inclined to say 'no' - but I am increasingly inclined to also say I don't know how to answer that question.
I suppose it depends on who's asking it and why.

And you're right 'God' is a different concept to 'Thor' - it's a much broader idea.

Gramsci wrote: simply declaring that because the story has become more complex this somehow attributes a special status to this particular deity, it doesn't not imply evidence, quiet the contrary more evidence is required.

There is more anecdotal 'evidence' for 'God' (in the broader sense) than a specific lesser deity. I am looking at 'God' as an idea or experience common to many millions of humans who have ever lived.
And this idea has had many different guises.

You can't see that for whatever reason - which is fine - but I don't think you should look down on those who can.

It seems to me that if you were in my head, with my view of things, you would say I was an atheist.

I think you cannot look beyond the Judeo-Christian idea of 'God' that you condemn others for not being able to look beyond. And as such you get angry when people like me say 'there's more to it than that'.

I've already said that according to your narrow conception of God you can consider me an atheist - if that's what gets you through your day.

Rick Reuben wrote:Gramsci, Van Pelt, and Van Deel cannot understand that, without an explanation of matter's origins, no conclusions can be made about the source of the matter we stand on.

But we can still try to assess the relative plausibilities of different explanations, and from that arrive at beliefs.

This is a debate about atheism on an internet rock forum. Arguing for atheism here isn't any more a display of bigotry than arguing that CocoRosie sucks, TJL is better than Fugazi, or the U.S. government wasn't behind 9/11.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:The origin of the Universe is not part of the Theory of Evolution.

Then why do you insist that evolution makes suggestions of a creator's involvement 'fantasies', if you concede that it is not the theory of evolution's job to explain the origins of the universe? If evolution is not meant to answer that question, why do you and Van Deel insist that the theory has relevance to the 'creator question'?

I never said that.

What I said was that belief in science and the belief in the supernatural (including belief in God) are derived from two different kinds of thinking, therefore you cannot use science to bolster or to refute the existence of God. Once you start trying to do so, you are leaving the realm of science because science deals only with the observable, quantifiable properties of the material world.

I was also agreeing with your statement that the origin of the Universe at large is far beyond the scope of the Theory of Evolution, therefore Evolution cannot be used as a refutation of God, though it does contradict (literally, anyway) the Biblical story of Creation.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote: Creator-designed evolution is as implausible as ghost-caused global warming.

So you are retracting your earlier statement that evolution does not prove or disprove a creator?

The mind of a Van Pelt:

LVP: "Evolution doesn't have to explain how evolution started."

RR: "So evolution says nothing about the origins of original matter and energy?"

LVP: "That's right."

RR: "So how can evolution say anything one way or the other about the likelihood of a creator? You do understand that if you don't offer an explanation for original matter, then you are disqualified from throwing out other people's explanations, right? Even you are capable of grasping that, right?"

I'll butt into this imaginary conversation to point out that nobody is "throwing out other people's explanations." God-created evolution is not impossible. It's implausible. Why is it implausible? Because there is no evidence supporting it. Why is it not impossible? Because there are limits to what we can know.

LVP: "I said that a Creator was implausible."

RR: "Based on what? Science that cannot explain original matter? If you can't explain the origins of matter, then you certainly can't rule out an Originator of Matter."

LVP: For the nth time, I'm not "ruling out" an "Originator of Matter." I'm saying that it's not worth believing in it without evidence. We could all be parasites on the shit of the Ur-Leprechaun. We could all have been created 10 seconds ago, with all our memories in place at the time of creation. There might have never been a creation of matter (the universe might be eternal). Let's not rule anything out, but let's also not pretend that the god-hypothesis is somehow more plausible simply because it's possible and a lot of people believe it.

...

And then we have the whining. Bigotry! Intolerance! Hello Whine-One-One? I need you to send the waaaambulance! No names named, no quotes quoted. Oh wait - two quotes quoted: "stupid" and "crazy" - two words which, despite appearing in quotes in your post, did not appear in this thread, describing theists, theism, or anything at all. No real examples of insults of theists, no examples of intolerance, no examples of bigotry. Just baseless allegations. Accurately describing theism as irrational and unsupported by evidence is the same as thinking all black people are murderers, right? That's your position?

Bob, you have the right to your beliefs. Theists have the rights to their beliefs. No one here is trying to deny those rights. No one here is insulting theists for being theists. Except Rotten Tanx, but that was like 4 pages ago, and he basically said he was drunk and joking and took it back. If you think Rotten Tanx is an anti-theist bigot, talk to him. Nerblybear said some uncharitable things as well, but no big deals. I, Van Deel, Panic, and (surprisingly!) Gramsci haven't been insulting theists on this thread. If we've been "insulting" theism, most of what we've said (all of what I've said - I won't vouch for everyone) has been both true and fair. And you know what? Criticizing a belief system (as contrasted with criticizing believers) is not bigotry. You have the right to your beliefs, and theists have the right to theirs. What you, and theists, don't have the right to is freedom from having your and their beliefs questioned and critically examined. Even ridiculed, if ridicule is what they deserve (and again, they're not getting that here).

Stop making shit up. You have a problem, email Hitchens or Dawkins or whoever (and don't lump me in with Hitchens just because we have atheism in common). There are atheists who are mean to theists, and those guys are dicks. Nobody in this thread is doing that. Stop making shit up. Or if you're not making it up, give an example of "intolerance." You don't have an example. You don't have anything. Stop making shit up.

It's funny how you pretend to be against insulting people for what they believe, to the point that you imagine it happening when it isn't; meanwhile on every other thread you post on, everyone who doesn't share your skewed hallucinatory worldview is stupid, idiot, liar, troll, thought criminal, douche, sellout. The whining you've done in this thread over imaginary abuses far exceeds the whining other people do about your everyday abusiveness.

Time cubetastic.