• 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.

As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,136
574
Private
✟125,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm simply pointing out that you don't have an explanation. You have an assertion or a claimed answer, but it's devoid of an actual explanation.
Are you asking for the mechanics of soul creation? God wills the human soul into existence. The corporeal substance changes from non-living to living. The exact moment of ensoulment is unknown. However, at the moment the substance evidences any property specific to living organisms then ensoulment has occurred. We also know that that corporeal substance left to its natural development will be nothing other than a human being. That's considerably more explanation than evolution provides for the same event.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,052
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Are you asking for the mechanics of soul creation? God wills the human soul into existence. The corporeal substance changes from non-living to living. The exact moment of ensoulment is unknown. However, at the moment the substance evidences any property specific to living organisms then ensoulment has occurred. We also know that that corporeal substance left to its natural development will be nothing other than a human being. That's considerably more explanation than evolution provides for the same event.

Saying you know things you could not
possibly know is zero explanation.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,835
16,468
55
USA
✟414,686.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
comprehensive explanation of human beings, therefore, requires an explanation of how human beings came to life.

One page of an ancient manuscript does not an explanation make. Sorry.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Are you asking for the mechanics of soul creation?

Essentially yes. An explanation needs to at least attempt to explain how something occurs.

Simply stating it's "God's will" isn't an explanation.

That's considerably more explanation than evolution provides for the same event.

The Theory of Evolution is an explanation for how biological populations change over time. Metaphysical concepts like the human 'soul' isn't even in scope.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,835
16,468
55
USA
✟414,686.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
After you said:

See the fallacy of the argument from consensus. Would atheists accept the fallacious argument that since most humans believe in God that God therefore exists?

I asked and noted:
Which god? There is no god worshiped by a majority of humans. In fact you can tell anyone on Earth that a majority of humans disagree with their god.

Citation?

Any general estimate of global religious affiliations. The recent estimates are that the largest group (Christians) has an estimated 2 billion adherents out of a global population of about 7 billion. So

N(Christians) < N(humans)/2

Since other religions have non-compatible god concepts, the number of people who disagree with Christianity is larger than the number of Christians.

N(Christians) < N(non-Christians)

It's not hard.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,835
16,468
55
USA
✟414,686.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
if everyone believed in the EVOLUTION OF BUG TO MAN ... then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.

Evolution does not claim humans are descended from insects.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,136
574
Private
✟125,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
My point is that if everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.

To be honest, I agree with much of what the Catholics hold to in regard to living a moral life, as per the catechism - with some exceptions that always seem to involve what I do in my bedroom.

But to suggest that that's all that Catholics believe is obviously wrong. You are allowed ('allowed'?) to interpret Genesis in any way you choose. And the God of Genesis is the one in which you believe. One that skipped a few billion years of evolution and formed 'Kinds' as they are now. I gave that God up not long after I realised that Atlas and Cerebus et al were stories that were meant as a metaphor for the world in which the people who told those stories found themselves and knew no better.

So out went the fundamentalist God of Genesis and I then spent not an inconsiderable amount of time checking out other versions of what He was meant to be. And ended up discounting all of them (well, maybe there's a smidgin of deism hanging around in the dark corners of my psyche).

So as I said to AV, people like yourself and AV, those with, shall we say a more literal interpretation of scripture, were responsible for my little trip down Atheism Avenue. And I would suggest, in no uncertain terms, that people like yourself are the cause of many others following the same route as I did.

So here's hoping you don't nominate another self imposed limit on the posts in this thread and you keep going. It serves a purpose that you probably wouldn't appreciate.
We'll put you on the prayer list.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,182
15,808
72
Bondi
✟373,492.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Having other modes of knowing, I know more.than they do.

When you snatch the pebbles from my hand...then you will know more than they do.
Are you asking for the mechanics of soul creation? God wills the human soul into existence. The corporeal substance changes from non-living to living. The exact moment of ensoulment is unknown. However, at the moment the substance evidences any property specific to living organisms then ensoulment has occurred. We also know that that corporeal substance left to its natural development will be nothing other than a human being. That's considerably more explanation than evolution provides for the same event.

Where's the overlap with science that we can check? You said there was an overlap. Where is it?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,835
16,468
55
USA
✟414,686.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
On the contrary, having multiple methods by multiple experts that agree on an age decreases the uncertainty. Even carpenters know this basically, ever heard of measure twice cut once.

If the multiple methods all rely on sophisticated apparatuses and highly skilled technicians then the decrease in uncertainty is minimal. Have you ever heard that doing the same thing twice and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity?

It's the *different methods* that was the point.

Of course, if the same technicians use the same apparatus to make the measurement then additional measurements may not have the added impact of improving reliability or accuracy.

Geological dating relies on multiple methods to determine age, just as other fields do to determine critical measurements.

The whole point is to have techniques with different biases and sources of error.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,136
574
Private
✟125,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes, there was a modification to your post #72. When I quoted it (back in post #86) all you had written was "All science".

You subsequently edited it to state, "All science is provisional. No more, no less."
Yes, that's correct; I am still familiarizing myself with navigating the forum. However, my modification, as you noted, was to complete not change the sentence which as you erroneous claimed read "unreliable".
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,052
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
It's the *different methods* that was the point.

Of course, if the same technicians use the same apparatus to make the measurement then additional measurements may not have the added impact of improving reliability or accuracy.

Geological dating relies on multiple methods to determine age, just as other fields do to determine critical measurements.

The whole point is to have techniques with different biases and sources of error.
As a scientist, he of course knows that.
There must be some deeper insight.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, that's correct; I am still familiarizing myself with navigating the forum. However, my modification, as you noted, was to complete not change the sentence which as you erroneous claimed read "unreliable".

For clarity, I originally asked if you consider geology and physics to be reliable (since you were casting doubt on dating methods).

When you responded "All science", I took that to mean you consider all science to be unreliable.

Obviously that wasn't your intent since you modified that response.

However, that goes back to my original question:

Do you consider geology and physics to be unreliable (in the context of your original post re: determining age of things in the Earth)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,182
15,808
72
Bondi
✟373,492.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, that's correct; I am still familiarizing myself with navigating the forum. However, my modification, as you noted, was to complete not change the sentence which as you erroneous claimed read "unreliable".

This:

Q: 'So now we're throwing physics and geology into the mix of unreliable science in your view?'
A: 'All science.'

So you classed all science as unreliable. Compared to this:

Q: 'So now we're throwing physics and geology into the mix of unreliable science in your view?'
A: 'All science is provisional.'

Where you now claim it's all provisional. It didn't complete the sentence as you suggested. It changed the meaning completely.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,052
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
This:

Q: 'So now we're throwing physics and geology into the mix of unreliable science in your view?'
A: 'All science.'

So you classed all science as unreliable. Compared to this:

Q: 'So now we're throwing physics and geology into the mix of unreliable science in your view?'
A: 'All science is provisional.'

Where you now claim it's all provisional. It didn't complete the sentence as you suggested. It changed the meaning completely.



There is a purpose to making vague statements
that leave plenty of wriggle room to evade any
challenge.
Look what happened when there was the claim
to being a scientist!
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,136
574
Private
✟125,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You need to support your own position, and not expect us to do your homework for you.
Sorry, I didn't know you were research-challenged.

Scientific Objectivity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Theory-ladenness poses a problem for the confirmation of scientific theories since the observational evidence may already implicitly presuppose the thesis it is supposed to justify. This effect can present a challenge for reaching scientific consensus if the disagreeing parties make different observations due to their different theoretical backgrounds. …

Scientific progress—and the practice of normal, everyday science—happens within a paradigm that guides the individual scientists’ puzzle-solving work and that sets the community standards. …

Less spectacular, but arguably more frequent are cases where research is biased toward the interests of the sponsors, such as tobacco companies, food manufacturers and large pharmaceutic firms (e.g., Resnik 2007; Reiss 2010). This preference bias, defined by Wilholt (2009) as the infringement of conventional standards of the research community with the aim of arriving at a particular result, is clearly epistemically harmful. …
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,144
✟349,292.00
Faith
Atheist
No need to. The creation account is not proposed as science. Therefore, using science's standards to criticize the creation of man is inappropriate. However, the account must hold up to rational examination. Can you show any of it claims as irrational, or internally inconsistent. Go for it.
The only mention of science in my post was that many scientists & philosophers agree that the criteria I present are suitable for judging what is or isn't a good explanation; you don't have to agree - you can explain why the criteria I gave are not suitable for judging what is or isn't a good explanation for the existence of man.

This is simply an exercise in rational critical thinking.

You made the claim that creation is a 'superior explanation' - if you don't agree with my criteria for a good explanation, either criticise them or give your own criteria - IOW define what you mean by 'explanation'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.