Do it without magic.

[Styx87]

Okay, so for those that don't accept evolution. How did all the animals on the earth today come to be here if they didn't evolve through a natural process of common descent and natural selection?

And can you give an honest explanation where magic, miracles or the supernatural is not necessary?

 

[justlookinla]

Okay, so for those that don't accept evolution. How did all the animals on the earth today come to be here if they didn't evolve through a natural process of common descent and natural selection?

And can you give an honest explanation where magic, miracles or the supernatural is not necessary?

Common descent and natural selection do not produce new life forms. They only act on an existing life form.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, so for those that don't accept evolution. How did all the animals on the earth today come to be here if they didn't evolve through a natural process of common descent and natural selection?

Is this a trick question?

And can you give an honest explanation where magic, miracles or the supernatural is not necessary?

No.

 

[Kylie]

Common descent and natural selection do not produce new life forms. They only act on an existing life form.

Hence creating life forms that are different to those of previous generations.

Which is exactly what we see in nature.

 

[Davian]

 

[justlookinla]

Hence creating life forms that are different to those of previous generations.

Which is exactly what we see in nature.

What creates new life forms that are different than those of previous generations?

 

[Davian]

What creates life forms that are different than those of previous generations?

That is what this thread is about. The floor is yours.

 

[justlookinla]

That is what this thread is about. The floor is yours.

The question was in relation to identifying the creative impetus in evolution.

In my view, miracles and the supernatural are an integral part of all creation. The use of the word "magic" is simply a word to use to ridicule.

 

[J0hnSm1th]

In my view, miracles and the supernatural are an integral part of all creation. The use of the word "magic" is simply a word to use to ridicule.

Agreed. I believe God created the Earth around 10000 years ago. But gave it the appearance of being 4.5B years old. At that time evolutionary processes began.

 

[Styx87]

The question was in relation to identifying the creative impetus in evolution.

In my view, miracles and the supernatural are an integral part of all creation. The use of the word "magic" is simply a word to use to ridicule.

No, it's to draw contrast. They are synonymous. If a supernatural event was used in the creation of life then how is science seriously supposed to test the properties of that event and make sense of it? Since the supernatural and miracles by definition defy the laws of reality and science can only test what is real then clearly it has nothing to say on either (the supernatural or miracles). Correct?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it's to draw contrast. They are synonymous. If a supernatural event was used in the creation of life then how is science seriously supposed to test the properties of that event and make sense of it? Since the supernatural and miracles by definition defy the laws of reality and science can only test what is real then clearly it has nothing to say on either (the supernatural or miracles). Correct?

Well lets see here. I am not someone who doesn't accept evolution but I thought I would comment on this.

What are the laws of reality? Can Science test Science and if not is Science real?

 

[justlookinla]

No, it's to draw contrast. They are synonymous. If a supernatural event was used in the creation of life then how is science seriously supposed to test the properties of that event and make sense of it? Since the supernatural and miracles by definition defy the laws of reality and science can only test what is real then clearly it has nothing to say on either (the supernatural or miracles). Correct?

One doesn't need science to make sense of how humanity came to exist for science cannot offer such a thing. The track record of science is littered with failed guesses and suppositions and isn't something one can embrace, except through faith, as the end-all of explaining creation.

 

[Audacious]

Agreed. I believe God created the Earth around 10000 years ago. But gave it the appearance of being 4.5B years old. At that time evolutionary processes began.

Doesn't this mean that God is dishonest, and is lying to us through evidence?

Ignoring that, do you think that science classes should incorporate your idea into science? How would one substantiate such a claim?

 

[Styx87]

One doesn't need science to make sense of how humanity came to exist for science cannot offer such a thing. The track record of science is littered with failed guesses and suppositions and isn't something one can embrace, except through faith, as the end-all of explaining creation.

And yet science is responsible for everything you enjoy in life today. Exclusively!

Science is why you get to be on the internet, mass produced your bible, delivered you into the world, made every thread you wear and sleep on, put all your food on the shelf, is why you have a toilet to flush!

Without science you might as well go back to living in the woods.

That said. You're wrong. But you already know that.

Science can in fact test itself. In fact that's part of the process for discovering if the tests were done well in the first place. I suppose there still a chance this might all be a lie like we're living in the matrix or something but that doesn't sound very probable to me.

That said I'm going to reiterate myself. Science can't test any action that defies the laws of reality/physics. Anything that's actually real leaves evidence that can be tested in the perceivable universe. Anything that leaves evidence can be tested to learn about it's properties. If something supernatural does exist, then how can science determine it's properties? If miracles do occur then how can science test their properties? If they have properties then they're real and not supernatural or miraculous anymore since the definition explicitly pertains to things that defy the laws of physics. Any such things that does not defy these laws fails to fit that definition.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And yet science is responsible for everything you enjoy in life today. Exclusively!

Science is why you get to be on the internet, mass produced your bible, delivered you into the world, made every thread you wear and sleep on, put all your food on the shelf, is why you have a toilet to flush!

Without science you might as well go back to living in the woods.

That said. You're wrong. But you already know that.

Science can in fact test itself. In fact that's part of the process for discovering if the tests were done well in the first place. I suppose there still a chance this might all be a lie like we're living in the matrix or something but that doesn't sound very probable to me.

That said I'm going to reiterate myself. Science can't test any action that defies the laws of reality/physics. Anything that's actually real leaves evidence that can be tested in the perceivable universe. Anything that leaves evidence can be tested to learn about it's properties. If something supernatural does exist, then how can science determine it's properties? If miracles do occur then how can science test their properties? If they have properties then they're real and not supernatural or miraculous anymore since the definition explicitly pertains to things that defy the laws of physics. Any such things that does not defy these laws fails to fit that definition.

I am assuming that the second paragraph of this post is to me?

How does Science test Science? I would be interested in that.

Have you heard of Quantum Physics? They might defy the laws of physics.

 

[mzungu]

One doesn't need science to make sense of how humanity came to exist for science cannot offer such a thing. The track record of science is littered with failed guesses and suppositions and isn't something one can embrace, except through faith, as the end-all of explaining creation.

Science did not create the computer you are using nor the transport you use nor the millions of amenities at your disposal? They all just poofed into existence?
When will you people ever learn that science has nothing to do with religion. And when will you people just show some gratitude to science for all it has done for society.

If you are so anti science then stop using the fruits of science lest you be branded a hypocrite.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Science did not create the computer you are using nor the transport you use nor the millions of amenities at your disposal? They all just poofed into existence?
When will you people ever learn that science has nothing to do with religion. And when will you people just show some gratitude to science for all it has done for society.

If you are so anti science then stop using the fruits of science lest you be branded a hypocrite.

Who are "you people"? Are you saying that if someone doesn't buy into the belief that Science explains everything in life they are anti-science? You are right, what does Science have to do with Religion? Nothing.

 

[mzungu]

Who are "you people"? Are you saying that if someone doesn't buy into the belief that Science explains everything in life they are anti-science? You are right, what does Science have to do with Religion? Nothing.

By you I mean the "All or nothing" mentality that thinks that science claims to know all and can explain all. Science is an ongoing endeavour to erudition. If we knew everything then we would have no need for science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By you I mean the "All or nothing" mentality that thinks that science claims to know all and can explain all. Science is an ongoing endeavour to erudition. If we knew everything then we would have no need for science.

Well then I apologize. I totally agree with you.

 

[Styx87]

I am assuming that the second paragraph of this post is to me?

How does Science test Science? I would be interested in that.

Have you heard of Quantum Physics? They might defy the laws of physics.

No, It wasn't really. But science tests itself by taking into account multiple theories which can agree with each other. Like in biology. Biology is made up of a multitude of theories which when taken together cross confirm and support each other which lend credence to each individual theory.

And while it is true that newtonian physics, relativity and quantum physics don't really mesh with each other, that doesn't make them any less valid individually. Science tests itself by correcting it's mistakes like throwing out theories we know don't work (like phlogiston theory and aether theory are just a couple examples). Peer review and disclosure are another couple of ways science tests itself. If the tests are done over and over and continue to produce different results, the results of no single session may be used as evidence. If the peers find the scientists to be biased then the research can't be used as evidence. Science is constantly in a stated of making sure the findings are valid.