The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8073
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby PaulSacramento » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:14 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:



I read through all of these links and although they did not change my view of the theory of evolution it is still interesting that there are discussions going on amongst evolutionists.However, I'm still afraid that evolution bias from them all will really not do anything to help the theory of evolution.It really just seems that one group of scientists just would rather focus on other aspects of evolution while the others think it is unnecessary.I know how much these scientists believe life evolves but proving normal variation amongst the populations and using it for evidence of evolution is not going to make the problem go away.If they believe life evolves they need to demonstrate it does instead of just demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations. If they could ever demonstrate life evolves then I'd accept evolution.



I don't really think that you understand evolution very well.
That said my point was that there is no "settled science" on ANYTHING ( much less evolution) and that the TOE is, like all scientific theories, always subject to advancement and revisions as we discover more and more about the universe we live in.
Anyone that thinks that the science is "settled" has no idea how science actually works.
It is never "settled" and is never done by "consensus".

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:38 am

Kurieuo wrote:Wow, if you're definitely getting your information from sources you must think are extremely credible Don. I thought you claimed to be all scientific, and yet your goto are YEC sites like AiG? :P :lol:


My use of these sites, was to demonstrate that even YEC and AiG sites have issues with Dr. Ross's position. Scientific sites couldn't be bothered with his beliefs, only his science(of which he is respected). I was just wondering why Philip would choose someone so controversial, that even people of faith take issue with his Biblical interpretations. It seems almost self-defeating to me, to choose this Christian scientist to champion his Belief-related points. The problem with using any site as a resource, is that if you don't have the proper grounding, how could you determine if the information is right or wrong? How would you know what to look for? If you can't maintain impartiality, you will only see what you want to see, believe what you want to believe, and confirm what you want to confirm. In other words, NOT being impartial or objective.

Therefore, being scientific includes being objective and impartial. Therefore being exclusive and selective is not being scientific. Don

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5939
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby Philip » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:48 am

TrulyE: I was just wondering why Philip would choose someone so controversial, that even people of faith take issue with his Biblical interpretations.


Citing AIG just further shows me your ignorance of how you think most Christians must view issues of Creationism. AIG has repeatedly asserted things proven to be wrong. They've said things like the distance and age of stars are illusions.

First place, those in Hugh Ross' organization have impeccable scientific backgrounds - no, they didn't throw away their scientific integrity or confidence in the scientific method to support their Christian beliefs. AIG and YECs, however, interpret some science far differently, and actually dismiss certain widely held consensus of studies showing great age of the universe and the earth - Ross and co. accept these dates, but they do not accept that evolution - molecules to men. But they accept the data being sifted as factual. Both YECs / AIG and OECs agree on one thing: A Creator God. My point is that well-qualified scientists CAN and DO believe in God - and not all such scientists are Christians - some, like Einstein, embraced some type of Deist creator - not the God of the Bible.

TrulyE: It seems almost self-defeating to me, to choose this Christian scientist to champion his Belief-related points.


If scientific evidences point to some probability that some God-like Entity MUST exist, then is it any wonder that so many of the world's great scientist have believed in God? Many of these people concluded this FIRST from what they've learned from science. The problem for you is that you believe that only blind faith and religious beliefs inform us of God. But no thinking Christian believes this - we see tremendous evidences in what science has informed us on.

TrulyE: The problem with using any site as a resource, is that if you don't have the proper grounding, how could you determine if the information is right or wrong?


Concepts can be broken down into analogies and descriptive, dependent meanings. I don't need to know how to fly a passenger jet to understand the basic principles of airflow and flight. Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology. Do any of them have a geologist's or paleontologist's knowledge level? Course not. But they can understand things broken down to their wide consensus and conclusions. And we all can sift the basic concepts and descriptions of what they are based upon. And we can also see where, in their descriptions, various people have jumped an enormous, inexplicable gap, where they've connected things in their explanations that there was no bridge to beyond speculation. Truly, you've spoken of many things you yourself can't have expertise in. So, that's really not a valid claim.

