Happy Evolution Sunday

[Assyrian]

.​

Wishing you all a pleasant and peaceful
Evolution Sunday​

Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart​

with regard to the children of man ​

that God is testing them that they may see ​

that they themselves are but beasts.

​

Rev 5:13 And I heard every creature in heaven
and on earth and under the earth and in the sea,
and all that is in them, saying,
"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!"​

 

[Dracil]

Oh hey, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the reminder!

 

[imind]

what is evolution sunday?

 

[Melethiel]

Evolution Sunday? Nonsense. It is clearly the 6th Sunday after the Epiphany.

 

[Assyrian]

what is evolution sunday?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31697033&postcount=171

And it's Darwins birthday tomorrow...

 

[Assyrian]

Evolution Sunday? Nonsense. It is clearly the 6th Sunday after the Epiphany.

According to the Catholic Church it is
The Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

...as opposed to?

Mind you it does suggest a Relativistic explanation for how Santa gets around all those chimneys, outside 'ordinary time'.

 

[VindicatedPoet]

So... You are celebrating it because you believe in it correct? Interesting if so...

 

[Deamiter]

So... You are celebrating it because you believe in it correct? Interesting if so...

Just as we 'believe' that Native Americans sat down with European pilgrims and ate corn, turkey and pumpkin pie? Yes, that's exactly why we celebrate Thanksgiving...

 

[Jadis40]

Evolution Sunday? Nonsense. It is clearly the 6th Sunday after the Epiphany.

Yep...same for the UMC church I attend.

Evolution Sunday wasn't even mentioned...matter of fact, our pastor, who has been in a series on prayer for the past several weeks, gave a sermon based on Matthew 7:7-11 this morning.

 

[laptoppop]

I find it interesting for some folks to be celebrating belief in a non-biblical theory built on anti-supernaturalism precepts and methodologies in church....

 

[shernren]

Nonsense. Celebrate me getting a proper connection from my residential hall up and running so that I can torment the OT forum again! =D

 

[Assyrian]

The only belief I celebrate is that God is creator and rejoice in the beauty and wonder of all he has created.

As for non-biblical theories we are discussing this over a non-biblical internet, on non-biblical computers, based on non-biblical electromagnetic theory, so what is you point?

As for:

anti-supernaturalism precepts and methodologies

Now that is just being insulting laptopop

You should know by now that there is nothing 'anti-supernatural' in any of the sciences. Science by its very nature is simply limited to studying the natural.

Does architecture make allowances for the supernatural? Or are its precepts and methodologies based firmly in materialism? Would an architect reject the design of a church roof that depended on being supported by faith? Isn't that, as you put it, 'anti-supernaturalism'? So unless you were worshipping yesterday in Stone Henge, or a medieval Gothic cathedral, I strongly suspect you were celebrating your beliefs in a non-biblical architecture built on non-supernaturalist precepts and methodologies.

 

[Assyrian]

Nonsense. Celebrate me getting a proper connection from my residential hall up and running so that I can torment the OT forum again! =D

Shernren's back yay!

 

[laptoppop]

I'm not trying to be insulting, but there is a distinct difference between typical causitive investigation using the scientific method (which, by definition excludes the supernatural (God), and basing historical theories upon extensions of that method. The one says that God does not typically act in natural processes. The other says that God has not acted in the past in unnatural (supernatural) ways.

When one extends the realm of accepted "science" to include such theoretical speculation, one must be aware that the basic foundation and presupposition of the methodology is that God either does not exist, or that He does not act -- what I would call an "anti" supernaturalism bias.

Such bias produces, for example, a bias toward uniformitarianism, as opposed to catastrophism, when trying to explain the formation of the geologic record.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not trying to be insulting, but there is a distinct difference between typical causitive investigation using the scientific method (which, by definition excludes the supernatural (God), and basing historical theories upon extensions of that method.

Since the invention of the lens scientific method has consistently searched out ways to test things beyond our direct observation. The sciences you label as 'historical' are no different. There is no 'distinct difference' it is a false dichotomy dreamt up by creationism to try to exclude evolution.

The same false argument could have been used to dismiss Copernicus and Galileo. No one could travel to the planets to see how they moved. Could anyone set a planet in motion to see what happened? Who could measure the force of gravity on the moons of Jupiter?

