Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What we must accept if we accept evolution Part 2
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 301 (282601)
01-30-2006 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
01-30-2006 1:28 PM


All or nothing??
Mod, may I paraphrase what you are saying.
There are two ways of explaining what we see:
1) supernatural influence
2) natural affects
You are saying that one view an individual could hold is a "split" view; that some things are explained by the supernatual and some by natural.
It might be useful to see if there are any who fall into the "only one" camp. That is I am a only 2 camp. I don't think that anything can be explained by the supernatural.
Are there any who believe that NOTHING can be explained by natural effects that it is ALL directly supernatural?
ABE
I don't think it is useful to say you are in camp 1 only if you, like Jar, believe that God created everything but that it unfolds, predominantly, by natural laws now. Let's call this an indirect camp 1. I'm more interested to see if there are any who have God much, much closer to minute by minute things. That is he is the "pusher" as well as the one who influences (was it mark24 or Rrhains) the fall of dice. Let's call this the Direct Camp 2.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-30-2006 01:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2006 1:28 PM Modulous has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 58 of 301 (282736)
01-30-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
01-30-2006 10:48 PM


Jar's belief's
Perhaps Faith you should make yourself clear.
Jar has said he believes in the Christian God. He also says he accepts the ToE.
Belief is, as you say, not proof of something unless that something concerns belief itself.
Are you saying that Jar hasn't proved that he believes in God? You haven't done that either. What proof will you offer to show that you do?
Are you saying that Jar is lying about his belief? You have no way of showing that and it is very disrespectful. Is it ok for others here to accuse you of lying about your beliefs?
Are you saying that the God the Jar believes in is not the Christian God? Jar has pointed out that more Christians believe as he does than as you do. That might suggest that it is you that doesn't believe in the Christian God. Do you think that is the case? If not, why not?
You may suggest that there is bias in the reviewing of the situation. I am trying to clarify just what the situation is?
The questions that you need to answer now are:
In your opinion does Jar believe in the Christian God?
If the answer is no, then what God does he believe in?
If a majority of those who believe in Christ believe in the same God as Jar does then why is it your ide a of this God should be the one that is taken as the only definition of this God?
If the answer is that you do think that Jar believes in the Christian God then are you saying he doesn't believe in the ToE? If you say that why do you say so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 01-30-2006 10:48 PM Faith has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 199 of 301 (283287)
02-01-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by robinrohan
02-01-2006 7:18 PM


Good reasons for God
It seems that to most of us outsiders Robin the belief in God comes first then there are convoluted constructions of "reasons" for it.
I see some Christians understanding what is a pure faith issue and they have a faith that doesn't need shoring up and supporting from outside.
Then I see others whose faith is so shaking and weak that they want the support of science, government and anything else they can clutch at in any way at all. Perhaps our best example of that here is Randman and his crazy use of quantum mechanics as a contrivance to support ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by robinrohan, posted 02-01-2006 7:18 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 02-01-2006 8:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 246 of 301 (283920)
02-04-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by nwr
02-04-2006 2:08 PM


Induction in Science
I disagree nwr. I think Faith is right that induction can be a source of 'inspiration' for a hypothosis.
In fact, (I'm getting neck stuck out a bit here) I'd say there is a lot of induction in science. That is one reason for the continued testing.
Crows are black; seen any other colors? Opps! our hypothosis is wrong. Let's rephrase*.
The overwhelmingly common color for Crows is black. Crows of other colors are subject to sexual and natural selection that means they only appear as random mutations. Now we can test this hypothosis too.
If our hypothosis holds up: So far ALL life forms on the planet share the same genetic base -- there was only one common ancestor to them all. I guess we could develop some deductive reasons why this had to be but I think we have concluded this based on induction and, so far, it holds up.
( * I can't help myself; ICR or AIG would in a similar situtation decide that the bird you found isn't a "true" crow. )
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2006 02:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nwr, posted 02-04-2006 2:08 PM nwr has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 268 of 301 (284131)
02-05-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by robinrohan
02-05-2006 11:02 AM


traditional concepts
TOE is not an innocuous liitle idea about population changes: it is an idea that shakes the foundations of the traditional concept of humanity.
Can't really help that can we? It's happened before and we can expect it will happen again. I guess the traditional concepts will have to be replaced with more robust concepts; something that many have no problem with. For those that can't grow up it remains a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by robinrohan, posted 02-05-2006 11:02 AM robinrohan 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