• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If all you have are stories of miracles in a book, then you are on shaky ground as respects scientific evidence. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the some of the events recorded in the book as miraculous did not have natural causes, or didn't occur as recorded, or at all, for that matter.
Love how your tune changes. Certainly, the book describes events that are questionable in many instances. But that doesn't mean it can't be used in certain ways to establish material facts. But what happened to the silence of science on miracles? Suddenly, there's an opinion?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,650
52,516
Guam
✟5,129,449.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Judge said, "Have you any evidence at all?"
The attorney said, "Well, I have hearsay evidence. that's a kind of evidence, isn't it?"

I'd ask the judge what he had me put my hand on and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Then I'd ask him if he accepts that as cause-and-effect evidence.

If not, then I guess I'd become a victim of the academic mindset.

Just like Jesus did.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,650
52,516
Guam
✟5,129,449.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If all you have are stories of miracles in a book, then you are on shaky ground as respects scientific evidence. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the some of the events recorded in the book as miraculous did not have natural causes, or didn't occur as recorded, or at all, for that matter.

Then judge me GUILTY and let's get this kangaroo court case closed.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,643
16,341
55
USA
✟410,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
This is a bit of a cop out, because atheists regularly prop up the success of science as evidence that the supernatural(aka miracles) aren't real. So while you're technically correct that "science" is properly silent on the matter, it appears to only be an admission in a technical sense rather than any sort of real recognition in most cases.
There is nothing about the tomb of Jesus to investigate scientifically. All we have is some texts written about it. Science can date extant manuscripts of that text. That's about it. If you want to discuss the age of some manuscript copy of the resurection story, science can participate, but that is not remotely connected to this thread topic.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing about the tomb of Jesus to investigate scientifically. All we have is some texts written about it. Science can date extant manuscripts of that text. That's about it. If you want to discuss the age of some manuscript copy of the resurection story, science can participate, but that is not remotely connected to this thread topic.
No one is asking for science to contribute, the question is a historical one which the texts can contribute to an academic treatment by providing a rudimentary order of arising beliefs among the early community. While it is off topic for this thread, the issue isn't with science being asked to provide input but exactly the opposite. Historical questions are decided not on scientific evidence, as there is rarely sufficient physical evidence outside of large-scale events, but on circumstantial evidence and argumentation based on historical documents. This whole sidebar happened because atheist hyperbole about there being "no" evidence, to which I pointed out that there is the kinds of evidence that historical questions are decided upon. That science is (properly) silent on the matter only became an issue because people trying to insist on science contributing to the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,650
52,516
Guam
✟5,129,449.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is nothing about the tomb of Jesus to investigate scientifically.

The tomb was investigated empirically.

By women.

Who correctly reported their findings; of which you probably have a copy of, sitting on your bookshelf.

In addition ...

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

That's 500+ eyewitnesses.

All we have is some texts written about it.

Have you seen my Mariana Trench or Millard Fillmore challenges?

Science can date extant manuscripts of that text.

For what reason?

(Please answer this.)

For what reason specifically?

That's about it.

Good enough?

If you want to discuss the age of some manuscript copy of the resurection story,

No, thanks.

... science can participate,

Science can part herself from the premises, if she is going to lie about it.

... but that is not remotely connected to this thread topic.

Is the topic getting too hot?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,643
16,341
55
USA
✟410,942.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
No one is asking for science to contribute, the question is a historical one which the texts can contribute to an academic treatment by providing a rudimentary order of arising beliefs among the early community. While it is off topic for this thread, the issue isn't with science being asked to provide input but exactly the opposite. Historical questions are decided not on scientific evidence, as there is rarely sufficient physical evidence outside of large-scale events, but on circumstantial evidence and argumentation based on historical documents. This whole sidebar happened because atheist hyperbole about there being "no" evidence, to which I pointed out that there is the kinds of evidence that historical questions are decided upon. That science is (properly) silent on the matter only became an issue because people trying to insist on science contributing to the discussion.

That's not ~~quite~~ how it happened. The whole of the "resurrection/history" discussion arose only because *you* couldn't leave alone a comment about supernatural supervision of biology. This was that comment:

We're only special to each other. There is no evidence that anyone supernatural or extraterrestrial is paying attention to anything we do.

Perhaps "credible" should have been inserted before "evidence", but it is essentially correct. What "supernatural" evidence is only in the eye of its beholders and not verified by any empirical data. There was no mention of Jesus.

Your response to the quoted text above was:
That's quite the claim. I am under the impression that there is a fairly decent circumstatial case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, so long as we don't dismiss resurrection as impossible due to prior presuppositions. But you go on making bold claims about no evidence as if you have some kind of definitive position on the matter.
Your "example" of supernatural explanations is to mention the ressurection of Jesus and claim it was supported by a "decent circumstantial case". While you can make a decent case for the *existence* of Jesus, you certainly can't for the resurrection.

The response that you got back that then left you guffawing about "he's a mythicist" was this one:
That's news to me. I'm unconvinced he ever existed, and I've actually researched it. Now, there might be a human at the origin of the stories, but I don't see any evidence for the actual events that define Christ.

I haven't "researched" it, per se, in the way NxNW seems to imply, and with one minor exception (that I find the existence evidence a little more plausible than non-existence) it applies to me as well as I am unconvinced that Jesus was an actual person. I would not consider myself a "mythicist" since I have not taken the position that "Jesus was a myth".

You are free to believe both that Jesus existed and resurrected, as you clearly do as is the case for most participants on this board, but it has nothing to do with the nature of evolution, Darwin's theory, or even the whole (pointless) natural/unnatural discussion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's not ~~quite~~ how it happened. The whole of the "resurrection/history" discussion arose only because *you* couldn't leave alone a comment about supernatural supervision of biology. This was that comment:
I didn't take that as a comment of the supernatural supervision of biology, as I make no insistence on supernatural questions entering into biology as a discipline. It doesn't have the tools to address such questions, but to take a lack of ability to address the question as a denial of such is just as inappropriate as shoehorning it in through ID. It simply is silent on such matters.
Perhaps "credible" should have been inserted before "evidence", but it is essentially correct. What "supernatural" evidence is only in the eye of its beholders and not verified by any empirical data. There was no mention of Jesus.
What is and isn't "credible" requires far more subjective analysis than has been done in this thread, and restricting the definition to a type of evidence that is silent on the matter is a rather spurious restriction making it speak where it properly can't.
Your response to the quoted text above was:

Your "example" of supernatural explanations is to mention the ressurection of Jesus and claim it was supported by a "decent circumstantial case". While you can make a decent case for the *existence* of Jesus, you certainly can't for the resurrection.
I maintain that the circumstantial case for it is considerable, and no one has provided the sleightest rebuttal to my contention other than to complain that it in part depends on Biblical data. There seems to be a lack of comprehension on what precisely I am arguing, but that's neither here nor there.
The response that you got back that then left you guffawing about "he's a mythicist" was this one:
I wasn't "guffawing". Mythicism is regarded as an extremely fringe position among those who study the matter, because it relies on misconceptions about how historical research is conducted and the kinds of evidence that are reasonably expected in historical research.
I haven't "researched" it, per se, in the way NxNW seems to imply, and with one minor exception (that I find the existence evidence a little more plausible than non-existence) it applies to me as well as I am unconvinced that Jesus was an actual person. I would not consider myself a "mythicist" since I have not taken the position that "Jesus was a myth".
All that means is you have an uninformed opinion due to apathy. That doesn't make mythicism more real, and the suspicion regarding Jesus' existence is likely motivated more by non-historical considerations that poison the well, so to speak.
You are free to believe both that Jesus existed and resurrected, as you clearly do as is the case for most participants on this board, but it has nothing to do with the nature of evolution, Darwin's theory, or even the whole (pointless) natural/unnatural discussion.
Fair enough, and I agree there isn't much point to making natural/unnatural distinctions since the categories have no bearing on such things other than to bias the questions. Whether the resurrection occurred or not can be treated academically to an extent, even if not scientifically, and pretending that all evidence must conform to scientific standards eliminates far more than simply "supernatural" questions. In so far as it is susceptible to academic consideration, the applicable evidence is the kinds history deals with not the kinds that science deals with. Certainly the discussion has gotten far afield from the topic of the thread, but that was not simply my doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry N.
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

1Tonne

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2021
1,206
724
49
Taranaki
✟137,436.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
NOTE: I’ll be stepping away from this thread. It’s unfortunate that instead of engaging in open and honest debate, some prefer to silence others by reporting them. It seems when the words of Jesus are challenged, and the response isn't easily answered, the next move is to shut down the conversation. That’s not how healthy discussion works. God bless those who genuinely seek the truth.
FYI I've reported your post. It's against the rules to question people's faith like that.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
NOTE: I’ll be stepping away from this thread. It’s unfortunate that instead of engaging in open and honest debate, some prefer to silence others by reporting them. It seems when the words of Jesus are challenged, and the response isn't easily answered, the next move is to shut down the conversation. That’s not how healthy discussion works. God bless those who genuinely seek the truth.
FWIW, the evolution debate is a conflict of philosophical approaches which is why both sides are incapable of engaging without the sort of triumphalism this post demonstrates. Creationist arguments are conceivability arguments that depend on a priori reasoning, so when those who accept evolution present a posteriori empirical arguments both sides just argue past each other. Concepts like "macroevolution", "irreducible complexity", and similar arguments are unconvincing to scientifically minded folk because they hinge on an absolutist conception of truth. If you were truly interested in an open and honest debate, you'd take the time to understand your opponents arguments rather than simply presenting your own as if they were universal truths. Open and honest debate takes listening and responding to your opponents, not just presenting recycled talking points.
 
Upvote 0

1Tonne

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2021
1,206
724
49
Taranaki
✟137,436.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
FWIW, the evolution debate is a conflict of philosophical approaches which is why both sides are incapable of engaging without the sort of triumphalism this post demonstrates. Creationist arguments are conceivability arguments that depend on a priori reasoning, so when those who accept evolution present a posteriori empirical arguments both sides just argue past each other. Concepts like "macroevolution", "irreducible complexity", and similar arguments are unconvincing to scientifically minded folk because they hinge on an absolutist conception of truth. If you were truly interested in an open and honest debate, you'd take the time to understand your opponents arguments rather than simply presenting your own as if they were universal truths. Open and honest debate takes listening and responding to your opponents, not just presenting recycled talking points.
If open and honest debate means engaging with opposing views, I’ve tried and I believe I do have a good understanding of the evolutionists viewpoint. But instead of clear answers, I was handed 50-page technical documents. I looked through them and didn’t find the specific explanations I asked for. If the evidence is so strong, it shouldn’t be hard to summarize it plainly.
Blessing and enjoyed the debate with you guys.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,566.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
FWIW, the evolution debate is a conflict of philosophical approaches which is why both sides are incapable of engaging without the sort of triumphalism this post demonstrates. Creationist arguments are conceivability arguments that depend on a priori reasoning, so when those who accept evolution present a posteriori empirical arguments both sides just argue past each other. Concepts like "macroevolution", "irreducible complexity", and similar arguments are unconvincing to scientifically minded folk because they hinge on an absolutist conception of truth. If you were truly interested in an open and honest debate, you'd take the time to understand your opponents arguments rather than simply presenting your own as if they were universal truths. Open and honest debate takes listening and responding to your opponents, not just presenting recycled talking points.

... got to be honest, I don't see that happening any time shortly. Too many Creationists focus too much on the Points Refuted A Thousand Times, or like how 1Tonne came into this whole thing by quote-mining something Darwin wrote to twist it into something that he didn't say and refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong when called out on it.

To be honest, I see the problem less with an understanding or lack of understanding (and this goes with both sides for sure), but I see the main problem being that the Creationist side refuse to even acknowledge that they are wrong when they're called out on being wrong, and just double down on it. The acceptance and acknowledgement of being wrong and learning from that, can go such a longer way in a debate than just the whole shtick we so often see here and in other places.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If open and honest debate means engaging with opposing views, I’ve tried and I believe I do have a good understanding of the evolutionists viewpoint. But instead of clear answers, I was handed 50-page technical documents. I looked through them and didn’t find the specific explanations I asked for. If the evidence is so strong, it shouldn’t be hard to summarize it plainly.
Blessing and enjoyed the debate with you guys.
I don't think you do have such an understanding, otherwise you wouldn't be presenting arguments that are bound to fall flat because they rely on a priori reasoning and fail to engage with a provisionalist conception of truth. These arguments tend to be two sides talking past each other because neither side takes the time to understand what types of things the other side might find compelling and engage with that style of argumentation. It's rationalists vs empiricists, with neither side recognizing the epistemic differences.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,700
2,879
45
San jacinto
✟204,481.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
... got to be honest, I don't see that happening any time shortly. Too many Creationists focus too much on the Points Refuted A Thousand Times, or like how 1Tonne came into this whole thing by quote-mining something Darwin wrote to twist it into something that he didn't say and refusing to acknowledge that he was wrong when called out on it.

To be honest, I see the problem less with an understanding or lack of understanding (and this goes with both sides for sure), but I see the main problem being that the Creationist side refuse to even acknowledge that they are wrong when they're called out on being wrong, and just double down on it. The acceptance and acknowledgement of being wrong and learning from that, can go such a longer way in a debate than just the whole shtick we so often see here and in other places.
Can't really disagree with that, but there's more going on than just creationism vs evolution. It's a general misunderstanding of science and the epistemic approach that it takes among YECs that is the principal issue, because they deal in a rationalist, absolute-truth frame of mind rather than an empiricist, provisional truth frame. Our understanding of the truth cannot be adjusted for them as new information comes, it must be fixed and eternal. It's two totally different epistemic frameworks, and neither side takes the time to understand where the other is coming from often because neither side recognizes the differences themselves.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,566.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Can't really disagree with that, but there's more going on than just creationism vs evolution. It's a general misunderstanding of science and the epistemic approach that it takes among YECs that is the principal issue, because they deal in a rationalist, absolute-truth frame of mind rather than an empiricist, provisional truth frame. Our understanding of the truth cannot be adjusted for them as new information comes, it must be fixed and eternal. It's two totally different epistemic frameworks, and neither side takes the time to understand where the other is coming from often because neither side recognizes the differences themselves.

Cannot disagree with that either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

1Tonne

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2021
1,206
724
49
Taranaki
✟137,436.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0