Evolutionary debate

[AV1611VET]

It's not our fault the literal reading of Genesis is wrong.

Not to mention a literal Jonah, a literal resurrection, a literal walking on the sea, a literal feeding of the five thousand, a literal replacement of a severed ear, etc. and so on -- right?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not to mention a literal Jonah, a literal resurrection, a literal walking on the sea, a literal feeding of the five thousand, a literal replacement of a severed ear, etc. and so on -- right?

Right.

 

[Split Rock]

I agree with your definitions. All inferred conclusions are subject to analysis and testing.

I agree. The theory of evolution continues to be tested and it has yet to be falsified. Here is the results for a Pubmed search for "evolution" : Results: 1 to 20 of 269165
PubMed home

Perhaps you are confusing "facts" with "inferred conclusions"?

No, but you are confusing inference with faith. There is no faith required to made logical inference based on physical evidence.

 

[sandwiches]

Not to mention a literal Jonah, a literal resurrection, a literal walking on the sea, a literal feeding of the five thousand, a literal replacement of a severed ear, etc. and so on -- right?

And literal four corners and pillars of the earth, right?

 

[Doveaman]

There is no faith required to made logical inference based on physical evidence.

Christian faith is a logical conclusion based on physical evidence: historical evidence, archeological evidence, and the evidence of present day human behavior. Humans are behaving today exactly as predicted they would be:

Dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts - Jude 17-19.

This prediction has been verified over and over in this forum.

 

[pgp_protector]

Christian faith is a logical conclusion based on physical evidence: historical evidence, archeological evidence, and the evidence of present day human behavior. Humans are behaving today exactly as predicted they would be:

Dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts - Jude 17-19.

This prediction has been verified over and over in this forum.

That's not what the Bible states faith is, are you saying the Bible is wrong about what faith is ?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Accepting (the theory of) evolution is not a matter of belief. It is a question of considering it to be the best available account of the evidence. Recognizing the fact of evolution is not belief either, unless you want to say that recognizing the fact that grass is green is a belief. Life has changed over time (this is fact of evolution). Life changes because of the differences in the relative reproductive performance of heritable variations (this is the theory - or explanation - of the fact of evolution.)

 

[SkyWriting]

Accepting (the theory of) evolution is not a matter of belief. It is a question of considering it to be the best available account of the evidence. Recognizing the fact of evolution is not belief either, unless you want to say that recognizing the fact that grass is green is a belief. Life has changed over time (this is fact of evolution). Life changes because of the differences in the relative reproductive performance of heritable variations (this is the theory - or explanation - of the fact of evolution.)

Granted. But does all life have a common single source?
The Genesis story does not interfere with the evolutionary
biology we see. In fact, it helps explain why viral DNA is
screwing up most of Darwins theories.

As to all life having one common source, the evidence points
that direction, but does not prove it. Some have tried very hard
to prove that men are just great apes. I feel they've failed.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, it helps explain why viral DNA is screwing up most of Darwins theories.

When we traded survival of the blessed for survival of the fittest, we opened the door and laid out the red carpet for the theory of evolution.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Accepting (the theory of) evolution is not a matter of belief.

'Acceptance' presupposes that it is true, which it might not be. Failing to recognise alternate possibilities, however remote, is the hallmark of faith, and the antithesis of science.

It is a question of considering it to be the best available account of the evidence. Recognizing the fact of evolution is not belief either, unless you want to say that recognizing the fact that grass is green is a belief.

'Tis indeed. Belief is the affirmation of truth. I affirm that grass is green, thus, I believe grass is green.

Life has changed over time (this is fact of evolution). Life changes because of the differences in the relative reproductive performance of heritable variations (this is the theory - or explanation - of the fact of evolution.)

Not exactly. The fact of evolution is the observation that inheritable traits vary in frequency over time. The theory of evolution is more properly known as the theory of common descent, and explains the origin of species - evolution by natural selection from common ancestry.

The fact of evolution can thus refer to two things: the directly observed, biological phenomenon that inheritable traits vary over time; or the existence of a universal common ancestor to all life on Earth. The latter is a 'fact' in the scientific sense - the evidence has proven it true beyond all reasonable doubt. Naturally, doubt could become reasonable if new evidence surfaces to the contrary, but thus far, there's more evidence for it that atoms themselves.

Words are fun.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that the idea of magical creation of man and woman complete better fits (as a allegorical tale) the existential shock we find ourselves in when contemplating the 'wonder of being' as human beings suddenly born to be-in-the-world without any previous experiential history. But that is more of a philosophical point than a scientific one.

 

[SkyWriting]

When we traded survival of the blessed for survival of the fittest, we opened the door and laid out the red carpet for the theory of evolution.

I'm not connecting with your comment. Could you explain further?

 

[SkyWriting]

I think that the idea of magical creation of man and woman complete better fits the existential shock we find ourselves in when contemplating the 'wonder of being' as human beings suddenly born to be-in-the-world without any previous experiential history. But that is more of a philosophical point than a scientific one.

I think you're right. Yet scientifically speaking, there is no reason for us to exist either. It seems to have never happened before locally or anywhere in the cosmos, ever. Imagine our shock at being the first intelligent life the cosmos has ever birthed. So scientifically, it's no less impossible "naturally" than a more scientific view, that life begets life. Intelligence begets intelligence.

 

[Doveaman]

The fact of evolution can thus refer to two things: the directly observed, biological phenomenon that inheritable traits vary over time; or the existence of a universal common ancestor to all life on Earth.

Doesn't sound to me like something unique to evolution theory.

The latter is a 'fact' in the scientific sense - the evidence has proven it true beyond all reasonable doubt.

You do realize this is also a fact in the biblical sense, right? - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Gen 1:1.

Naturally, doubt could become reasonable if new evidence surfaces to the contrary, but thus far, there's more evidence for it that atoms themselves.

Are you referring to our universal COMMON ANCESTOR, GOD, who produced different species having similar body parts, like fingers and toes? Humans and apes are both biologically equipped by their COMMON ANCESTOR, GOD, this explains their many similarities, they are using much of the same biological equipment provided to them by our universal COMMON ANCESTOR, GOD.

I sometimes think that a scientific theory is a scientist' attempt at offering a natural explanation for every observation. This does not necessarily mean there is a natural explanation for every observation, but scientists (some scientists) for some reason likes to think so. Maybe it's this mindset that keeps them employed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not connecting with your comment. Could you explain further?

Sorry, I keep confusing natural selection with survival of the fittest.

Disregard, please.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Doveaman

Christian faith is a logical conclusion based on physical evidence: historical evidence, archeological evidence, and the evidence of present day human behavior. Humans are behaving today exactly as predicted they would be:

Dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts - Jude 17-19.

This prediction has been verified over and over in this forum.
​

That's not what the Bible states faith is, are you saying the Bible is wrong about what faith is?
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Both aspects of faith are described in the Bible. That one has faith to act on what they believe, and that faith is built up when one does that.

Standard definitions of faith cover both aspects.
faith
/feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
–noun 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
(faith in Science for example)
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

 

[SkyWriting]

And literal four corners and pillars of the earth, right?

Having trouble with context?

And Hannah prayed and said, “My heart exults in the Lord;
my strengtha is exalted in the Lord.
<edit>

8 He raises up the poor from the dust;
he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
and inherit a seat of honor.
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s,
and on them he has set the world.


I don't think that God Literally

- raises up the poor from the dust
- lifts the needy from the ash heap

or

- make(s) them sit with princes


At least not in our time and this present world.
When in context, the intended meanings are clearer.
Still, alternate translations do help when attempting to argue out of context.

 

[SkyWriting]

I agree. The theory of evolution continues to be tested and it has yet to be falsified. Here is the results for a Pubmed search for "evolution" : Results: 1 to 20 of 269165
PubMed home No, but you are confusing inference with faith. There is no faith required to made logical inference based on physical evidence.

As long as you have
faith in the evidence and
faith in the process of obtaining that evidence and
faith in your ability of objectively apply logic and
faith that previous conclusions are correct, then

no additional faith is required.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Doesn't sound to me like something unique to evolution theory.

Nonetheless, that is what people typically mean when they refer to 'evolution'. However, the latter part of your post shoes that I should have qualified my statement better.

You do realize this is also a fact in the biblical sense, right? - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. - Gen 1:1.

Perhaps, but I don't see its relevance when talking about scientific nomenclature.

Are you referring to our universal COMMON ANCESTOR, GOD, who produced different species having similar body parts, like fingers and toes?

No. I'm referring to the organism from which we are all biologically descended, not supernaturally created. According to the theory of common descent, which may be entirely wrong in the details or the particulars, we share an ancestor with all life on Earth in the same way two cousins share a grandparent.

Humans and apes are both biologically equipped by their COMMON ANCESTOR, GOD, this explains their many similarities, they are using much of the same biological equipment provided to them by our universal COMMON ANCESTOR, GOD.

Perhaps, but evolution argues differently. According to the theory of common descent, the reason both humans and chimps have five digits is because they both are descended from a single species which had five digits - likely an extinct species of primate about 5-7 million years ago.

I sometimes think that a scientific theory is a scientist' attempt at offering a natural explanation for every observation.

Depends on which scientists you talk to. Depending on how you define 'supernatural', there are two common approaches:

First, you can do what I do - reject the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' as meaningless. There are simply phenomena. If 'Goddidit' is the truth, then that is the truth. I would go so far as to say it's a naturalistic explanation, since anything that can potentially influence us is a part of nature. If gods, ghosts, and goblins exist, then they are natural and physical.

Second, you can reject supernatural explanations as being fundamentally implausible - there is nothing we know of that requires a supernatural explanation. Scientists prefer natural explanations because all known explanations are natural. Thunder? Babies? Card tricks? All explainable by wholly natural phenomena. In this view, supernatural explanations are valid, but just hopelessly implausible. God could be up there in the clouds throwing thunderbolts at church steeples, but the evidence points to a wholly natural (i.e., static electricity) rather than supernatural (i.e., God) explanation.

So, scientists are preferentially naturalistic because that's just what works. Show us the supernatural, and we'll accommodate it. Ghosts may indeed exist, and there's nothing inherent about science that forbids it from investigating them. Depending on how you look at it, this either means the supernatural is not exempt from scientific scrutiny, or that ghosts aren't actually supernatural.

 

[SkyWriting]

,

...Second, you can reject supernatural explanations as being fundamentally implausible - there is nothing we know of that requires a supernatural explanation. Scientists prefer natural explanations because all known explanations are natural...

"God ordinarily effects his purpose through the agency of second causes; but he has the power also of effecting his purpose immediately and without the intervention of second causes, i.e., of invading the fixed order, and thus of working miracles. Thus we affirm the possibility of miracles, the possibility of a higher hand intervening to control or reverse nature's ordinary movements."

<snip>
...Show us the supernatural, and we'll accommodate it.
<snip>..

We believe that's not the case:
31 &#8220;He said to him, &#8216;If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.&#8217;