DINOSAURS! Noah's Flood & other awesome questions.

[Hieronymus]

Methodological naturalism, just like any other scientific theory--not the metaphysical naturalism of atheism. The theory of evolution makes no statement or implication about the existence of God, one way or the other.

It ignores God and they sell it off as true proven science.

According to ToE believers things came about naturally, not supernaturally.
Is it even a theory?
Does it explain what we can observe?
No, it is however the only naturalistic attempt to a model.
Within that paradigm you must assume that life and / or speciation is natural by origin.

 

[Hieronymus]

It appears to me from your previous statement that you are saying everything in natural is Godless. I accept your "opinion", however, I disagree with it.

God is not a factor in the natural, God is super-natural.

 

[RickG]

God is not a factor in the natural, God is super-natural.

Thus the Earth and everything on it is Godless. That is how you are coming across to me.

 

[Hieronymus]

Thus the Earth and everything on it is Godless. That is how you are coming across to me.

We're discussing the paradigms in which we view our origins.
In a naturalistic (i.e. atheistic) paradigm you exclude the origins of the natural, as things can not bring forth themselves, because that's a logical fallacy (for something to bring forth itself it has had to exist prior to its existence).

 

[Speedwell]

It ignores God and they sell it off as true proven science.

All scientific theories "ignore" God. That's what methodological naturalism is. Notice I said "ignore" not "deny," a distinction you seem incapable of grasping.

According to ToE believers things came about naturally, not supernaturally.

According to theistic ToE believers it was both.

Is it even a theory?

Yes, by established standards of science which apply to all scientific theories.

Does it explain what we can observe?

Yes.

 

[Speedwell]

And this is a good example of what I have observed in your posts. The proposition that the theory of evolution denies God's authorship of the universe and the life within it IS A LIE. It is a lie you have been duped into believing by Creationist propaganda mills.

The question is, why evolution? Of all the reasons not to believe in the literal inerrancy of the Genesis stories, the ToE isn't even near the top of the list. It's the same with the increasing secularization of our society, which all Christians should be concerned about. The ToE isn't near the top of that list, either.

 

[Hieronymus]

All scientific theories "ignore" God. That's what methodological naturalism is.

That's great, but we're discussing the origins of the natural.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's great, but we're discussing the origins of the natural.

Yet though, are we even sure life is natural?
Do we actually know what causes an organism to live or die?
Is there a soul perhaps?
I tend to see organisms as autonomous (yet dependant on their environment) nano technological systems incorporated in a unit (organism).
They host a 'soul' or 'spirit' i.m.o.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes.

Well, no, it doesn't explain what we observe.
It only ASSUMES that through selecting the viable of the corrupted data, new meaningful data is written, and does a better job designing and manufacturing than all of humanity.
But there is no evidence to support that, itś not even feasible, itś actually not even possible (no chance).

 

[RickG]

All scientific theories "ignore" God. That's what methodological naturalism is. Notice I said "ignore" not "deny," a distinction you seem incapable of grasping.

I'm glad you clarified that 'ignore' is not 'deny'. However, I still disagree with that statement. Science only explores and tests the physical. Not being able to test something is not denying. If science could test and verify God, science would be all over it. Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm glad you clarified that 'ignore' is not 'deny'. However, I still disagree with that statement. Science only explores and tests the physical. Not being able to test something is not denying. If science could test and verify God, science would be all over it. Do you understand what I am saying?

Really?
When you adamantly believe in a naturalistic idea to account for our origins, you both ignore AND deny God.
'Creator' is even synonymous to 'God'.

 

[SnowyMacie]

How about in the Paleozoic layer with trace fossils, vertebrate tracks and such, then finding the vertebrates themselves at the beginning of the Mesozoic layer. How is it there will be tracks to animals millions of years before the animals existed themselves?

Evolution. You may find fossils that look like other fossils in deeper layers, but they were different organisms. There are no human fossils found the Mesozoic layer, there no dinosaur fossils in the Cenozoic. You also do need to keep in mind the layers aren't perfect even due to how the Earth's crust is formed, and so if something dose seem out of place, that is why.

With many unanswered questions tied to them.

Your point? That only means we have more to learn and discover. There is no shame in not knowing.

It's a naturalistic (i.e. Godless)

A complete false dichotomy. Naturalism is not opposed to Christianity. Metaphysical naturalism, sure you would have a point, but there's also methodological naturalism, which is where science lies. Once you start making claims about God, you are stepping outside the realms of science.

 

[SnowyMacie]

When you adamantly believe in a naturalistic idea to account for our origins, you both ignore AND deny God.

How exactly is theistic evolution, which is what most Christians believe, ignoring God?

 

[Hieronymus]

A complete false dichotomy.

Do you want me to spell it out to you for a 20th time?
Try reading my comments until you understand them before showing you didn't.
And i'm sorry i start to get really fed up with it.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm glad you clarified that 'ignore' is not 'deny'. However, I still disagree with that statement. Science only explores and tests the physical. Not being able to test something is not denying. If science could test and verify God, science would be all over it. Do you understand what I am saying?

I agree with it as well.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Do you want me to spell it out to you for a 20th time?
Try reading my comments until you understand them before showing you didn't.
And i'm sorry i start to get really fed up with it.

What we're all saying is that God exists outside the realm of science, therefore, you can't make any claims about God in a truly scientific discussion. You can't scientifically test God, it's not ignoring God, you just can't approach God from a scientific prospective, it's literally impossible.

 

[Hieronymus]

What we're all saying is that you can understand the physical process of nature without ignoring God.

Obviously, the point being that God has nothing to do with natural processes, for God is super-natural.

God exists outside the realm of science, therefore, you can't make any claims about God in a truly scientific discussion. You can't scientifically test God, it's not ignoring God, you just can't approach God from a scientific prospective, it's literally impossible.

Thus they can never claim that our origins (including the origins of the natural) had nothing to do with God, let alone push a hopeless model down our throats.

 

[Hieronymus]

How exactly is theistic evolution, which is what most Christians believe, ignoring God?

ToE is not theistic.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, no, it doesn't explain what we observe.
It only ASSUMES that through selecting the viable of the corrupted data, new meaningful data is written, and does a better job designing and manufacturing than all of humanity.
But there is no evidence to support that, itś not even feasible, itś actually not even possible (no chance).

Wrong. It has been demonstrated that what is presented to the environment for selection is not "corrupted data" but a random distribution (think "bell curve") of variations produced by an orderly and well evidenced process which uses mutation as (only one) of its inputs.
You have got to stop relying on Creationist sources for details about how evolution is supposed to work. If you want to maintain that evolution can't work, then PLEASE address your arguments to the real theory, not the bogus version fabricated by Creationist propaganda mills.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Obviously, the point being that God has nothing to do with natural processes, for God is super-natural.Thus they can never claim that our origins (including the origins of the natural) had nothing to do with God, let alone push a hopeless model down our throats.

They don't claim it had nothing to do with God, evolution makes no claims about the existance of God. If they are making claims about the metaphysical, they are acting outside the realms of science. A biology teacher or professor that teaches to their class that the evolutionary model disproves the existance of God or just a creator in general is no longer teaching science, but philosophy.

ToE is not theistic.

Atheistic evolution is not theistic, theistic evolution is.

This is all evolution is...