Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
53 online now:
frako, Meddle (2 members, 51 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,222 Year: 4,970/23,288 Month: 91/1,784 Week: 189/353 Day: 30/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 4 of 356 (369358)
12-12-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
12-12-2006 4:57 AM


Apes
This is simply not true.

Well, it's a semantic question.

One might reasonably argue for any of the following statements:

* Humans have common ancestry with apes;

* Humans are descended from apes;

* Humans are apes;

--- while meaning exactly the same thing.

I'd go for "humans are apes". (My reasoning: the term "ape" should refer to a clade, this clade includes chimps and gorillas, hence this clade includes us.) But this choice is a decision about the best way to use language, not an opinion about the facts as such.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 12-12-2006 4:57 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 12-13-2006 3:37 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 356 (464091)
04-23-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by 1071
04-23-2008 10:17 AM


Re: last post on this thread
I just had an epiphany. I shouldn't even be on this thread. This is why; I do not even agree that evolution is scientifically possible. So I shouldn't be here discussing the key points to the theory...

Surely that's exactly why you should be learning how evolution works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by 1071, posted 04-23-2008 10:17 AM 1071 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 356 (464785)
04-29-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 11:07 PM


Re: What do scientists believe?
If almost one-half of scientists do not believe the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth, then why in the world would we teach this as a fact to our children?

But the survey you quotes says nothing of the sort. It says the complete opposite:

quote:
Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins.

Your 40% figure comes from misunderstanding this bit:

quote:
But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

Well of course they do. Because by a complete non-coincidence, 40% is also the proportion of scientists that believe in God. And this is logical: if there is a God, then Darwinian evolution was his idea and part of his plan. But there's no general controversy between the theists and the atheists over whether Darwinian evolution occurred: as the article says, they are "almost unanimous".

Here's Robert Camp's survey. You may find it informative.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 11:07 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 356 (464788)
04-29-2008 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 11:07 PM


Re: What do scientists believe?
What exactly does the scientific community accept as scientific fact?

"Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy."

--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

Does this help to answer your question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 11:07 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 356 (464874)
04-30-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Wumpini
04-29-2008 1:56 PM


Re: It appears you are misquoting the study
quote:
"While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness"

And the same article also said that scientists were "almost unanimous" on "Darwinian evolution" as an explanation for man.

What we're talking about is your interpretation of an article in a newspaper written by a journalist about his interpretation of scientists' responses to a set of questions that he doesn't actually list, in which he says the exact opposite of what you want him to say.

He says:

quote:
Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins.

But somehow you are managing to interpret that as the complete opposite, 'cos that fits your ideas better.

Just try to get your head round the idea that these scientists are right, that they know stuff about science that you don't, and that the 40% of them who believe in God aren't nuts.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 1:56 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 3:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 356 (464901)
04-30-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 3:03 PM


Re: Maybe this will clear things up
It seems that 40% of the scientists believe that the mechanism for this process has been aided through supernatural intervention. This supernatural intervention could have been as simple as God created the process and let evolution take it's own course. Or, it could be that God assisted the process throughout. I do not know what these scientists believe, but it does not appear that they believe the process was entirely natural. I am sure that many of them are convinced that God has instilled in humans a spiritual existence (soul if you will) that they do not attribute to evolution.

No, you're still misinterpreting it. Those 40% are not scientists who disagree, in any way, with what is taught in biology textbooks. They don't. They agree with it. The article says that they are "almost unanimous" in favor of what the article calls "Darwinian evolution".

The 40% are the 40% of scientists who believe in God. They aren't trying to debate evolution any more than they are trying to debate gravity.

You are trying to lump them all together with the tiny, tiny minority who believe that evolution happened but that God's personal intervention was the driving force. And you are doing this by studiously misreading one paragraph written by one journalist in one newspaper about his interpretation of what some opinion poll says.

You're wrong, OK? This is why you have to base your argument on a newspaper article that said that scientists were "almost unanimous" in agreeing that "Darwinian evolution" was responsible for the human race, including the 40% of scientists who are theists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 3:03 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 10:44 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 155 of 356 (465192)
05-03-2008 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Wumpini
05-03-2008 6:26 PM


Re: Back to the Future
The point I am trying to make now is the age of the earth is different. Yes, the age of the earth is the age of the earth. It is a fact. However, we will never be able to determine the age of the earth through observation as we determined the shape of the earth. There is the necessity of too many unobservable assumptions.

No, think about this.

Imagine the first scientist getting up at a scientific conference and saying: "Good news, chaps! I have discovered the age of the Earth!"

And they reply, with polite skepticism: "And how did you determine it?"

And he says: "I made many unobservable assumptions."

Really, how do you see that going over?

So now imagine the second scientist who says that ...

How do you see that going?

It's very easy to say that geologists base their knowledge of the age of the earth on "too many unobservable assumptions", but when you think about it for a bit, can you actually picture it happening? That's not really how scientists do stuff, is it?

---

If I understand your posts rightly, you have only just started looking at the geological questions raised in the EvC debate, and yet curiously enough you've already decided that geologists, the people who actually look at the earth and study it, are resting their case on "too many unobservable assumptions".

Alternatively, maybe they know something about geology that you don't know.

---

By the way, here's a statement of faith required by the Affiliation of Christian Geologists:

quote:
We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct. We confess the Triune God as affirmed in the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds which we accept as brief, faithful statements of Christian Doctrine based upon Scripture. We believe that in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation. We recognize our responsibility as stewards of God's creation to use science and technology for the good of humanity and the whole world.

Here's an article about teaching geology on their website:

quote:
A growing number of Christian students are being educated in Christian schools or at home. I sense that earth science education in Christian and home schools is generally poor because of exposure to the available curriculum materials from a young-earth, flood geology perspective and because of the inadequacy of teacher training in earth science. More than one Christian geologist has expressed concern to me because of the dominance of young-earth creationism in curriculum materials and in workshop presentations at home school conventions. In many Christian schools, geology is almost entirely avoided because of its potentially controversial nature.

I think you'll notice that, once again, I'm not just making a point about geology.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Wumpini, posted 05-03-2008 6:26 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Wumpini, posted 05-07-2008 9:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 171 of 356 (465599)
05-08-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wumpini
05-07-2008 9:23 PM


Re: Observations and Conclusions
It is true that I am only now beginning to seriously look into the claims of scientists regarding evolution and the age of the earth. My point about assumptions, is that scientists do not really know much about the past. They make assumptions based upon the present.

No, they make deductions based on the evidence existing in the present.

Now I wonder how these scientists came to know all of this about some humans that lived half a million years ago. What kind of evidence led to these conclusions?

You wonder that do you? Then why don't you try to find out?

Heck, at present you don't know if scientists came to these conclusions, since scientists don't write books for children.

Well I would say that the entire conclusion is based upon assumptions that go beyond what was observed today.

Why would you say that, if you don't know what evidence led scientists to their conclusions about H. erectus? And when you know perfectly well that scientists aren't allowed to base their conclusions on "assumptions".

Later I may find that these early cave men left a diary or something to tell scientists about their lifestyle.

Your "or something" guess is correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Wumpini, posted 05-07-2008 9:23 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 356 (465601)
05-08-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Wumpini
05-07-2008 10:15 PM


Re: Children's Textbooks
They have fanciful pictures and stories of dinosaurs and prehistoric men. It appears to be fantasy, however it is all taught as fact.

Dinosaurs existed. So did prehistoric men. We have the bones.

This is a fanciful picture.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Wumpini, posted 05-07-2008 10:15 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 356 (465622)
05-08-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 3:33 AM


Re: Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Men
Actually, at least one other reviewer agrees with my evaluation. I will repeat the link for the textbook league review here also.

http://www.textbookleague.org/41evolu.htm

Good grief. Apparently amongst other things the book claims that birds are descended from T. Rex.

* bangs head on desk *

I can only suggest that you burn it and go and find a better book.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 3:33 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 178 of 356 (465626)
05-08-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 5:37 PM


Re: God as the Root Assumption
I am confused though because it seems that scientists test the truthfulness of all of their theories by assuming their theories are true.

No. They test hypotheses by saying: "If the hypothesis was true, what would we expect to see? Do we see it?" Obviously you can carry out this procedure even if you're convinced that the hypothesis is absolutely false, or if you think it's true, or if you maintain a studious neutrality. Clearly, saying: "I wonder what would happen if this was true", is very different from saying: "I'm going to assume that this is true for no good reason".

For example, when the wave theory of light was first proposed, the mathematician Poisson was convinced that it was wrong. He deduced mathematically that if it the wave theory was correct, then you would be able to see the effect known as "Poisson's Spot". Now he assumed, if anything, that the theory was wrong and that you wouldn't see the spot. But when the experiment he'd proposed was done, Poisson's Spot was observed.

More about Poisson's Spot here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 181 of 356 (465629)
05-08-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 5:37 PM


Re: God as the Root Assumption
Maybe that would solve this entire controversy. We should allow those who want to make God the root assumption the freedom to do so.

Well, they are free to do so. They do do so. This has not noticeably reduced the controversy.

Those who choose otherwise can give God a value of zero ...

Or they can try to arrive at the existence of God as a conclusion based on evidence.

45% of Scientists also have included God's involvement in the creation as their root assumption.

In the first place, I bet you more of them would say that it is a conclusion, not an assumption, and in the second place, qua scientists, this is not an assumption they use, otherwise theists and atheists would come to different conclusions about science. The belief in God does not imply anything about chemistry or physics or biology.

You see God could have done it however he wanted to.

That's the thing about omnipotence, and this is why the hypothesis that God exists has no implications whatsoever for science, and is not scientifically testable.

However, the omnipotence of God does not prevent us from finding out what did actually happen. The notion that God has infested my house with a plague of frogs is consistent with the existence of God. The notion that God has not infested my house with a plague of frogs is also consistent with the existence of God. However, only one of these hypotheses is consistent with the absence of frogs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 8:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 356 (465645)
05-08-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 7:28 PM


Re: Objective vs Subjective Reality
It does not seem to be as simple as you are making it out to be. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then why do the majority of the people in the United States of America prefer Creation over Evolution.

Because they haven't looked at the overwhelming evidence.

Scientists, on the other hand, have.

Based upon this statement, most of the American population is either ignorant, or not objective.

Or both, and wilfully misinformed to boot.

Look, here's a poll showing that 49% of people think that antibiotics are effective against colds and 'flu. And this is without being deluged with propaganda saying that if they don't believe this then they're bad people who'll go to Hell.

In the 21st century, is man so entrapped by ancient mythical beliefs that they cannot think rationally and objectively?

Apparently some of them are, yes.

Must we take into account both objective and subjective reality?

What do we do when objective reality conflicts with subjective reality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 7:28 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 185 of 356 (465646)
05-08-2008 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 8:02 PM


Re: Omnipotence of God
If you observed five thousand people being fed fishes and loaves then scientifically you would conclude that they could
not have started with only a few fishes and loaves. (Jesus feeds five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes.)

If you observed a man named Lazarus walking around, then scientifically you would conclude that the man had not been dead for the last four days, and had not been decomposing earlier in the day. (Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.)

If you observed a man walking on the ocean, then scientifically you would conclude that something was holding Him up besides water. (Jesus walks on water.)

Well, what I should also need is equally solid evidence that they really did just start off with a few loaves and fishes; that Lazarus really was decomposing; and that nothing was supporting Jesus. At that point, the fact that the multiplication of loaves and fishes, the resurection of Lazarus, and Jesus walking on water are impossible according to the laws discovered by scientists would convince me that these were actually miracles.

Without such evidence, I would indeed take the evidence of, for example, a perfectly healthy living human being, as evidence that he was also alive the previous day. So would you. A natural explanation must always be our default position, whether or not we're theists.

Now in the case of evolution versus creationism, I find no evidence for fiat creationism or Noah's Flood or what-have-you, but plenty of evidence for a naturalistic explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 8:02 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 196 of 356 (465693)
05-09-2008 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 5:27 AM


Re: Objective vs Subjective Reality
I am not trying to be difficult, but it is not as simple as some are trying to make it seem. It is like "groupthink." It appears that many scientists have went into this little room and agreed that this is the position and these are the answers to every question, no matter what the evidence.

And yet you know perfectly well that it is scientists who left their little room and looked at the evidence. It's what they do.

However, you are forgetting that 45% of scientists have looked at the overwhelming evidence, and come to the conclusion that God exists.

I'm not sure that they did so by looking at scietific evidence; you yourself have said that the question of the existence of God is not amenable to scientific study.

If my understanding is correct then all of them believe that God is behind man's creation. They differ in what means God used to achieve this feat. Over 10% of these scientists believe that God created man fully formed around 10,000 years ago.

Over 10%? Really?

If the evidence is so overwhelming then how can so many scientists, who should know the evidence, believe as they do.

Well, for example, if ones field of expertise was aerodynamics, then one need never look at the relevant evidence, which is in geology and the life sciences.

Are you including the 45% of scientists? Or, are you saying that those who believe in God can also think rationally and objectively?

I was thinking of Young Earth Creationists, whose overlap with scientists is tiny.

We can accept that both exist. We can accept that there is an existence and concepts that go beyond the physical world.

Yes, but my question was, what should we do when we have concepts that don't go beyond it, but conflict with it?

It is one think to think of God as the true light of day, and the material world mere shadows on the walls of Plato's cave, but what do we say to the man who denies the existence and forms of the shadows?

When you begin talking about primordial soup, and astronomical odds resulting in the origin of life ...

I do not talk about astronomical odds resulting in the origin of life. Creationists do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:27 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 6:10 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020