Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 16 of 154 (588788)
10-28-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
10-28-2010 10:59 AM


Thank you all for your comments and the tenor of those comments. I would like to reply, but being new to the board it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons. I do not know how to do this. Can someone help me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-28-2010 10:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 10-28-2010 11:38 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 18 by Omnivorous, posted 10-28-2010 11:40 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 17 of 154 (588796)
10-28-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by shadow71
10-28-2010 11:23 AM


[qs]it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons[/qs]
or
[quote]it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons[/quote]
will produce
it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons
or
quote:
it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons
Incidently, the "qs" stands for "quote shaded".
Edited by nwr, : (posted prematurely by mistake - edited to complete).

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 11:23 AM shadow71 has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 18 of 154 (588798)
10-28-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by shadow71
10-28-2010 11:23 AM


Hi, shadow. Welcome!
Under each message, to the right on your screen, is a Reply button: you can post comments or questions about that individual message by clicking that Reply.
To the left, you'll see a Gen Reply button. Click that to post a new message to the thread that is not a reply to a specific message.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 11:23 AM shadow71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Omnivorous, posted 10-28-2010 11:50 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 154 (588800)
10-28-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
10-26-2010 5:10 PM


Let's be clear on what natural selection is. From the gentleman that first coined the term:
quote:
If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.
Unless you dispute any the conditions above have ever occurred - it is a logical necessity that you accept that natural selection has occurred.
What if, as I believe, evolution is the continuous creation by a supernatural being, who created and continues to creathe and evolve the natural world?
If that being was going out of its way to be deceptive then we may never be able to verify or falsify this statement. It is equally profound or interesting to consider the possibility we are trapped in The MatrixTM
In any other case - it is likely we'd have found some evidence that didn't fit with the narrow range of possibilities that evolutionary principles predict.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 10-26-2010 5:10 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 20 of 154 (588801)
10-28-2010 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Omnivorous
10-28-2010 11:40 AM


If you want to quote a message that contains other quotes or formatting, click the Peek button to open a window that shows the formatting codes: this you can cut-and-paste into your reply. Then you don't have to manually duplicate that coding.
If you want to make clear who is being quoted, use the following:
[qs=nwr]it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons[/qs]
will produce
nwr writes:
it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons
There's lots of help just to the left of your reply text box.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Omnivorous, posted 10-28-2010 11:40 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 21 of 154 (588805)
10-28-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
10-28-2010 12:21 AM


nwr wrote,
"If you wish to privately believe that "natural selection" is actually the name used for a supernatural intervention, then nobody is stopping you from holding that private belief. But I suggest you keep it private if you don't want people to laugh at you"
I publicly believe that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and all in it. I believe in "providence" and that all things are willed or allowed by a supernatural being.
My belief is that "natual selection" is a term coined by scientists to describe what God has and is continuing to create.
I think it was the physicist Paul Davies who is of the opinion that the universe is not a purposeless accident. That the physical universe was put together in a manner so astonishing that he is unable to accept it merely as "brute fact".
So I guess I am going back to the origin of the univese to argue that science is merely the investigation of what has been created and nature w/o a supernatural being would not exist.
When in my post I referred to "proof" I am using the term as a trial lawyer uses the term. There must be cause for example in a Medical malpractice case for the injury to the patient. In Science I belive there must be cause for what is happening in this universe, and I don't believe Science can prove that cause is natual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 10-28-2010 12:21 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-28-2010 12:33 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 23 by hooah212002, posted 10-28-2010 12:44 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 10-28-2010 1:41 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 10-28-2010 2:06 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2010 2:56 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 3:37 PM shadow71 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 154 (588808)
10-28-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by shadow71
10-28-2010 12:09 PM


