Creation by natural processes is just a theory

SamuelTP1977 · Aug 5, 2015

I feel it is a good idea to try to avoid getting too dogmatic, or convinced one way or the other.

When science talks about creation coming from natural processes it is just a theory. We cannot duplicate the results and leaves us in the dark as to if that really could happen all on its own. We do not have quadrillions of gallons of chemicals nor do we have billions of years to see if life would come creeping up out of the stars. It does explain a lot and there is evidence it did happen like that, but one cannot rule out the possibility that was the way God did it.

You really cannot rule out that we are in a matrix or in the dream of a sleeping God.

Also science suggests that the planets and the stars had to get created in a solar nebula, which means they got created. So why couldn't there be a creator?

I am wondering what are your thoughts on all this?

Sincerely,

Sam

RC1970 · Aug 5, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
I feel it is a good idea to try to avoid getting too dogmatic, or convinced one way or the other.

Why? Are you not concerned about truth?

variant · Aug 6, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
When science talks about creation coming from natural processes it is just a theory.

Try not to equivocate terms.

What science means by theory:

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

An important part of scientific theory includes statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

SamuelTP1977 · Aug 7, 2015

To Christus Discipulus: I do care about truth, and the truth of the matter we are not made to know what happened 2000 years ago, let alone 14 billion years ago, so it is all a mystery to me. The way I look at it is how much do you like truth? If you could prove what happened 2000 years ago and that Christ is divine, then it wouldn't be faith, it would be more like a history lesson. This would leave us to be intellectually lazy and have all we know about this great mystery being spelled out for us in history class and science classes, when it is much better to keep searching and try to make a religious life for myself that I can say I helped to create on my own.

To Variant: I am not trying to equivocate, the universe really could have come into existence 5 minutes ago, but I feel that it didn't happen like that and there is still some supernatural side to the Earth. Something very mysterious is at work here. It is like we are riding on the mystery tour, leaving atheism to be questionable.

Best Regards,

Sam

variant · Aug 7, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
To Variant: I am not trying to equivocate, the universe really could have come into existence 5 minutes ago, but I feel that it didn't happen like that and there is still some supernatural side to the Earth. Something very mysterious is at work here. It is like we are riding on the mystery tour, leaving atheism to be questionable.

When you say things like "just a theory" when speaking of a scientific theory with over a hundred years of good research behind it, as if it is mere speculation, you are equivocating.

Whether you find atheism questionable seems to be off topic as it is not a prerequisite for understanding and or accepting evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory describes how living things change over time with respect to their environment, it does not require you to disbelieve in supernatural explanations (only very specific supernatural explanations that say that it did not happen like that).

quatona · Aug 7, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
When science talks about creation coming from natural processes it is just a theory.

You say that almost as if "scientific theory" wouldn´t mean much more than "wild guess".
(Besides "creation comes from natural processes" actually isn´t even a scientific claim.

You really cannot rule out that we are in a matrix or in the dream of a sleeping God.

Now, the mere fact that something can´t be ruled out isn´t enough for it to be a theory.

Also science suggests that the planets and the stars had to get created in a solar nebula, which means they got created. So why couldn't there be a creator?

Of course there could be a creator. The claim "a creator created all this" isn´t, however, a theory and, on top of that, has no explanatory power whatsoever.

paulm50 · Aug 10, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
You really cannot rule out that we are in a matrix or in the dream of a sleeping God.

No one is trying to rule out a god kicked off the big bang, or the growth of the first cells on Earth, or even a little nudge here or there. What has been ruled out are any bible's version of what kicked it off. So if it was a god, it wasn't a god anyone has written about.