The one says that God does not typically act in natural processes. The other says that God has not acted in the past in unnatural (supernatural) ways.

All of science is very good at examining events and finding the natural processes involved. How are evolution and geology different from meteorology and electricity which shows us that lightning is not a direct intervention by God? Job 36:32 He covers his hands with the lightning and commands it to strike the mark. How are they any different from astronomy which contradicted 'biblical' cosmology just as geology contradicted the supposed 'biblical' timescale?

The bible simply tells us that God created us. It does not deny God could have used natural processes, not unless you want to claim that Isaiah and David had miraculous births too Psalm 139:13 Isaiah 64:8.

The difference with geology and evolution is that they contradict your interpretation of the bible.

When one extends the realm of accepted "science" to include such theoretical speculation, one must be aware that the basic foundation and presupposition of the methodology is that God either does not exist, or that He does not act -- what I would call an "anti" supernaturalism bias.

The realm of science is the natural world, it makes no presupposition about God what so ever. If you make claims about the natural world based on you reading of the bible, then science can test out those claims because it studies the natural world. It does not matter what your claim is, whether it is that the sun goes round the earth or the earth was made in six days, if it is a claim about the natural world then science can test it, and if you are right, science will show that it is so. If science shows you claim is wrong it is not because it has some bias against God or supernaturalism, but because your claims about the natural world are wrong.

theoretical speculation

Scientific speculation is called a hypothesis. When a hypothesis has been thoroughly tested it is called a theory.

Such bias produces, for example, a bias toward uniformitarianism, as opposed to catastrophism, when trying to explain the formation of the geologic record.

Come on laptoppop, surely you know that Geology has plenty of room for catastrophes, the history of the planet is littered with them, asteroid impacts, mega-tsunami, enormous volcanoes. The thing is, the catastrophes have to be supported by evidence and have to explain the evidence we have. It is not a bias toward uniformitarianism but a bias toward evidence.

 

[gluadys]

The one says that God does not typically act in natural processes. The other says that God has not acted in the past in unnatural (supernatural) ways.

When one extends the realm of accepted "science" to include such theoretical speculation, one must be aware that the basic foundation and presupposition of the methodology is that God either does not exist, or that He does not act -- what I would call an "anti" supernaturalism bias.

Your god-of-the-gaps thinking is peeking out here. Because you exclude God from natural processes, you assume that science does the same when it finds natural causes.

The pseudo-problem is solved when you stop excluding God from natural processes. To say that something has a natural cause is not at all the same as saying that God is inactive. Why do you, as a Christian, buy into an atheist definition of "natural=God is absent"? Why do you assume that God can only act in a super-natural manner?

This is what I mean by god-of-the-gaps thinking. You limit God to super-natural action, and therefore cannot see the majority of God's action, which is expressed through natural processes. You assume God can only exist and act in the gaps of human knowledge. So you only seek God there. As a result, any filling in of those gaps becomes a threat to the existence of your god.

This is, quite simply, bad theology. God is to be found, and to be found active, in all that we do know as well as in what we do not know. Nature is not devoid of God.

Such bias produces, for example, a bias toward uniformitarianism, as opposed to catastrophism, when trying to explain the formation of the geologic record.

This is a false dichotomy. Even 19th century catastrophism assumed long eras of "uniformitarianism" between successive catastrophes. (Most catastrophists of the time were Old-Earth Creationists; they did not deny the scientific consensus on the age of the earth.)

And uniformitarianism also includes the possibility of catastrophic events. The difference is more one of emphasis than of contradiction.

It seems to me that geologists today have come to a balance between the extreme positions taken when this was a live scientific controversy, recognizing both slow time-consuming processes and the significant impact of major catastrophes.

 

[Dannager]

Nonsense. Celebrate me getting a proper connection from my residential hall up and running so that I can torment the OT forum again! =D

Woooo jello shots for all!

Oh yeah, and evolution Sunday is cool too. Happy Birthday, Darwin!

 

[shernren]

I'm not trying to be insulting, but there is a distinct difference between typical causitive investigation using the scientific method (which, by definition excludes the supernatural (God), and basing historical theories upon extensions of that method. The one says that God does not typically act in natural processes. The other says that God has not acted in the past in unnatural (supernatural) ways.

When one extends the realm of accepted "science" to include such theoretical speculation, one must be aware that the basic foundation and presupposition of the methodology is that God either does not exist, or that He does not act -- what I would call an "anti" supernaturalism bias.

Such bias produces, for example, a bias toward uniformitarianism, as opposed to catastrophism, when trying to explain the formation of the geologic record.

(emphasis added)

Let's just look at that bolded assumption there. It's strange that you picked it out as a problematic assumption, because as far as I can see, that assumption also forms the centerpiece of YEC standard operating procedure.

Take, for example, the claim that human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in the Paluxy River. What is the claim here? The claim is that some time 4,500 years ago, a human and a dinosaur made footsteps side-by-side in some soft river soil, which then fossilized into today's record.

Note straightaway the huge amount of "anti-supernaturalism" involved. The obvious assumption is that during those 4,500 years, nothing supernatural has disturbed the fossilization process, which has proceeded by entirely natural means, with no trace whatsoever that God intervened in any way. Also, the initial process of fossilization assumes that clay acted like natural clay, that dinos and humans have weight (when any number of miracles could have caused them to levitate, or caused a human's footprint to look like a dinosaur's), that they had the time at all to lay down footprints, etc.

Any piece of "scientific evidence" for creationism assumes precisely that God has not acted in the past in supernatural (unnatural) ways upon the evidence in question between the time of its deposition and the time of its examination. Isn't that a pretty heavy accusation to bring?

 

[busterdog]

Woooo jello shots for all!

I was at a party this summer with about 40 people. Someone rolls up with about 100 jello shots in paper cups. It didn't take long to do the math and I left shortly thereafter. Such a remarkably transparent exercise. None of the pretensions that go with 18 year old single malt scotch. Just a very straightforward approach to a rather tightly focused objective. Sort of like the rummored drive-up daquiris available in New Orleans or Jagermeiser in test tubes. All kind of funny, at a distance. I would think you could do a really good Hemingway parody with jello shots and bullfights or something. Lots of people getting hammered, annoying each other tremendously and teetering on the edge of violence.

 

[laptoppop]

(emphasis added)

Let's just look at that bolded assumption there. It's strange that you picked it out as a problematic assumption, because as far as I can see, that assumption also forms the centerpiece of YEC standard operating procedure.

Take, for example, the claim that human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in the Paluxy River. What is the claim here? The claim is that some time 4,500 years ago, a human and a dinosaur made footsteps side-by-side in some soft river soil, which then fossilized into today's record.

Note straightaway the huge amount of "anti-supernaturalism" involved. The obvious assumption is that during those 4,500 years, nothing supernatural has disturbed the fossilization process, which has proceeded by entirely natural means, with no trace whatsoever that God intervened in any way. Also, the initial process of fossilization assumes that clay acted like natural clay, that dinos and humans have weight (when any number of miracles could have caused them to levitate, or caused a human's footprint to look like a dinosaur's), that they had the time at all to lay down footprints, etc.

Any piece of "scientific evidence" for creationism assumes precisely that God has not acted in the past in supernatural (unnatural) ways upon the evidence in question between the time of its deposition and the time of its examination. Isn't that a pretty heavy accusation to bring?

No, not at all. There are two major issues which you have overlooked.

First, it is much less of a stretch to say that natural processes have continued pretty much the same for a few thousand years than to say that they have for millions of years. Also, in a manner similar to the inertia principle, natural processes typically continue just fine unless the Lord chooses to interrupt them. We cannot control the time or place of His interruptions -- as C.S. Lewis wrote about Aslan in the Narnia story - "He's not a tame lion".

Second, the main principle involved is using the specific revelation (Scripture) to interpret the natural revelation, more than the other way around. In other words, if Scripture says that there has been a global flood, one would look for evidence of such a flood, as opposed to rejecting the concept of supernatural intervention.

As it turns out, the physical evidence that we have fits a global flood model much more closely than a uniform one. For example, we have huge thick deposits spanning areas the size of continents. We have multiple layers again over such areas. We have different sets of layers in different locations. All of these are predicted by the global flood model, and require huge stretches to work out in a uniform model. In the uniform model, one ends up having to talk about gigantic floods, but the floods involved have a problem with transporting enough of the sediment. The global flood model provides a sufficient transport mechanism for the sediment. There is some exciting work going on modeling the dynamics, both on the surface and above the surface of a full global event.