How would you know what to look for? If you can't maintain impartiality, you will only see what you want to see, believe what you want to believe, and confirm what you want to confirm. In other words, NOT being impartial or objective.


First place, it's ridiculous to say one can't be impartial in their quest for knowledge. Yes, we ALL have presuppositions and biases, but the truly objective person has confidence that A) there is a truth and B) that if they come across something that challenges their presuppositions, that either the info is wrong, or their presupposition was.

TrulyE: Therefore, being scientific includes being objective and impartial. Therefore being exclusive and selective is not being scientific.


Which is why all scientists agree on virtually everything? Else, if they were all truly objective and impartial, they'd all come to the same conclusions, right? But great scientists often have highly exclusive and selective views that differ from those of their colleagues. Such circular reasoning you have.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4273
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby abelcainsbrother » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:34 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:



I read through all of these links and although they did not change my view of the theory of evolution it is still interesting that there are discussions going on amongst evolutionists.However, I'm still afraid that evolution bias from them all will really not do anything to help the theory of evolution.It really just seems that one group of scientists just would rather focus on other aspects of evolution while the others think it is unnecessary.I know how much these scientists believe life evolves but proving normal variation amongst the populations and using it for evidence of evolution is not going to make the problem go away.If they believe life evolves they need to demonstrate it does instead of just demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations. If they could ever demonstrate life evolves then I'd accept evolution.



I don't really think that you understand evolution very well.
That said my point was that there is no "settled science" on ANYTHING ( much less evolution) and that the TOE is, like all scientific theories, always subject to advancement and revisions as we discover more and more about the universe we live in.
Anyone that thinks that the science is "settled" has no idea how science actually works.
It is never "settled" and is never done by "consensus".



I don't see how you can say that if you know about evolution.It matters that there is no credibile mechanism for how life evolves and it matters that definitions like speciation are myths that are believed to be true that really don't hold up when you test them.It also matters that they use normal variation amongst the populations for evidence life evolves when they don't even know.And it is very dishonest evidence too. But like I've said I don't care if a Christians accepts evolution but do not say or imply it is true science,because it is nowhere close. The Gap Theory blows it away when it comes to evidence,not when it comes to bulk evidence but convincing evidence which is why I accept it over the others no matter how popular they might be.

Let's compare Life evolves based on evidence of normal variation amongst the populations so that we must have only one world going back billions of years or we have two different worlds that had different kinds of life in them over billions of years. No matter what fossil we look at it simply shows the kinds of life that lived in the former world that was different than this world we now live in. Without evidence life evolves? There is no reason to have only one world going back over billions of years and so a former world that had different kinds of life in it than this world is just more believable based on the fossils and the kinds of life they show that once lived and we compare them to the kinds of life we have in this world. We now have evidence for two different kinds of worlds just looking at the kinds of life that lived in the former world and comparing it to the kinds of life we have in this world.

Like for example.The former world had Wooly Mammoths and Mastadons in it,while we have elephants in this world we now live in. The former world had hominids and Neanderthals in it,while we have Human Beings in this world.The former world had dinosaurs in it,while we have alligators and crocodiles in this world.These are just a few examples,but you get the point. If there is no evidence life evolves there is no reason to link the fossils to the life in this world in order to only see one world and two different worlds with a gap of time between them is just more believable based on the evidence.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby trulyenlightened » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:26 am

Philip wrote:
TrulyE: I was just wondering why Philip would choose someone so controversial, that even people of faith take issue with his Biblical interpretations.


Citing AIG just further shows me your ignorance of how you think most Christians must view issues of Creationism. AIG has repeatedly asserted things proven to be wrong. They've said things like the distance and age of stars are illusions.

First place, those in Hugh Ross' organization have impeccable scientific backgrounds - no, they didn't throw away their scientific integrity or confidence in the scientific method to support their Christian beliefs. AIG and YECs, however, interpret some science far differently, and actually dismiss certain widely held consensus of studies showing great age of the universe and the earth - Ross and co. accept these dates, but they do not accept that evolution - molecules to men. But they accept the data being sifted as factual. Both YECs / AIG and OECs agree on one thing: A Creator God. My point is that well-qualified scientists CAN and DO believe in God - and not all such scientists are Christians - some, like Einstein, embraced some type of Deist creator - not the God of the Bible.

TrulyE: It seems almost self-defeating to me, to choose this Christian scientist to champion his Belief-related points.


If scientific evidences point to some probability that some God-like Entity MUST exist, then is it any wonder that so many of the world's great scientist have believed in God? Many of these people concluded this FIRST from what they've learned from science. The problem for you is that you believe that only blind faith and religious beliefs inform us of God. But no thinking Christian believes this - we see tremendous evidences in what science has informed us on.

TrulyE: The problem with using any site as a resource, is that if you don't have the proper grounding, how could you determine if the information is right or wrong?


Concepts can be broken down into analogies and descriptive, dependent meanings. I don't need to know how to fly a passenger jet to understand the basic principles of airflow and flight. Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology. Do any of them have a geologist's or paleontologist's knowledge level? Course not. But they can understand things broken down to their wide consensus and conclusions. And we all can sift the basic concepts and descriptions of what they are based upon. And we can also see where, in their descriptions, various people have jumped an enormous, inexplicable gap, where they've connected things in their explanations that there was no bridge to beyond speculation. Truly, you've spoken of many things you yourself can't have expertise in. So, that's really not a valid claim.

How would you know what to look for? If you can't maintain impartiality, you will only see what you want to see, believe what you want to believe, and confirm what you want to confirm. In other words, NOT being impartial or objective.


First place, it's ridiculous to say one can't be impartial in their quest for knowledge. Yes, we ALL have presuppositions and biases, but the truly objective person has confidence that A) there is a truth and B) that if they come across something that challenges their presuppositions, that either the info is wrong, or their presupposition was.

TrulyE: Therefore, being scientific includes being objective and impartial. Therefore being exclusive and selective is not being scientific.


Which is why all scientists agree on virtually everything? Else, if they were all truly objective and impartial, they'd all come to the same conclusions, right? But great scientists often have highly exclusive and selective views that differ from those of their colleagues. Such circular reasoning you have.


I never claimed that Scientists can't believe in a God. I never stated that Dr. Ross and Co. did not have impeccable credentials. So please, no more straw man. I merely stated from a scientific perspective, that there is no such thing as a Christian scientist, there is only a scientist. If scientific evidence pointed to the probability that a God-like entity existed, what does that have to do with the world's greatest scientists believing in God? Are saying that because of their belief in a deity, that this somehow increases the probability of the existence of God? There is no such correlation! The great scientist that I listed, were certainly not theists(including Einstein). Most were Agnostics. Why do you simply ignore this information, and keep parroting nonsense? What metaphysical or Theological discoveries have been discovered in the last 1000 years? Name one new discovery!

"Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology"? Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. What do you think is his area of expertise is? He is a Physicists and Microbiologists. There are many scientist that are multidisciplined. What is relevant, is the level of scrutiny that scientists would apply to an explanation. After, "Of course not, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

A scientist will understand the fine-tuning as well as the design. The novice or non-scientist will understand the design but rarely the fine-tuning. If there is disagreement on a scientific issue, it will be in the fine-tuning, not the design. It is very true that many great scientist have disagreements among their colleagues. That is why objective evidence is so important in resolving these disagreements. In science it is irrelevant how impartial you are. All that matters is how impartial your data and your evidence is. Science has a way of regulating itself. The greatest dream of most scientists, is to disprove someone else's work. You must convince members of your peers that your ideas are correct. There are no such vetting occurring in non-academia. You can believe in anything you want, until you decide to submit your belief to peer review. Most scientist believe in most things, but no two people will believe in everything.

