Evoltuon and Natural selection proven wrong

[Phaedron777]

YouTube - Scientific Proof of God Documentary (Full Length)

The heavy stuff that disproves Darwin come mostly in the later parts of the video.

 

[Mallon]

Yay! Scientific proof of God! Now I don't need my faith anymore!

 

[theFijian]

tldw;

 

[metherion]

Can't stream an hour long video. THis is, what, the fourth time you've posted it? Please summarize.

Metherion

 

[Papias]

First, what is the appropriate response to someone who spams a bunch of threads with an PRATT filled video, without even taking the time to make any of the arguments himself?

Secondly, who is "Evoltuon"? Is he the new leader of the Autobots, now that Optimus Prime has been destroyed?

Papias

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Lol papias, I loved optimus prime!

 

[callmeMurph]

Can't stream an hour long video. THis is, what, the fourth time you've posted it? Please summarize.

Metherion

It's an ID video. Irreducible complexity, anthropic principle, things of that nature.

 

[theFijian]

It's an ID video. Irreducible complexity, anthropic principle, things of that nature.

Stuff that's long been debunked then?

 

[mark kennedy]

That is Lee Strobel, I guess I'm not surprised no one on here knows who he is. He wrote the Case for Christ, a fascinating story about how he went from being an atheist/agnostic to a Christian. In the book he interviews a lot of Christian apologists I had read. Greg Habermas. William Lane Craig and several others I had read and been influenced by.

Strobel describes The Case for Christ as a retracing and expansion of his becoming Christian. It summarizes Strobel's interviews with 13 evangelical Christian scholars — Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, John McRay, Gregory Boyd, Ben Witherington III, Gary Collins, D.A. Carson, Louis Lapides, Alexander Metherell, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and J. P. Moreland — defending their view of the historical reliability of the New Testament. Lee Strobel​

It's not Creationism really since it's not a Bible based view of origins. For some reason Christian scholars are into this Intelligent Design thing and while it's encouraging and important, at best it gains an inference of God and design.

I actually own this DVD and enjoy watching it from time to time. Personally, I think Lee Stobel's best work was the Case for Christ. It's Christian Apologetics from a deeply personal perspective.

This video is nothing new, Creationists developed these arguments against materialist atheistic evolution long ago. That's what surprised me about TEs when I started getting acquainted with them on here. I would have thought they would have seen this philosophical look at origins from a scientific perspective would have been a lot closer to theirs then atheists like Richard Dawkins.

At any rate, thought you guys might be interested to know that Lee Strobel has better work out there. The Case for Christ is something that you should read.

YouTube - The Verdict on the Case For Christ - Lee Strobel

The video in the OP is really nothing new, you can hear the same thing from Wells, Meyer, Behe and a host of other ID proponents. If you really want to see what this guy has to offer I suggest you get a copy of the Case for Christ.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Mallon]

That's what surprised me about TEs when I started getting acquainted with them on here. I would have thought they would have seen this philosophical look at origins from a scientific perspective would have been a lot closer to theirs then atheists like Richard Dawkins.

I actually think neocreationists and atheists have more in common concerning the philosophy of science and theology of nature than evolutionary creationists have with either (obviously -- and most importantly -- neocreationists and evolutionary creationists are much closer theologically in the grand scheme of things). For one, both neocreationists and atheists typically have a deistic understanding of God, whereby God is not a constant presence in the natural world, and that He injects Himself in the world only occasionally to work the odd miracle. You hear this often when YECs talk about science proving God's existence (as though the proper control experiments can be conducted -- see the OP), or when atheists similarly talk about science disproving God's existence.
YECs and atheists also both tend to put science up on a pedestal as the only means of revealing truth (scientism). You hear this often when a YEC argues that if the science presented in the Bible isn't correct, then the whole Bible isn't trustworthy and should be disregarded. I don't know of any evolutionary creationists who take that extreme position.

 

[callmeMurph]

That is Lee Strobel, I guess I'm not surprised no one on here knows who he is. He wrote the Case for Christ, a fascinating story about how he went from being an atheist/agnostic to a Christian.

I know who Lee Strobel is, the Case for Christ was good... However, Case for a Creator, while with good intentions, is simply mistaken.

That's what surprised me about TEs when I started getting acquainted with them on here. I would have thought they would have seen this philosophical look at origins from a scientific perspective would have been a lot closer to theirs then atheists like Richard Dawkins.

I actually think neocreationists and atheists have more in common concerning the philosophy of science and theology of nature than evolutionary creationists have with either (obviously -- and most importantly -- neocreationists and evolutionary creationists are much closer theologically in the grand scheme of things). For one, both neocreationists and atheists typically have a deistic understanding of God, whereby God is not a constant presence in the natural world, and that He injects Himself in the world only occasionally to work the odd miracle. You hear this often when YECs talk about science proving God's existence (as though the proper control experiments can be conducted -- see the OP), or when atheists similarly talk about science disproving God's existence.
YECs and atheists also both tend to put science up on a pedestal at the only means of revealing truth (scientism). You hear this often when a YEC argues that if the science presented in the Bible isn't correct, then the whole Bible isn't trustworthy and should be disregarded. I don't know of any evolutionary creationists that take that extreme position.

What he said

Mallon, wouldn't it prove that God doesn't exist if you were able to use a control? In order to prove God you would have to step into an existence where God doesn't exist to show what an existence where God does exist looks like. If were even possible to step into an alternate reality, without God, by doing so you would immediately prove the non-existence of God. Because what kind of God is He if He doesn't exist in all realities?

 

[Mallon]

Mallon, wouldn't it prove that God doesn't exist if you were able to use a control?

It would prove that the Christian God, who sustains all things at all times in this world, doesn't exist, yes. Only a deistic God who occasionally tinkers with the world could be experimented on in the way I suggest.

 

[Mallon]

N.T. Wright appears to be agreeing with my point here:

YouTube - N.T. Wright on the Authority of the Bible 7

 

[mark kennedy]

For one, both neocreationists and atheists typically have a deistic understanding of God, whereby God is not a constant presence in the natural world, and that He injects Himself in the world only occasionally to work the odd miracle.

I would have let this go since this is the TE forum but this one is too absurd to ignore. God's presence in the natural world and lives of evangelicals and fundamentalists is a constant. There is nothing 'deistic' about believing that God created the world, life, Adam, freed the children of Israel in a series of 10 judgments, resided in a tent along with the Shekinah Glory of God, visiting Egypt, Babylon, Medio-Persia and apostate Israel with judgments, confirmed with signs, miracles and mighty deeds. Was incarnated, crucified, resurrected and is returning in power and glory to judge the living and the dead and recreate the heavens and the earth after burning the elements with a fervent heat. The list goes on and on.

Occasionally?

You hear this often when YECs talk about science proving God's existence (as though the proper control experiments can be conducted -- see the OP), or when atheists similarly talk about science disproving God's existence.

I have yet to hear a YEC argue for the existance of God based on some scientific test. God's existence in Scripture, in the mind of natural man and in the life of Bible believing Christians is a given. God is self-evident from the glory of God reflected in the things that are made, not because of them.

YECs and atheists also both tend to put science up on a pedestal as the only means of revealing truth (scientism). You hear this often when a YEC argues that if the science presented in the Bible isn't correct, then the whole Bible isn't trustworthy and should be disregarded. I don't know of any evolutionary creationists who take that extreme position.

Creationists have never put science on a pedestal, they look at the evidence and remain unconvinced that the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism are valid. If anything Creationists can be accused of not taking science seriously enough, they certainly don't put it on a pedestal.

Ever been to a Pentecostal revival? If these people are deists I'll kiss a duck. You have some interesting ideas sometimes Mallon but this one is so far fetched you can't pick it up on radar.

Sorry for the intrusion, now back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[Mallon]

Hi mark,

Regarding your contention that neocreationists believe God to be a constant in nature: This is contradicted by their own words. How often have you heard a neocreationist -- yourself included -- argue that the theory of common descent is "atheist" because it does not make explicit reference to God meddling with the evolutionary process at some point? For example, you just recently said: "It is Darwinism that introduced the a priori assumption of universal common decent which led to naturalistic assumptions that exclude God..." It's clear from arguments like this that neocreationists believe that natural processes are largely automated and occur apart from God (making them "atheistic"), and that God's involvement in the world is only intermittent when He performs a miracle. That's liberal deist theology and we see it here all the time from our neocreationist brethren. If it were otherwise, evolution would not be labelled "atheist" simply for being described as a natural process. To the neocreationist (and atheist) mind, "natural" = "godless".

Regarding your contention that neocreationists do not view science as the only determinant of truth: This is contradicted by the very existence of "creation science", which was established by Henry Morris as a means of defending the science of the Bible because, as we're told, if the science of the Bible isn't accurate, then none of the Scriptures can be trusted (a belief also held by atheists). And so we're led to believe that the Bible teaches such things as "anisotropic synchrony", "hydroplate mechanics", and "hyperevolution" in order to explain how the things of this world came to be within a 6,000 year timeframe and thereby defend the "truth" of the Bible. If neocreationists didn't unwittingly subscribe to scientism, they wouldn't be trying to defend the ancient science of the Bible because they would recognize that the Bible can still be true while speaking to the themes and motifs ingrained in the ANE people (flat earth, geocentrism, fiat creation, etc.).

 

[shernren]

I would have let this go since this is the TE forum but this one is too absurd to ignore. God's presence in the natural world and lives of evangelicals and fundamentalists is a constant. There is nothing 'deistic' about believing that God created the world, life, Adam, freed the children of Israel in a series of 10 judgments, resided in a tent along with the Shekinah Glory of God, visiting Egypt, Babylon, Medio-Persia and apostate Israel with judgments, confirmed with signs, miracles and mighty deeds. Was incarnated, crucified, resurrected and is returning in power and glory to judge the living and the dead and recreate the heavens and the earth after burning the elements with a fervent heat. The list goes on and on.

There you go. Absolutely nothing on that list has been witnessed personally by my eyes or yours, either because it happened too long ago or it hasn't happened yet. How much more deist can you get?

What has God been doing for the last two thousand years, playing hooky? Was He there when Constantine accepted Christ? Was He there when Newton discovered refraction? Was He there at Berlin and Auschwitz and Hiroshima, and in the World Trade Center when it came crashing down? Was He there when you accepted Christ and when I accepted Christ, or was He stuck in Heaven powdering His nose for the Second Coming?

For that matter, was He there when an archer drew his bow at random - that is what the very Bible says, at random - and shot King Ahab between the pieces of His armor? You say He "visited" Egypt and the other pagan nations with judgments - did He then depart until it was time to smite them again?

Was He there when every decision of the lot fell into the lap? Is He there when the lightning strikes, and when the snow and hail falls? Is He there as the genetic makeup of populations change under evolutionary pressure, such as when sickle-cell trait is ten times more common among populations exposed to malaria than populations elsewhere?

Yes, you use Biblical language to describe the presence of God, and I would agree that He was there at every event you mentioned. (Yes, I even agree that God was there creating the world and life and Adam! I just happen to believe He used evolution to do the latter two.) But don't you see that you have ignored another facet altogether of God's presence in the world? You mentioned creation psalms in another post in OT, but you evidently haven't internalized their message. God is there when the ostrich forgets its young, and when the war horse charges into battle with bloodlust and fury. God is there when every sparrow falls, and God is there when the fall of every sparrow changes the gene pool of the sparrow by just the amount that evolutionary theory predicts, no more and no less.

On the other hand, you yourself demonstrate how deist you are when you quote Newton's first rule with approval:

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.​

So take the orbit of the earth around the sun. Is gravity true? It is. Is gravity sufficient to explain the orbit? It is.

Then we are to admit no more causes of the earth's orbit around the sun, not even God.

So take the course of every lightning bolt through the sky. Are Maxwell's Laws true? They are. Are they sufficient to explain the lightning bolt's course? They are.

Then we are to admit no more causes of the lightning bolt's course through the sky, not even God.

And take my conception and birth. Are the processes of fertilization and pregnancy true? They are. Are they sufficient to explain my conception and birth? They are.

Then we are to admit no more causes of my conception and birth, not even God.

So sure, God created Adam - but you would have me believe at the same time that God did not create me and you. How much more deist, how much more un-Scriptural, can you possibly get?

 

[theistic evol]

That is Lee Strobel, I guess I'm not surprised no one on here knows who he is.

I know who he is. He's "famous" for doing one set of calculations 'proving' abiogenesis to be impossible.

It's not Creationism really since it's not a Bible based view of origins.

That's an unwarranted restriction of the definition of "creationism".

For some reason Christian scholars are into this Intelligent Design thing and while it's encouraging and important, at best it gains an inference of God and design.

It's another in a long line of attempts to resusitate the Argument from Design.

This video is nothing new, Creationists developed these arguments against materialist atheistic evolution long ago. That's what surprised me about TEs when I started getting acquainted with them on here. I would have thought they would have seen this philosophical look at origins from a scientific perspective would have been a lot closer to theirs then atheists like Richard Dawkins.

There is only one "scientific perspective". Dawkins' atheism is a a philoosphical perspective. Dawkins at least gets the science right. It's Dawkins' extrapolations from the science that are unjustified.

Strobel and other IDers don't get the science right.

 

[theistic evol]

I would have let this go since this is the TE forum but this one is too absurd to ignore. God's presence in the natural world and lives of evangelicals and fundamentalists is a constant.

But you mentioned only 3 instances of God's presence in the natural world: created the world, life, and Adam. All 3 of those are not 'constant' but individual instances with a definite time limit.

Creationism in all its forms is based on god-of-the-gaps theology.
"3. One way this commitment can appropriately enter into the practice of science is through various uses in scientific methodology of gaps in the natural world that are essential features of direct, immediate, primary divine agency properly understood. When God acts as a primary cause, a gap will be present in the natural world because the effect of his action is a result of his direct causal power and not the result of his guidance of natural processes alone." JP Moreland and M Reynolds, Introduction, in Three Views on Creation and Evolution edited by JP Moreland and M Reynolds, 1999, pg 19

"In other words, before a cause can be postulated to have been present in the past, one should know that some causal precedent( which is not the same thing as knowing a law) exists for believing that cause capable of producing the effect of interest. Intelligent design can be offered, therefore, as a necessary or best causal explanation only when naturalistic processes seem incapable of producing the explanandum effect, and when intelligence is known to be capable of producing it and thought to be a more likely to have produced it." Stephen C. Meyer, The methodological equivalence of design and descent: can there be a scientific "theory of creation"? in The Creation Hypothesis, Scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer, 1994, pg 97

Theism itself constrains design inferences. Thus, theistic background assumptions would generally allow consideration of special divine action as the best or most likely explanation for a particular event only when it seemed empirically warranted and theologically plausible. Nevertheless, given a biblical (though not necessarily literalist) understanding of creation and sufficient empirical justification, there is no reason to believe that both these conditions could not be met in some cases, as with, for example, explanations for the origin of life, human consciousness and the universe.
"The above considerations suggest that allowing the design hypothesis as the best explanation for some events in the history of the cosmos ..." Stephen C. Meyer, The methodological equivalence of design and descent: can there be a scientific "theory of creation"? in The Creation Hypothesis, Scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer, 1994, pg 97-98

The problem with this philosophy is that it is not Christian

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenoma in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe."
Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

I have yet to hear a YEC argue for the existance of God based on some scientific test.

Then you haven't read Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood. That very flood is supposed to be proof of God's existence. There are many more examples.

God's existence in Scripture,

God exists in scripture? That's a new theological concept to me. Scripture is about God, but God doesn't exist there.

 

[theistic evol]

On the other hand, you yourself demonstrate how deist you are when you quote Newton's first rule with approval:

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
​

So take the orbit of the earth around the sun. Is gravity true? It is. Is gravity sufficient to explain the orbit? It is.

Then we are to admit no more causes of the earth's orbit around the sun, not even God.

Did Mark really do this? How silly of him. Darwin knew better! Oh, how the irony meter just pegged!

Mark, from the Fontispiece of the Origin of Species:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

So sure, God created Adam - but you would have me believe at the same time that God did not create me and you. How much more deist, how much more un-Scriptural, can you possibly get?

This is un-scriptural. But it's not deist. It's atheist. Mark is accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God.

Like all creationists and especially IDers, Mark is a closet atheist.

 

[Mallon]

Like all creationists and especially IDers, Mark is a closet atheist.

That's not fair. mark clearly believes in God -- there's no denying that. So he's unquestionably NOT an atheist. He does believe that natural = without God, though, which is a belief shared by both deists and atheists.