A new article on the origin of DNA

[Tree of Life]

I meant specifically with respect to your own ancestors. In absence of complete knowledge of your own ancestral lineage, how do you know that God didn't just manifest some arbitrary humans along the way?

I would say that I know this because it contradicts what God says in Scripture. But if you reject Scripture as a source of knowledge, then perhaps I do not know this.

It's not begging the question, since it's based on an understanding of a specific process (e.g. biological evolution) and the outcomes we expect from said process.

Now if you want to believe that things just *look* like they share common ancestry, but they do not, then you're just invoking the problem of a non-objective universe.

I don't think so. It's possible that God created all species specially. And it's possible that the data that we have which could be interpreted in terms of common ancestry could also be interpreted in terms of special creation. How we interpret the data would depend upon our assumptions about God and creation. If we come to the table as theists who believe that God created, then we have a lot of options. Maybe God created everything through evolution. But maybe God also created all species via special creation. But if we come to the table as atheists who are committed to naturalism, then our options are rather limited. Evolution is the only game in town. I think that theists are actually more free in this regard.

I never said that science was the only way of knowing the world. But if we're talking about specific subjects (e.g. understanding of biology) then it sure seems to be the best way to gather information thereof.

I agree with that in terms of understanding life systems and how they work today. But I'm not so sure this is true when we extrapolate into the distant past and make theories about things that we have not directly observed.

I actually don't know how to answer that. Because if we take it on face value, would not God's speech in this instance just be another empirical observation?

It depends on what you mean by empirical observation. It is something that we take in through our senses. We hear or read God's speech. But the content of God's speech might go beyond what we could know empirically. If God told us how he created the world when we were not around, for example. To believe God would be to go beyond empiricism. But if God's words are reliable, then we could know about the creation of the world through faith - through a method other than empiricism.

I guess it boils down to how much you want to draw observations re: God into the real world and make them subject to empirical testing.

I want my faith to be as real-world as possible.

 

[Tree of Life]

I mean take your word that what you present was spoken by God--and means what you claim it means.

God has spoken and people can go hear for themselves and come to their own determination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"diamidophosphate (DAP), which was plausibly present on Earth"

I saw this a while back. That's a whole lot of coincidences that have to happen. Creation by a creator is also plausible.

There is no scientific evidence for a creator. So why posit one in the first place? And I doubt if yousaw this "a while back". But I would be interested in seeing that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So stop backing the magic. Things don't magically appear or form from nothing.

Such projection! You are in effect refuting your own claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's actually a very important and serious conversation to be had.

"Belief" in the technical sense (epistemological term) is simply an idea that we personally hold to be true. Beliefs are the only things that we have in our heads. Some beliefs are unfounded and they remain simply beliefs. But other beliefs have justifications and happen to be true. These beliefs amount to knowledge.

The question is not what one believes, it is whether one can support ones claims with evidence. Creationists do not appear to be able to support their claims properly. One thing to remember in these debates is that the Bible is not the evidence. It is the claim. And to be more specific the claims of some creationists are based upon their personal interpretation of the Bible. Using the Bible to support that is circular reasoning only. At times one's beliefs need to be tested by going outside of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God has spoken and people can go hear for themselves and come to their own determination.

No, even the Bible is not an example of "God speaking". The Bible claims to be a record of what God said. At best it is man's attempt to keep a record of what was said. How does one properly test one's personal interpretation of what one reads in the Bible? That is the question that creationists need to answer.

 

[Tree of Life]

The question is not what one believes, it is whether one can support ones claims with evidence. Creationists do not appear to be able to support their claims properly. One thing to remember in these debates is that the Bible is not the evidence. It is the claim. And to be more specific the claims of some creationists are based upon their personal interpretation of the Bible. Using the Bible to support that is circular reasoning only. At times one's beliefs need to be tested by going outside of the Bible.

It depends on the parameters of the discussion. There are some creationist claims that do enjoy some scientific support. But the most important and specific creationist claims are supported by the Bible. But why should we reject the Bible as a source of knowledge out of hand? If the Bible is God's word, then it is a very important source of knowledge.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, even the Bible is not an example of "God speaking". The Bible claims to be a record of what God said. At best it is man's attempt to keep a record of what was said.

I reject these assertions.

How does one properly test one's personal interpretation of what one reads in the Bible? That is the question that creationists need to answer.

The Bible itself is the only infallible rule of interpretation. The Bible does interpret itself and gives us a method of interpretation.

 

[VirOptimus]

I reject these assertions.



The Bible itself is the only infallible rule of interpretation. The Bible does interpret itself and gives us a method of interpretation.

Mixing religion with science is bad science and worse theology.

 

[Tree of Life]

Mixing religion with science is bad science and worse theology.

I don’t see why that should be. Science and Faith are distinct but not unrelated. Science and morality are also distinct. But we don’t say that mixing science with morality makes for bad science. In fact we want to conduct science in an ethical way.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don’t see why that should be. Science and Faith are distinct but not unrelated. Science and morality are also distinct. But we don’t say that mixing science with morality makes for bad science. In fact we want to conduct science in an ethical way.

Fundamentalists never do.

 

[Tree of Life]

Fundamentalists never do.

Zing!

 

[Ophiolite]

Science is all about belief. Science is a method of justifying beliefs and acquiring knowledge, which is itself a special kind of belief.

It is the same in some sense, but not in others. Scientific belief and religious belief are the same in the sense that people hold them to be true. But they are different in terms of whether or not they are justified or how they are justified.

This does not change the fact that knowledge is a special kind of belief. And it does not change the fact that the pursuit of science provides us with things to believe.

Returning to my point about clarity - it's very confusing when you say that science is not belief. It sounds like you're saying that no one believes in science or that science doesn't give us anything to believe in.

Accepting = believing.

Really. In the english world, when we accept an idea we believe it to be true. Those terms mean the same thing.

"Belief" in the technical sense (epistemological term) is simply an idea that we personally hold to be true.

All the above posts say much the same things, in a variety of ways, as you struggle to understand what you are being told. Let me try to help you: belief, to my mind is a foolish, cowardly, ill-informed, assumption-loaded form of ignorance most profound.

Other members have spoken of accepting science, of acceptance rather than belief. Let me expand on that (in a way I think they would find agreeable). I accept certain observations and concepts because these observations and concepts are seemingly the best supported observations and most likely explanations based upon currently available evidence. Such acceptance is always provisional. I never accept anything as a given. I always entertain the possibility that things are quite different from what they seem.

The only belief I have is the colloquial belief expressed in such phrases as "I believe I shall have fish for supper", "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow". Those are expressions, not matters of substance.

This distinction between belief and acceptance is essential because of the equivocation of "belief based upon sound and extensive evidence" with "belief based upon what one thinks is true", an equivocation often employed by Creationists or sloppy thinkers.

And, to save you the trouble of asking, my study of epistemology is limited to an eclectic mix of reading, study, observation and experiment that paralleled my acquisition of teaching skills autodidactically. (Please note, any whiff of Cartesian thinking you see in my approach emerged before I became aware of Descartes.)

On a separate point you declined to answer the question as to whether you were YEC. I found that disappointing. A common reason, in my experience, for withholding information is a desire to deceive. As long as you choose not to answer the question you are in danger of leaving that impression. Now you say:

I cannot control what you assume about me.

Well, you can control it to some extent. Just answer the question. To help you along the way feel free to ask me five questions, preferably ones that have some relevance to the discussion. But I'll answer any, other than my current address, contact information and legal name.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for staff review. Please note that the Statement of Purpose for this forum includes:
​

Discussions here should be on the nature of creation and evolution, not focused on bashing or uplifting those who are proponents of these beliefs. Do not flame other viewpoints. Christianity and creationism cannot be called a myth or fairytale, and evolution should not be called pseudoscience or a religion. Please be aware that there are Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution or simply Evolution.

​