As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[sfs]

From what I gather so far, the site I can't seem to get onto, is by a man who believes science and theism (at least) do work together, and so is attacked by both Atheists and Theists. I happen to agree with him, though without reading his stuff, I don't know if we agree for the same reasons.

The site is by an organization, originally founded by the current head of the National Institutes of Health (and an evangelical Christian), that promotes acceptance of science by Christians. The particular blog entry I linked to is by me -- I agree with their goal.

 

[xianghua]

The probability of your existence is highly unlikely, but yet you still exist. So any such probability calculation of your existence is meaningless.

again irrelevant. if we have 10^100 possible combinations and we have only 2 functional sequences among this space the chance to get a functional sequence is very low even considering the age of the earth. this is different from the birth analogy since in a birth any possible option is ok.

 

[pitabread]

again irrelevant.

It's completely relevant. Post-hoc probabilities are not meaningful in this case.

It doesn't matter what the number is. The number itself isn't useful nor does it preclude an event occurring that has already occurred.

this is different from the birth analogy since in a birth any possible option is ok.

It's exactly the same. A post hoc probability calculation that makes it seem something is impossible, when that event has already occurred.

It has no meaning.

You're just spitting in the wind with this.

 

[xianghua]

It doesn't matter what the number is.

realy? so you have no problem to accept that its possible to get a complex eye at once? why do you think that no scientist believe that its possible to get a complex biological system in a single event?

 

[pitabread]

realy? so you have no problem to accept that its possible to get a complex eye at once? why do you think that no scientist believe that its possible to get a complex biological system in a single event?

Huh? This has absolutely nothing to do with things appearing in a "single event".

You're not making any sense.

 

[xianghua]

Huh? This has absolutely nothing to do with things appearing in a "single event".

You're not making any sense.

the reason is simple: no one think that a complex eye can evolve at once because the chance to that is extremely unlikely. if a complex eye code by only about 10 genes (just for the sake of the argument) then we are talking about a sequence space of 4^10,000. this number is so big that even if the number of possible functional eyes is far above the nubmer of atoms in the universe- we will not get a functional eye even in a trillion of years. this is why no one believe that a complex eye can evolve at once.

 

[pitabread]

the reason is simple: no one think that a complex eye can evolve at once because the chance to that is extremely unlikely.

It's not even possible to calculate the probability of eye evolution because we don't have enough information to create a calculation in the first place.

Probabilities are completely irrelevant here.

 

[46AND2]

All true, except for your apparent idea of the sort of thing I might be referring to by "absurd". An example of what I am talking about, is the supposed proof that there can be no omnipotent being --"could such a being create a rock so big he could not lift it?" The question is absurd in more than one way. It assumes validity to a self-contradictory concept. It also ignores that such a being would have no reason to do so, and certainly not for the purpose of entertaining the mental vagaries of lesser beings; and since such a being (the very inventor of "what is", or he is not self-existent God) has no reason for doing so, the proposed scenario is a non-thing by definition, and therefore absurd.

But all you are advocating here is accepting that there must be an explanation for god's omnipotence, despite its absurdity, with no justification other than blind belief.

 

[Speedwell]

it's clear you know the verses, so why not accept them?

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” Matthew 19: 4-5

"“For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” Matthew 24:37-39

The most you can possibly deduce from those passages is that Jesus may have believed that the Genesis stories described real events. Nothing in them supports literal inerrancy or its underling doctrines--Sola Scriptura, plenary verbal inspiration or perspicuity.

Not the trespass of many men, but of one, the "first" man.... If you discount Genesis as literal, then you actually discount the need for the sacrifice of Jesus and why...... You make the Gift null and void and for no reason at all....

Here we have a logical fallacy, formally known as "Denying the antecedent."

 

[Astrophile]

Read Genesis about the serpent. Very beautiful, but treacherous.

I had one of my inmate crew working with me one day in a ditch, neither of us realizing there was a Cottonmouth behind him in a hollow in the ditch wall. When I saw it, undisturbed and peaceful, I told him gently to come on out with me, and after he did, I told him to turn around. He had a definite reaction to what he saw. The aspect was peaceful, even pretty, but we knew better than to trust peace with a viper.

What is it about this incident that makes you think that the Cottonmouth was treacherous rather than merely dangerous?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yeah I get that the serpent generally is a symbol of deceit. But earlier here it seemed someone challenged whether God created a beast that is actually wicked.

Also, I cant consider hiding for safety, nor stealth in hunting, as indicative of a deceitful character. Those are just normal behaviors that any hunting animal, including humans, will do.

True. As it happens, the Serpent in the garden was apparently Satan himself, and therefore actually wicked. I don't know if he ever takes that form anymore or not, but I kind of doubt it. Also, I tend to think it was more of a dragon sort of thing than what we know of as snake. The actually "wicked" point, to my mind, does not translate to every snake or even viper, since then.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The site is by an organization, originally founded by the current head of the National Institutes of Health (and an evangelical Christian), that promotes acceptance of science by Christians. The particular blog entry I linked to is by me -- I agree with their goal.

cool

 

[Mark Quayle]

But all you are advocating here is accepting that there must be an explanation for god's omnipotence, despite its absurdity, with no justification other than blind belief.

Only IF he does in fact exist. And by God, I mean Self-Existent First Cause With Intent, the One and Only such being. Omnipotence is by no means absurd for such a being. Our stance and comprehension and evidences for such are irrelevance as to his existence.

If we find evidences, so much the better, but the facts remain regardless of our view of them. As such the facts are of value (again, IF it is a fact he exists), and so is apprehension to them, regardless of the reasons.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What is it about this incident that makes you think that the Cottonmouth was treacherous rather than merely dangerous?

Because of his beauty and aspect of peacefulness, or even by the fact he was not noticeable at first. If he had been a rattler, we might've seen him sooner. But he made no move, no warning. If the man had leaned against him, he would've been bitten by an otherwise seemingly harmless animal.

I don't by 'treacherous' mean wicked or evil. The snake is simply what it is. I don't blame it for being that way. But I do stay away from the sharp end.

 

[46AND2]

Only IF he does in fact exist. And by God, I mean Self-Existent First Cause With Intent, the One and Only such being. Omnipotence is by no means absurd for such a being. Our stance and comprehension and evidences for such are irrelevance as to his existence.

If we find evidences, so much the better, but the facts remain regardless of our view of them. As such the facts are of value (again, IF it is a fact he exists), and so is apprehension to them, regardless of the reasons.

But that is a tautological argument, and thus an epistemological hindrance.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But that is a tautological argument, and thus an epistemological hindrance.

Well, I thought so too, but then you said omnipotence was absurd, while I insist omnipotence is a necessary attribute of God. So I said so.

If that is to you an epistemological hindrance, I don't know why. I did not intend to prove his existence by saying it is a necessary attribute. It may or may not be false that he exists, but his omnipotence is a necessary condition in any consideration of what his existence would imply. Otherwise we are talking about some lesser being. Not God. Simple.

Upon rereading the posts leading up to here, I see I may not know what you are referring to by "that" in "that is a tautological argument".

I suppose you could be referring to my claim that if something is true (in this case, God's existence) it is useful regardless of our method of arriving at a good comprehension of what that truth is. Tautological? Bare assertion, perhaps. Epistemological hindrance? I don't see why. Epistemologically unuseable perhaps, though I'm not sure that applies either. (That is, if one assumes the unproven (as long as it is true), it can direct one in true directions, as they logically pursue proofs --such is the case with science. One makes a statement, and presupposing it to be so, makes predictions. If the statement is true, the predictions may bear it out. So if God's existence is true, certain things may well be in keeping with that.)

Or are you talking about something else?

 

[Mark Quayle]

copied here by mistake. I don't know how to delete it, once posted

 

[the iconoclast]

How about we define it as scientists actually define it?

Hey hey cog

How do they define it my new friend?

 

[USincognito]

From what I gather so far, the site I can't seem to get onto, is by a man who believes science and theism (at least) do work together, and so is attacked by both Atheists and Theists. I happen to agree with him, though without reading his stuff, I don't know if we agree for the same reasons.

Did you get the screen captured imaged I sent you via private message?

 

[the iconoclast]

So, Creationists, can any of you step up to the plate

Hello there

"How about we define it as scientists actually define it?"

How do scientists define it?