I believe in "providence" and that all things are willed or allowed by a supernatural being.
All things? Does anything happen on its own?
Does God guide both the sodium and chlorine atoms when they combined to make salt?
Is God placeing the individual water molecules to make a beautiful snowflake?
Did God make {insert player here} catch that game winning touchdown?
Did God cause that staving child to contract the flesh eating bacteria?
Did God make evil?
So I guess I am going back to the origin of the univese to argue that science is merely the investigation of what has been created and nature w/o a supernatural being would not exist.
Are you familiar with the God of the gaps?
In Science I belive there must be cause for what is happening in this universe, and I don't believe Science can prove that cause is natual.
It could be that the Universe just is.
Science has never set out to prove a natural cause. They are simply explaining things with naturalistic explanations and they are kicking ass and taking names with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 12:09 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 1:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 23 of 154 (588809)
10-28-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by shadow71
10-28-2010 12:09 PM


Funny how you claim science doesn't provide proof yet you provide none for your god even though you claim he does EVERYTHING. Wouldn't his finger prints be everywhere???? This isn't going to be another "well, stuff looks designed......." thread, is it?
My belief is that "natual selection" is a term coined by scientists to describe what God has and is continuing to create.
I publicly believe that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and all in it.
Is this a thread about cosmology or NS? Your OP mocked NS, not the origin of the universe.
When in my post I referred to "proof....
The term you are looking for is evidence since this is a science forum and not a law forum.
In Science I belive there must be cause for what is happening in this universe, and I don't believe Science can prove that cause is natual.
Again, your OP mocked NS, not cosmology. Let's keep this to one topic, eh?
Edited by hooah212002, : clarified reason for usage of the term evidence

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 12:09 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 24 of 154 (588815)
10-28-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
10-28-2010 12:33 PM


Yes I am familar with the term God of the Gaps. I not filling in any gaps, I am statiing that it all happens as a result of God's creation.
Did God make evil? He gave man the choice by means of conscious reasoning to perform evil.
Why is belief in a supernatural so threatening to Science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-28-2010 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-28-2010 1:44 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 27 by Iblis, posted 10-28-2010 1:52 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 35 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 3:41 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 25 of 154 (588817)
10-28-2010 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by shadow71
10-28-2010 12:09 PM


shadow71 writes:
My belief is that "natual selection" is a term coined by scientists to describe what God has and is continuing to create.
So, do you think God whispers in each lioness' ear, telling her which zebra will be the easiest to catch? Or is she preprogrammed to pick out the one at the back of the herd with the limp?
I tend to think that she could figure that out for herself. If she didn't, she'd be selected out.
shadow71 writes:
So I guess I am going back to the origin of the univese to argue that science is merely the investigation of what has been created and nature w/o a supernatural being would not exist.
I tend to take the opposite view, that if there is a Creator, he's only using natural processes that exist with or without Him.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 12:09 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 154 (588818)
10-28-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by shadow71
10-28-2010 1:34 PM


Yes I am familar with the term God of the Gaps. I not filling in any gaps, I am statiing that it all happens as a result of God's creation.
So things can happen on their own then?
Its just that, because God started everything, then ultimately everything happens as a result of God even if they are happening on there own?
Did God make evil? He gave man the choice by means of conscious reasoning to perform evil.
Which, because God started it all, would mean that evil happens because of God, right?
Why is belief in a supernatural so threatening to Science?
Its not, like, at all.
What makes you think it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 1:34 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 27 of 154 (588820)
10-28-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by shadow71
10-28-2010 1:34 PM


Why is belief in a supernatural so threatening to Science?
Because of its track record. Belief in the supernatural got us through the dark ages but not out of them. The "science" it produced included the flat earth, geocentrism, epicycles, flood geology, and a vast plethora of other ideas which have had to be cast onto the rubbish heap of history. Furthermore, it remains a tool of enslavement worldwide.
On the other hand, methodological naturalism got us rockets to the moon and phones you can surf the web on. Nothing succeeds like success! So, what purpose can your ancient mumbo jumbo (blessed by the ex-nazi who took charge of moving those pedos around and covering their tracks for them) possibly serve in a science class? Science is where we disprove things. Things are revealed in science, they are shown for what they are. Wouldn't it be a better idea to keep your superstitions inside your constitutionally-protected tax-free superstition buildings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 1:34 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 28 of 154 (588821)
10-28-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by shadow71
10-28-2010 12:09 PM


shadow71 writes:
I publicly believe that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and all in it. I believe in "providence" and that all things are willed or allowed by a supernatural being.
My belief is that "natual selection" is a term coined by scientists to describe what God has and is continuing to create.
Science is very much in the business of coining terms that can be used to give systematic descriptions of the world. However, science is not at all involved in speculating about a metaphysical basis for what they are describing.
The appropriateness of the terms that science uses should be judged how well the scientific accounts work on a self-contained basis, without reference to any assumed metaphysical basis.
shadow71 writes:
I think it was the physicist Paul Davies who is of the opinion that the universe is not a purposeless accident.
However, when expressing that opinion, he was going outside the realm of science. Of course, there is nothing wrong with scientists having opinions about matters that are outside of science. But we do need to recognize that such opinions are not themselves part of science and are not shared by all scientists.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 12:09 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 29 of 154 (588823)
10-28-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
10-26-2010 5:10 PM


Do Scientists, especially who I refer to as "evangelical atheistic naturalists" such as Dawkins, Dennett et.al. apply a different "standard of proof" for naturalist scientific theories than for Design theories?
First, you ought to define "evangelical atheistic naturalists". Normally, evangelical refers to religionists (especially since the definition for term IS steeped in religion).
Second, you might want to point out what a design theory is. No "design theory" has yet to stand up to even the most rudimentary standards of what a 2nd grader knows as science.
For example when secular naturalist scientists refer to natural selection in evolution it is accepted as fact that there is such an entity. However can anyone prove the existence of natural selection?
NS is not an entity. It is a function of nature that is very well known. So well known, in fact, that we even have artificial selection (dog breeding, for example).
What if, as I believe, evolution is the continuous creation by a supernatural being, who created and continues to creathe and evolve the natural world?
You can believe whatever you want. However, this particular discussion happens to be in the science section of EvC so you might want to provide some evidence of your "god", catholic or otherwise.
How can sceintists accept a belief in natural selection as superior to my belief in the supernatural's continuous creation as the cause of evolution.
Easy. Natural selection is not a belief and has evidence. Anything supernatural can only be found inside the crazy minds of religionists and has no evidence.
Where is the proof?
Surely you mean evidence, as only mathematics deals in proofs. The evidence has been available since Darwin came up with the idea. Darwin's Finches

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 10-26-2010 5:10 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-28-2010 3:03 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 33 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 3:36 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 154 (588824)
10-28-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by shadow71
10-28-2010 12:09 PM


So I guess I am going back to the origin of the univese to argue that science is merely the investigation of what has been created and nature w/o a supernatural being would not exist.
But that question has nothing to do with natural selection, which is just one of those processes that exists in nature.
When in my post I referred to "proof" I am using the term as a trial lawyer uses the term. There must be cause for example in a Medical malpractice case for the injury to the patient. In Science I belive there must be cause for what is happening in this universe, and I don't believe Science can prove that cause is natual.
If you admit the supernatural, then it becomes hard to prove anything. Take medical malpractice. Did the patient's ears fall off? Yes, but that was because God smote his ears. But didn't the doctor accidentally prescribe the wrong pill, one that has loss of ears as a well-known side-effect? No, he didn't. However, the Devil tampered with the prescription to make it look as though he did ...
The defense attorney would be laughed out of court. And so should you be when you want to replace natural selection with a series of miracles. Why assume a supernatural substitute for something natural which happens anyway?
Jesus walking on water would be a miracle. But Jesus walking on dry land is not a miracle, because we don't need to invoke God as a direct cause of why he doesn't sink. The laws of nature do that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by shadow71, posted 10-28-2010 12:09 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024