Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview

On 2008-08-19, Suzanne <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrngaknb7.2r7f.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2008-08-19, Suzanne <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Wefqk.18753$jI5.17158@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:w8Wpk.10879$vn7.8517@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Suzanne wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6l0ca45oh4pvjv870ameg9h5k20hh2m6ae@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:59:26 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It is a self-evident axiomatic fact: Atheists support evolution
because evolution supports their worldview.
Atomic theory somehow manages to omit any reference to God. Does it
support the "atheist worldview" as well?

Richard Dawkins and John
Harshman would not support Darwinian evolution if it supported
Theism.
If the evidence supported theism, I'd be a theist.

No one can go back and undo Darwin in order to find
out if Richard Dawkins and John Harshman would
have ended up being atheists, if Darwin didn't give his
ideas to the world about evolution.
That's backwards from Ray's contention, of course. Ray claimed that I
wouldn't support evolution if evolution supported theism; you are
wondering if I would have supported theism if there were no theory of
evolution. Do you see the distinction?

Yes, you are right John, what I said is backwards from the
way that Ray said it, and I was not reading it so carefully.

I contend that my atheism is not (or at least not primarily) the
result
of my knowledge of evolutionary biology, but of a more general
observation of the world. There were of course atheists before Darwin.
So I would answer your speculation that I would still have been an
atheist; can't speak for Dawkins.

I was not meaning to convey that I knew whether or not you would
or would not be an atheist, or even a theist, and that was not my
main focus. I was considering that a person can't go back and undo
the world in order to see if a change in possible environmental
influences would have made a difference in yours or Dawkin's
choices about what you believe and/or don't believe. Of course, as
you pointed out, that is not what Ray was speaking about. Whether
it be you or not you, I am sure that Darwin has influenced people
to believe what he believed, and I am equally sure that what things
he said he believes may have not influenced some who are more
independent about what things they conclude.

Well of course Darwin has influenced people, and I would hope he would
have. But how did he do it? By argument based on evidence, not merely by
stating his beliefs and relying on personal authority.

No, John, that was not what I meant. He also spoke outwardly
his ideas against Christianity, the Bible, and the Lord.

Really? I'd like to see you provide some reference to that. Can you
provide
one? I think it is very difficult to find _anything_ by Darwin about
Christianity, the Bible and the Lord. There are very short, brief musings
in
some of his private correspondence, but I don't think those are properly
characterized as "outward", nor are they very significant.

C'mon Suzanne. Do some heavy lifting. Provide a citation here.

All he had to do to be influential in that respect was to speak.

All you have to do to be influential is to show that you simply aren't
making stuff up.

I don't mean to convey at all that Darwin was the kind
of person that ran out in public and proclaimed from
the rooftops that he was against this and against that.

Then why did you say so? Honestly, are you so careless in your own own
thinking that you can't say what you mean?

He sounds to me like he was a gentle man who cared
about society and what they thought and also cared to
not embarass his family in any way. But he was said
to have spoken about being known as an agnostic,

You are too lazy to even research to find the citation.

rather than as an atheist. He evidently had said that he
didn't believe the Gospels were eyewitness accounts
(the Gospel of John claims to be), and he is reported
to have said that he didn't believe in Christianity
as a divine revelation, which is against what the Bible
says. You can find these things in Wikipedia.

You are too lazy to even research to find the citation.

As for Ray's assertion, I would support Darwinian evolution if the
evidence supported Darwinian evolution, regardless of any implications
it might or might not have. And I still can't speak for Dawkins.

I believe you.
You may of course suppose that I am wrong about either or both of
these
counterfactuals. I don't think it's necessary to go back and
experimentally undo Darwin in order to perform a valid test, though.
It's a common creationist failing to demand such direct
experimentation.
One can, however, tell that humans are related to chimps without
inventing a time machine and observing who mated with whom for the
last
5 or 6 million years.

I am a creationist and I do not demand such direct experimentation. So
there are different kinds of people who are creationists I guess.
There is certainly, without a doubt, a similarity with chimps and with
humans. I believe that is why we love to look at them so, and laugh
at their cute antics. As a Christian, I believe that when God created
the animals, he made them in such a way that they look related to
us in that they have some characteristics that are enough like us that
we can identify with, but yet be charmed by, and compare them to
ourselves enough to love them greatly. We can look at a beautiful
pair of kittens playing and tumbling over the floor, and it's as
though we want to be one of them, and tumble with them. When
we see that kind of closeness that we feel with them, then that
produces a release of tension inside of us that I believe heals us
of the stresses of the day. We can see one of those very charming
animal movies about a beloved dog and identify with that animal
and focus our attention on him in such a way that in our minds
we can almost feel what it would be like to be him. In that way,
I believe that something actually theraputic happens within us
that transports us away from the difficult things in life that
could overwhelm us. We can also see an innocence about the
animals since we know they are not as smart as man, and we
can be charmed by what great intelligence they may have, even
though their intelligence does not rival our own. So I think that
the similarity of animals to humans has only to do with the
intelligence of the creator to give us something to identify with.
That is my opinion.

