Bible Discussion: Accidental Evolution Impossible

Accidental Evolution Impossible
Posts: 37

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

IknowHimDoYou
2003-06-27 11:43:27 EST
Accidental Evolution Impossible

" If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then
the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and
the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our
thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the
movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialist' and the
astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But if their thoughts-i.e.,
of Materialism and astonomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should
we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one
accident should be able to give a correct account of all other accidents."

C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53

David Jensen
2003-06-27 12:04:00 EST
In alt.talk.creationism, IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote
in <IknowHim-2706030843270001@pm3-48.kalama.com>:

>Accidental Evolution Impossible
>
>" If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then
>the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and
>the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our
>thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the
>movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialist' and the
>astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But if their thoughts-i.e.,
>of Materialism and astonomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should
>we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one
>accident should be able to give a correct account of all other accidents."
>
>C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53

So what? Why do I care what C.S. Lewis believes?

Robert Gau
2003-06-27 13:55:11 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2706030843270001@pm3-48.kalama.com...
> Accidental Evolution Impossible
>
> " If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then
> the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and
> the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our
> thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the
> movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialist' and the
> astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But if their thoughts-i.e.,
> of Materialism and astonomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should
> we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one
> accident should be able to give a correct account of all other accidents."
>
> C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53


HAHAHA
LOL
Very good. Very good.
I love Lewis.
And he's absolutely correct.



Robert Gau
2003-06-27 13:55:57 EST

"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:4mqofvsa3pucru66ltotuu5nlqom0dtvpa@4ax.com...
> In alt.talk.creationism, IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote
> in <IknowHim-2706030843270001@pm3-48.kalama.com>:
>
> >Accidental Evolution Impossible
> >
> >" If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then
> >the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and
> >the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our
> >thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the
> >movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialist' and the
> >astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But if their thoughts-i.e.,
> >of Materialism and astonomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should
> >we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one
> >accident should be able to give a correct account of all other
accidents."
> >
> >C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53
>
> So what? Why do I care what C.S. Lewis believes?


Good comeback.
<note sarcasm>



David Jensen
2003-06-27 14:23:10 EST
In alt.talk.creationism, "Robert Gau" <robertgau@ev1.net> wrote in
<*2@corp.supernews.com>:

>
>"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:4mqofvsa3pucru66ltotuu5nlqom0dtvpa@4ax.com...
>> In alt.talk.creationism, IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote
>> in <IknowHim-2706030843270001@pm3-48.kalama.com>:
>>
>> >Accidental Evolution Impossible
>> >
>> >" If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then
>> >the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and
>> >the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our
>> >thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the
>> >movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialist' and the
>> >astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But if their thoughts-i.e.,
>> >of Materialism and astonomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should
>> >we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one
>> >accident should be able to give a correct account of all other
>accidents."
>> >
>> >C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53
>>
>> So what? Why do I care what C.S. Lewis believes?
>
>
>Good comeback.
><note sarcasm>

When I am looking at speculation, I care about the person speculating.
C.S. Lewis is not a person who knows enough about physics and biology to
develop informed speculation. There are many times that I might care
about Lewis, this is not one of them. His use, or misuse, of the terms
'accidental', 'Materialism', or even the English language in the final
sentence show that he has an agenda, not that he is trying to
understand.

Chris Devol
2003-06-27 16:35:44 EST
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:4mqofvsa3pucru66ltotuu5nlqom0dtvpa@4ax.com...
> In alt.talk.creationism, IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote
> in <IknowHim-2706030843270001@pm3-48.kalama.com>:
>
> >Accidental Evolution Impossible
> >
> >" If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then
> >the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and
> >the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our
> >thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the
> >movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialist' and the
> >astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But if their thoughts-i.e.,
> >of Materialism and astonomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should
> >we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one
> >accident should be able to give a correct account of all other
accidents."
> >
> >C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53
>
> So what? Why do I care what C.S. Lewis believes?

