Three Big Questions

[Subduction Zone]

Aron accused me of being Omphalos, and that was the end of it.

He did not just make an accusation. He did much more than that.

 

[AV1611VET]

He did not just make an accusation. He did much more than that.

My conversation with Glenn Morton was short-lived also.

He had a doosey of an argument on here with Thaumaturgy over global warming.

 

[Job 33:6]

1. Does anybody else believe that Christianity and evolution can coexist with one another?

2. If so in what ways? (I'm asking before I state my beliefs because I want to see if they line up with mine.)


3. Since the Bible doesn't say one way or the other, is it possible that God created life on other planets?

I think that Christianity and [science] already co exist with one another, and further, they must coexist. People are not going to drop belief in God, nor belief in science. It's just a matter of what interpretations blend together better than others.

Science and faith can coexist in a way by which both are respected. Some Christians deny science and some scientists also deny Christianity. In this world, belief in God and in Christianity has been prevalant for thousands of years and really isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but likewise, science is here to stay as well.

And yes, life on distant planets is inevitable.

 

[ReluctantThinker]

1. Does anybody else believe that Christianity and evolution can coexist with one another?

Yes, technically speaking, possible in specific ways. 1 way is that the species did originate via evolution, which is a process "guided" supernaturally. For example, a species evolves into another form, but not randomly, as conventional evolution theory dictates.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1. Does anybody else believe that Christianity and evolution can coexist with one another?

Yes, technically speaking, possible in specific ways. 1 way is that the species did originate via evolution, which is a process "guided" supernaturally. For example, a species evolves into another form, but not randomly, as conventional evolution theory dictates.

Conventional evolution theory doesn't dictate anything; it is a scientific explanation for the available evidence. So it is the evidence that dictates what the theory must explain.

 

[Speedwell]

1. Does anybody else believe that Christianity and evolution can coexist with one another?

Yes, technically speaking, possible in specific ways. 1 way is that the species did originate via evolution, which is a process "guided" supernaturally. For example, a species evolves into another form, but not randomly, as conventional evolution theory dictates.

What evidence led you to hypothesize this "supernatural guidance?"

 

[ReluctantThinker]

Conventional evolution theory doesn't dictate anything; it is a scientific explanation for the available evidence. So it is the evidence that dictates what the theory must explain.

evolution assumes randomness from the evidence..and again, as always, the topic of randomness is a whole other debate

 

[Speedwell]

evolution assumes randomness from the evidence..and again, as always, the topic of randomness is a whole other debate

That is true, but the randomness inherent in evolution is not a barrier to divine providence.

 

[ReluctantThinker]

What evidence led you to hypothesize this "supernatural guidance?"

Much has led me to believe as such, and although i state "believe" as in a matter of belief, I actually think the evidence is there. If what you mean by evidence is, for example "look, here is a computer, and therefore I know computers exist"..that is really obvious evidence..I'm not talking about that, but the nature of evidence I refer to is the subtle kind..the kind not overly obvious but if we apply our own logic to it, we arrive at the idea of something more than randomness.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

evolution assumes randomness from the evidence..and again, as always, the topic of randomness is a whole other debate

Randomness is only part of the story.

 

[Speedwell]

Much has led me to believe as such, and although i state "believe" as in a matter of belief, I actually think the evidence is there. If what you mean by evidence is, for example "look, here is a computer, and therefore I know computers exist"..that is really obvious evidence..I'm not talking about that, but the nature of evidence I refer to is the subtle kind..the kind not overly obvious but if we apply our own logic to it, we arrive at the idea of something more than randomness.

So your objection to the theory of evolution is aesthetic, rather than theological or scientific.

 

[driewerf]

1. Does anybody else believe that Christianity and evolution can coexist with one another?

Yes, they do in fact. The vast majority of christians, world wide do accept the ToE. The American fundamentalist biblical creationists are a minority, compared to christianity world wide.

2. If so in what ways? (I'm asking before I state my beliefs because I want to see if they line up with mine.)

There are probably multiple answers, but it comes down to take Genesis chapter 1 and 2 as metaphor or allegory.

3. Since the Bible doesn't say one way or the other, is it possible that God created life on other planets?

As an atheist I reject the phrase "god created". But as for the question "life on other planets", we simply don't know.

 

[ReluctantThinker]

So your objection to the theory of evolution is aesthetic, rather than theological or scientific.

Not really, its logic based, and in extension, scientific
It's kind of applying logic to evidence which takes into account the following pointers :

1. If possible, avoid "deep" science, which delves into the intracacies and minutae of whatever is the topic at hand. And why? Because, "deep" science, with the best of intentions, can be "wrong"(and perhaps later righted once new understanding is obtained), honest, but wrong assumptions can be made, the way studies are conducted can be flawed, and so on. Science can be biased aswell, in either way, favouring different sides for certain reasons (not that its always bias but this factor is present) This is just inherent in the way humans conduct science. That's not to say that scientific conclusions are definiely wrong, they are often right too. But my point is, science is complex, and if one is so inclined, by all means, please dive into studies, reasearch papers, and keep up to date on it all.
Diving into deep science also gives rise to evolutionist vs creationists interpretation of evidence, and much argument is born from there. Though one can debate in this arena aswell, why not also consider a bigger-picture apporach, as mentioned in point 2 :

2. So how can we avoid "deep" science, and yet still be able to draw logical deductions on a given topic? Fortunately, in the topic of evolution and creation, we can. We are able to somewhat "zoom-out" and look at the bigger picture, and apply logic to it. As an example, consider the leaf insect. The leaf insect is an insect which has an obvious camouflage adaptation, that mimics a leaf. Based on evolution, this insect would have evolved from a "base insect" (without any leaf adaptation), which then started to have leaf like camouflage and then kept evolving till the end-result was obtained. In this process, many hand-raising questions come to mind, like the following :

1. What made the base insect suddenly decide to evolve a leaf adaptation? Was it the insect, random, or an external party?
2. If it was the insect, how did it realise becoming a leaf would allow it to avoid predation, and how did it carry on this strategic "idea" to its downline, ensuring all future generatinos would have this "idea" thereby resulting in a completed leaf insect at the end of the evolution process? Also, how did the insect "will" itself to have leaf-shaped body?
3. If random, did the leaf suddenly appear as part of the insect's body in one go (ie. from base insect -> leaf insect in 1 generation)? Or was it a slow process whereby the leaf formed over multiple generations? If a random, slow process, aka natural selection, how does this actually occur?

And there are many more questions expanding on point 3 regarding this specific example, and even, more questions over multiple topics and specific examples, questioning this kind of "broad-based" logic..never-needing to delve into research papers and so on.

 

[ReluctantThinker]

Actually, I have written an entire book on this and its on kindle. Google "evolution biggest brainwash of our time" and its the first link. I put it there for the lowest price I could set 2.99. (I would have set it to 99cents if I could) Since it was there (ages ago) only one person has actually bought it. I actually literally put every thing that is irking me, regarding evolution, in there, and if anyone could just tell me how it is, good or bad, would be good. I'm not in it for the money in any way, as profit is only sent by amazon if u reach 100 bucks in profit. But since I've written it, would be at least fulfilling to have at least some people see it and tell me how it is.

But just totally ignore this "plug" if not up your alley

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1. What made the base insect suddenly decide to evolve a leaf adaptation? Was it the insect, random, or an external party?
2. If it was the insect, how did it realise becoming a leaf would allow it to avoid predation, and how did it carry on this strategic "idea" to its downline, ensuring all future generatinos would have this "idea" thereby resulting in a completed leaf insect at the end of the evolution process? Also, how did the insect "will" itself to have leaf-shaped body?
3. If random, did the leaf suddenly appear as part of the insect's body in one go (ie. from base insect -> leaf insect in 1 generation)? Or was it a slow process whereby the leaf formed over multiple generations? If a random, slow process, aka natural selection, how does this actually occur?

And there are many more questions expanding on point 3 regarding this specific example, and even, more questions over multiple topics and specific examples, questioning this kind of "broad-based" logic..never-needing to delve into research papers and so on.

If you're seriously asking questions like those, you need to find out what the theory says before going further. Sometimes this requires what you call 'deep' science, but in this case, it doesn't. A fairly superficial understanding is sufficient.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Actually, I have written an entire book on this and its on kindle. Google "evolution biggest brainwash of our time" and its the first link. I put it there for the lowest price I could set 2.99. (I would have set it to 99cents if I could) Since it was there (ages ago) only one person has actually bought it. I actually literally put every thing that is irking me, regarding evolution, in there, and if anyone could just tell me how it is, good or bad, would be good. I'm not in it for the money in any way, as profit is only sent by amazon if u reach 100 bucks in profit. But since I've written it, would be at least fulfilling to have at least some people see it and tell me how it is.

I checked the bit that Amazon lets you see, and it's not great:

"Firstly, let's define the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution comes in 2 flavours. The Darwinian version (the original), and the Mainstream version, which is the Darwinian version, and then some : Unofficially tweaked, and added to, by modern scientists, thereby conflating the original theory to include more than was intended."​

Misrepresenting your subject from the outset is not a good start. It gives the book a 'bad smell'. I hope the cookbook isn't like that

 

[ReluctantThinker]

I checked the bit that Amazon lets you see, and it's not great:

"Firstly, let's define the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution comes in 2 flavours. The Darwinian version (the original), and the Mainstream version, which is the Darwinian version, and then some : Unofficially tweaked, and added to, by modern scientists, thereby conflating the original theory to include more than was intended."​

Misrepresenting your subject from the outset is not a good start. It gives the book a 'bad smell'. I hope the cookbook isn't like that

Thanks for checking it out. A little background info is that I'm not in science as a profession, unless you count computer science as science. lol. So, I agree the way I word certain things my not be so pleasing to the scientific ear and may come across as "noise". Just me trying to explain, as best I can.

Regarding the paragraph you quoted, allow me to elaborate. Darwin's evolution, the version his life's work was based on, encompassed a set of explanations and ideas. Since this "original" version, much has been added, over time and placed under the term "evolution", including many aspects that Darwin never even worked on (one if it being microevolution. In contrast, Darwin was focused on addressing macroevolution). So, the current, modern term that we use everyday, by deafult, refers to this "mainstream" version (which includes alot of things not in the original).

This paragraph and some paragraphs after it (iirc), intends to clarify the premise of what we are discussing, when we say "evolution" before delving deeper.

 

[ReluctantThinker]

I think that Christianity and [science] already co exist with one another, and further, they must coexist. People are not going to drop belief in God, nor belief in science. It's just a matter of what interpretations blend together better than others.

Science and faith can coexist in a way by which both are respected. Some Christians deny science and some scientists also deny Christianity. In this world, belief in God and in Christianity has been prevalant for thousands of years and really isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but likewise, science is here to stay as well.

And yes, life on distant planets is inevitable.

Why is life on distant planets ineviable tho? Isit because of that equation? The drake equation i believe?

 

[SelfSim]

Why is life on distant planets ineviable tho? Isit because of that equation? The drake equation i believe?

The Drake equation started out as being a way of capturing the factors we think may be entailed when attempting to estimate a number for communicable civilizations in our galaxy.
Other variants have subsequently been developed including those which are able to be used for estimating a number for habitable zone planets in our galaxy which may exhibit detectable signs of life.

Such equations are crude estimation tools only and in no way justify life on distant planets. (Just as a hammer doesn't justify that a house will be built).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks for checking it out. A little background info is that I'm not in science as a profession, unless you count computer science as science. lol. So, I agree the way I word certain things my not be so pleasing to the scientific ear and may come across as "noise". Just me trying to explain, as best I can.

Regarding the paragraph you quoted, allow me to elaborate. Darwin's evolution, the version his life's work was based on, encompassed a set of explanations and ideas. Since this "original" version, much has been added, over time and placed under the term "evolution", including many aspects that Darwin never even worked on (one if it being microevolution. In contrast, Darwin was focused on addressing macroevolution). So, the current, modern term that we use everyday, by deafult, refers to this "mainstream" version (which includes alot of things not in the original).

This paragraph and some paragraphs after it (iirc), intends to clarify the premise of what we are discussing, when we say "evolution" before delving deeper.

There was no explicit distinction between micro and macro evolution in Darwin's time, but the core of his theory was how observable instances of change in populations, i.e. what some now call microevolution, would, over generations, result in a diversity of species, ie. macro evolution. So I can't agree with you there.

The rest of that paragraph is also inaccurate. There have been a number of named extensions and expansions of Darwin's theory, the 'teaks and additions' are not 'official' or 'unofficial', they're typically agreed by consensus, and they're not "conflating the original theory to include more than was intended." Darwin intended his theory to be developed and expanded.

But the punctuation was OK.