Your last comment makes no sense to me. Do you even know what circular reasoning mean? What does that have to do with your examples, or anything I have said? Don

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5939
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby Philip » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:20 am

Truly: I never claimed that Scientists can't believe in a God. I never stated that Dr. Ross and Co. did not have impeccable credentials. So please, no more straw man.


No, but you tried to discredit their science views per how they think the science supports their spiritual beliefs

Truly: require their scientist to sign a stack deck, stating that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief. No reputable scientist would ever enter into such a contract.


Your clear implication is that people like Hugh Ross do their science differently than other scientists due to what they spiritually believe - and that is nonsense!

Truly: If scientific evidence pointed to the probability that a God-like entity existed, what does that have to do with the world's greatest scientists believing in God?


It means that countless brilliant scientists have had their faith in God buoyed further - or even begun - per what they've learned by science. Your implication is that somehow if a scientist is a Christian, they must somehow be "doing" science differently or incorrectly, if they've come to different spiritual understandings than you have. Why else would you state people like Ross are so compelled - "that all evidence they present must ONLY support the Christian Belief?" And then you immediately make a false statement trying to discredit Ross and others scientist like him (that have theistic or Christian beliefs): "No reputable scientist would ever enter into such a contract." I'm sure you can produce this contract you insist exists? Or that they change their views or commitments to how the scientific method works - where's your evidence of this? Standing back and pondering and sifting the science AFTER it has produced certain data or results, and THEN discerning whether or not they contradict, begin or re-enforce one's beliefs about God - that's a very different thing. What intelligent person wouldn't wonder about God, or how the incredible aspects of the universe could be uncaused, or caused without an intelligent source? You, yourself have said you would welcome to know any available truth about God - at least on some level.

Truly: Are saying that because of their belief in a deity, that this somehow increases the probability of the existence of God?


Nope, just showing that many brilliant scientists across the world, accept the scientific evidences, are committed to the scientific method, and yet come to different spiritual conclusions than you do, AND that they also will attest that it is precisely what they've learned through science has either initiated or strengthened their belief that God exists - or some type of god does.

Truly: The great scientist that I listed, were certainly not theists(including Einstein).


That is false - Einstein was not an agnostic or atheist after a point - particularly after he realized the universe had a beginning. He just didn't believe in a personal God, but more in a deist type of god - but a great intelligence of great power and ability. Do a half hour of research on it - might help.

Truly: What metaphysical or Theological discoveries have been discovered in the last 1000 years? Name one new discovery!


I'm not sure the reason for the question - beyond what Christ and the Apostles revealed, we have no new information about God or then non-physical world.

Truly: There are many scientist that are multidisciplined. What is relevant, is the level of scrutiny that scientists would apply to an explanation. After, "Of course not, I have no idea what you are trying to say.


I'm just pointing out that one need not be an expert chemist to understand the explained concepts, discoveries and implications of them. Scientists sure talk as if they can be explained. And we can see where qualified experts agree on a grand scale and trace where and why they disagree. And we can see what it is they agree upon and why they say they agree. Explanations have clearly trackable and explainable connections to see if A + B=C, etc. Your implication is that the arguments are too complex for the average intelligent person to understand the basic conclusions and explanations for them - while perhaps not true on a technical level, on a practical, explainable level they can be - as clear explanations are put forth and abound. And experts aren't experts in everything - so we can see where those in diverse fields agree, and where their findings agree. And if an expert cannot boil down the implications of what he has learned for those who might learn or take advantage of their findings - really, what use is expert opinion then - to people who do not share in their level of expertise, or those that are decision makers who must apply the input of experts?

My question to you is, just because a scientist is also a Christian, why do you automatically project skepticism at their SCIENTIFIC expertise or commitment to its methodology, or assert they've committed professional suicide by applying what the science has revealed to them in it's influence upon their spiritual beliefs? Your assertion is that with such (Christian) scientists, that their spiritual beliefs drive how they do science. A really cheap and disingenuous shot at attempting to discredit what they spiritually believe, or believe about theism.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8073
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby PaulSacramento » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:41 am

What metaphysical or Theological discoveries have been discovered in the last 1000 years? Name one new discovery!

You do realize that the CORE of science, the scientific method, the is a view that we CAN know the universe around us and that there is a degree of "predictability" ( repeat-ability) and a "goal orientedness" in nature ( which makes the scientific method possible), is from metaphysics and theology, right?

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4273
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby abelcainsbrother » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:06 pm

trulyenlightened wrote:
Philip wrote:
TrulyE: I was just wondering why Philip would choose someone so controversial, that even people of faith take issue with his Biblical interpretations.


Citing AIG just further shows me your ignorance of how you think most Christians must view issues of Creationism. AIG has repeatedly asserted things proven to be wrong. They've said things like the distance and age of stars are illusions.

First place, those in Hugh Ross' organization have impeccable scientific backgrounds - no, they didn't throw away their scientific integrity or confidence in the scientific method to support their Christian beliefs. AIG and YECs, however, interpret some science far differently, and actually dismiss certain widely held consensus of studies showing great age of the universe and the earth - Ross and co. accept these dates, but they do not accept that evolution - molecules to men. But they accept the data being sifted as factual. Both YECs / AIG and OECs agree on one thing: A Creator God. My point is that well-qualified scientists CAN and DO believe in God - and not all such scientists are Christians - some, like Einstein, embraced some type of Deist creator - not the God of the Bible.

TrulyE: It seems almost self-defeating to me, to choose this Christian scientist to champion his Belief-related points.


If scientific evidences point to some probability that some God-like Entity MUST exist, then is it any wonder that so many of the world's great scientist have believed in God? Many of these people concluded this FIRST from what they've learned from science. The problem for you is that you believe that only blind faith and religious beliefs inform us of God. But no thinking Christian believes this - we see tremendous evidences in what science has informed us on.

TrulyE: The problem with using any site as a resource, is that if you don't have the proper grounding, how could you determine if the information is right or wrong?


Concepts can be broken down into analogies and descriptive, dependent meanings. I don't need to know how to fly a passenger jet to understand the basic principles of airflow and flight. Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology. Do any of them have a geologist's or paleontologist's knowledge level? Course not. But they can understand things broken down to their wide consensus and conclusions. And we all can sift the basic concepts and descriptions of what they are based upon. And we can also see where, in their descriptions, various people have jumped an enormous, inexplicable gap, where they've connected things in their explanations that there was no bridge to beyond speculation. Truly, you've spoken of many things you yourself can't have expertise in. So, that's really not a valid claim.

How would you know what to look for? If you can't maintain impartiality, you will only see what you want to see, believe what you want to believe, and confirm what you want to confirm. In other words, NOT being impartial or objective.


First place, it's ridiculous to say one can't be impartial in their quest for knowledge. Yes, we ALL have presuppositions and biases, but the truly objective person has confidence that A) there is a truth and B) that if they come across something that challenges their presuppositions, that either the info is wrong, or their presupposition was.

TrulyE: Therefore, being scientific includes being objective and impartial. Therefore being exclusive and selective is not being scientific.


Which is why all scientists agree on virtually everything? Else, if they were all truly objective and impartial, they'd all come to the same conclusions, right? But great scientists often have highly exclusive and selective views that differ from those of their colleagues. Such circular reasoning you have.


I never claimed that Scientists can't believe in a God. I never stated that Dr. Ross and Co. did not have impeccable credentials. So please, no more straw man. I merely stated from a scientific perspective, that there is no such thing as a Christian scientist, there is only a scientist. If scientific evidence pointed to the probability that a God-like entity existed, what does that have to do with the world's greatest scientists believing in God? Are saying that because of their belief in a deity, that this somehow increases the probability of the existence of God? There is no such correlation! The great scientist that I listed, were certainly not theists(including Einstein). Most were Agnostics. Why do you simply ignore this information, and keep parroting nonsense? What metaphysical or Theological discoveries have been discovered in the last 1000 years? Name one new discovery!

"Does a physicist understand chemistry? Does a chemist understand microbiology"? Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. What do you think is his area of expertise is? He is a Physicists and Microbiologists. There are many scientist that are multidisciplined. What is relevant, is the level of scrutiny that scientists would apply to an explanation. After, "Of course not, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

A scientist will understand the fine-tuning as well as the design. The novice or non-scientist will understand the design but rarely the fine-tuning. If there is disagreement on a scientific issue, it will be in the fine-tuning, not the design. It is very true that many great scientist have disagreements among their colleagues. That is why objective evidence is so important in resolving these disagreements. In science it is irrelevant how impartial you are. All that matters is how impartial your data and your evidence is. Science has a way of regulating itself. The greatest dream of most scientists, is to disprove someone else's work. You must convince members of your peers that your ideas are correct. There are no such vetting occurring in non-academia. You can believe in anything you want, until you decide to submit your belief to peer review. Most scientist believe in most things, but no two people will believe in everything.

Your last comment makes no sense to me. Do you even know what circular reasoning mean? What does that have to do with your examples, or anything I have said? Don



I'm glad to hear you say that about Hugh Ross because I'm telling you whether or not you agree with him about God and how science confirms it.Hugh is very knowledgable when it comes to science.I mean you can listen to any atheist scientist and get the same science taught to you by Hugh Ross just from a different perspective.I mean I don't know if you saw his debate with Victor Stinger but Hugh Ross destroyed him and knew all about the science Victor Stinger was trying to use to try to make a case for why no God is needed.Because Hugh knows science that kind of stuff don't work with him because he knows about it too. This is why when it comes to science I will look to Hugh Ross first because I know he'll discuss the same science that I hear atheistic scientists talking about but from a different perspective. Like for instance,despite all these different hypotheisis's that you see scientific minded people discussing, for the foreseeble future nothing is changing when it comes to the Big Bang,despite all these things we hear about a multi-verse,etc. The Big Bang is still king to the majority of scientists.So The Big Bang is not changing anytime soon.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

thatkidakayoungguy
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:18 pm

Evolution simply is populations changing through time. Evolution actually fits in well with the biblical kinds idea.

Btw, I sort of touched on this in another post of mine, about whether Neanderthals should be considered a different species of human or a subspecies of ours, and how this fits with theology.
Here's an article about Neanderthal humans evolving.
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderth ... umans.html

thatkidakayoungguy
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby thatkidakayoungguy » Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:29 pm

Most of my church supports AIG. It's like when I tell them otherwise and point out the errors they think I'm in the wrong.

Ugh.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby neo-x » Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:43 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Evolution simply is populations changing through time. Evolution actually fits in well with the biblical kinds idea.

Btw, I sort of touched on this in another post of mine, about whether Neanderthals should be considered a different species of human or a subspecies of ours, and how this fits with theology.
Here's an article about Neanderthal humans evolving.
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderth ... umans.html


I would say it's difficult to fit with the biblical stories, as evolution simply doesn't allow for special creations, nor purposeful ones.

Edit:
That being said, you can say that Adam and Eve are special-purposed creations, nothing wrong with that but then you can't say that evolution allows it or is in line with this.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby neo-x » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:48 pm

People's beliefs have nothing to do with science, that is somewhat ironic as that is what I have always found wrong with ACB's posts on the subject. Einstien thought that quantum theory was bonkers (and he was wrong) and Aristotle believed that moving things stopped on their own because they got tired (thanks to metaphysics). I know of Atheists who believe in ghosts but not in God. People are inconsistent.

