Evolution Lesson

[FredVB]

And neither of you knows anything about it.
I know God is there.

What does this mean? What do you believe?
??

What is meant about my cosmology? I do not think we were discussing my cosmology.

Whose cosmology were we discussing?

You did not answer me what you meant by your claim that others do not know anything about it, you know that God is there, or what you really believe. We were not discussing my cosmology anyway and I am not responding in debate about cosmology.

Neither--it's an emotion.

An emotion?

I suppose I do have opinions about my faith, but they aren't very important. As to testable or verifiable facts, what testable or verifiable facts do you have to back up how you feel when you appreciate, say, a beautiful painting? But yes, faith is in that part of knowing called the Affective Domain. There is nothing testable or verifiable or even, really, explainable about it.

What I could find out about Affective Domain does not include anything of knowing in its definition. That is you claiming it is part of knowing. That is mistaken.

It's a fact that I have the experience but the existence of God is not a fact, it's an unfalsifiable proposition. I don't need it to be a fact because, unlike the Creationists, I don't have a political agenda which requires that I prove it to you.

The fact of you having that is not meaning you do know. You claimed to know God is there, but then you say the existence of God is not a fact. And you still say you are a believer? I still don't know what you really believe. And I can still speak about what you do not know. I can be called a creationist, but you do not know what my political position is, or if I have any political agenda. You really do not know anything about that at all. It was just dismissiveness with broadbrushing.

 

[Speedwell]

What I could find out about Affective Domain does not include anything of knowing in its definition. That is you claiming it is part of knowing. That is mistaken.

"The affective domain is one of the three domains in Bloom’s Taxonomy. It involves feelings, attitudes, and emotions. It includes the ways in which people deal with external and internal phenomenon emotionally, such as values, enthusiasms, and motivations. This domain is categorized into five levels, which include receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization. These subdomains form a hierarchical structure and are arranged from simple feelings or motivations to those that are more complex."
Affective Domain | Top Hat.
That was just the first hit of 34 million. Knock yourself out.

The fact of you having that is not meaning you do know. You claimed to know God is there, but then you say the existence of God is not a fact.

From the standpoint of science the existence of God s not a fact and never will be.

And you still say you are a believer? I still don't know what you really believe.

And you never will, so long as you think that "faith" is nothing more than cognitive assent to a list of theological propositions.

I can be called a creationist, but you do not know what my political position is, or if I have any political agenda.

Then why are you here trying to persuade people of a religious doctrine with political implications?

 

[dlamberth]

From the standpoint of science the existence of God s not a fact and never will be.

Nor should it be.

 

[FredVB]

"The affective domain is one of the three domains in Bloom’s Taxonomy. It involves feelings, attitudes, and emotions. It includes the ways in which people deal with external and internal phenomenon emotionally, such as values, enthusiasms, and motivations. This domain is categorized into five levels, which include receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization. These subdomains form a hierarchical structure and are arranged from simple feelings or motivations to those that are more complex."
Affective Domain | Top Hat.
That was just the first hit of 34 million. Knock yourself out.
From the standpoint of science the existence of God s not a fact and never will be. And you never will, so long as you think that "faith" is nothing more than cognitive assent to a list of theological propositions. Then why are you here trying to persuade people of a religious doctrine with political implications?

There is something wrong with everything said here.

This site is just more of the same, still nothing showing your claim that affective domain is knowledge or is said to be knowing, that is you calling this knowing. You feel God is there? Nice, I do too. But it is not my basis to tell others God is there. And it seems you miss my bases altogether.

"From the standpoint of science the existence of God [is] not a fact". Why tell me that? It was never a part of any claim from me that from the standpoint of science the existence of God is fact, or could be, it is wrong to imply that I was in any way saying that. When I say God is reality, I do not say this is based on science. But it is not just based on feelings either. My discussion here involved the logic of God existing as necessary existence. This logic did not involve being spoken from faith, and you do not know what I think faith is, you were just throwing that surmise in, and it did not involve persuasion of a religious doctrine nor was it with any political implications. You alleged that without basis while this logic which was all I spoke of in this thread did not speak from or about religious doctrine and you really have no knowledge of my political positions. Speaking of the existence of God is distinct from speaking of religious meaning from what we see from God, and that does not need to be derived from any religious organization.

And you have claimed to have faith in God but I can't tell what your faith is, while still this is not the forum in which to learn about your faith. Feelings in themselves just would not be enough for that.

 

[Speedwell]

There is something wrong with everything said here.

This site is just more of the same, still nothing showing your claim that affective domain is knowledge or is said to be knowing, that is you calling this knowing. You feel God is there? Nice, I do too. But it is not my basis to tell others God is there. And it seems you miss my bases altogether.

"From the standpoint of science the existence of God [is] not a fact". Why tell me that? It was never a part of any claim from me that from the standpoint of science the existence of God is fact, or could be, it is wrong to imply that I was in any way saying that. When I say God is reality, I do not say this is based on science. But it is not just based on feelings either. My discussion here involved the logic of God existing as necessary existence. This logic did not involve being spoken from faith, and you do not know what I think faith is, you were just throwing that surmise in, and it did not involve persuasion of a religious doctrine nor was it with any political implications. You alleged that without basis while this logic which was all I spoke of in this thread did not speak from or about religious doctrine and you really have no knowledge of my political positions. Speaking of the existence of God is distinct from speaking of religious meaning from what we see from God, and that does not need to be derived from any religious organization.

And you have claimed to have faith in God but I can't tell what your faith is, while still this is not the forum in which to learn about your faith. Feelings in themselves just would not be enough for that.

First of all, this discussion is not all about you.
I think feelings themselves are enough for me, but perhaps that is over-reaction on my part. My experience is that those who are trying to prove the existence of God as a falsifiable proposition, as "fact" using creation science or logic are doing so to satisfy a political agenda, rather than to evangelize.

 

[FredVB]

First of all, this discussion is not all about YOU.

Diversion. You were implying and making allegations, that is not necessary to the discussion. Broadbrushing is in error.

I think feelings themselves are enough for me, but perhaps that is over-reaction on my part. My experience is that those who are trying to prove the existence of God as a falsifiable proposition, as "fact" using creation science or logic are doing so to satisfy a political agenda, rather than to evangelize.

Feelings may be entirely enough for you, I won't suggest otherwise, though it is unexpected. But if you claim knowing God is there (you did), and say feelings are your only basis, you were failing to show that feeling is knowing, what you reference does not show that, and we have no reason to conclude from that that you know God is there from your feeling. Further you do not have basis to put down other ways others can conclude God is there. Your allegation that I would say it is a fact from science is wrong. I say God is really there from logic speaking about necessary existence. Atheists respond that it would not be God anyway, but if you dismiss that necessary existence would be God, what God is it that you feel and then conclude is there, who is not necessary existence? I see I should question that.

Your experience that those referring to creation science or logic to show God is there do so for a political agenda is flawed. It absolutely does not apply in my case and I do not assume it is the case for others as you do. Again you cannot show otherwise. You just don't agree God is the necessary existence there must be, so I find it is inconclusive what God you believe you know is there from feelings. Unlike atheists I understand that there is more than the universe because there is eternally necessary being without limit, and that existence does not exclude personhood.

This thread in Christian Forums is Evolution Lesson and I absolutely can come and put legitimate questions to see if they can be answered and it never means there is a political agenda, and I can defend reason for concluding God is there when it is criticized here. And this is not the place to evangelize, and it surely would not be effective.

 

[Speedwell]

Diversion. You were implying and making allegations, that is not necessary to the discussion. Broadbrushing is in error.



Feelings may be entirely enough for you, I won't suggest otherwise, though it is unexpected. But if you claim knowing God is there (you did), and say feelings are your only basis, you were failing to show that feeling is knowing, what you reference does not show that, and we have no reason to conclude from that that you know God is there from your feeling. Further you do not have basis to put down other ways others can conclude God is there. Your allegation that I would say it is a fact from science is wrong. I say God is really there from logic speaking about necessary existence. Atheists respond that it would not be God anyway, but if you dismiss that necessary existence would be God, what God is it that you feel and then conclude is there, who is not necessary existence? I see I should question that.

Your experience that those referring to creation science or logic to show God is there do so for a political agenda is flawed. It absolutely does not apply in my case and I do not assume it is the case for others as you do. Again you cannot show otherwise. You just don't agree God is the necessary existence there must be, so I find it is inconclusive what God you believe you know is there from feelings. Unlike atheists I understand that there is more than the universe because there is eternally necessary being without limit, and that existence does not exclude personhood.

This thread in Christian Forums is Evolution Lesson and I absolutely can come and put legitimate questions to see if they can be answered and it never means there is a political agenda, and I can defend reason for concluding God is there when it is criticized here. And this is not the place to evangelize, and it surely would not be effective.

What it appears you are saying is that you don't understand why I believe, but if I don't believe for the same reasons you do then my God isn't real. That's fine, I don't have to explain or prove anything about my faith to you. But if creationists want not just to believe, but to make their beliefs part of public policy (in the form of public school science curriculum, for example) that is a political objective and they have a lot more to prove than they have succeeded in doing so far.

 

[Astrid]

What it appears you are saying is that you don't understand why I believe, but if I don't believe for the same reasons you do then my God isn't real. That's fine, I don't have to explain or prove anything about my faith to you. But if creationists want not just to believe, but to make their beliefs part of public policy (in the form of public school science curriculum, for example) that is a political objective and they have a lot more to prove than they have succeeded in doing so far.

Well said.
What have they proved so far?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well said.
What have they proved so far?

That they have a lot more to prove?

 

[AV1611VET]

A thread for creationists that want questions answered about evolution, or to learn more about it, as well as about biology in general.

Can the human race rebound from a bottleneck event that reduces it down to four men and four women?

 

[Astrid]

That they have a lot more to prove?

More than zero, yah..

Fine with me if they proved god-poof and
Noah's ark. My commitment is to what's real not
some ideology.

 

[Strathos]

Can the human race rebound from a bottleneck event that reduces it down to four men and four women?

Not without a miracle.

 

[Astrid]

Or a tall tale

 

[AV1611VET]

Or a tall tale

You mean the Nephilim?

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 

[Kylie]

Can the human race rebound from a bottleneck event that reduces it down to four men and four women?

That's not really the question we should be asking though, is it?

We should be asking:

Can the human race rebound from a bottleneck event that reduces it down to four men and four women and yet leave no evidence of such a genetic bottleneck?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not really the question we should be asking though, is it?

We should be asking:

Can the human race rebound from a bottleneck event that reduces it down to four men and four women and yet leave no evidence of such a genetic bottleneck?

No ... I want to know if it can rebound on its own, sans any divine assistance.

 

[Kylie]

No ... I want to know if it can rebound on its own, sans any divine assistance.

And that's my point. Even if it COULD rebound on its own, there would be genetic evidence for such a bottleneck in all humans today. Such evidence is not there.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that's my point. Even if it COULD rebound on its own, there would be genetic evidence for such a bottleneck in all humans today. Such evidence is not there.

So you're saying it can't rebound on its own?

 

[Kylie]

So you're saying it can't rebound on its own?

I personally find it extremely unlikely that there would be enough genetic diversity available. Of course, if you know of a scientific source that says otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it.

However, I think I was quite clear that I wasn't commenting on the likelihood of such a rebound, but on the genetic evidence that was left behind.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can the human race rebound from a bottleneck event that reduces it down to four men and four women?

Four men and four women seems a bit generous for that story. Three of the men were sons of the other man and one of the women. So really it's only 1 man and 4 women and that's assuming none of those five were closely related (e.g., 2 sisters marrying different sons of Noah).