It's a silly opinion, easy to falsify using the evidence. For example,
we
find kittens and puppies more appealing than we find apes, though in
fact
apes are our closest relatives. We know this not because they are cute
or
appealing, but because of the nested hierarchy of similarities. Most of
these similarities are neither cute nor appealing, and in fact are
invisible unless you use fancy laboratory techniques to reveal them, so
your explanation for their existence holds no water.

You certainly do know how to take your opinion
to the next level, don't you, John? I didn't say one
word that falsified any kind of evidence.

It's hard to imagine anything you say falsifying any evidence, since
most of what you say is complete rubbish. What you probably meant to
say is that you didn't say anything which contradicted any evidence.
This is probably true, given that it was just begging the question, even
though it was expressed as your opinion. Claiming that our similarities
to animals is caused by the creator giving us something to identify with
is not falsifiable, since we can't discern the motives of any such
entity.

Well, if what I say in your humble opinion is only
rubbish then surely it cannot be construed as my
having falsified any evidence. It's really nice of you
also to tell me what I meant to say.

You apparently don't often say what you mean to say anyway, Suzanne.


Now what I believe is that you will grasp at any straws to convince
yourself that your a priori beliefs are correct, regardless of the
physical evidence. And as evidence for that belief of mine, I offer the
complete lameness of the explanation your just gave me. Nobody who was
interested in considering the evidence would have come up with it.

Did I sound desparate and grabbing at straws, John?

Well, yes, actually you did.

There is a rule in things that are written then that you both
might consider. When someone writes something on paper
and in this case in a post, no one can really tell what spirit
it was written in, since words on a page do not emote. I
assure you both that I had not even the slightest inkling of
a notion to be "grasping at straws" of any kind at all.

Apparently nobody can actually tell what you meant to say at all. By
claiming that Darwin "outwardly spoke" about Christianity, you might
think that you meant that he published or lectured on the subject. He
did neither.

You are grasping at straws.


No, not in the least. Yes, I do think that someone interested in knowing
the truth would consider all things and all ideas, and leave no
stone unturned.

I try not to consider nonsense. Yes, pixies could be under the very
next rock, but since nobody has turned over a rock and found a pixie,
it seems odd to seriously consider the idea that one might be under the
very next rock.

You try not to consider nonsense, but you give forth the idea
of finding pixies under rocks? : )
What I said was that a person who is interested in knowing
the truth would consider all things and all ideas.

Keep turning over those rocks then Suzanne.

The leaving
no stone unturned means that the person wanting to know the
truth will continue to look for it. In the Greek that the
New Testament is written in, when it says the word "truth,"
the word has the connotation of truth coming in layers, much
like the layers of an onion. What I mean is, truth has a way
of continually unfolding.

Sigh.

That you took my words, drop kicked them out of the ballpark speaks
for your interest in knowing things, as you've said with your own
mouth.

This also might surprise you to know that I can see how you
that are evolutionists believe what you all perceive of as the
progressive changing of the taxa lifeforms, and I can see the
similarities between certain species of animals. A sea horse
actually looks like a horse somewhat, and I can see why one
might think that they are of the same origin, but that branched and
have a common ancestor.

This too is ridiculous. Nobody thinks that the similarities you note
between horses and seahorses has anything to do with their common
ancestry.

I didn't say that I believed that a seahorse and a horse
branched from one another, I said that one might think
that. You laughed at my idea that God created these
animals in such a way that we can relate to them.

I don't even bother laughing at it, since it is so obviously a useless
thing
to consider.

So,
are you going to tell us that you think that it is just a
coincidence that a seahorse and a land horse look similar?

Yes. It is. (And they don't look all that similar, unless you think
that horses don't have any legs).

Of all the ways in which an animal in the sea could look,
why, oh why do you think it would look like a horse?
Some coincidence! I think they look similar because that
is the way that the creator of each made them to look.

So, why don't flounder look like horses then?

If a flounder looked like a seahorse, it probably would
be a seahorse. On the other hand, if a seahorse wanted
to look like a clump of seaweed, then it could do that
and still be a seahorse.

Wow.

There is no possible evidence that could falsify such a silly notion,
and therefore it is worse than useless. It tells us nothing. It
explains nothing. It's just staring at your belly button and pretending
that you learn something about God by gazing at it.

We can see fish that want to fly,
and we can see birds that want to dive. We can see amphibians
that can be equally as happy on land as they are in the water.

And I see this as an attempt, perhaps unconscious, to trivialize two
centuries of work in comparative biology.

It certainly is not any such thing. Why are you coming up
with caustic remarks?

There are some who consider willful stupidity to be in poor taste.

John is suggesting that someone could have an unconscious
attempt to trivialize two centuries of work in comparative
biology.

I don't think that you are doing that. I think you are entirely ignorant
of the last two centuries of comparative biology, and are maintaining that
willful ignorance against all rational assault.

Incidently, given the level of your argument, it's hard to actually
characterize it as "conscious".

Think about that for a minute. Do people's subconscious
minds decide to act independently of one's conscious mind and
go around trivializing what it wants to obliterate? Wow! That
would re-e-e-eally be a complicated person.

But what I see is kinds with variation within the kinds. I see
kinds as being something like Family or Genus. I am speaking
of the biblical category of "kinds" of course, which I don't think
is the equivalent of species, though in some cases it looks like
that. So I think that the animals that are progressively similar
are in the same "kinds" categories. I say I can see why you
believe what you do about the taxa, but I do not attribute
a chance beginning to all of life the way that an evolutionist
does.

Nobody that I know of attributes the beginning of all life to chance.
Nor
is the beginning of life particularly relevant to the relationships
among
extant species. I would like to know how you determined that "kinds"
were
equivalent to Family or Genus. If there really were kinds, one would
think
they would be easy to recognize, yet no two creationists come up with
the
same answer.

John, I have heard this from evolutionists. Some think life
began in a primordeal soup that had an electric charge go
through it and voila! life began. But you have the floor.
Please do tell why it was not "by chance" in your opinion.

What? No answer to the whole "why two creationists can't agree on what
a kind is thing?" Instead, this useless diversion.

I think that your saying it is a diversion is a diversion.

In this, you are mistaken (again).

The primordeal soup idea isn't about chance: it's about chemistry. It
isn't
based upon the idea that magic happened, it's about experiments like the
Urey-Miller experiments, which show that electric currents in certain
mixtures
of gasses can produce amino acids.

No, it's about chance, pure and simple. Unless, of course, you
have a subconscious desire to go around trivializing all that
has been said.

No. It isn't chance.

And simple "variation within kinds" would not account for the nested
hierarchy of life. This answer will not fly, and no creationist has been
able to come up with an answer that actually takes the data into
account.
There is a reason for this.

I believe it was all brought about by the Lord. I know,
though, that you can only see this through the witness of
the Holy Spirit within you.

If I understand this remark, you are claiming that reason and evidence
are
not relevant to knowing the truth. You are free to take that position,
but
if you do there's no point in arguing about facts or explanations. You
have rejected science as a way of knowing about the world, and we have
little to discuss.

No, John, I have not in any way rejected science. I just think
that you are basing your ideas on limited facts that have been
revealed to you, and that there is a lot more for people to
learn.

There certainly is a lot more for some of us to learn.

Yes indeed, true for all of us.

Some years ago you would have argued with me that the sun didn't have
an orbit of it's own, even though the Bible says that it does.

I'm sorry, but traditionally your spiritual ancestors argued for a fixed
earth, using the infallible Bible as a source. The sun doesn't orbit
the earth, as those primitive goat herders believed. The reality of
our solar system (and the rest of the universe beyond) is vastly more
interesting than the Bible portrays.

The Bible just says that the earth is "immoveable." It does not
say that this means it is cemented in space. It is fixed in an orbit,
and we move in that orbit.

Gibberish. Honestly, how can you live with a mind that works so poorly?

I should also point out that nothing in evolution denies the existence
of
god; it merely constrains how he could have worked. You are free to
believe in a creator and in evolution at the same time, without fear of
contradiction. If you want to cling to the literal truth of genesis as a
main tenet of your faith, however, that's what is irreconcilable with
the
physical evidence. But you should ask yourself why it worked out that
way.

John, I am not denying science to believe that God created
everything. I also do not believe in evolution and Creation
at the same time. You pin down a literal belief in what
Genesis reports as being a bad thing and you say it is since
there is no evidence to believe what it says. That undoubtedly
means that you have all the evidence in your possession. Now,
do you really?

Yes. Only madmen and fools think otherwise. The earth isn't 6000 years
old. There wasn't a massive flood, or the resulting mass extinction
described in the Bible. They didn't happen.

I really didn't mention the age of the earth.

Yes, it's one of the ways that you think you are protecting yourself from
criticism. "I didn't say that the world was only 6000 years old!" means
simply that you are cherry picking what you do and do not believe: accepting
certain traditional beliefs and rejecting others.

There was a massive, world-wide flood according to Jesus who spoke
about it, thus confirming it happened.

No. It doesn't confirm it happened, anymore than it would be if Harry
Potter said one had, or even George Washington (an actual person) said
it had. The evidence confirms that it did not happen. Nothing anyone
said or supposedly said trumps that.

In the stories
of most of the countries and people on the earth, there is a
story of a man whose name was Nu..Noah...Noe...Nu-uu
who had a ship in which he rescued some people and he had
animals that also were kept safe.

Oh dear lord (pardon the phrase).

It would not be too likely
that it didn't happen if all the people on earth say that their
ancestors told that it did happen.

What are the odds that any early agricultural communities would develop
a flood myth? I mean really, it does seem unlikely, given their close
proximity to rivers which are RELIED UPON TO PERIODICALLY FLOOD SO THAT
THEIR CROPS CAN GET IRRIGATION!

There is also a realy object
upon Mt.Ararat that has been visited even by Marco Polo,
and said to be the ark of Noah. It's called today "The Anomaly."

No, there isn't. It's one of those "Chariots of the Gods" kind of
speculations that makes people tune into Fox.

Mark

Suzanne

.