Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

Which is more likely to have existed:

1) A very long chain of very small naturalistic changes, or
2) An infinitely complex intelligence that violates the (apparent) laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws of Physics have been violated already with picture proof. An image by Hubble Telescope shows a Galaxy that has more then 8 times as many stars as our galaxy and according to physics theories, it shouldnt even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[SitNHit]

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

No to what?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But a real genius can figure a way out of the mess all us idiots got ourselves into.

[/ QUOTE ]
They already have. It was called the Enlightenment, and it was where reason and compassion won against the evils of religion and superstition. You live in a pleasant world today because of the collective works of a handful of brave and intelligent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we could have signatures added at the end of our posts, I would be asking you if I could use this as mine right now.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Which is more likely to have existed:

1) A very long chain of very small naturalistic changes, or
2) An infinitely complex intelligence that violates the (apparent) laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

The part that I don't get is, is David saying that evolution cannot be a PROHIBITIVE favorite, unless we entirely reject the possibility of a designer God, or just that it cannot be a favorite at all? I think evolution would still certainly be the favorite, even if I believed in the possibility of a designer God, just based on past performance. But I don't know that I could call evolution a runaway favorite. Is that his point?

[David Sklansky]

You go to a planet where everybody constantly plays poker but no poker books exist. They all have IQs of 110. You encounter some great players. The first 500 of them show you how experience got them to where they are. You now encounter an even better player who makes plays in rare situations such that it is hard to see how experience could have led him to make them. But since he isn't smart enough to figure them out logically, the assumption must be made that somehow his experience did lead him to these plays. But only because we are sure that the Theory of Poker does not exist on this planet. If that was even a small possibility then it would have to be a reasonable alternative explanation for the plays of this one fellow.

If you are so sure his great plays evolved from his experience just because so many others have, then you must necessarily be sure that I never intervene with these players. Get it now?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What they won't admit publicly though, maybe even to themselves, is that their certainty does not make sense unless they are also certain that there is no such thing as an intelligent designer.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why people think God and evolution are logically mutually exclusive, ignoring any problems interpreting Genesis.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Which is more likely to have existed:

1) A very long chain of very small naturalistic changes, or
2) An infinitely complex intelligence that violates the (apparent) laws of physics.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can a being of finite knowledge calculate the probability of a being of infinite knowledge?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that if there is a God that designs anything, then it is entirely possible, even if not probable, that he also designed things that include stuff that we presently have no explanation for. Too many of such things still exist to dismiss that possibility. Unless the possibility of such a God existing is also dismissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the difference between this claim and any ol' god-of-the-gaps claim?
"There are things we haven't yet explained. Therefore god did it."
Wow, we can explain god? , or else we haven't explained the things we haven't explained ( Donald Rumsfeld was a good teacher, There are unknown unknowns ..etc :-)

It's not that god existing is dismissed, it's that it doesn't explain anything, it makes it even tougher to explain.

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Long observation and a number of scientific amazing discoveries has taught us that God-glue is not required to make things work.


[/ QUOTE ]

No science will ever teach us that God isn't necessary. By definition.

[ QUOTE ]

The history of scientific discovery - which has made fools of the BluffTHIS!'s and NotReady's of history - is enough to make educated people wary of invoking supernaturalism as an explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please substantiate this. Give examples. Be specific.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
You go to a planet where everybody constantly plays poker but no poker books exist. They all have IQs of 110. You encounter some great players. The first 500 of them show you how experience got them to where they are. You now encounter an even better player who makes plays in rare situations such that it is hard to see how experience could have led him to make them. But since he isn't smart enough to figure them out logically, the assumption must be made that somehow his experience did lead him to these plays. But only because we are sure that the Theory of Poker does not exist on this planet. If that was even a small possibility then it would have to be a reasonable alternative explanation for the plays of this one fellow.

If you are so sure his great plays evolved from his experience just because so many others have, then you must necessarily be sure that I never intervene with these players. Get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was very well put. How would this person, if physically and intelligently the same as everyone else whos had the same experience know this. Could it possibly be influence from higher power. And I guess the thing is you cant say that its not possible.

Thats at least what I took from it.