Question for Christians who believe in Evolution

inquiring mind said:

didn't say anything about the supernatural. I said that science's foundational belief is that science confirms and disconfirms everything.

Click to expand...

That's easily refuted. Science, by its very methodology, cannot even consider the supernatural. Hence, it can no more claim to confirm and disconfirm everything than plumbing can claim to confirm or disconfirm everything.

inquiring mind said:

Science needs to remain within the limits of its expertise then, and not criticize that which it can't comprehend.

Click to expand...

Which is what it does. How would science even go about confirming or disconfirming the supernatural?

The Barbarian said:

Which is what it does. How would science even go about confirming or disconfirming the supernatural?

Click to expand...

If the supernatural interacted with the natural regularly, in a consistent way, science could probably make some kinds of statements about it.

hedrick said:

If the supernatural interacted with the natural regularly, in a consistent way, science could probably make some kinds of statements about it.

Click to expand...

The issue is, that science is by its own methodology, only able to use physical evidence. So the supernatual remains out of reach until it does something physical. Suppose, once a week, an invisible ghost comes into your town, and changes the color of a Stop sign from red to green, and the following week it changes the color back to red, alternating colors every week.

Science could analyze the metal, the color, the paint, atmospheric conditions, even change the environment or move the sign to another location.

But it could never demonstrate the ghost unless the ghost chose to make itself physically manifest such producing or reflecting photons.

And then it could only speculate as to the nature of the phenomenon, being unable to explain it.

inquiring mind said:

Science needs to remain within the limits of its expertise then, and not criticize that which it can't comprehend.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Science can't comment on anything supernatural.

However, scientists can.

inquiring mind said:

Science needs to remain within the limits of its expertise then, and not criticize that which it can't comprehend.

Click to expand...

inquiring mind said:

Science needs to remain within the limits of its expertise then, and not criticize that which it can't comprehend.

Click to expand...

science does just that! And has nothing to say about God or other supernatural phenomena. Scientists on the other hand do have opinions about supernatural phenomena and most are aware that they’re giving just an opinion on this

Brightmoon said:

I feel that some of the stories in the Bible are exaggerated natural phenomena like with Noah’s flood . Some are just tales but we consider them to be important for the message. These are dogmas, Beliefs without evidence. Science simply doesn’t work like that . I don’t worry about it much. I'll accept a verified evidence science account over anything that happens in the Bible. Historical accuracy wasn’t always a literary device especially back then.

Click to expand...

So what about the miracles of Jesus. His rising from the dead.

Brightmoon said:

you know that languages evolve too. What darwin meant by race we would probably call a subspecies. I happily admit that if creationists, flat earthers and geocentists had any evidence for their claims then I would change my mind

Click to expand...

Whatever helps you think he's a stand-up guy I guess. As a Christian and as a woman I will not. I am quite sure he meant exactly what he said.

As I keep saying there isn't any evidence, the same way there is no evidence that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected and ascended back to heaven. 'Evidence' though can be found on both sides.
We, or I at least, believe special creation on Gods word and on faith not because of any findings by science on either side. Lots of people try and use evidence on both sides but it will never be prooved just like God himself can't be proved. 1)The world was made outside of time and 2)It was a supernatural event, like Jesus walking through a wall, it cannot be tested accurately by science.

The only reason to question the validity of science occurs when it is 1)claiming to know things that it can't know or 2)when it conflicts with scripture.
The science of evolution does both.

Flat earth is a complete side issue and waste of time.
1) The shape of the earth does not conflict with scripture or affect doctrine in any way. Could be shaped like a potato for all it matters.
2) It is not based just on assumptions, people have literally seen it, sailed around it as well as tested it.
3)No one has yet come up with a good reason for the round earth to be a hoax which they conveniently overlook but is needed if what they claim were true.

Atheists ask for evidence and proof of God, they are not going to get that either.

lifepsyop said:

Not at all, and I'm sure you're aware I was commenting on the uniformitarian views of 18th century, contrasted with today. Now you and your fellow ideologues are defining 'uniformitarianism' to be anything you want, even though the fundamental thinking behind the term has shifted substantially. Rank equivocation like that is always telling.

"Geology got into the hands of the theoreticians who were conditioned by the social and political history of their day more than by observations in the field. … We have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed “catastrophic” processes. However, it seems to me that the stratigraphical record is full of examples of processes that are far from “normal” in the usual sense of the word. In particular we must conclude that sedimentation in the past has often been very rapid indeed and very spasmodic. This may be called the “Phenomenon of the Catastrophic Nature of the Stratigraphic Record.”

- Derek Ager - former President of the British Geological Association
In The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (3rd ed., 1993)

Click to expand...

You're just being dishonest. Instead of telling me (a mainstream geologist) what I and other mainstream geologists believe, perhaps you should humble yourself and simply listen to me/us.

While it is true that catastrophic events such as the asteroid impact of the K-T extinction 65 million years ago, eruptions of supervolcanoes, local floods such as those of the Badlands of Washington or mass anoxic extinction events, have become more commonly accepted over time (as they were discovered over time), the original concepts of James Hutton of the 17th century are still accepted overwhelmingly by mainstream geologists. And quite frankly, to suggest that we (mainstream geologists) consider Hutton's uniformitarian ideas "nonsense" is truly a lie in the purest sense.

Hutton's understanding of the present as being key to the past is still overwhelmingly accepted, and rightfully so, by mainstream geologists, and we still operate with the same logic and understanding of the earth that Hutton described in his very own "theory of the earth", his first publication detailing uniformitarian ideas of deep time, of 1788.

Hutton of course may not have known about catastrophic events such as the 5 mass extinctions hundreds of millions of years ago. He lived in the 1700s before these things were discovered. But his ideas and his understanding and publication of uniformitarian ideas opened the door for their later discovery via a uniformitarian paradigm. A paradigm still used today.

The present is still very much the key to the past. And it always will be (whether you're willing to accept this or not), in our 4.56 billion year old earth.

lifepsyop said:

Not at all, and I'm sure you're aware I was commenting on the uniformitarian views of 18th century, contrasted with today. Now you and your fellow ideologues are defining 'uniformitarianism' to be anything you want, even though the fundamental thinking behind the term has shifted substantially. Rank equivocation like that is always telling.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but Lyell himself wrote about discontinous and sudden deposit of rock, such as flooding, volcanic eruptions and the like.

No point in denying the fact.

Uniformitarianism is and always has been, the idea that the same rules have operated since the beginning of the Earth.

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity or the Uniformitarian Principle,[1] is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.[2][3] It refers to invariance in the metaphysical principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of cause and effect throughout space-time,[4] but has also been used to describe spatiotemporal invariance of physical laws.
Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia

Sorry, but Lyell himself wrote about discontinous and sudden deposit of rock, such as flooding, volcanic eruptions and the like.

No point in denying the fact.

Uniformitarianism is and always has been, the idea that the same rules have operated since the beginning of the Earth.

lifepsyop said:

So in order to conceal your ideology's past academic failures,

Click to expand...

See above. You were lied to, and trusted people who took advantage of your belief in them.

Lyell also gave influential explanations of earthquakes and developed the theory of gradual "backed up-building" of volcanoes. In stratigraphy his division of the Tertiary period into the Pliocene, Miocene, and Eocene was highly influential.
Charles Lyell - Wikipedia

you've made the term completely useless in its endless ambiguity.

Click to expand...

Nope. It's very specific:
Uniformitarianism, in geology, the doctrine suggesting that Earth’s geologic processes acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity in the past as they do in the present and that such uniformity is sufficient to account for all geologic change. This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole development of the science of geology.

Under your definition it could literally mean anything. Even a catastrophic global flood could technically be considered uniformitarianism.

Click to expand...

Nope. No way it could happen with this universe's physics.

Same with Komatiite's response. It's all just equivocation and wordplay. "Well we may have been completely ignorant of the fundamental processes that shaped the earth, but at the same time, we were right all along!"

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound much like him. Be honest now. You just made that statement up and attributed it to him, didn't you? Why do you think he considers you to be dishonest?

and since all features of the earth are already concluded to be shaped by "natural process"

Click to expand...

Observably so. Can you cite even one example that is contrary to physical laws?

Nope. It's very specific:
Uniformitarianism, in geology, the doctrine suggesting that Earth’s geologic processes acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity in the past as they do in the present and that such uniformity is sufficient to account for all geologic change. This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole development of the science of geology.

I realize you and your colleagues have no choice here but to double down on your position, but yes, it is a very specific definition. No point in denying it.

That definition of Uniformitarianism is literally "geologic change"...

Click to expand...

You still don't get it. It's saying that the same processes that acted on the Earth in the past, are still acting on it. Which is a directly observed fact, and quite specific.

Here let me put on my *Uniformitarianism hat* and play geologist:

Click to expand...

This should be interesting...

"Well folks, these rock layers were clearly formed either very gradually over long periods of time... or very suddenly and catastrophically.... or somewhere in between!"

Click to expand...

Nope. No wonder you're confused. As Lyell pointed out, some changes are sudden and discontinuous, and some are gradual. And he pointed out how one could tell the difference. So, a single layer of igneous rock between multiple layers of sedimentary rock, each showing signs of contact metamorphosis, would indicate long periods of gradual sedimentation, punctuated by a short period of vulcanism.

Ah, you can just feel the specificity in that explanation can't you?

Click to expand...

Yep. Sure do. Your misunderstanding of geology was meant to be funny, but really it's just sad. And this is what we see from supposed 'experts in creationism' that act as the gatekeepers to the truth of creationist belief.

I'm sure you meant no dishonesty; you just believed some people who took advantage of your trust in them.

The Barbarian said:

This is one of the major differences between evolution and creationism. Not that all creastionists are racists; most of them are not. But racism is the logical conclusion for those who accept YE creationism.

Click to expand...

Excuse me?

Hank77 said:

Excuse me?

Click to expand...

It was the assumption of many people who founded YE creationism.

ICR co-founder William Tinkle was an enthusiastic eugenicist. ICR co-founder Henry Morris wrote a book in which he declared the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of blacks.

Emmett Williams, former editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, was affiliated with racist Bob Jones University.

William Bell Riley, founder of the Anti-evolution League, was an anti-Semite and a white supremacist.

The nature of YE creationism, is based on the men who founded it. I should point out that historically, YE creationism is a very recent invention; before the early 1900s, most creationists were OE creationists. William Jennings Bryan, for example, espoused OE creationism at the Scopes trial. Spurgeon advocated an Earth millions of years old, even as he denounced evolution. YE creationism is not traditional creationism.

If the universe is time unfolding, and time is relative, then how do we know how old the earth actually is?