If Evolution were true...

[Tiberius]

That's disgusting.

You think it's disgusting to place the credit for saving people's lives with the doctors and nurses who work long hours to look after people? Who do everything in their power to keep people from dying?

You think that's disgusting?

I think taking credit away from them is disgusting.

 

[VehementiDominus]

You think it's disgusting to place the credit for saving people's lives with the doctors and nurses who work long hours to look after people? Who do everything in their power to keep people from dying?

You think that's disgusting?

I think taking credit away from them is disgusting.

My point exactly.

Attempting to place the praise deserved for the doctors, surgeons and nurses who work tirelessly to save lives in the hands of anyone else but those doctors, surgeons and nurses themselves is sickening. It completely devalues their life-saving work.

The credit belongs to them and the men and women who discoverd and researched tested ways to save those lives - and them alone.

 

[WretchedMan]

Not quite.

When it comes to evolution, we know that the processes for micro evolution exist, because we have seen them. We know that the processes for macro evolution exist because they are the same as the ones for micro evolution, there is no known mechanism that prevents them from causing macro evolution, and the evidence we have (fossil record, DNA tracing etc) supports it.


When it comes to your walking to Mars because you can walk to Maine idea, there is a mechanism that prevents you from walking to Mars - the lack of a solid surface which is required by the act of walking.

So, the absence of evidence for a mechanism that prevents Mendelian genetics (over time with countless mutations) from bringing about new life forms, body plans, and organs (something we have never observed or been able to produce with all our intellect and technology) is evidence that Mendelian genetics can, in fact, do all of those things?

How about some evidence that the mechanism can do what you claim it can do rather than nonsensical claims about no evidence of a mechanism to prevent it from doing what you haven't established it capable of doing in the first place?

I don't think I'll allow naturalistic interpretations of DNA and fossil homology to serve as decisive evidence for Naturalism. I've read tons of stuff on both and it is an interpretive tour through the past based on Naturalistic assumptions with very little science involved.

There is a limit to the variety that can be squeezed out of an organism. Thousands of years of human manipulation in animal husbandry and, more recently, in the laboratory has shown us that we have no mechanism for universal common descent.

Reality isn't determined by playing the odds.

True.

Science is based on observable and testable and repeatable evidence.

Except for when poorly disguised philosophy is labeled 'science'. Then it's based on consensus.

And it works. it not only fits the data we have, but has allowed us to predict data that, at the time the prediction was made, was not available.

It may be benign for some things, I admit. We don't need to know why God made water to understand its physical properties or how it reacts to heat, cold, or electricity. However, we don't require Naturalism to make those observations either, and we're not prevented from making them without it.

Naturalism becomes detrimental when its adherents, in their zeal, seek to mandate it on science, culture, government, religion, education, et al., and seek to suppress alternative explanations or critiques of its tenets.

If God exists and He created the universe, designed the laws it would operate under, designed and created different lifeforms capable of reproducing and adapting to whatever habitat they may eventually wind up in, writing that flexibility into their OS (DNA), a naturalistic explanation is completely insufficient to accurately explain reality.

I am talking about people who were able to look at things in the real world and say, "Based on the existence of this, I predict that we will find an animal with such-and-such characteristics." it is a prediction, not a postdiction because they were predicting the dioscovery of an unknown animal, not the existence of it.

Let's see some examples. You claim it makes predictions, pony up the examples.

As I have said before, science does not start with assumptions. it starts with evidence gathered from the real world.

Science doesn't do anything, scientists do and they always start with assumptions. What is a hypothesis?

Your claim is just not realistic.

You asked what would be different if kissing was the cause of pregnancy. I answered it. To now come and say that you meant "And nothing else was changed" is moving the goalposts. Tjings do not exist in a vaccuum. If kissing caused pregnancy, then many other things would be changed as well.

Don't blame your inability to follow a simple analogy on me moving goalposts. You are not helping your cause on this one.

That's good.



You are incorrect. DNA comparisons and the fossil record are two examples of evidence that this occurs.

DNA and fossils are two examples of evidence. What you are referring to are naturalistic interpretations of the evidence. Look at them and look at your claims about science in this post:

"Science is based on observable and testable and repeatable evidence."

~Tiberias

"As I have said before, science does not start with assumptions. it starts with evidence gathered from the real world."

~Tiberius

Your view of science is inconsistent and you are blind to the philosophical claims that permeate the issue of origins.

