At times like this...

[Jamdoc]

Science does not make that assumption.

It does make that assumption. It assumes that all evolution took place on its own, and using the probability of that happening on its own, needs to be estimated to be much older than a measurement without that assumption would lead to to.
To use radioisotope dating you have to assume an initial concentration.

 

[Speedwell]

It does make that assumption. It assumes that all evolution took place on its own, and using the probability of that happening on its own...

In a universe and according to physical laws created by God, continually sustained by divine providence. I'm very much afraid you have been pranked by creationists who have fed you the evolution=atheism lie. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God, one way or the other.

 

[Jamdoc]

In a universe and according to physical laws created by God, continually sustained by divine providence. I'm very much afraid you have been pranked by creationists who have fed you the evolution=atheism lie. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God, one way or the other.

If evolution takes place as an act of God, it does not need to stack multiple improbable events on top of each other. If it happens entirely on its own without God involved at all, even if He only designed the principle and then let it go on its own, it relies on multiple improbable events. That a mutation that is not deleterious happens in a germline cell, that gametes with that mutation are the ones that fuse, that that blastocyst with the mutation implants and develops and is born and lives to propagate.. and that all of that happens enough times within a population to have a viable breeding population of that mutation, in an environment where that mutation is not only not deleterious, but in fact beneficial, so that it increases in frequency. We're talking unlikely coincidences stacking on top of unlikely coincidences, for that process to happen without any outside influence, that's where you can get your estimates of millions of years for nearest common ancestor.
Like silver foxes have not evolved a docile domesticated nature on their own randomly, but with humans deliberately breeding them for docile natures they domesticated silver foxes within 50 years. God can outdo us on that, then you don't need millions of years for a nearest common ancestor it could have been accomplished in a generation or two.
The assumption is millions of years in order for natural selection to take place, so the assumption is that God has not influenced it.

 

[Ophiolite]

To use radioisotope dating you have to assume an initial concentration.

If you were an expert in mineralogy, thermodynamics, igneous petrology, metamorphism, metasomatism and geochemistry, your comment here might carry some weight. As an uninformed opinion, contradicted by those who are such experts, it not only can be ignored, it should be ignored. (And apart from the above comment that is what I shall do.)

 

[Speedwell]

If evolution takes place as an act of God, it does not need to stack multiple improbable events on top of each other. If it happens entirely on its own without God involved at all, even if He only designed the principle and then let it go on its own, it relies on multiple improbable events. That a mutation that is not deleterious happens in a germline cell, that gametes with that mutation are the ones that fuse, that that blastocyst with the mutation implants and develops and is born and lives to propagate.. and that all of that happens enough times within a population to have a viable breeding population of that mutation, in an environment where that mutation is not only not deleterious, but in fact beneficial, so that it increases in frequency. We're talking unlikely coincidences stacking on top of unlikely coincidences, for that process to happen without any outside influence, that's where you can get your estimates of millions of years for nearest common ancestor.
Like silver foxes have not evolved a docile domesticated nature on their own randomly, but with humans deliberately breeding them for docile natures they domesticated silver foxes within 50 years. God can outdo us on that, then you don't need millions of years for a nearest common ancestor it could have been accomplished in a generation or two.
The assumption is millions of years in order for natural selection to take place, so the assumption is that God has not influenced it.

You appear to be describing a theory of evolution, but not one that I'm familiar with. Does it have a name?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If evolution takes place as an act of God, it does not need to stack multiple improbable events on top of each other. If it happens entirely on its own without God involved at all, even if He only designed the principle and then let it go on its own, it relies on multiple improbable events. That a mutation that is not deleterious happens in a germline cell, that gametes with that mutation are the ones that fuse, that that blastocyst with the mutation implants and develops and is born and lives to propagate.. and that all of that happens enough times within a population to have a viable breeding population of that mutation, in an environment where that mutation is not only not deleterious, but in fact beneficial, so that it increases in frequency. We're talking unlikely coincidences stacking on top of unlikely coincidences, for that process to happen without any outside influence, that's where you can get your estimates of millions of years for nearest common ancestor.
Like silver foxes have not evolved a docile domesticated nature on their own randomly, but with humans deliberately breeding them for docile natures they domesticated silver foxes within 50 years. God can outdo us on that, then you don't need millions of years for a nearest common ancestor it could have been accomplished in a generation or two.
The assumption is millions of years in order for natural selection to take place, so the assumption is that God has not influenced it.

You could have made this post shorter by just typing "I have a completely unoriginal argument from incedulity".

 

[Jamdoc]

Two separate points:
1. Their atheist position does not exclude them from knowledge of theology. So would be good enough to answer my questions, repeated here for your convenience: Does this mean you only accept theological arguments or scriptural analyses, if they are offered by a Christian? (And if so do you consider such arguments and analyses equally sound if they come from a non-Baptist?)
2. I am an agnostic, but I am atheistic in regard to the Christian God.

Knowledge of theology is not really relevant if you don't believe in God in the first place, and belief is going to affect what you consider yourself knowledgeable about. Yes, an athiest can read the bible, but because they don't believe it, they will come to different conclusions than someone who reads it and does believe it. So the knowledge is not the same. Your belief colors every interpretation of every piece of information that you receive. Because I believe in God, and you don't, we will look at the same information and come to different conclusions. So because my belief in God is important to me, a conclusion reached by a non believer does not hold much value to me.
So ultimately, yes, I don't accept theological conclusions from people who don't believe in God in the first place. As to another denomination? I'll listen, and consider it, but the reason I am a baptist has to do with my finding their doctrine more consistent with my own interpretation of scripture, so it'd take a pretty good argument with scripture and context to defend it, to change my doctrine. But I do not adhere to all of their doctrine as well, many of them are YEC's afterall.

 

[Jamdoc]

You appear to be describing a theory of evolution, but not one that I'm familiar with. Does it have a name?

That's the basis of all natural selection. Random mutation, sexual reproduction, and an ecological niche where that mutation thrives.
All of those involve multiple very unlikely events happening coincidentally.

 

[Ophiolite]

Knowledge of theology is not really relevant if you don't believe in God in the first place, and belief is going to affect what you consider yourself knowledgeable about. Yes, an athiest can read the bible, but because they don't believe it, they will come to different conclusions than someone who reads it and does believe it. So the knowledge is not the same. Your belief colors every interpretation of every piece of information that you receive. Because I believe in God, and you don't, we will look at the same information and come to different conclusions. So because my belief in God is important to me, a conclusion reached by a non believer does not hold much value to me.
So ultimately, yes, I don't accept theological conclusions from people who don't believe in God in the first place. As to another denomination? I'll listen, and consider it, but the reason I am a baptist has to do with my finding their doctrine more consistent with my own interpretation of scripture, so it'd take a pretty good argument with scripture and context to defend it, to change my doctrine. But I do not adhere to all of their doctrine as well, many of them are YEC's afterall.

Thank you. That wasn't so hard, was it. Maybe prompts won't be necessary in future.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Knowledge of theology is not really relevant if you don't believe in God in the first place, and belief is going to affect what you consider yourself knowledgeable about. Yes, an athiest can read the bible, but because they don't believe it, they will come to different conclusions than someone who reads it and does believe it. So the knowledge is not the same. Your belief colors every interpretation of every piece of information that you receive. Because I believe in God, and you don't, we will look at the same information and come to different conclusions. So because my belief in God is important to me, a conclusion reached by a non believer does not hold much value to me.
So ultimately, yes, I don't accept theological conclusions from people who don't believe in God in the first place. As to another denomination? I'll listen, and consider it, but the reason I am a baptist has to do with my finding their doctrine more consistent with my own interpretation of scripture, so it'd take a pretty good argument with scripture and context to defend it, to change my doctrine. But I do not adhere to all of their doctrine as well, many of them are YEC's afterall.

That's a nice double standard you have. Non Christian's cannot tell you about the bible, but you, the non-scientist, can tell scientists about science. Such hubris is all too common on these forums.

 

[Speedwell]

Knowledge of theology is not really relevant if you don't believe in God in the first place, and belief is going to affect what you consider yourself knowledgeable about. Yes, an athiest can read the bible, but because they don't believe it, they will come to different conclusions than someone who reads it and does believe it. So the knowledge is not the same. Your belief colors every interpretation of every piece of information that you receive. Because I believe in God, and you don't, we will look at the same information and come to different conclusions. So because my belief in God is important to me, a conclusion reached by a non believer does not hold much value to me.
So ultimately, yes, I don't accept theological conclusions from people who don't believe in God in the first place. As to another denomination? I'll listen, and consider it, but the reason I am a baptist has to do with my finding their doctrine more consistent with my own interpretation of scripture, so it'd take a pretty good argument with scripture and context to defend it, to change my doctrine. But I do not adhere to all of their doctrine as well, many of them are YEC's afterall.