Suit yourself.You don't have to care.

I personally like C.S. Lewis's thinking. "Perelandra" offers some of the
deepest insights into the problem of sin that I have seen apart from the
bible itself.



David Jensen
2003-06-27 18:01:16 EST
In alt.talk.creationism, "Chris Devol" <abc@defghijk.lmn> wrote in
<AU1La.15428$C83.1447631@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:

>"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:4mqofvsa3pucru66ltotuu5nlqom0dtvpa@4ax.com...
>> In alt.talk.creationism, IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote
>> in <IknowHim-2706030843270001@pm3-48.kalama.com>:
>>
>> >Accidental Evolution Impossible
>> >
>> >" If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then
>> >the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and
>> >the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our
>> >thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the
>> >movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialist' and the
>> >astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But if their thoughts-i.e.,
>> >of Materialism and astonomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should
>> >we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one
>> >accident should be able to give a correct account of all other
>accidents."
>> >
>> >C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53
>>
>> So what? Why do I care what C.S. Lewis believes?
>
>Suit yourself.You don't have to care.
>
>I personally like C.S. Lewis's thinking. "Perelandra" offers some of the
>deepest insights into the problem of sin that I have seen apart from the
>bible itself.
>
I do like reading Lewis when he is writing about something he knows
about. Unfortunately, it is foolish to quote his speculations in an area
of knowledge that he does not understand.

Lane Lewis
2003-06-27 18:55:14 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2706030843270001@pm3-48.kalama.com...
> Accidental Evolution Impossible
>
> " If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then
> the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and
> the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so, then all our
> thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the
> movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialist' and the
> astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But if their thoughts-i.e.,
> of Materialism and astonomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should
> we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one
> accident should be able to give a correct account of all other accidents."
>
> C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53
>

What accidental collision ? And why if there was a collision would
everything that followed be accidental. Everything would be the result of an
accident not an accident itself. If I had a car accident and an ambulance
came would that be accidental. Though I do believe that abiogenesis was
randomly created It doesn't follow that evolution is accidental also.
Evolution has a mechanism behind it as did the ambulance though random
events can affect both.

Lane





Midwinter
2003-06-27 20:08:49 EST
On 27 Jun 2003, IknowHimDoYou held forth thus:

> Accidental Evolution Impossible
>
> " If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision,
> then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an
> accident, and the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so,
> then all our thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental
> by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the
> materialist' and the astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But
> if their thoughts-i.e., of Materialism and astonomy-are merely
> accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see
> no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a
> correct account of all other accidents."
>
> C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53


Firstly, no-one said anything about evolution being accidental.

Secondly, what is Lewis' argument? Why does the quote above demonstrate
the impossibility of accidental evolution?

As I have mentioned elsewhere, dwelling on the improbability of random
events leading to a universe existing as it does is meaningless. It does
not matter if the probability is 4.876x1^872000:1 against - it happened.
Either by grand design or by accident. It happened, and here we are.
And the fact of our existence cannot be used as evidence in either
direction, simply because if things had been otherwise we would not be
here to worry about it.

--
Midwinter

Dave Oldridge
2003-06-28 13:01:45 EST
I*m@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-2706030843270001@pm3-48.kalama.com:

> Accidental Evolution Impossible
>
> " If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision,
> then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an
> accident, and the whole evolution of man was an accident too. If so,

Define "accident." If the means by which the universe unfolds were
created by God, then every accident, so-called, is taking place in a set
of state spaces that are divinely ordained, is it not?

> then all our thought processes are mere accidents-the accidental
> by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the
> materialist' and the astronomers' as well as for everyone elses'. But
> if their thoughts-i.e., of Materialism and astonomy-are merely
> accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see
> no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a
> correct account of all other accidents."

So, I guess it's a good thing that the scientific theory of evolution
doesn't depend on events that are purely random, but on events that have
discernible, even if not predictable, causes.
>
> C.S.Lewis, "God in the Dock" 1970, p. 52-53




--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron