|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2962 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance | |||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Long ago we believed:
that if someone got sick, it was because that was the will of God. that if lightning struck, it was because that was the will of God. that if there were storms, it was because that was the will of God. that if crops failed, it was because that was the will of God. that if weeds grew in the fields, it was because that was the will of God. that if there was a drought, it was because that was the will of God. We now understand that the actual causes of such things are Natural. Natural Selection is as well. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: Dawkins, Dennett et al. are trying to convert people to atheism, thus evangical. Even if true, where is the problem in that and what does it have to do with Natural Selection? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Even if "The Shadow knows" you are not helping any of us understand.
What does even one of your posts so far have to do with evolution, Natural Selection or even a single example of Godly guidance? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: The reason for my post was to show that scientists demand a different burden of proof for design theories than for naturalists theories. I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove, it is assumed that the changes in species are the result of natural slection, ie. by naturalists mechanisms. I argue that if God by providence has created the mechanisms for the evolution of life science rejects this because it cannot be proven by natural means. So if for example information is contained in the DNA, science assumes it is by natural causes, while I state it is by supernatural causes. Can you prove me wrong and you right? If so how. Well, you are failing miserably them. We can observe the natural conditions and processes. In fact almost anyone can. For natural selection we can look and see the different environments, conditions, changes, the filters. We can observe the processes involved in mutation. There is a model that explains the world we see. Way back in Message 14 I posted:
quote: Now it's fine if you want to claim such things actually created by God, it really tells us nothing of value, leaves us as ignorant as we were before. Unless you can present the model of how your God interacts, influences the natural processes or mechanisms it is simply a worthless complication of a model that works. Bring your God in, plop it on the lab table and lets test it. Present the model that explains how your God or Designer actually does something. Then it can be tested. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: I posted my original message after a fairly through review of writings from neo-darwinists, creationists, philosphers, physicists, and scientists who advocate intelligent design such as Behe and Stephen Meyer. My conclusion is that the design advocates are not getting a fair hearing in the scientific discipline. I was impressed by Meyers book SIGNATURE IN THE CELL DNA AND THE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, He states that ID partly a historical look at the origin of life which strikes me as being similar to the scientific investigation of evolution. Thus my conclusion that Main stream science is not applying the same standard of proof to ID as to Science. How can ID be a historical look at the origin of life? What is the ID model? How does the designer actually manipulate things? Even if there were a designer, why would it be of any importance or interest beyond a historical footnote or in cases of product liability suits? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I have to establish groundrules to determine if design advocates meet the standards of scientists. You have things in the wrong order there. It is not the person that meets standards, not the SOURCE that is relevant, but rather what is being advocated, the CONTENT. The issue is that Intelligent Design does not meet the standards of Science regardless of the individual advocating design. Further, even if it were true, no one has ever shown why some designer has any relevance or importance beyond being a historical footnote or in the case of product liability suits. Intelligent Design might someday meet the standards of science if and when the advocates present a model that can be tested. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In the Biblical creation story, God's original creation was good and evil was introduced through a human failing. Attributing the design of evolution to God gives God a direct role in the infliction of suffering and situates the start of the suffering before human sin could have played any part in initiating it. I don't believe that is correct. However it is also off topic but if you would like to start yet another thread on the subject it might prove to be a somewhat different point of biew. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I just read a debate by Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. I am wondering if any of you hold the opinion that Collins is a Creationist? Are you under the impression that Francis Collins supports Intelligent Design?
BBC Interview with Francis Collins Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Then I suggest that you read the link I provided.
From the link I provided:
quote: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We may understand the nature of the events that caused the above. But we do not know why they occurred. This is where God's Providence comes into play. So it goes back to the question Biologists ignore, the origin of life. For most of the items listed yes we do know why they occurred, a few of them we are still learning about the reasons.
All abiogenesis theories are so speculative as to be ridiculous. Actually, none of the ones I've ever studied are that speculative. They are all based on things that we most certainly can observe.
The whole point of my post is that until Science can prove the origin of life, evolution is not proven to be a natural caused event. And, of course, you are factually wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life and even if it did, we are getting closer every day to creating life.
For example is there a valid scientific theory for information in the cell? Of course there is. It is called chemistry and physics.
How could that information have origininated? How did gravity come to be? That is the problem I have with Scientist who state, if we can't explain it today we will tomorrow. talk about FAITH!! The information (and understand no one has ever described just what information they are talking about or how it would be measured) just seems to be chemical bonding. And so far the evidence shows that when there are things that we do not yet understand, the proper place to put those questions is in a "Not explained yet" folder, not in a "Goddidit" folder. And you still avoid the two really big questions. Even if there was some designer, what is the value or merit to knowing that beyond the two areas I mention, as a historical footnote or in the case of Product Liability suits? Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not at all.
The key point is that the natural processes are not a matter of belief, but rather actual observable and testable events. Even if there was some designer, even if what you believe is true, it's just not very important. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024