What makes your interpretation more likely to be right than anyone else's? What do you know about the ancient Hebrew language, historiography, the history and authorship of the texts themselves, related extra-biblical sources, etc.?

 

[Jamdoc]

Thank you. That wasn't so hard, was it. Maybe prompts won't be necessary in future.

I'm dealing with multiple athiest and agnostic (is this a raid or something? on easter?) responses at once.

 

[Jamdoc]

What makes your interpretation more likely to be right than anyone else's? What do you know about the ancient Hebrew language, historiography, the history and authorship of the texts themselves, related extra-biblical sources, etc.?

Nothing, just that that's what I believe.
When looking for a denomination you find one consistent with your beliefs. Church is for the edification of faith.
You're not going to search for a church that preaches doctrine contrary to your own beliefs.
I'm not about to join a church that preaches works based salvation when I read
Ephesians 2:8-9

 

[Jamdoc]

That's a nice double standard you have. Non Christian's cannot tell you about the bible, but you, the non-scientist, can tell scientists about science. Such hubris is all too common on these forums.

I have a degree in microbiology. My job title was Clinical Laboratory Scientist.
Can I have an opinion on biology?

 

[MIDutch]

Because I believe in God, and you don't, we will look at the same information and come to different conclusions.

Which makes science so extraordinary. You can have Buddhists, Hindus, Confucianists, Daoists, Shinto, Sikh, Jainists, Zoroastrians Wiccans, Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Christians, (you know, a lot of people who actually believe in a God of one form or another), agnostics, atheists, etc. all looking at empirical evidence and all coming to the same scientific conclusion.

Pretty neat, huh?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I have a degree in microbiology. My job title was Clinical Laboratory Scientist.
Can I have an opinion on biology?

Sure you can. Just as I can have an opinion on the bible. If you want scientists to take your opinion seriously you need to offer them the same courtesy.

 

[Jamdoc]

Sure you can. Just as I can have an opinion on the bible. If you want scientists to take your opinion seriously you need to offer them the same courtesy.

Not when it comes to the precept of there not being God in the first place or saying the bible is false in the first place.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Not when it comes to the precept of there not being God in the first place or saying the bible is false in the first place.

Scientists should listen to you saying they're wrong but you don't have to listen to them saying you may be wrong? There's that delightful double standard again.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You could have made this post shorter by just typing "I have a completely unoriginal argument from incedulity".

And it would indeed be a very good argument. If not the term "incredulity" should be removed from the language.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not when it comes to the precept of there not being God in the first place or saying the bible is false in the first place.

That's not how it works. If you have a microbiology degree you should be aware that when looking for an explanation for some phenomenon, such as the diversity of life on Earth, any number of hypotheses can be proposed, informed - or not - by the available evidence.

Proposed hypotheses can then be examined and ranked using abductive reasoning, i.e. seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This is usually done fairly informally. The common abductive criteria for scientific hypotheses include:

1. Testability: what predictions it makes and how they can be tested - ideally predictions of the currently unknown.
2. Fruitfulness: the predictions it makes are borne out by observation; i.e. they are correct.
3. Explanatory power: how much it adds to our understanding of the phenomenon, how much it unifies our knowledge. An explanation that raises more direct questions than it answers, particularly unanswerable questions, has no explanatory power.
4. Parsimony: it does not invoke more assumptions, entities, or forces than necessary; e.g. Occam's razor.
5. Conservatism: Coheres with, and doesn't contradict, established knowledge. A tie-breaker - this one can be dropped if it outperforms in the other criteria.

The God hypothesis, like the 'Magic' hypothesis, necessarily ranks at the bottom of any list of hypotheses because each fails every criterion. From (3) above, they are not explanations but labels for a lack of an explanation.

Consequently, neither the God hypothesis or the 'Magic' hypothesis is an explanatory hypothesis. That, formally, is why they are generally not included in scientific investigations.