Arguing with Atheistic Evolutionists

Information

Arguing with Atheistic Evolutionists

Discussion Group for those engaging Atheistic Evolutionists and dealing with their ideas passed off as arguments.

Members: 26
Latest Activity: Jul 29, 2018

What Is Meant by "Natural"?

The whole Origins discussion centers around two opposing epistemologies:  Naturalism versus SuperNaturalism.  Originally Naturalism itself dealt with intrinsic make up of what was being studied or examined as the following early definitions of “Natural/Naturalism” indicates: 
 
Natural/Naturalism defined: 
 
"Natural / Naturalism: That which is produced or affected by nature, or by the laws of growth formation for motion and impressed upon bodies or beings by unseen power — as natural growth of animals according to the stated course of things — according to the constitution or character of a thing; something derived from nature as opposed to that which is an outgrowth or habit." — Webster’s Universal Dictionary, 1936
Then even earlier:
“Natural / Naturalism: The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature to a blind force or forces acting necessarily or according to fixed laws, excluding origination or direction by one intelligent will."  — Webster’s Dictionary 1913
 
Natural history: in its broad sense the description of whatever is created or, of the whole universe, including the heavens and the earth, and all the productions of the earth; it is generally limited to a description of the earth and its productions, including zoology Botany geology mineralogy, Etc.
 
From the above definition we can understand a simplified version such as this:
 
Original meaning of natural, or naturalism was simply, “looking within the “something" to learn about the “something" with no exclusion of the “What" that brought that something into existence.” This is "the intrinsic to the 'something.'” It does not exclude what produced the something. 
 
The original definition of "naturalism" never excluded GOD, nor any outside source. Instead it simply meant to look within the “objects" immediate material context to understand the phenomenal world. It had nothing to do with the origin of things.
 
Illustration: By studying just a Piper Cub airplane we can learn about how the airframe was built, We can see how the frame parts are made to interlock with each other; we can see how the wings are attached, how the motor is placed, How the controls are put in to function, etc., etc, etc. In doing this, we have studied the "nature" of the Piper Cub, and in doing so, we didn't negate the design engineer of the aircraft. We maintained the idea that what we were looking at was designed even though we did not invoke the idea of a designer, or that it was the result of an intelligence. This was the original meaning of "Natural or Naturalism."
 
Now the mauled modern definition is ….
 
Naturalism: a philosophical viewpoint according to which EVERYTHING arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations [this includes an Intelligent Designer-ajd] are EXCLUDED or DISCOUNTED. — Oxford Dictionary, Apple application. 
So, by the modern definition,  if any intelligence is involved in any experiment to verify a "naturalistic" explanation for the development of a biological process then by definition, what took place was not a real representation of what is natural.

Discussion Forum

b beetle

the b beetle is one of the best arguments against evolution brain washing. i have researched for approx 15 years . sem scans and images had been made . inside the b beetle is a chemistry factory with…Continue

Started by Mathew Wirsich Nov 24, 2017.

In a Logic Battle. Help! 12 Replies

My 20-something nephew, was raised in a Christian home and until recently was a worship leader at his church, has now decided he no longer believes in God and he thinks evolution is the real deal.…Continue

Started by Kate Warren. Last reply by Lou Hamby Mar 22, 2015.

The Refining Reason Debate- Matt Dillahunty VS Sye Ten Bruggencate 13 Replies

watched this on youtube.You will get what I think is Sye's (of proofthatgodexists.org) main point in the first 10 minutes, salvation message near end.  May God give us a humble repentant heart to…Continue

Tags: fear, God, not, repent, needed

Started by TrustJesus. Last reply by Donna McCann Mar 9, 2015.

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Arguing with Atheistic Evolutionists to add comments!

Comment by General Nate on October 8, 2013 at 4:08pm

Amanda:

This video may help you. It gives a very good overview of the argument:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/kalam

Comment by Amanda on October 7, 2013 at 1:00pm

Interesting Allen. Perhaps I should spend time reading about the Cosmological Argument. Will be back if I have any questions.

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on October 7, 2013 at 7:00am

The idea the universe (Creation) had a beginning is true.  However, the "reversing video tape" scenario is where the "story" become misleading.  In the beginning was "nothing" then "nothing" exploded/inflated into something is not only false, but equivocal as in "Naturalism" must make their "nothing" into "something."   We believe Genesis One: "In the beginning God created the heaven(s) and the earth, i.e. the Universe.   The YEC hold that GOD was the "Something" that was at "the beginning" and "spoke" the Universe into existence.  Did it "inflate" like an explosion?  We don't know; and the details are not recorded for us in the Scriptures of that initial event.  

