Debating an Atheist

[mattrose]

I'm sorry, but you failed to pay attention, in the Bart debate at least. Look again at my slides. I talked specifically about genomic evidence, DNA genomic comparisons, codons, etc. I didn't talk details in the Gregg debate because of time limitations. There's also no need to waste time on it since it is already published everywhere; I just need to refer to it. YouTube has lots of it for free viewing. Why should I waste time in going over the details of the same material?

At this point I'm not sure if you are being purposefully obtuse or not. The 'evidence' you provided is accepted by both sides (similarity between species). You have to tell us why we should interpret that evidence as descent. Nobody is surprised that similar looking and functioning species have similar DNA.

If anything, the high amount of similarity speaks TOWARD special creation. Since humans are so vastly different from those species in practice, perhaps it is evidence that there's something special about us beyond the cellular level. I could argue that interpretation just as well if not better than you have argued yours.

[TrumanSmith]

The 'evidence' you provided is accepted by both sides (similarity between species). You have to tell us why we should interpret that evidence as descent.

I did explain it in the Rask debate. Also gave the source link to the Venema video (that was the whole point of his video- explaining WHY it was a sign of descent). You aren't listening closely enough. It has to do with codon coding redundancy. If you can't see how this is genome copy work (modification through descent), then it would also be impossible for you to ever see how one kid copied an essay from another kid. It is more than just similarity- it is also seeing the modification through descent.

[TrumanSmith]

Frankly, I am OPEN to believing in (Theistic) evolution. I think it is POSSIBLE to fit macro-evolution into a Christian worldview (some of my favorite Christian preachers and authors do it).

An interesting quote:

Biologist David Hull writes:
Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.13

13 David Hull, “The God of the Galápagos,” Nature 352 (1991), 486.

[mattrose]

Frankly, I am OPEN to believing in (Theistic) evolution. I think it is POSSIBLE to fit macro-evolution into a Christian worldview (some of my favorite Christian preachers and authors do it).

An interesting quote:

Biologist David Hull writes:
Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.13

13 David Hull, “The God of the Galápagos,” Nature 352 (1991), 486.

I will watch the video you recommended when I get a chance

But the quote is ridiculous. The fact that you find it impressive makes me more skeptical of everything and anything you recommend. There are all sorts of good Christian thinkers who believe in species to species evolution yet still, consistently it seems to me, maintain belief in the God of orthodox Christianity.

[Roberto]

Frankly, I am OPEN to believing in (Theistic) evolution. I think it is POSSIBLE to fit macro-evolution into a Christian worldview (some of my favorite Christian preachers and authors do it).

An interesting quote:

Biologist David Hull writes:
Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.13

13 David Hull, “The God of the Galápagos,” Nature 352 (1991), 486.

I will watch the video you recommended when I get a chance

But the quote is ridiculous. The fact that you find it impressive makes me more skeptical of everything and anything you recommend. There are all sorts of good Christian thinkers who believe in species to species evolution yet still, consistently it seems to me, maintain belief in the God of orthodox Christianity.

Truman's challenge to you, Matt, is the amount of "waste" involved in evolution doesn't seem to square with a Creator. But what is it about this waste that refutes God, Truman? Maybe God is quite aware of it!

[mattrose]

I understand the challenge.

But there are a multitude of theological ways to potentially 'handle' such a challenge without resorting to what that quote concluded!

If theistic evolution is true, it could be 'handled' by expanding our view of God's patience... by helping us to better understand the positive role of suffering... by improving our stewardship of creation insofar as creation itself has played a pivotal role in bringing humans into being. These would all be potentially POSITIVE results for theology if theistic evolution turned out to be true. And those are just off the top of my head.

Truman is simply wrong to suggest that theistic evolution would necessarily damage classical theology concerning God's character.

[steve7150]

In the debate, Steve Gregg said DNA evidence didn't shed any more light on evolution than what we had with fossils. That is incredibly and horribly wrong. DNA (genomics) has refined evolutionary theory and species tremendously. Just one sample:
"New DNA evidence could explain what happened to the Neanderthals"
http://io9.com/5939148/new-dna-evidence ... anderthals







Good heavens where did this DNA come from? Just created itself, just refined itself, just modified itself? The numbers of DNA transactions , the number of cell transactions and innumerable and uncountable other transactions that must occur and work every second for life to exist and continue is beyond our comprehension yet the Atheist knows there is no Supreme Being? None of us really know so we form educated opinions like Truman who thinks DNA evidence proves evolution and by extension , no God. My opinion is that DNA is one example of the fingerprints of God. Truman says DNA similarities prove descent and maybe that's true but i know when an artist paints many works they will have certain similarities in brushstrokes and other things which indicate who the artist is, and in creation God is the artist.

[CThomas]

I am very confident that it will not matter to you, Truman, but just so you're aware, David Hull was a philosopher.

CThomas

[TrumanSmith]

Truman's challenge to you, Matt, is the amount of "waste" involved in evolution doesn't seem to square with a Creator. But what is it about this waste that refutes God, Truman? Maybe God is quite aware of it!

A couple of things.

First, the complaint wasn't of waste, but said "He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not." "Waste not want not" seems to be an american type of Christian proverb.

Second, the waste is incompatible with an all-loving and all-good god. If the intention was to evolve creatures into human from other species, there were so many dead-end paths (dinosaurs, etc). All those eons contain innumerable pain (survival of the fittest; evolution is red in tooth and claw).

God is supposed to be all-loving and all-good, but evolution in action seems to be the opposite. Accepting evolution greatly magnifies the already unsolvable "problem of evil."

[TrumanSmith]

If theistic evolution is true, it could be 'handled' by expanding our view of God's patience... by helping us to better understand the positive role of suffering... by improving our stewardship of creation insofar as creation itself has played a pivotal role in bringing humans into being. These would all be potentially POSITIVE results for theology if theistic evolution turned out to be true. And those are just off the top of my head.

You need to do deeper thinking.

God's patience has nothing to do with all the violence from evolution (survival of the fittest). There is no positive role for much of humanity's suffering, such as kids that die in childbirth, people killed ion tsunami's, etc., etc., etc.

Being a good steward of creation, if by that you mean trying to discover medical cures and surviving tsunami's, is about self-preservation. We have to do that in our fight for survival. Has nothing to do with justifying the off-the-scale suffering that is shown in creation.