Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists

[reup]

you neglect the fact that an understanding of the TOP is intuitive. just cause you were teh smart enough to connect the dots doesn't mean that that same creative process in you that formulated the theorum isn't already the potential in another.

call it IQ or call it the inherent creative process of the Universe working through you, the way your mind formed the understanding, that same creativity is innately a part of and the whole (holonic: a series of whole/parts, transecening itself) of what makes up the creative process aka evolution.

Some people aren't creative because they're dumb, for a lot of reasons, their personality is fragmented due to dissolution, mental blocks, fear, they have deficiencies in brain from drugs or they're born that way, they attach to ideas or systems of thinking rather than being freed by them ... they identify with form rather than form and the emptiness underlying, which form manifests from, there's lots of reasons creativity gets blocked, physical or mental blocks.

Where does genius come from? It's already there it just has to be uncovered though that doesn't mean it doesn't take a focused dedicated mind to manifest it hence meditation/other Eastern traditions aimed at uncovering you 'true self'.

'god' is the creative process itself, spirit transcends form but isn't separate from form, two sides of the same coin. evolution arguably has a telos or direction and it's towards a 'higher' more encompassing, transcendence of itself or what it's already come to be. in this way there is no stop to evolution though a person may regress through their own ideas of separation hence 'original sin', the loss of innocense, the fall from 'grace'. blah blah blah.

[TomCowley]

I had a statistical answer to your question, but it had a fair bit of handwaving, and I realized I could answer this far more simply.

For all natural phenomena currently without a scientific explanation, would a sober bookie ALWAYS refuse to set a finite over/under on whether on not science will have solved the problem in X amount of time?

If science can answer the question, then there is clearly a fair line. If science cannot answer the question (because it's the result of an intervening god), there is no fair line because the question will never be answered by science. Therefore if god is even money or better, there can be no fair line. If god is even a smidgen under 50%, there will be a fair line.

Sober bookies will set over/unders (or, at the least, name a number and be willing to take the under) on scientific progress. An intervening god is not a favorite, nor even money.

[NotReady]

Sorry, thought this was a new thread.

[GoodCallYouWin]

DS :

I think you'd have realized already that religion is about faith : ergo any logical argument that considers religion is worthless (and hence any rational discussion about religion is worthless). Anyway, to say because someone believes something they must believe something else is silly and patently false, no matter the logic used.

[smurfitup]

David,
Individuals who believe that heretofore unexplained biological processes will ultimately be illuminated by evolutionary theory are essentially making a faith-based claim. I don't understand why it's necessary to conclude that this faith in evolution precludes belief in God; that would suggest that the two are mutually exclusive, which they don't need to be.

[speedfreek]

Surely, logically, there is nothing that science could possibly discover that could preclude a creator, for science can always be seen as simply providing a progressively better, more accurate description of that creators plan. (I'm an atheist who believes in evolution, but I accept the possibility of a creator but have no belief in that possibility being the correct one, whatever that means!)

[CrushinFelt]

[ 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 ]

This isn't really analogous to your argument (one is governed by choice and the other is not).

I don't understand why it can't be that, with regards to DNA being copied, there was error involved which then got copied and recopied? It seems that your argument demands that DNA be copied perfectly every time?