Metaphysics was once the only way to talk about the natural world, but the problem with that was that metaphysics only delved in philosophy, not empirical science. The rise of the empirical method contrary to the philosophical one is what separates these two. That is why the philosophical view that Earth was the centre of the universe was proven wrong, empirically by Copernicus and Galileo, or that a ball of cotton would fall slower than a ball of iron of the same weight which was what Aristotle believed but no one had considered to actually check it until Galileo did from the tower of Pisa.

Metaphysics is helpful in my opinion, that it asks what the scientific method doesn't. The why vs. the how. However to say that the empirical method or the modern method of science totally derives from metaphysics is not 100% true. Metaphysics was more interested in the why rather than the how. They share the same thing, curiosity but they both search for it via different avenues.

The only way to say that evolution doesn't work is not to philsophise but show empirical evidence that it doesn't or something else happens, a better theory with proper evidence.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Nicki
Valued Member
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Western Australia

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby Nicki » Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:42 pm

neo-x wrote:That is why the philosophical view that Earth was the centre of the universe was proven wrong, empirically by Copernicus and Galileo, or that a ball of cotton would fall slower than a ball of iron of the same weight which was what Aristotle believed but no one had considered to actually check it until Galileo did from the tower of Pisa.


Just wondering, I read the other day in one of my son's school science workbooks (he hadn't done a lot of his work very carefully - misreading and getting things wrong :shakehead: ) that two objects of the same size and shape will fall at the same speed regardless of weight. Is that version correct?

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby neo-x » Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:17 am

Nicki wrote:
neo-x wrote:That is why the philosophical view that Earth was the centre of the universe was proven wrong, empirically by Copernicus and Galileo, or that a ball of cotton would fall slower than a ball of iron of the same weight which was what Aristotle believed but no one had considered to actually check it until Galileo did from the tower of Pisa.


Just wondering, I read the other day in one of my son's school science workbooks (he hadn't done a lot of his work very carefully - misreading and getting things wrong :shakehead: ) that two objects of the same size and shape will fall at the same speed regardless of weight. Is that version correct?

Yes, it is. And holds out even if you drop a ball of 1kg and a ball of 10kg, both will fall at the same speed as well and that is because the gravitational and inertial masses are equal for all objects. I was merely pointing out earlier that before Galileo, nobody had checked that for one and a half millennium. And as such people did think that lighter things fell slowly whereas heavier things fell faster.

Now, if you drop a feather and a 10 kg iron ball the feather will drop at the same rate but because of its shape the air will affect it and therefore the drop rate changes, hence human beings can use parachutes however, that doesn't negate the above, because in a vacuum the feather and the 10 kg iron ball will drop at the same speed, as there will be less to no friction affecting the shape of the feather.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8073
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The Truth Surrounding the Theory of Evolution and its Rationale

Postby PaulSacramento » Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:17 am

neo-x wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Evolution simply is populations changing through time. Evolution actually fits in well with the biblical kinds idea.

Btw, I sort of touched on this in another post of mine, about whether Neanderthals should be considered a different species of human or a subspecies of ours, and how this fits with theology.
Here's an article about Neanderthal humans evolving.
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderth ... umans.html


I would say it's difficult to fit with the biblical stories, as evolution simply doesn't allow for special creations, nor purposeful ones.

Edit:
That being said, you can say that Adam and Eve are special-purposed creations, nothing wrong with that but then you can't say that evolution allows it or is in line with this.



So, here is the thing.
As hard as it is to look at something as established as the Genesis account from the perspective of no-bias, if we do what we see ( doctrines aside) is TWO accounts:
One of the planet in general with no explicit direct divine intervention for how humans came along ( Let the earth bring forth all living creatures) but a divine command to be the image bearers of God ( Genesis 1) and an account of special creation in a specific area ( Genesis 2) with a specially created couple that lead to a specific genealogy.
In short:
Genesis 1 is an account of creation in general.
Genesis 2 is an account of a the beginning of a special group of people.

Neither account either advocates or denies evolution.


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests