Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[redleghunter]

There is nothing there, Redleghunter, to show that Christ went down a list of books and sais these are the canon. And there is nothing here to indicate that Christ considered anything in the OT to be inerrant. Citing passage in no may means the source you are taking it form is inerrant.

Luke 24.

 

[-57]

Let me see if I have this straight.

God creates the following human and chimp sequences, and it is considered a gain in information.

ATTATAGGGCTC --Human
ATTATCGGGCTC --Chimp

The process of mutation produces the exact same differences, and it is considered a loss in information:

ATTATAGGGCTC --Human
ATTATCGGGCTC --Chimp

Care to explain how the same exact outcome is considered a gain in information in one instance, but a loss of information in the other instance?

What morphologically changed?

 

[-57]

Hydrogen and oxygen carry instructions on how to combine atoms to make water. Same thing.



There is no qualitative difference between what DNA, proteins, and RNA do than what any other molecule does.

NEXT

 

[-57]

It matters quite a lot -- it also matters that you can't give a definition.



What's "information"?

I see you're still stuck in the mud.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, evolution is a theological discussion. And you are using "religion" her in the pejorative sense of the term, which is inappropriate.

Why is evolution considered theological?

 

[Loudmouth]

NEXT

If you don't like the answers, don't ask the question.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see you're still stuck in the mud.

I'm not stuck in the mud, and you refuse to address my posts.

 

[Loudmouth]

What morphologically changed?

Between humans and chimps, we have many changes. In humans the pelvis is broader and squatter, jaw does not jut forward, the brain is bigger and higher, lack of eye brow ridges, shorter arms, barrel chest instead of conical, longer thumb, and various other changes.

 

[Vicomte13]

Why is evolution considered theological?

Because it leads to the questions: who made the natural laws that cause evolution? Laws are legislated - were they legislated by an overmind, or did they come into being without intelligence, themselves the product of random accident?

It all goes back to the question of the uncaused first cause. Natural law MEANS cause-and-effect, going backward in a chain. Eventually, you get to the first domino. Who or what made the domino, and what made it fall, and why is it that there is a law that it falls, and why does its fall cause the next thing to happen. Who or what set the parameters of cause and effect?

Naturalistic evolution views the living creature as a meat machine, a sophisticated interaction of chemicals, behaving as they must under the natural law. Evolution, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different chemicals over oceans of time.

The theological question remains in a very ancient universe where everything evolved chemically and physically from the Big Bang - why is there natural law, and what caused the Big Bang, and what caused whatever there was that existed as the material OF the Big Bang.

The theologist says "God is the uncaused first cause."

The atheist rejects that answer as a cop-out, and seeks to extend back the cause before the Big Bang - in string theory, for example.

The ultimate atheistic solution is to find a "diesel-engine universe" that, through strings, expands and contracts in cycles-of-cycles forever, in both directions. If that is so, then there is no "first", because the "first cause" of THIS manifestation of the universe is merely the FINAL act of the last universe, returning to a Big Crunch. Then one can have a material nature that "always was and always will be".

Alas, there does not appear to be nearly enough gravitational sources in the universe to pull the expansion back together, so our universe looks to be a unidirectional arrow, a ray from a starting point, rather than the dot on a number line that stretches forward and backward forever.

These matters are ultimately theological at their core.

 

[Reasoning]

Because it leads to the questions: who made the natural laws that cause evolution? Laws are legislated - were they legislated by an overmind, or did they come into being without intelligence, themselves the product of random accident?

It all goes back to the question of the uncaused first cause. Natural law MEANS cause-and-effect, going backward in a chain. Eventually, you get to the first domino. Who or what made the domino, and what made it fall, and why is it that there is a law that it falls, and why does its fall cause the next thing to happen. Who or what set the parameters of cause and effect?

Naturalistic evolution views the living creature as a meat machine, a sophisticated interaction of chemicals, behaving as they must under the natural law. Evolution, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different chemicals over oceans of time.

The theological question remains in a very ancient universe where everything evolved chemically and physically from the Big Bang - why is there natural law, and what caused the Big Bang, and what caused whatever there was that existed as the material OF the Big Bang.

The theologist says "God is the uncaused first cause."

The atheist rejects that answer as a cop-out, and seeks to extend back the cause before the Big Bang - in string theory, for example.

The ultimate atheistic solution is to find a "diesel-engine universe" that, through strings, expands and contracts in cycles-of-cycles forever, in both directions. If that is so, then there is no "first", because the "first cause" of THIS manifestation of the universe is merely the FINAL act of the last universe, returning to a Big Crunch. Then one can have a material nature that "always was and always will be".

Alas, there does not appear to be nearly enough gravitational sources in the universe to pull the expansion back together, so our universe looks to be a unidirectional arrow, a ray from a starting point, rather than the dot on a number line that stretches forward and backward forever.

These matters are ultimately theological at their core.

If time did not exist before the Big Bang, there might not have been a before. These matters are so complicated, our common sense might not apply. Also, evolution is not a 'law', it's a process that just happens.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because it leads to the questions: who made the natural laws that cause evolution? Laws are legislated - were they legislated by an overmind, or did they come into being without intelligence, themselves the product of random accident?

Why not a non-random natural process?

Naturalistic evolution views the living creature as a meat machine, a sophisticated interaction of chemicals, behaving as they must under the natural law. Evolution, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different chemicals over oceans of time.

Naturalistic gravity views living creatures as a bag full of particles with mass, a sophisticated interaction of gravitons and fields, behaving as the must under the natural law of gravity. Gravity, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different massive particles over oceans of time.

Does this make gravity false?

The theological question remains in a very ancient universe where everything evolved chemically and physically from the Big Bang - why is there natural law, and what caused the Big Bang, and what caused whatever there was that existed as the material OF the Big Bang.

The biggest problem is that theists aren't asking this question, but rather asserting an answer without any evidence. Even worse, they undergird this assertion with fallacies, such as the strawman argument in the opening post and the oh so popular God of the Gaps fallacy.

The theologist says "God is the uncaused first cause."

The atheist rejects that answer as a cop-out, and seeks to extend back the cause before the Big Bang - in string theory, for example.

We don't accept that answer because there is no evidence for it.

What we often do is use a method that has worked really well for explaining how nature does work, and that method is science. Time after time, we have found the cause of phenomenon in nature by using this method. It is this success that gives us confidence in the questions we ask, and in the research we do.

So what research are the theists doing to determine if God created the universe? None. It is simply an assertion supported by the unwillingness to consider anything else.

These matters are ultimately theological at their core.

What evidence makes this a matter of theology?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it leads to the questions: who made the natural laws that cause evolution? Laws are legislated - were they legislated by an overmind, or did they come into being without intelligence, themselves the product of random accident?

Why even ask "who"? If you want to claim that a "who" had to be involved you are making a positive claim and that puts the burden of proof upon you. And your nonsense about laws is just an equivocation fallacy. Laws of nature were not written in the sense that laws of men were written.

It all goes back to the question of the uncaused first cause. Natural law MEANS cause-and-effect, going backward in a chain. Eventually, you get to the first domino. Who or what made the domino, and what made it fall, and why is it that there is a law that it falls, and why does its fall cause the next thing to happen. Who or what set the parameters of cause and effect?

Please, not the terribly flawed Kalam Cosmological argument. It is refuted by simply pointing out that you have no valid excuse for claiming that the god involved needs no creator. The answer "I don't know" is never a valid excuse to claim that means God did it.

Naturalistic evolution views the living creature as a meat machine, a sophisticated interaction of chemicals, behaving as they must under the natural law. Evolution, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different chemicals over oceans of time.

That is also called "reality".

The theological question remains in a very ancient universe where everything evolved chemically and physically from the Big Bang - why is there natural law, and what caused the Big Bang, and what caused whatever there was that existed as the material OF the Big Bang.

Yes, there are unanswered questions in science. There probably always will be. Learning more and more enables us to ask better and better questions.

The theologist says "God is the uncaused first cause."

And since he can't support that claim it is just nonsense. It would have bee better for him to use the scientists claim: "We don't know yet."

The atheist rejects that answer as a cop-out, and seeks to extend back the cause before the Big Bang - in string theory, for example.

You mean the atheist is honest and keeps seeking the answers to questions that he does not have the answer to. How is that a bad thing? Look how miserable our lives would be if the likes of Galileo etc. bowed to the theologists that claimed the planets go around the Earth, that diseases were caused by demons, etc.. And honest "I don't know" and a search for the answers to questions is much better than a theological dead end to thought.

The ultimate atheistic solution is to find a "diesel-engine universe" that, through strings, expands and contracts in cycles-of-cycles forever, in both directions. If that is so, then there is no "first", because the "first cause" of THIS manifestation of the universe is merely the FINAL act of the last universe, returning to a Big Crunch. Then one can have a material nature that "always was and always will be".

No, the ultimate atheist solution is simply to find the answer. There should be no prejudice about what it says, and if actual evidence is found for a god then the atheist will change his mind.

Alas, there does not appear to be nearly enough gravitational sources in the universe to pull the expansion back together, so our universe looks to be a unidirectional arrow, a ray from a starting point, rather than the dot on a number line that stretches forward and backward forever.

Correct. The Big Bang may have been a one time event. We still have a lot to learn so you don't want to eliminate the idea of greatly separated "Big Bangs" or other such answers. Again, time will tell.

These matters are ultimately theological at their core.

How so? Show me one major problem that theology has solved and you may have a valid claim.

 

[redleghunter]

Because it leads to the questions: who made the natural laws that cause evolution? Laws are legislated - were they legislated by an overmind, or did they come into being without intelligence, themselves the product of random accident?

It all goes back to the question of the uncaused first cause. Natural law MEANS cause-and-effect, going backward in a chain. Eventually, you get to the first domino. Who or what made the domino, and what made it fall, and why is it that there is a law that it falls, and why does its fall cause the next thing to happen. Who or what set the parameters of cause and effect?

Flash backs...Aristotle....Thomas Aquinas...Quinque viae...Jesuits...

Well explained. Yes the unmoved Mover.

Naturalistic evolution views the living creature as a meat machine, a sophisticated interaction of chemicals, behaving as they must under the natural law. Evolution, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different chemicals over oceans of time.

The theological question remains in a very ancient universe where everything evolved chemically and physically from the Big Bang - why is there natural law, and what caused the Big Bang, and what caused whatever there was that existed as the material OF the Big Bang.

Ok that is the reason for my question of theology in relation to evolution. So far you are focusing on cosmology. Which I agree one must start with, origins. Origins are the 'dog' that wags the tail. Whereas we have evolution, a tail, try to wag the origins dog. That is why chance plus a lot of time must be programmed.

The theologist says "God is the uncaused first cause."

The atheist rejects that answer as a cop-out, and seeks to extend back the cause before the Big Bang - in string theory, for example.

Yes, just adding more time. Yet not addressing the uncaused causation. Ok I'm tracking and agree.

The ultimate atheistic solution is to find a "diesel-engine universe" that, through strings, expands and contracts in cycles-of-cycles forever, in both directions. If that is so, then there is no "first", because the "first cause" of THIS manifestation of the universe is merely the FINAL act of the last universe, returning to a Big Crunch. Then one can have a material nature that "always was and always will be".

Yet still does not consider the origins of the previous origin. Who made the diesel engine. Back to square one.

Alas, there does not appear to be nearly enough gravitational sources in the universe to pull the expansion back together, so our universe looks to be a unidirectional arrow, a ray from a starting point, rather than the dot on a number line that stretches forward and backward forever.

These matters are ultimately theological at their core.

Indeed. Very well explained.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[redleghunter]

If time did not exist before the Big Bang, there might not have been a before. These matters are so complicated, our common sense might not apply. Also, evolution is not a 'law', it's a process that just happens.

An honest answer. I believe we are purposeful beings yet if I understand your point we live and have our being in a purposeless universe.

 

[redleghunter]

Why not a non-random natural process?

That would mean there was a purpose or something governing the natural process. If not you are back to random.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok that is the reason for my question of theology in relation to evolution. So far you are focusing on cosmology. Which I agree one must start with, origins. Origins are the 'dog' that wags the tail. Whereas we have evolution, a tail, try to wag the origins dog. That is why chance plus a lot of time must be programmed.

What I find is that creationists are far from consistent when they make these claims.

Do you accept the scientific theory that germs cause disease? You probably do, don't you? Nowhere in that theory does it tell us the origin of life or the origin of the universe. With that information, do you now reject the scientific theory that germs cause disease? Probably not, right?

Evolution merely explains how life changed once life was here. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life any more than the germ theory of disease deals with the origin of life. Evolution certainly doesn't attempt to explain nor need to explain the origin of the universe.

Also, "I don't know" is a perfect acceptable answer for the origins of the universe. However, it is completely irrational and illogical to take that area of ignorance and claim that it is evidence for God doing something. That is known as the God of the Gaps fallacy.

If you want to claim that God created the universe, then you must produce evidence that this is the case. Pointing to the lack of any other explanation is not evidence for your own evidence-free explanation.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would mean there was a purpose or something governing the natural process.

Why?

Why can't a process without purpose produce consistent and rational interactions between energy and matter?

 

[Reasoning]

An honest answer. I believe we are purposeful beings yet if I understand your point we live and have our being in a purposeless universe.

Yes, I don't think there is a purpose, there is no indication for one, and that's awesome! We don't need a higher purpose, I can give all the meaning I want to my life on this amazing planet as it is, just a rock somewhere in a purposeless universe.

That would mean there was a purpose or something governing the natural process. If not you are back to random.

No, this is a common misunderstanding. It is non random, because favorable mutations have an advantage over the rest. Therefore, the fact that they get eaten less than others, is a non-random process. The mutation is random, but the whole process is non-random because of this.

 

[redleghunter]

Evolution merely explains how life changed once life was here. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life any more than the germ theory of disease deals with the origin of life. Evolution certainly doesn't attempt to explain nor need to explain the origin of the universe.

Exactly we were discussing origins. Yet for evolution to work there must be a whole lot of time in billions of years to make it plausible. But again I was discussing with another poster origins.

Also, "I don't know" is a perfect acceptable answer for the origins of the universe. However, it is completely irrational and illogical to take that area of ignorance and claim that it is evidence for God doing something. That is known as the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Not really. We observe an ordered universe which has laws. We are also curious beings with purpose. We just take it from there.

If you want to claim that God created the universe, then you must produce evidence that this is the case. Pointing to the lack of any other explanation is not evidence for your own evidence-free explanation.

Yes He told us He did.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly we were discussing origins. Yet for evolution to work there must be a whole lot of time in billions of years to make it plausible.

The geologic evidence demonstrates that Earth is 4.55 billion years old. That has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Whether the universe had an origin or is eternal, the Earth is still 4.55 billion years old. The two things are completely independent.

Not really. We observe an ordered universe which has laws. We are also curious beings with purpose. We just take it from there.

Yes, you take it to a conclusion that isn't supported by any evidence.

Yes He told us He did.

Stories written by men in books are not evidence.