We can say the Flood wasn't as it was written, there's a huge doubt over Exodus and the Plagues, Jericho was just a normal battle without god's help. Sodom and Gomorrah were victims of nature. Revelations are the rantings of an old man about the Romans. And Jesus had female disciples. We would know a lot more about the NT and it's accuracy if not for the campaign to destroy all the competing gospels.

paulm50 · Aug 10, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
I am not trying to equivocate, the universe really could have come into existence 5 minutes ago, but I feel that it didn't happen like that and there is still some supernatural side to the Earth. Something very mysterious is at work here. It is like we are riding on the mystery tour, leaving atheism to be questionable.

If you were to judge religion as critically as you judge science, you to would be an atheist. Along with money christians. That's how blind faith works.

quatona said:
Of course there could be a creator. The claim "a creator created all this" isn´t, however, a theory and, on top of that, has no explanatory power whatsoever.

The question shouldn't be "Is there a creator."

It has to be. "Is it a creator we have any knowledge of?" and when one reads the bible, it's clear he has little to do with it. If he exists.

Eudaimonist · Aug 10, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
To Variant: I am not trying to equivocate, the universe really could have come into existence 5 minutes ago

That sort of philosophizing is empty.

If we could actually know that complex universes could come into existence fully formed so that they falsely appear to have a distant past when they are only a few minutes old, then one could cast doubt on any scientific theory that only applies to an older universe.

If we knew that "hey, that kind of thing happens all of the time!", there would be a problem for science. However, when this is all just airy conjecture, it lacks any weight. There is no good reason to doubt that the universe is very old. Modern science is still the best game in town when it comes to modelling the universe.

but I feel that it didn't happen like that and there is still some supernatural side to the Earth. Something very mysterious is at work here. It is like we are riding on the mystery tour, leaving atheism to be questionable.

Why do you think that there is something mysterious at work?

eudaimonia,

Mark

DogmaHunter · Aug 10, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
When science talks about creation coming from natural processes it is just a theory.

"just a theory". If I had a nickle every time I heared someone misrepresent scientific theories....

You might want to read up on this common mistake:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/

It does explain a lot and there is evidence it did happen like that, but one cannot rule out the possibility that was the way God did it.

By the exact same logic, one cannot rule out the possibility that Zeus is responsible for lightning.

Also science suggests that the planets and the stars had to get created in a solar nebula, which means they got created. So why couldn't there be a creator?

The process of planetary formation doesn't need a creator. All it needs, basically, is gravity.

I am wondering what are your thoughts on all this?

My thought is that you try to provide the answers before asking the questions.

pshun2404 · Aug 10, 2015

variant said:
When you say things like "just a theory" when speaking of a scientific theory with over a hundred years of good research behind it, as if it is mere speculation, you are equivocating.

Whether you find atheism questionable seems to be off topic as it is not a prerequisite for understanding and or accepting evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory describes how living things change over time with respect to their environment, it does not require you to disbelieve in supernatural explanations (only very specific supernatural explanations that say that it did not happen like that).

Evolutionary theory describes how living things change over time with respect to their environment

Indeed! But it speaks to things (which change over time) which already exist. It does not nor ever has demonstrated one type of genus or phyla being the cause or origin of any other (hence becoming) totally different genera or Phylum.

lesliedellow · Aug 10, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
I am wondering what are your thoughts on all this?

We do not see miracles happening all over the place, so apparently God is in the habit of accomplishing his purposes through the operation of natural causes. That being the case, why should the origin of life be different? Or planetary formation, for that matter.

The past leaves its fingerprints all over the present. If that wasn't the case, we would be able to say nothing about what had happened in the past, except for that which lay within living memory.

lesliedellow · Aug 10, 2015

Christus Discipulus said:
Why? Are you not concerned about truth?

Maybe it is because he is concerned about truth that he wants to be open to what the evidence can tell us, instead of closing off in advance any possibility except that which he is already committed to.

variant · Aug 10, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Indeed! But it speaks to things (which change over time) which already exist. It does not nor ever has demonstrated one type of genus or phyla being the cause or origin of any other (hence becoming) totally different genera or Phylum.