The Cosmological Argument is a good one, Craig's Kalam version is strengthened as it establishes that "everything that has a beginning has a cause", thus keeping GOD out of the infinite regression pushed neively by Richard Dawkins.  

Just because the atheist/evolutionist says "OK" and maintains their "Big Bang" stance does not prove their position, as they have yet to answer the questions:  (1) From where did what caused the "inflation" come? and (2) what made it "inflate or explode"?  The need to answer these questions "logically" causes them to equivocate the definitions concerning "nothing",  "inflate" and "explode".   

Comment by Amanda on October 6, 2013 at 11:39pm

General Nate:

Agree with your point that one doesn't necessarily have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. I would like to reverse the burden of proof except that I find the Kalam Cosmological argument is very heavy for me to handle.

Here are my reasons:- I have the Book "I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist" and page 79 which talks about the universe expanding which

"is the second line of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning. How does the expanding universe prove a beginning. Think about it this way: if we could watch a video recording of the history of the universe in reverse, we would see all matter in the universe collapse back to a point, .....mathematically and logically to a point that is actually nothing (ie: no space, no time and no matter). In other words, once there was nothing, and then, BANG, there was something - the entire universe exploded into being known as the Big Bang"

Now evolutionists believe in the Big Bang, if I quote the above as the second line of evidence that the universe had a beginning, I'm wondering that the atheistic evolutionist might jump and say "You see! the Big Bang!, that's exactly what we also believe is true as part of the evolutionary process, so what's your point?"

I firmly think the Big Bang has flaws which I'm still learning about.I also have the book called Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig but have not read past the 2nd chapter because I can't wrap my mind around the very deep concepts in his book. Another problem I have with William Lane Craig is - http://creation.com/william-lane-craig-vs-creation

To reverse the burden of proof - I would prefer to use something else other than the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Any other opinions?

Comment by General Nate on October 6, 2013 at 7:34pm

Amanda:

They do have a point: You don't neccesarily have to be an Atheist to believe in evolution.

Still, evolution is a ain argument of atheists for why the Bible is false or God doesn't exist. My approach then is to challenge them to provide evidence that God does not exist. Thus, reverse the burden of proof. My favorite argument for the existence of God is the Kalam Cosmological argument. You may want to use it

Comment by Amanda on October 6, 2013 at 7:20pm

Nicely said Steven.The atheists that I'm in dialogue with find it difficult to understand that evolution equates to atheism. One person responded as follows:

"Who says evolution equates to atheism? Just because there is evolution does not mean there was not some "creative force" that started it all. There is just no evidence to prove this one way or another and it goes back to what him (another atheist in dialogue as well) and I agree on - as yet science cannot say anything about the existence or non-existence of God. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense to teach religion as science"

Another said: "to clarify - atheism isn't a religion. An atheist does not believe God exists. All religions believe in some form of God"

I remember reading somewhere where it says that if an atheist says I don't believe in God, but believe that it's wrong if someone stole his money. If an atheist by definition has a lack of belief then he has no basis to believe that stealing is wrong. Something to that effect and it's bugging me as I can't remember where I read that similar notion...

Comment by General Nate on October 6, 2013 at 5:00pm

Well said, Steven

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on October 6, 2013 at 12:03pm

Totally agree, Steven.  

Comment by Steven Posey on October 6, 2013 at 11:50am

I understand Amanda, your observations apply to me as well; I always think later, "I wish I had of thought of that while I was talking!" I however, feel that (and pray) that the Spirit will guide me and if I prepare and seek the Lord and study the topics perhaps a seed will be planted; may the Lord give the increase. I've been impressed with how Ravi Zacharias, Ray Comfort and John Lennox can speak on subjects with authority and grace with limited time to respond. I suppose that's my goal (in my sub-conscience); I don't reasonably expect to live up to those goals :) The diferent apostles had different approaches, the Lord obviously enjoys variety and creativity, since He started it :) It sounds like you have a lot of work ahead of you: the Lord bless you and give you His peace. I'm not on facebook or I would offer my non-existent skills.   

Comment by Amanda on October 5, 2013 at 4:16pm

Steven: You say that the internet is not your best route and prefer open dialogue with people in person. For me, I find that I am the opposite. When in person, I find that my mind doesn't grasp everything the person has just said and then my mind takes a while to formulate the answers. Whereas online, I can read it out, reread it and let it sink in, print it out before giving an answer and that I can have my creation books as backup if I need it. I just find it easier than in person.

 

Members (26)

 
 
 

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service