Did Jesus create evolution?

[YahuahSaves]

Sad that your not listening to her.

Not listening to who? The Earth? I listen to the ONE who created the Earth.

 

[Kylie]

So what? He went to "school" and made up a bunch of theories and got a piece of paper to show it. I prefer the simplicity of the dictionary thanks. Just like I prefer the simplicity of the bible. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, but he likes to make things simple for us.

lol, all those years of study are no match for a plain old dictionary. I can just imagine him now, slapping his forehead and saying, "Now why didn't I think of that?"

 

[Kylie]

Why should I? You're the one wanting proof. Go look into it yourself

Ah yes, what a great debate tactic. Tell others to do your homework for you.

Let me try it.

Evolution is real!

What's that? You don't believe me? You want me to prove it? Easily, all the proof you could ever need is out there on the internet! If you want proof of evolution, go look into it yourself!

 

[All Becomes New]

The mechanism that creates mountains is well understood, and there is no need to invoke a mind for any part of it. Your claim that only minds are capable of creating does not seem to be correct.

Quite correct. That is why we are talking about creating new information. DNA code is information. The presupposition that abiogenesis is what is responsible for the creation of life is strictly unscientific. There's not a stitch of scientific evidence for abiogenesis, but it is the accepted scientific model because of methodological naturalism, which is due to secularism.

I have never claimed that science and religion are in conflict.

Fair enough, but you say:

But the thing is this...

Every physicist in the world will agree with all the others on what the speed of light is. Every rocket scientist in the world will agree that if you send off a rocket at such a speed with the engines burning for this long, it will go in that particular direction. Every mathematician will agree that one number raised to the power of some other number will have this particular result.

But when you get people who specialize in religion, they all say different things. priest, a rabbi, an imam, they all say the evidence clearly points towards their own faith and away from all the others. How can this be true? They obviously can't all be right, at least some of them have to be wrong. And if some of them are wrong, how do we determine which ones? We can't just say, "The one that agrees with my faith is right and all the others are wrong," since if we do that, a Muslim will conclude that Islam is correct, a Jew will conclude that Judaism is correct, and a Christian will conclude that Christianity is correct. And we're right back where we started.

It's not that reductionistic. All theists believe in a singular God. So they all have that in common. It would be like you saying "phycisists say one thing and rocket scientists say something else" because they are different disciplines. And you still haven't delt with how you are supposed to know anything. You can't know anything except your particular field of study and would be completely ignorant on everything else. And that's not true at all. You know you exist. You know other minds exist. Why couldn't there be an ultimate mind? Remember, we are talking about Intelligent Design, which claims no one religion. So you can't equate all these different religions to Intelligent Design because ID is a scientific endeavor that claims no one religion. Yes, I mentioned different religions, but only in the context of theism.

So we need some way to test and verify the claims. This works for all the other fields. When the physicist makes a claim about the speed of light, then that can be verified and checked. And every single time, the verification works. Everyone always gets the same answer. This is what we would expect if something is actually real. And the same thing happens with the rocket scientist. They can claim that the rocket will go in a particular direction, and other people can run their own calculations and see if they get the same result. And they can also just wait to see where the rocket actually goes. That's the important thing - if something is actually real, then everyone who investigates it should get the same results. If different people get different results for the speed of light, for example, then you know someone's messed up somewhere. And it's only by investigating it that we'll find out where the mistake is.

This is a bias against the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be repeated. You can't do a lab test for it since it isn't predicated on repeated actions. I'd be happy to discuss how we can know the supernatural exists (which is evidence for God, BTW). I have examples I can draw from my own life as well as various literature that demonstrate the supernatural is real. In fact, atheist, which only makes up 7% of the population are the ones claiming the supernatural doesn't exist. Anthony Flew, who was a Hume expert, even he came around to believe in God because the EVIDENCE was too much for him to deny.

But we can't do this at all when it comes to religion. Religion makes pretty much no testable claims. The idea of God is unfalsifiable. No matter what results you get, there's always some way to explain it that's consistent with your own personal beliefs. Can you imagine if we did that with other things? How could the rocket scientist figure out how long the rocket engine needs to burn for in order to get into orbit around the moon if the results for one person said it needs to burn for five minutes, and the results for the other person said it needs to burn for a whole day?

Again, you seem to be talking out of two sides of your mouth. You seem to believe in scientism, but when I tell you, physicists who are deists because they know physics can't explain anything and you say, "So what?" you defeat your own argument.

A claim does not need to be testable (repeatable) to be true. What do you say to NDEs and all sorts of supernatural experiences people throughout history have claimed? Are they ALL delusional? You would have to say they are ALL mistaken since their experience isn't repeatable. But virtually every society experiences supernatural things. So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the supernatural doesn't exist.

So I'm not saying that only science is valid. I'm saying that the only valid way to get accurate information about anything is by going with what can be tested and verified. And if it always gives inconsistent results, then we can't say it's valid at all.

Clearly false and you are contradicting yourself in this very paragraph.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what? He went to "school" and made up a bunch of theories and got a piece of paper to show it. I prefer the simplicity of the dictionary thanks. Just like I prefer the simplicity of the bible. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, but he likes to make things simple for us.

Gail A Riplinger shows how the Bible has a built-in dictionary.

 

[All Becomes New]

The same philosophy was used by the guy who made the video I linked to in post 284, and he has a PHD in religious studies, and he literally wrote his thesis on this topic as part of his Doctorate of Philosophy. You can see that thesis HERE and download it for free.

If you are not willing to look at our resources, why should we look at yours?

 

[Kylie]

Quite correct. That is why we are talking about creating new information. DNA code is information. The presupposition that abiogenesis is what is responsible for the creation of life is strictly unscientific. There's not a stitch of scientific evidence for abiogenesis, but it is the accepted scientific model because of methodological naturalism, which is due to secularism.

Actually, gene duplication can lead to an increase in genetic information. A gene can be duplicated, and then it can change over many generations to develop a new function, thus adding to the amount of genetic information. This site goes into more detail. How Does New Genetic Information Evolve? Part 2: Gene Duplications • Stated Clearly

Fair enough, but you say:



It's not that reductionistic. All theists believe in a singular God. So they all have that in common. It would be like you saying "phycisists say one thing and rocket scientists say something else" because they are different disciplines. And you still haven't delt with how you are supposed to know anything. You can't know anything except your particular field of study and would be completely ignorant on everything else. And that's not true at all. You know you exist. You know other minds exist. Why couldn't there be an ultimate mind? Remember, we are talking about Intelligent Design, which claims no one religion. So you can't equate all these different religions to Intelligent Design because ID is a scientific endeavor that claims no one religion. Yes, I mentioned different religions, but only in the context of theism.

Hindu is a polytheistic religion. And even between the monotheistic religions, there are differences which leave them contradictory to each other. Simply saying, "Yes, but they all believe in just one God," is not sufficient, just as you could get physicists who all agree that light has a fixed speed, but if they all disagree on what that fixed speed is, you still can't assume they have it correct.

This is a bias against the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be repeated. You can't do a lab test for it since it isn't predicated on repeated actions. I'd be happy to discuss how we can know the supernatural exists (which is evidence for God, BTW). I have examples I can draw from my own life as well as various literature that demonstrate the supernatural is real. In fact, atheist, which only makes up 7% of the population are the ones claiming the supernatural doesn't exist. Anthony Flew, who was a Hume expert, even he came around to believe in God because the EVIDENCE was too much for him to deny.

But if it can't be tested and verified, how can we even claim that the supernatural exists?

Again, you seem to be talking out of two sides of your mouth. You seem to believe in scientism, but when I tell you, physicists who are deists because they know physics can't explain anything and you say, "So what?" you defeat your own argument.

The issue is that when a physicist starts talking about God, they are not in their area of expertise anymore. If a person who is an expert in a particular field starts talking about a different field, then their viewpoint on that second field is just as informed as that of a layperson, which is to say, not very informed at all. I'm well qualified when it comes to music, but that doesn't mean my opinions about some non-musical field are reliable. Likewise, someone can be very well qualified when it comes to physics, but that doesn't mean that their religious views are correct.

A claim does not need to be testable (repeatable) to be true. What do you say to NDEs and all sorts of supernatural experiences people throughout history have claimed? Are they ALL delusional? You would have to say they are ALL mistaken since their experience isn't repeatable. But virtually every society experiences supernatural things. So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Actually, we understand NDEs better than you think. And the phenomena that people report are easily explainable by what we know of how the mind works. There are even Buddhist meditators who can give themselves NDEs at will.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6244634/

Clearly false and you are contradicting yourself in this very paragraph.

How is it false? I never said that science has a monopoly on testing and verification. ANY method is valid, be it science or something else, as long as it can provide something that can be verified.

 

[Kylie]

If you are not willing to look at our resources, why should we look at yours?

What resources did you provide? You just made the claim that it was Dawkins' philosophy, and made the unsupported judgement claim that it was terrible. You never provided any resource to back up that claim.

 

[YahuahSaves]

lol, all those years of study are no match for a plain old dictionary.

Bet he used that "plain old dictionary" as a study guide to come up with his own definitions. Seems you did too.

 

[Kylie]

Bet he used that "plain old dictionary" as a study guide to come up with his own definitions. Seems you did too.

He still put a lot more effort into it than you, who just decides to stop as soon as you get something that agrees with what you've already decided is true.

 

[All Becomes New]

Actually, gene duplication can lead to an increase in genetic information. A gene can be duplicated, and then it can change over many generations to develop a new function, thus adding to the amount of genetic information. This site goes into more detail. How Does New Genetic Information Evolve? Part 2: Gene Duplications • Stated Clearly

That does not explain things as well as you think. The Cambrian Explosion is ONE thing that proves the creation of information in a very short time frame that natural evolution cannot make sense of. Yes, Evolutionary Biologists believe that evolution is guided, but they have no answer on how it is guided. So ID solves that problem.

Hindu is a polytheistic religion. And even between the monotheistic religions, there are differences which leave them contradictory to each other. Simply saying, "Yes, but they all believe in just one God," is not sufficient, just as you could get physicists who all agree that light has a fixed speed, but if they all disagree on what that fixed speed is, you still can't assume they have it correct.

Are you saying science never contradicts itself? Because that seems to be what you are implying. And that still doesn't answer the question of why there cannot be an ultimate mind, which you seem reluctant to talk about.

But if it can't be tested and verified, how can we even claim that the supernatural exists?

By observation, duh.

The issue is that when a physicist starts talking about God, they are not in their area of expertise anymore. If a person who is an expert in a particular field starts talking about a different field, then their viewpoint on that second field is just as informed as that of a layperson, which is to say, not very informed at all. I'm well qualified when it comes to music, but that doesn't mean my opinions about some non-musical field are reliable. Likewise, someone can be very well qualified when it comes to physics, but that doesn't mean that their religious views are correct.

Their expertise in physics leads them to the conclusion a god exists. So you can say they are talking outside of their field, but their field is what leads them to the conclusion that science cannot explain everything. Please deal with this.

Actually, we understand NDEs better than you think. And the phenomena that people report are easily explainable by what we know of how the mind works. There are even Buddhist meditators who can give themselves NDEs at will.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6244634/

That's a theory, not proof. I say that because there are some NDEs that cannot be reduced to naturalistic explanations. Like the woman born blind who had an NDE and when she was dead she saw what someone looked like and described them perfectly.

How is it false? I never said that science has a monopoly on testing and verification. ANY method is valid, be it science or something else, as long as it can provide something that can be verified.

Sure. You want to start with the historicity of the resurrection of Christ?

 

[All Becomes New]

What resources did you provide? You just made the claim that it was Dawkins' philosophy, and made the unsupported judgement claim that it was terrible. You never provided any resource to back up that claim.

Several people have provided resources to you that you decline to check out.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Ah yes, what a great debate tactic. Tell others to do your homework for you.

Look at the thread title and context of the OP. Was I suggesting a debate about the existence of God with an atheist? No, I was suggesting that God created everything, and the scriptures indicate he never stopped.

See the quotes below for verification:

Read the scriptures below and watch the video before responding. (Discussion only).

What a superfluous redundancy ( ). This is a discussion forum, what else was expected?

My job as a Christian is to share the Gospel with people, that's it. If you want "proof" God exists before you accept the Gospel, go and find it for yourself. The scriptures are full of truth but you're more willing to overlook any evidence there might be just so you can deny the biblical God exists.

 

[YahuahSaves]

This is a bias against the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be repeated. You can't do a lab test for it since it isn't predicated on repeated actions. I'd be happy to discuss how we can know the supernatural exists (which is evidence for God, BTW).

I've tried this with her before she won't have a bar of it.

 

[stevevw]

Your Weinberg is simply stating the nonsensical.

"If things weren't the way they were, the universe would be different"

Among other things the Fine-Tuning fallacy assumes, with absolutely no evidence, that things could have been different. In fact, since things are the way they are we can be 100% certain that things couldn't have been different.

He's also making the mistake of making the implicit assumption that life itself is proof of God without offering any evidence.

You might also like to look up 'The Gunfighter Fallacy'.


OB

lol Weinberg isn't providing support for God as he's an atheist. He was just calculating what the vacuum energy of our universe should be and is just pointing out the the facts. Your objection is a fallacy itself as the additional assumption that because we are here in this universe must prove that this universe was meant to be and there was no alternatives is a fallacy of a wrong analogy.

The original two surprisingly simple statements, the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles, have been misinterpreted so thoroughly that now they're routinely used to justify illogical, non-scientific statements. People claim that the anthropic principle supports a multiverse; that the anthropic principle provides evidence for the string landscape; that the anthropic principle requires we have a large gas giant to protect us from asteroids; that the anthropic principle explains why we're located at the distance we are from the galactic center. In other words, people use the anthropic principle to argue that the Universe must be exactly as it is because we exist the way we do. And that's not only untrue, it's not even what the anthropic principle says.

The anthropic principle simply says that we, observers, exist. And that we exist in this Universe, and therefore the Universe exists in a way that it allows observers to come into existence. If you set up the laws of physics so that the existence of observers is impossible, what you've set up clearly doesn't describe our Universe. The evidence for our existence means the Universe allows our existence, but it doesn't mean the Universe must have unfolded exactly this way. It doesn't mean our existence is mandatory. And it doesn't mean the Universe must have given rise to us exactly as we are. In other words, you cannot say “the Universe must be the way it is because we’re here.” That's not anthropics at all; that's a logical fallacy.

How The Anthropic Principle Became The Most Abused Idea In Science

What started off as a simple statement of the obvious has turned into illogical reasoning used to justify unprovable ideas.

www.forbes.com

 

[YahuahSaves]

So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Exactly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was very clear, my issue is with you.

Don't beat year head against a wall with AV, Kylie. Just save that energy for your husband instead.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So God is unfalsifiable.

There's no reason to accept anything if it is unfalsifiable.

That's our Kylie! Logical Positivist and Philosophical Naturalist to the core, aren't you?

 

[YahuahSaves]

He still put a lot more effort into it than you, who just decides to stop as soon as you get something that agrees with what you've already decided is true.

Oh, I wonder who's done this before?

Post #3379

 

[dlamberth]

Not listening to who? The Earth? I listen to the ONE who created the Earth.

The One Created the Earth with His own hands and and signed it with His signature. It's well worth listening to what the Earth has to say as it is God speaking to us through His own Creation in how He Creates.