There actually is considerable evidence showing the phyla to be related via common ancestry and very little reason to doubt it.

pshun2404 · Aug 10, 2015

variant said:
There actually is considerable evidence showing the phyla to be related via common ancestry and very little reason to doubt it.

Not really! It is just one way of interpreting the evidence.

Dave RP · Aug 11, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
I feel it is a good idea to try to avoid getting too dogmatic, or convinced one way or the other.

When science talks about creation coming from natural processes it is just a theory. We cannot duplicate the results and leaves us in the dark as to if that really could happen all on its own. We do not have quadrillions of gallons of chemicals nor do we have billions of years to see if life would come creeping up out of the stars. It does explain a lot and there is evidence it did happen like that, but one cannot rule out the possibility that was the way God did it.

You really cannot rule out that we are in a matrix or in the dream of a sleeping God.

Also science suggests that the planets and the stars had to get created in a solar nebula, which means they got created. So why couldn't there be a creator?

I am wondering what are your thoughts on all this?

Sincerely,

Sam

Science observes and puts forward theories to match the observations. Then as observations increase knowledge, the theory may have to be amended. So if there was observational evidence that we were in the dream of a sleeping god, science would try to explain how that could be and see if observation matched the theory.

if science ever thought it had the answer to "everything" it would have to provide an explanation for how everything works and how it all came about. We are some way off that at the moment.

Belk · Aug 11, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
I feel it is a good idea to try to avoid getting too dogmatic, or convinced one way or the other.

When science talks about creation coming from natural processes it is just a theory. We cannot duplicate the results and leaves us in the dark as to if that really could happen all on its own. We do not have quadrillions of gallons of chemicals nor do we have billions of years to see if life would come creeping up out of the stars. It does explain a lot and there is evidence it did happen like that, but one cannot rule out the possibility that was the way God did it.

It is entirely possible that science is correct and God was the author. Most religious scientists view their work as the discovery of how God created.

SamuelTP1977 said:
You really cannot rule out that we are in a matrix or in the dream of a sleeping God.

Also science suggests that the planets and the stars had to get created in a solar nebula, which means they got created. So why couldn't there be a creator?

I am wondering what are your thoughts on all this?

Sincerely,

Sam

Arguments from semantics leave me rather cold.

variant · Aug 11, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Not really! It is just one way of interpreting the evidence.

Yes, it is the simplest and most straight forward way.

Barring other evidence to think this interpretation is wrong it is the best.

SamuelTP1977 · Aug 11, 2015

I appreciate your thoughts on this. I got to admit I wonder about it a lot, but I do hold out a hope for heaven.

I remember hearing on the news, NBC with Lester Holt about a boy who had a past life experience, and there is a doctor who looks for people with past life experiences and tries to verify their memories with the experiences of the person with the past life. It was on the news in the spring time this year, I can't remember the name of the doctor, but still it was interesting to hear this.

I feel there is just too much you can't explain, and we just didn't get that lucky.

Hang in there,

Sam

variant · Aug 11, 2015

SamuelTP1977 said:
I appreciate your thoughts on this. I got to admit I wonder about it a lot, but I do hold out a hope for heaven.

I remember hearing on the news, NBC with Lester Holt about a boy who had a past life experience, and there is a doctor who looks for people with past life experiences and tries to verify their memories with the experiences of the person with the past life. It was on the news in the spring time this year, I can't remember the name of the doctor, but still it was interesting to hear this.

I feel there is just too much you can't explain, and we just didn't get that lucky.

Hang in there,

Sam

Evolution is something we CAN explain though which, again, has nothing to do with whether heaven or the afterlife exists.

That you've gotten the idea that evolutionary theory and your religion are mutually exclusive is beyond me.

Creation by natural processes is just a theory

Active Member

post tenebras lux

Happy Cat

Active Member

Happy Cat

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I believe in life before death!

Code Monkey

Newbie

Member

Member

Happy Cat

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Happy Cat

Active Member

Happy Cat

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency