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.
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:33 am

Philip wrote:
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. Considering that over 65%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.



Where do I try and discredit any of his scientific views? Nowhere! Straw man no. 1. Where do I try and discredit anything about why he thinks his spiritual beliefs supports his scientific beliefs? Nowhere! Straw man no. 2. Do AIG and YEC have have a different CORE understanding with his Biblical Interpretations? Yes they do! My point was, why choose him, when there are many other religious scientist less controversial than Dr. Ross? Nothing more and nothing less. But personally I couldn't care less. My statement is still valid. In the world of scientific academia, there are no theist or atheist scientist. There are only scientist. In science, no one cares what your beliefs are, or how they inspire you. The only thing that matters, is what your results are. If you merely want to equate the level of brilliancy among our greatest scientist, as being the result of spiritual enlightenment, it will always be irrelevant, tangential, and impossible to prove. If we consider the fact that over 65% of all scientists are either atheists or agnostics, then the relevance of your point becomes questionable. You wouldn't be trying to latently imply that if a smart person, like Einstein is a believer(he was a pantheists and agnostic), that it is this level of smartness that justifies the Belief itself, would you? THIS ALSO IS FALLACIOUS(appeal to Authority, false conclusion, false equivocation, and argument from ignorance). So again, You can believe that Bruce Wayne serves you breakfast every morning, and it still will be totally irrelevant to what you do in the lab. Because you choose to label something you don't understand as "God", does not mean that the understanding is now true. Even if you are a very smart person. So please, just let this point go!

I'm sure that you are not so naive to think that these organizations would post hard copies of these agreements on the web? Their scientific credibility would immediately end. No, my information is the result of personal experience, information from other colleagues, and COMMON SENSE. Here is a test that you can do. Try and post the natural controls and constraints on human DNA replication, to either AIG and YEC, and wait for the reply. There are many things in life that are not said or demonstrated directly, but they are very clearly understood nonetheless. That is, if you really want to know.

Why do you keep hiding behind this so-called scientific evidence you keep asserting? Let's hear it! Why do you keep saying that this evidence also follows the scientific method of inquiry? Demonstrate it! You can't, because this is a Belief, not a fact. The more facts we have, the less we need to believe. The less facts we have, the more we need to believe. Also, my question was rhetorical. There ARE no discoveries in philosophy or metaphysics, period. Or, can you think of any? What about discoveries in science? Are you getting the point now? Another point that seems to have eluded you, was how to discern the validity of topics. You claimed that scientist aren't multidisciplined, that was proven wrong. You only tried to "muddy the waters" with extraneous nonsense and irrelevancy. My claim was how would you know if the information was correct or false? Do you think the trained eye of a veteran scientist would be more, or less, discerning than a novice or non-scientist? Yes or No? So please stick to what I actually say, and rely less on what you want me to say.

Your last paragraph is a total figment of your imagination, and an argument between you and your straw man. Since I don't have any issues with anyones belief or their scientific expertise, I haven't a clue what you are on about. My only problem was your claim that it is only their Christian Belief, that is the source of their inspiration. My question is HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? You really don't know, do you? Don

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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:07 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
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?



More absolute rubbish. Maybe it is you that should realize that the scientific method of inquiry, is an evolved procedure that is based entirely within the NATURAL WORLD. It is not based on theology or the metaphysics. Maybe you can demonstrate anything that is metaphysical, using the scientific method? Maybe you can demonstrate anything theological using the scientific method? I didn't think so! As I stated before, The question was rhetorical, THERE IS NOTHING!

You are correct, the scientific method is used to explain and understand only the natural world around us. You are also correct that part of this method is "predictability"(not sure what you mean by goal-orientedness in nature). But how did we jump from one stated truism, to stating that it is metaphysics and theology that is responsible? They both are neither mutually inclusive or exclusive. But I guess you can assert anything you like. Don

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8155
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 10:17 am

ob·tuse
əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submit
adjective
1.
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6086
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:19 am

Don - blah, blah, blah. You get called on stuff and you'll never ever admit it. I tell you that many scientists are often truly experts in their own spectrum of a particular specialization - and then you disingenuously spin THAT to assert I'm saying they're aren't people who have cross-specializations - of COURSE there are! I explained why I referenced authority of key scientists of faith, because you yourself asserted that such people must be suspect in their professional integrity in either how they do science, their commitment to it's proven methodologies, or how the results have often increased or begun their faith. Then your response is full of ridiculous self-observations of various people you've known or cite, and you criticize the appeal to authority - one that you have also constantly used for your own purposes.

You are mostly all spin and assertion, but wherever it's pointed out, all you ever do is double and triple-down. And then you play victim and come out accusingly. You're pretty easy to figure out - I've seen your type again and again. Hate to tell you, but machine-gun typing lengthy responses that merely regurgitating the same mistakes or redundant assertions aren't a legitimate response. Not to mention, why would you want to hang around to do this day after day? Serves what purpose? Feeds your own ego? Pride in what you think you know that makes you want to try to show others your "superior" analysis or intellect? Trying to convince yourself you're right? And your attitude is never one of, let's reason together, civil and respectful, but of constant, antagonistic, condescending venom. I can tell you this, if this is all you are here for - you won't last long. It's become quite tiresome!

So, you have great faith in science - that appears to be how you assess everything per the BIG questions about origins. You don't believe in God. You believe that intelligence exhibited across the universe could be achieved through infinite time. That there must be some kind of eternal chain without need for an ultimate cause or Cause. Anything else? I really don't see the point of you being here if you're only going to keep spewing the same old stuff. Unless you are trying to convince others of your perceived superiority in your beliefs or assertions. Do you really think you are even modestly original in what you have asserted - per the countless people I've come across, both here and elsewhere. You're only stating the same crap I've heard for over 40 years now - first hearing some "brilliant" atheist friend introducing me to such things at 18 years old.

I've asked you several times about whether you are willing to seek God - if only as an experiment that might settle the matter for you - or perhaps surprise you (with a deafening silence in response!). As millions of people can attest to having come to faith in knowing of God - and not of some mere religious belief or of people immersed in pointless, man-made rituals - but people who have been radically changed and surprised by coming to an understanding that God exists. If sincerely wanting to know the truth, if SCIENCE cannot provide that to your satisfaction, an as millions attest to that God CAN, certainly if He is the God of the Bible - well, what about your experiment - or don't you sincerely want to know the truth of the matter? Are you willing to seek God - even though you think He doesn't exist, and that He may be different from how YOU think He "ought" to be? Why wouldn't you be open to that - IF you are sincere in wanting to know the truth of the matter???!!!

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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:22 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
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.



What do you think we mean by a mutation? What do you think the advantages or disadvantages of biological mutations would be? Is a biological mutation a mechanism, a process, or both? Finally, what other mechanism do you think would allow for an organism to adapt to changes in its environment, let alone lead to speciation? Can you think of any? Let's just begin here first. Don

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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:55 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:
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.


In other words, you are only interested in hearing what you want to hear. You are only interested in listening to those that will tell you what you want to hear. There is nothing morally wrong with that(other than reaffirming a self-imposed ignorance), but it just isn't how science works. Science does not seek answers through selective filters. It does not dismiss things because of some predisposed bias it needs to protect. It only expects that if you make extraordinary claims, then it will expect extraordinary proof. If you claim that Pigs can fly, or that you can speak to ghosts, then it will require extraordinary evidence to prove it. What you do, is either make extraordinary claims, or dismiss ordinary claims, and tell others to prove you wrong. No one can disprove a negative. That is why you avoid your burden of proof, by denial and asking more questions.

So if you want to believe that speciation is impossible naturally, even though we can go outside and observe the millions of different species, then let's hear it. How did this occur? What is the mechanism that is used? What are your theories on how we all got here? Don

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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:43 am

Philip wrote:Don - blah, blah, blah. You get called on stuff and you'll never ever admit it. I tell you that many scientists are often truly experts in their own spectrum of a particular specialization - and then you disingenuously spin THAT to assert I'm saying they're aren't people who have cross-specializations - of COURSE there are! I explained why I referenced authority of key scientists of faith, because you yourself asserted that such people must be suspect in their professional integrity in either how they do science, their commitment to it's proven methodologies, or how the results have often increased or begun their faith. Then your response is full of ridiculous self-observations of various people you've known or cite, and you criticize the appeal to authority - one that you have also constantly used for your own purposes.

You are mostly all spin and assertion, but wherever it's pointed out, all you ever do is double and triple-down. And then you play victim and come out accusingly. You're pretty easy to figure out - I've seen your type again and again. Hate to tell you, but machine-gun typing lengthy responses that merely regurgitating the same mistakes or redundant assertions aren't a legitimate response. Not to mention, why would you want to hang around to do this day after day? Serves what purpose? Feeds your own ego? Pride in what you think you know that makes you want to try to show others your "superior" analysis or intellect? Trying to convince yourself you're right? And your attitude is never one of, let's reason together, civil and respectful, but of constant, antagonistic, condescending venom. I can tell you this, if this is all you are here for - you won't last long. It's become quite tiresome!

So, you have great faith in science - that appears to be how you assess everything per the BIG questions about origins. You don't believe in God. You believe that intelligence exhibited across the universe could be achieved through infinite time. That there must be some kind of eternal chain without need for an ultimate cause or Cause. Anything else? I really don't see the point of you being here if you're only going to keep spewing the same old stuff. Unless you are trying to convince others of your perceived superiority in your beliefs or assertions. Do you really think you are even modestly original in what you have asserted - per the countless people I've come across, both here and elsewhere. You're only stating the same crap I've heard for over 40 years now - first hearing some "brilliant" atheist friend introducing me to such things at 18 years old.

I've asked you several times about whether you are willing to seek God - if only as an experiment that might settle the matter for you - or perhaps surprise you (with a deafening silence in response!). As millions of people can attest to having come to faith in knowing of God - and not of some mere religious belief or of people immersed in pointless, man-made rituals - but people who have been radically changed and surprised by coming to an understanding that God exists. If sincerely wanting to know the truth, if SCIENCE cannot provide that to your satisfaction, an as millions attest to that God CAN, certainly if He is the God of the Bible - well, what about your experiment - or don't you sincerely want to know the truth of the matter? Are you willing to seek God - even though you think He doesn't exist, and that He may be different from how YOU think He "ought" to be? Why wouldn't you be open to that - IF you are sincere in wanting to know the truth of the matter???!!!


I don't have any faith in science, I only have faith in the truth. I never intended to speak on Belief at all, for all the reasons you gave. It is a total waste of time and futile. I only wanted to give a scientific perspective, regarding science-related questions. That is my true expertise. Not wasting time with these fallacious, endless, and boring metaphysical arguments. I also have no doubt about my tenure here. Regarding your experiment. If I asked you to subject Theism to the scrutiny of the scientific method of inquiry, would you want to take part in that experiment?. Or, will that be relegated to the "I've heard it all before" category? So, I'm asking you to provide just one objective fallacy-free reason, that would justify me devoting my life to a life of pious servitude, just to discover YOUR truth. Just one rational reason for me to take part in this experiment will do. Don

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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:46 am

trulyenlightened wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
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?



More absolute rubbish. Maybe it is you that should realize that the scientific method of inquiry, is an evolved procedure that is based entirely within the NATURAL WORLD. It is not based on theology or the metaphysics. Maybe you can demonstrate anything that is metaphysical, using the scientific method? Maybe you can demonstrate anything theological using the scientific method? I didn't think so! As I stated before, The question was rhetorical, THERE IS NOTHING!

You are correct, the scientific method is used to explain and understand only the natural world around us. You are also correct that part of this method is "predictability"(not sure what you mean by goal-orientedness in nature). But how did we jump from one stated truism, to stating that it is metaphysics and theology that is responsible? They both are neither mutually inclusive or exclusive. But I guess you can assert anything you like. Don


Other than the insult, do you agree or disagree with my comments? And why? Don

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3335
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 12:31 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:
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.


Yes. And had it been just that I would concede that there isn't a confirmation or negation of evolution. The thing that I see is an overall connotation to both these accounts (and later on through the Bible that humans are indeed special creation - divinely purposed) that does indeed show God having a purpose. That, to me is impossible to overlook. I am not sure if you agree with me on this. That over all connotation which introduces God as a creator with a plan is one problem.

The second is, that evolution itself is not compatible with purpose or special creation so it is not as much as only making a concession that the scriptures allow such open meaning but also that if evolution itself could integrate what the scriptures say, and it doesn't.

The third problem is, that why do we need to make a case of evolution in the scriptures at all?
It wasn't meant to be understood in that manner nor was read as such since no one had a clue about it back then. The author wasn't aware of it as such nor implied it as such which if it had been the case, he would have. But he puts it back to God again and again.

I have made this case before as well that if God had to intervene in the evolutionary process then there was no need of this process to begin with. It's an oxymoron. For instance we don't need God to initiate an earthquake everytime two tectonic plates collide. The process works independently. Why go all the trouble of making so many things and killing them over eaons if you only had to get to man? Why not just make man?

This latter point in conjunction with what I have said above seems to result in my position.
Your thoughts?
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
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6086
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:57 pm

Truly: I only wanted to give a scientific perspective, regarding science-related questions. That is my true expertise. Not wasting time with these fallacious, endless, and boring metaphysical arguments.


Yeah, I guess you're above questions most of mankind has always pondered, including some of the most brilliant minds the planet has ever known.

Regarding your experiment. If I asked you to subject Theism to the scrutiny of the scientific method of inquiry, would you want to take part in that experiment?


First of all, I think we agree that science cannot PROVE God, NOR anything you might speculate that otherwise might be possibly responsible for what exists, or existed before the universe began. And the very same evidences can be looked at in different ways. But what it CAN do is point to probabilities of things that I think are unreasonable to think unintelligent things could EVER produce by themselves - without some unbelievably great intelligence behind them, no matter the amount of time given. I ask no more of science than what it can actually provide: Powerful clues about what seems necessary to explain the universe and life. Not to mention, asking of science to do more than what it is capable of is absurd. The scientific method and observations can only show evidences and probabilities based upon what can be known about the universe and biological life.

On the other hand, what I am asking you is whether you are willing to submit to a test that only an existing, thinking Being could answer for you - but you're comparing THAT to me asking non-intelligent things to provide an answer they cannot ultimately answer???
This shows me that you don't really want to know the truth of the matter, and that you are so prideful you are unwilling to merely experiment - in a way which no one would ever know; no need to be embarrassed that you've done a "silly" experiment, all off by yourself. Vast millions of people can attest to having an understanding that transcends but doesn't in any way contradict what we can know through empirical observations - and they've been radically changed by this understanding. You just don't know what you what you don't WANT to know, or that you have preconceived ideas about.

TrulyE: So, I'm asking you to provide just one objective fallacy-free reason, that would justify me devoting my life to a life of pious servitude, just to discover YOUR truth.


BINGO - a HUGE preconceived notion. WHERE did you get the understanding that this experiment I speak of involves the necessity for a "life of pious servitude??? In fact, what you've just described is the way every other faith type besides Christianity believes. We don't discover God or learn of him by doing good STUFF. That's what all RELIGIONS think and assert. Not Christianity. So, you've apparently bought into the false belief that discovering God has to the this long, complicated ordeal of tasks. And, unfortunately, many Christians - or SO-CALLED ones don't truly know Scripture. At any rate, what I suggest is simple, easy, and its premise is based upon the "possibility" that there is a way to learn the answer to this question that is more than science can ever teach anyone.

TrulyE: Just one rational reason for me to take part in this experiment will do. Don
Because science alone cannot answer your question. And only "if" there is a God could the experiment produce an affirmation of Him. I'd further advise, that God will honor one truly seeking the truth of His existence, a person who sincerely wants to know. Also, the answer to the experiment may or may not be instantaneous, and it also might be in an unexpected way. But make no mistake, if you really want to know, you can - it's so simple - but people mistakenly think it has to be complex. And while the answer will be rational, it may not be an especially intuitive way one would think to go about it.

One of my past business partners, an agnostic, cynical, amazingly intelligent attorney did this same test. He also asked God, "IF you exist and are real, please make it obvious to me - please don't be vague, because "vague" will not convince me." In fact, this guy's wife first became a Christian and he laughed, made fun, and angrily told her, "They just want your money or something else!" He eventually came to an empty, dark point, which prompted him to really want to know the answer - he had seen such remarkable changes in his wife. And that's just one story amongst countless others such ones.

It's up to you Don, I sincerely hope you will, at some point, consider doing this.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8155
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 1:22 pm

trulyenlightened wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
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?



More absolute rubbish. Maybe it is you that should realize that the scientific method of inquiry, is an evolved procedure that is based entirely within the NATURAL WORLD. It is not based on theology or the metaphysics. Maybe you can demonstrate anything that is metaphysical, using the scientific method? Maybe you can demonstrate anything theological using the scientific method? I didn't think so! As I stated before, The question was rhetorical, THERE IS NOTHING!

You are correct, the scientific method is used to explain and understand only the natural world around us. You are also correct that part of this method is "predictability"(not sure what you mean by goal-orientedness in nature). But how did we jump from one stated truism, to stating that it is metaphysics and theology that is responsible? They both are neither mutually inclusive or exclusive. But I guess you can assert anything you like. Don


Other than the insult, do you agree or disagree with my comments? And why? Don


Honestly?
While some prefer to hide behind snide remarks and airs of superiority, I simply call them as I see them.
I don't think you read what I wrote and if you did and didn't understand it, it means either you aren't as smart as you are tying to pass yourself off as or you are obtuse.

Science developed from the understanding that nature has a degree of predictability and repeat ability and a certain goal-directedness and those views came from metaphysics and theology and that is well documented ( all the greatest pre-modern scientists believed in God). The view that we can understand the universe and that there is an order to things and that we are able to observe and comprehend is directly from metaphysics and theology.

If you don't know that then maybe some reading about the history of science is in order.
Real history and not revisionist crap.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8155
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 1:31 pm

Yes. And had it been just that I would concede that there isn't a confirmation or negation of evolution. The thing that I see is an overall connotation to both these accounts (and later on through the Bible that humans are indeed special creation - divinely purposed) that does indeed show God having a purpose. That, to me is impossible to overlook. I am not sure if you agree with me on this. That over all connotation which introduces God as a creator with a plan is one problem.

God's plan was to have humans as His Image bearers on Earth - To govern it for Him.
He decided to do this via a select genealogy.


The second is, that evolution itself is not compatible with purpose or special creation so it is not as much as only making a concession that the scriptures allow such open meaning but also that if evolution itself could integrate what the scriptures say, and it doesn't.


Evolution "cares" about survival and adaptability. It has made it so that man is Governing the planet.
Good and bad that goes with it.

The third problem is, that why do we need to make a case of evolution in the scriptures at all?
It wasn't meant to be understood in that manner nor was read as such since no one had a clue about it back then. The author wasn't aware of it as such nor implied it as such which if it had been the case, he would have. But he puts it back to God again and again.

We do NOT need to make sense or reconcile evolution with scripture and I am sure that 100 or 1000 years from now, our view on evolution will be quite different then it is now.



I have made this case before as well that if God had to intervene in the evolutionary process then there was no need of this process to begin with. It's an oxymoron. For instance we don't need God to initiate an earthquake everytime two tectonic plates collide. The process works independently. Why go all the trouble of making so many things and killing them over eaons if you only had to get to man? Why not just make man?


The process that god the world, the universe, to where it is today was change and adaption, why would humanity be any different? why WOULDN'T God do it this way?

This latter point in conjunction with what I have said above seems to result in my position.
Your thoughts?


It is a valid position.
I don't think that evolution is what we think it is today. We have a small picture and the more we learn the more the picture gets clearer.

Remember, 1000 years ago everyone KNEW that the sun revolved around the world ( and observation and science agreed).
500 Year ago everyone KNEW that man could NOT fly, NEVER go to the moon.
100 years ago every KNEW that a virgin couldn't give birth, that people can NOT communicate across the planet, instantaneously.

And Yet...here we are.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8155
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 1:33 pm

Also, we need to understand that the classical Theist God didn't just create ALL, but SUSTAINS all so that if evolution is happening, it is happening because of God.

thatkidakayoungguy
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 966
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 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:10 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:
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.

It does, since "reproduce after their kinds" is what evolution follows. A group of organism will reproduce with one similar to it, like it's own "kind", and eventually a group of said organism will become so different compared to the other groups that they can't reproduce with the other members of its kind, therefore becoming it's own kind, compared to the other organisms. This hasn't happened to all groups of organisms, but it's happened enough that we see the diversity that exists today.
Now the question is, has this changed with regards to humanity? Would we hypothetically evolve from other human groups enough that they would become their own kind? I don't think so but it's good stuff to think about. Or, as I think, the theory of evolution would not allow for us to become another kind simply because of the short time compared to other animals that we have before judgement day comes and eternity begins.
Btw, where in the timeline of creation would we have gotten the image of God type soul? Like Neanderthals and Homo Naledi, and quite likely late Homo Erectus have signs of activities that show they had a high level of abstraction, like burial and art/ornament making. Most here think Homo Sapiens Sapiens is where genuine humanity begins at, but imho I disagree.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18818
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

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

Postby RickD » Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:49 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:Also, we need to understand that the classical Theist God didn't just create ALL, but SUSTAINS all so that if evolution is happening, it is happening because of God.

I thought evolution was purposeless, and random?

Neo told me that, so it must be true.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests