Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 4:45 PM
398 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, frako, kjsimons, Meddle, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo (9 members, 389 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,365 Year: 16,971/21,208 Month: 2,860/3,593 Week: 327/646 Day: 90/115 Hour: 2/14

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs. 'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the appar
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 832 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 16 of 41 (707059)
09-21-2013 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
09-20-2013 12:26 PM


Re: fine tuning
Okay: more specifically. What a person can be aware of using their senses (5). Did you need to use a machine to taste your last meal?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 09-20-2013 12:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 09-21-2013 10:59 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 09-22-2013 2:51 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 832 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 17 of 41 (707060)
09-21-2013 10:46 PM


Divine Evolution
I. The Bible is unique
There is no comparison with any other works of mankind. No other books had anywhere near the number of contributors (39+), nor have any been written over such a long span of time (1,600 years). Yet it is profoundly cohesive in all of its contents.

II. The Bible is God's word
In addition to the infinite profundity of the whole, it contains prophecies of many events that are still future in terms of time. These are given with adequate and specific details to be able to unmistakably predict in advance the events recorded.
It is not possible that it is merely human in origin because many of its ramifications are beyond human capabilities.

III. Creationism aka 'Intelligent Design' are not scientific disciplines and therefore should not be taught as such in schools.
"The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations."
Any explanation of observed phenomena, that invokes to any extent supernatural influence such as divine motivation, is thus inherently self-disqualified from being a scientific discipline.

IV. Evolution is valid
Evolution, however, is the only valid scientific theory which adequately explains the know data. And it has been verified by the correlation of the relevant data corresponding to its testable conclusions.

Objectively consider that God may have used evolution to create man. Do not disregard so doing due to bias, dogmatism, or love of argumentation.


Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 09-21-2013 11:50 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2013 10:20 AM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9658
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 18 of 41 (707061)
09-21-2013 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulGL
09-21-2013 10:45 PM


Re: fine tuning
What a person can be aware of using their senses (5).

Electricity for one thing. We can use instruments (e.g voltmeters, ammeters, oscilloscopes, logic probes) that produce effects that register on our senses. Is electrical voltage unreal because we cannot see it? Is oxygen unreal simply because we cannot detect its presence or absence directly with our five senses.

The distinction between direct and indirect interaction is extremely arbitrary. You've chosen a poor analogy for the describing whatever obstacles, if any, prevent us from understanding spiritual things. Perhaps you should try something different.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulGL, posted 09-21-2013 10:45 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by onifre, posted 09-22-2013 6:29 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9658
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 19 of 41 (707062)
09-21-2013 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulGL
09-21-2013 10:46 PM


Re: Divine Evolution
No other books had anywhere near the number of contributors (39+),

This kind of nonsense claim is ridiculous. The Bible is an anthology. Let's compare the claim of 39 authors to the number of authors we might find in say, Volume 745 of The Astrophysics Journal. I see more than 39 authors listed in the February issue.

Yes the Bible is unique, but your hyperbole is ridiculous.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulGL, posted 09-21-2013 10:46 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 20 of 41 (707075)
09-22-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulGL
09-21-2013 10:45 PM


Re: fine tuning
PaulGL writes:

Did you need to use a machine to taste your last meal?


I needed glasses to see it. I needed utensils to eat it. I needed electricity to cook it. The only meal that doesn't require indirect action is the one you strangle manually and eat raw.

Ultimately, everything we do indirectly is based on things that we used to do directly. Why make a distinction between what we can do with our senses and what we can do with the machinery we create with our senses?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulGL, posted 09-21-2013 10:45 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 21 of 41 (707081)
09-22-2013 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by NoNukes
09-21-2013 10:59 PM


Re: fine tuning
We can use instruments (e.g voltmeters, ammeters, oscilloscopes, logic probes) that produce effects that register on our senses.

You don't need any of those things for it register on our senses. You just have to touch it while making a ground and it'll register nicely.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 09-21-2013 10:59 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
saab93f
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(2)
Message 22 of 41 (707097)
09-23-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Theodoric
09-18-2013 9:31 AM


Yeah I figured this line destroyed any credibility the OP had. Not that it had much, but when someone actually says something like this there is no point in even engaging them.

What, are you telling that electricity is not magic? What next - nucular bombs and turbochargers have a "scientific" explanation to them?

I really cannot comprehend what many believers hope to achieve with pseudo-science and touchy-feely deities. If a believers went on to say that he/she has this feeling that there is something bigger than what we are able to observe, fine. I cannot argue with that - and because of such honesty, have no desire to. However when scientific data is interpreted with a mindset that the Bible is 100% correct and everything else must yield, loathing and ridicule ensues and very rightfully so.

This OP is nothing but a re-hash of that touchy-feely stuff that cannot be proven...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 09-18-2013 9:31 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11446
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 23 of 41 (707103)
09-23-2013 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulGL
09-21-2013 10:46 PM


Re: Divine Evolution
I. The Bible is unique
There is no comparison with any other works of mankind. No other books had anywhere near the number of contributors (39+), nor have any been written over such a long span of time (1,600 years). Yet it is profoundly cohesive in all of its contents.

Sort of, but not really.

No other books had anywhere near the number of contributors (39+)

There's plenty of works that have had large numbers of contributors. And if you allow collections of works, like the Bible is, then you should include things like the Encyclopædia Britannica, which according to wiki has over 4000 contributors.

nor have any been written over such a long span of time (1,600 years)

Have you heard of Man'yōshū?

It a collection of Japanese poems and it goes back over 1,600 years.

So yeah, the Bible is neat and all, but its hardly as unique as you're trying to make it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulGL, posted 09-21-2013 10:46 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 832 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 24 of 41 (744615)
12-13-2014 2:16 PM


Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
To avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me finally, firmly, and completely clarify my position regarding 'Evolution vs. Creationism, et. al.' :
It is absolutely vain babbling (spiritually speaking) to speculate about man's origins. Such speculation is totally from the wrong tree- the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and as such it is totally incapable of conveying spiritual nourishment and edification.
I have no motive whatsoever to attempt to validate 'Evolution'.
However, I am 100% against any and all persons (regardless of purity of motivation) who in any way make the disbelief in Evolution a tenet of the Christian Faith, a Faith given once to all whom God has chosen to be His people.
I challenge anyone to dispute the following assertion: "It is completely possible to believe in 'Evolution' and to receive Christ as one's personal Savior, becoming genuinely born again."
Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 12-14-2014 1:41 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2014 7:47 AM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 25 of 41 (744663)
12-14-2014 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulGL
12-13-2014 2:16 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
PaulGL writes:

I challenge anyone to dispute the following assertion: "It is completely possible to believe in 'Evolution' and to receive Christ as one's personal Savior, becoming genuinely born again."


Okay, challenge accepted.

It would depend entirely on how one defines "genuinely born again". If one insists on the literal historical truth of Genesis, then that can not be reconciled with evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulGL, posted 12-13-2014 2:16 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 1:54 PM ringo has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9658
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 26 of 41 (744668)
12-14-2014 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
12-14-2014 1:41 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
t would depend entirely on how one defines "genuinely born again".

It would depend entirely on how one defines "genuinely born again". If one insists on the literal historical truth of Genesis, then that can not be reconciled with evolution.

The poster's point is that believing in the literal historical truth of Genesis is not a step in receiving salvation. If you want to accept the challenge you need to provide an argument that the poster is wrong about that point.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 12-14-2014 1:41 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 12-14-2014 2:34 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 40 by PaulGL, posted 12-18-2014 7:54 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13213
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 27 of 41 (744678)
12-14-2014 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
12-14-2014 1:54 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
NoNukes writes:

The poster's point is that believing in the literal historical truth of Genesis is not a step in receiving salvation.


I know that. I'm just pointing out that his opinion is just an opinion and has no more value than the opposing opinion.

NoNukes writes:

If you want to accept the challenge you need to provide an argument that the poster is wrong about that point.


The challenge is circular. He can't be proven wrong using his definition of "genuine" because his definition makes him right. He can, however, be proven wrong by using a different definition.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 1:54 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 12-14-2014 3:19 PM ringo has responded
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 12-14-2014 8:51 PM ringo has responded
 Message 39 by PaulGL, posted 12-18-2014 7:39 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9435
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 28 of 41 (744681)
12-14-2014 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
12-14-2014 2:34 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
ringo writes:

He can, however, be proven wrong by using a different definition.

Objectively or subjectively?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo

If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God — only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 12-14-2014 2:34 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 12-15-2014 10:45 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9658
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 29 of 41 (744701)
12-14-2014 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
12-14-2014 2:34 PM


Re: Why 'Creationism, et. al. is vain babbling
I know that. I'm just pointing out that his opinion is just an opinion and has no more value than the opposing opinion.

Of course his post contained an opinion. But it also contained a challenge to disprove his statement. You claimed to be taking up the challenge, but you actually did not bother to do anything but assert.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 12-14-2014 2:34 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 12-15-2014 10:50 AM NoNukes has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18669
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 30 of 41 (744747)
12-15-2014 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulGL
12-13-2014 2:16 PM


Why 'Creationism,' especially YEC, is vain babbling
Hi PaulGL

It is absolutely vain babbling (spiritually speaking) to speculate about man's origins. Such speculation is totally from the wrong tree- the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and as such it is totally incapable of conveying spiritual nourishment and edification.
I have no motive whatsoever to attempt to validate 'Evolution'.

Curiously I disagree. One of the prime talents of the human race is curiosity, and curiosity about origins ranks high on the list of things to be curious about.

Sure we can agree that the oldest fossil bearing rocks that we have found to date had fossils of life already developed. so there is no record of that development that is yet known. We know that life began on earth at least 3 billion years ago. We know that the first life was simple single cellular organisms, prokaryotes, with no nucleus. We know that it took about a billion years for more complex single cellular organisms, eukaryotes, to develop, with a nucleus that may have been another single cell organism swallowed whole and forming a synergistic new type of organism, and that the formation of multicellular life forms occurred shortly after that.

We also know that prebiotic molecules abound in space, possibly formed by exploding stars as chunks of gases cooled. See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I).

We also know that chemical reactions can create self-replicating molecules and other elements of primal cells. See Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II).

We know this because our curiosity has led us to find this information, and we are still finding out things, like the origin of chirality, that lead us further into knowledge of how life may have formed on earth, and possibly elsewhere in the universe.

We know that we will keep looking because we are curious. But when it comes down to whether life actually began this way 3.5 billion years ago or whether it was created, I would have to say that at this point in time that we don't know. Yet.

However, I am 100% against any and all persons (regardless of purity of motivation) who in any way make the disbelief in Evolution a tenet of the Christian Faith, a Faith given once to all whom God has chosen to be His people.
I challenge anyone to dispute the following assertion: "It is completely possible to believe in 'Evolution' and to receive Christ as one's personal Savior, becoming genuinely born again."

Well I agree with you here, and I find no challenge in so thinking. Where I do find challenge is in several specific beliefs of some specific sects or branches of thinking, such as that the earth is young or that a massive world altering flood occurred, that "special creation" was the source of each species of life (including man), or any belief that is at odds with objective empirical evidence.

The world is over 4.5 billion years old. There is no evidence of a global inundation of water simultaneously covering the whole earth. There is evidence of species evolving from prior species and that this process is observed in the ancestry of man.

The teachings of Jesus do not - imho - require such evidently mistaken beliefs.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulGL, posted 12-13-2014 2:16 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017