There's no such thing as absolute morality. If there is, can you tell me the absolute moral position on smacking a disobediant child? I can give you a wealth of morally ambiguous hypotheticals that have no clear cut right or wrong. If there is an absolute morality, then you should be able to give answers to them easily. Would you like to try? And remember, just because most people agree with it, doesn't make it an objective thing.

(I'm probably going to get another thread shut down answering this)

I don't think what I mean by absolute morality and what you mean by absolute morality are the same thing. I am not implying that every circumstance is black and white, like you seem to think, only that there is a true, rather than arbitrary, morality known innately to all normally functioning humans, regardless of sophistication, advancement, or geographic location.

Do you also not believe in absolute truth?

 

[WretchedMan]

1. Cool your jets, man. Your posts are full of venom. For a Christian, you surely aren't giving off a demeanor of love, which is something I thought you guys were supposed to do.

I hardly think 'full of venom' is accurate. Am I sarcastic? Yes. Too sarcastic at times? Guilty. Is that the case in this instance? I don't think so. If I offended him he can let me know. That wasn't my intention.

2. If "you guys haven't fully proven abiogenesis yet" is a reason you believe in God, I would love to see your reaction when they finally figure it out. People used to be like: "you guys haven't explained why it rains, so God must be responsible" or "you guys can't explain the diversity of life, so God must be responsible". The God of the Gaps will leave you with nothing once the gap is filled.

That hardly sums it up. I think the scientific evidence is clear that abiogenesis cannot happen and it is my prediction that they won't figure it out because it is not there to be discovered. If I am wrong, feel free to come back and gloat.

But yeah, we don't have a complete or perfect understanding of abiogenesis. But we have a lot of plausible ideas which are picking up steam. I don't lose sleep over the fact that we don't know for sure (actually, I find it very exciting), and it sure doesn't make me run to repent of my sins.

'Complete' or 'perfect'? You would be hard pressed to to make a bigger understatement. How about 'no' understanding? That's more accurate. You have hypotheses, but I haven't seen any that are moving, let alone picking up speed. I haven't looked in a few months, so maybe I just missed it but I would think it would be a fairly big story.

I'm glad you are getting your rest, as for the repenting of your sins part, I pray you do.

Dude, naturalism is philosophy, and it's the philosophy that science is built on. No one would argue otherwise.

We agree that Naturalism is philosophy.

I don't agree that it is a necessary foundation for science.

I do agree it is part of the paradigm of many of the current scientists and academics, but at one time so was geocentrism.

It is a mistake to think that Naturalism is foundational to science. A mistake based on the fallacy that only Naturalism allows for an understanding that, generally, processes in nature are constant and consistent. We don't need to accept it to realize that there is a certain order to the universe.

It was Christian philosophy that brought the birth of science, not naturalism. Belief in a creator does not hamstring us so we are incapable of discovering or understanding the hydrologic cycle, the mating habits of alligators, or the speed of sound.

Science is built on the assumption that the natural world obeys physical laws. And guess what? There has never, ever been any indication that this is not the case. So even if naturalism is fundamentally flawed, it doesn't matter, because the universe behaves like a natural universe would, and science is the method of understanding this.

This is not an assumption originated with or exclusive to Naturalism. This is an assumption that I hold (As well as almost every Christian that I am aware of) and I am in no way a subscriber to Naturalism.

The problem with Naturalism isn't that it claims the natural world obeys physical laws, Creationism and ID make the same claim. The problem is that it, a priori, has declared that nothing but natural processes can come into play. Out of the gate, it dismisses even the possibility of a creator that would transcend the natural world, and will not accept that any evidence could point to the contrary.

The only deity that I can possibly conceive of existing is either a deist or pantheist god. But I have no evidence of either, so I refuse to claim either exist. The theist god, who should be interacting with the world by definition, has never been observed doing anything. So why should anyone believe in it?

He has been observed for millennia and He does interact with us. Just because He isn't jumping at every irreverent demand to prove Himself to Dawkins and the like, doesn't mean He isn't there.

Jeremiah 55:6-9: “Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

1 Chronicles 28:9b: "... for the LORD searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will cast you off forever."

 

[WretchedMan]

I did not say that you are ignorant about science (Which, even if I had, would not have been an insult; it would have been a statement of fact about whether or not you had learned certain facts. If you had never been exposed to them you could not know them no matter how intelligent and intuitive you are. But since I don't know what you have or haven't learned, I did not say that.)

"You are in the position of telling us that it is impossible. Worse, you are not doing so based on the difficulties, but because someone else told you it was impossible and you believed him, so when challenged, you have nothing to offer to back up your claim."
~OllieFranz

Here we have a term for what you just did. We call it Crawfishin'.

What I did do was present three or four ways of looking at a statement about the world (in my example, the feasibility of digging a hole or tunnel to China) and compare the style and apparent nature of the approach you took to the issue to them. The one that was closest was the one where you tell the child it can't be done without even trying to explain why you believe it is impossible. I was hoping that if you did have a basis for your claim you would tell us what it is.

I gave as much an explanation as was necessary at that point. If you wanted to know something, you could have asked.

 

[WretchedMan]

So, mathematics exists outside our brains? Where?

Would 2+2=4 cease to be true just because there were no human minds to understand it? It would be true regardless. Of course mathematics exists outside our brains.

 

[WretchedMan]

Actually, I have to agree with him on that.

1 + 1 is 2, no matter what.

Whether it's the number of electrons in an atomic shell, or F=MA, mathematics exists regardless of whether or not we're here.

We just assign names to the values.

 

[WretchedMan]

Forgive me for saying this but in what way does it benefit us to believe or even know that everything is designed if we don't know and will never know who the designer is/was? just saying everything is designed doesn't help us one bit.
We can call this designer whatever we like and it will still be of no consequence if we can't see or find him/she/it.

It can benefit us greatly even if it were true that we can't find or know Him.

If everything is designed, it is an incredible resource that we can utilize for our own technological advancement. One of the most detrimental aspects of the dominance of Naturalism in science over the last century is that it has deprived us of many of the advancements and benefits, some of which we are just starting to see.

Saying it's a God means nothing, what's a God? where is this God? who called it a God? and who found out that this God designed everything? the very idea of putting things down to an imaginary being just because we don't know how it all came about is ludicrous in the extreme, it's something a child would do, how did that happen? the boogy man did it.

While these are important questions, and I will gladly discuss them with you, what difference does it make from a scientific perspective? If it is designed, we don't need to know anything about the designer to utilize His technology or to see that it was designed. Fortunately, the Designer in our case is knowable. His name is Jesus.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I hardly think 'full of venom' is accurate. Am I sarcastic? Yes. Too sarcastic at times? Guilty. Is that the case in this instance? I don't think so. If I offended him he can let me know. That wasn't my intention.

In every thread I've seen you post in, all you do is talk down to other people. Which makes me chuckle at your "Ambassador for Christ" title.

That hardly sums it up. I think the scientific evidence is clear that abiogenesis cannot happen and it is my prediction that they won't figure it out because it is not there to be discovered. If I am wrong, feel free to come back and gloat.

Wow, ok, it's one thing to say that scientists are clueless but it's a completely different thing to say that abiogenesis is not possible. It wasn't too long ago that people were sure that you couldn't fix Tetralogy of Fallot (blue baby syndrome) with surgery. Being completely convinced that something is impossible is antithetical to science and gets us nowhere. It's a good thing scientists don't share your pessimism or we'd be stuck in the dark ages treating plague with incantations. This kind of attitude towards progress makes my stomach sick.

'Complete' or 'perfect'? You would be hard pressed to to make a bigger understatement. How about 'no' understanding? That's more accurate. You have hypotheses, but I haven't seen any that are moving, let alone picking up speed. I haven't looked in a few months, so maybe I just missed it but I would think it would be a fairly big story.

The fact that you don't even accept evolution shows how little you understand science. So I wouldn't expect you to be the authority on abiogenesis.

I'm glad you are getting your rest, as for the repenting of your sins part, I pray you do.

How condescending of you! The hits keep rolling.

We agree that Naturalism is philosophy.

I don't agree that it is a necessary foundation for science.

Naturalism is the philosophy that there are only natural explanations for phenomena in this world. It rejects the supernatural as an explanation. This is science. Science does not work with the supernatural by definition.

I do agree it is part of the paradigm of many of the current scientists and academics, but at one time so was geocentrism.

At one time, geocentrism was the best observation people could make with limited measurement tools. Same goes for flat earth. But it's funny, it was religious dogma that held so tightly to geocentrism, not science. Science progressed, but dogma refused.

It is a mistake to think that Naturalism is foundational to science. A mistake based on the fallacy that only Naturalism allows for an understanding that, generally, processes in nature are constant and consistent. We don't need to accept it to realize that there is a certain order to the universe.

Naturalism is the foundation of science. If processes in nature are not repeatable, science is worthless. I'm sorry but you simply do not understand science but really think that you do.

It was Christian philosophy that brought the birth of science, not naturalism. Belief in a creator does not hamstring us so we are incapable of discovering or understanding the hydrologic cycle, the mating habits of alligators, or the speed of sound.

I roll my eyes at your arrogant belief that Christianity spawned science, but I'll leave that point alone. Sure, you can believe in God and be a scientist, but no scientists use God in their work. My dad is an extremely devout Protestant, but he's also a microbiologist. God does not factor into his research. He operates under the rules of science when he does his work.

This is not an assumption originated with or exclusive to Naturalism. This is an assumption that I hold (As well as almost every Christian that I am aware of) and I am in no way a subscriber to Naturalism.

The problem with Naturalism isn't that it claims the natural world obeys physical laws, Creationism and ID make the same claim. The problem is that it, a priori, has declared that nothing but natural processes can come into play. Out of the gate, it dismisses even the possibility of a creator that would transcend the natural world, and will not accept that any evidence could point to the contrary.

1. You have no evidence of a creator.
2. You have no evidence for creationism/ID.
3. Creationism/ID are not science because they are not testable.

You make the same assumptions I do about the universe - that it behaves according to rules. The big difference between us is that you believe in God, and I don't. I don't see any evidence for God, and until I do, I won't believe in one. No evidence for God or anything supernatural = I have no reason to believe they exist = I'll stick with the natural world. YOU are the one adding a priori assumptions. You believe that there must be a God, and then shape your understanding of the universe around that. I prefer to study the universe directly. If God shows up, I'll adjust my model accordingly.

He has been observed for millennia and He does interact with us. Just because He isn't jumping at every irreverent demand to prove Himself to Dawkins and the like, doesn't mean He isn't there.

Jeremiah 55:6-9: “Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

1 Chronicles 28:9b: "... for the LORD searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will cast you off forever."

This is not evidence, and until you post something substantial, your claims can easily be dismissed.

 

[OllieFranz]

Here we have a term for what you just did. We call it Crawfishin'.

What is "Crawfishin'"? How am I supposed to answer a charge if I have no idea what you are talking about?

But in any case, I never once wrote anything personal about you. Every time I wrote it was to try to speak to what you wrote. Looking back, I see that I did sometimes use the word "you" when I could have maybe used a more neutral term, or a more descriptive phrase such as "the explanation you proposed," and if I was less than clear, I apologize.

I gave as much an explanation as was necessary at that point. If you wanted to know something, you could have asked.

I did ask, and so, later, did Tiberius. And you still have not answered. You compared the difference between what is sometimes called "micro-evolution" and what is sometimes called "macro-evolution" to the difference between walking to California and walking to Mars. There is a very clearly defined limitation (the need for a solid surface and gravity to allow walking) which separates the two possibilities in the walking from Maine example. But there is no such limitation on evolution that Tiberius and I know of. If you know of one, you have given no indication that you do, much less tell us what it is.

If you are going to act like my positions are no more refined than a two year old's, just don't bother responding to me. I've no interest in your rambling condescension or 'Blue's Clues' style science lectures.

Some of your statement about naturalism seemed to make no sense if you were operating from basic scientific principles. I assumed that if we were not to be talking past one another, we should first agree on the basics. What you percieved as a "'Blue's Clues' style of science lectures" was an attempt to "define my terms.

There are two kinds of materialism (sometimes called naturalism): methodological materialism, limiting scientific inquiry to studying natural events and natural processes, and philosophical materialism, the belief that natural events and natural processes are all that exist.

Your statement, "Not every scientist operates under an assumption of naturalism and they are making interesting discoveries as a result. Naturalism is not needed to do good science and it is my observation that it has been detrimental in many ways." is true of philosophical materialism, but it is false of methodological materialism. Any non-atheist who does not see this distinction does not know science, and is in danger of rejecting science in favor of a muddled philosophy.

If there was nothing in specific that you disagreed with in my "Blue's Clues" lectures, then perhaps it was just sloppiness on your part about the word "naturalism," similar to the sloppiness on my part about the word "you" and not the problem I thought it was. Still, it never hurts to stop and define one's terms to make sure that everyone starts off on the same page.

 

[MarkT]

your explanation is possible. However it does involve a lot of reaching.

For a start there are 14 or 15 species, not 2. So you would need 14 or 15 groups of birds that are all different species and all have different traits to all fly the 600 miles out into the ocean to a random group of islands 'in serach of food', and all happen to find an island each that suits their traits perfectly. And somehow all of their ancestors on the mainland would die out, leaving them as the unique example of their species in the world. And for some reason all 14 or 15 species are closer related to each other than to any other examples of their wider family in the whole world. So it must be a MASSIVE stroke of luck that the 14 or 15 species of finch most closely related all flew out and all found an ecosystem that suited them perfectly and all the other members of all 14 or 15 species that stay behind on the mainland died out.

I honestly hope you can think about this for a bit and realise how much of a stretch that all is.

But most importantly, Darwin has mountains of evidence and research to back up his explanation. Everything from dna to the fossil record to comparitive anatomy to geographical distribution to experiments to observations from the animal kingdom and more. Other scientists have also spent decades studying these birds after darwin and come to the same conclusion. This is why his idea is accepted. Not just cause it's a good idea and good explanation, but because he has the mountain of evidence to prove it.

What evidence and/or proof do you have to support your explanation??

Remember what I said about homogeneity. Traits work their way through a population until every member of the population has the trait. That’s what happened on every island. You end up with 14 or 15 species. You don’t begin with 14 or 15 species.

I know I said two populations arrived at the islands. I should have said some birds from population A and some birds from population B arrived at the islands. And of course they didn’t just get up and leave for the islands one day either. They could have strayed or got lost. Maybe they got caught in a storm that blew them off track. I don’t know. That’s not important. The important point is that the birds from population A had large beaks and the birds from population B had small beaks. The birds with the larger beaks were able to crack open the nuts on island 1 so that‘s where they stayed. The birds from population B were not. So they moved over to island 2 where the food was acceptable. The size of the beak determined where the birds ended up.

Of course they came from the mainland. They must have come from somewhere if they were not native to the islands. And no, the populations they came from did not die out. There are many species of finches. I can’t say where they came from.

My explanation doesn’t require any proof. It’s simple. Its based on observation and common sense. And it is right.

 

[rjc34]

My explanation doesn’t require any proof. It’s simple. Its based on observation and common sense. And it is right.

Observing rain or a volcano is easily explained by 'Goddidit'. Doesn't make it right.

 

[visa]

It can benefit us greatly even if it were true that we can't find or know Him.

If everything is designed, it is an incredible resource that we can utilize for our own technological advancement.

So why are you and your like not utilizing this incredible resource instead of just talking about it?
we all know why don't we.

One of the most detrimental aspects of the dominance of Naturalism in science over the last century is that it has deprived us of many of the advancements and benefits, some of which we are just starting to see.

While these are important questions, and I will gladly discuss them with you, what difference does it make from a scientific perspective? If it is designed, we don't need to know anything about the designer to utilize His technology or to see that it was designed. Fortunately, the Designer in our case is knowable. His name is Jesus.

I had a funny feeling you would end up there, so the Dover trial ended with the right result after all, ID is just another name for creationism.

 

[OllieFranz]

Observing rain or a volcano is easily explained by 'Goddidit'. Doesn't make it right.

You are reacting to just the final line and his previous posts. In the post the line you quote comes from, the explanation he gives -- and which he calls simple and claims is based on observation and common sense -- is the same explanation that Darwin came up with: evolution. He doesn't use the "E" word, or any other phrase associated with "Darwinists," but what he describes is natural selection.

Of course, now that I've pointed it out, he'll back down and say that it is not evolution, but just "micro-evolution." After all, they are still finches, aren't they?

 

[mathclub]

Remember what I said about homogeneity. Traits work their way through a population until every member of the population has the trait. That’s what happened on every island. You end up with 14 or 15 species. You don’t begin with 14 or 15 species.

I know I said two populations arrived at the islands. I should have said some birds from population A and some birds from population B arrived at the islands. And of course they didn’t just get up and leave for the islands one day either. They could have strayed or got lost. Maybe they got caught in a storm that blew them off track. I don’t know. That’s not important. The important point is that the birds from population A had large beaks and the birds from population B had small beaks. The birds with the larger beaks were able to crack open the nuts on island 1 so that‘s where they stayed. The birds from population B were not. So they moved over to island 2 where the food was acceptable. The size of the beak determined where the birds ended up.

Of course they came from the mainland. They must have come from somewhere if they were not native to the islands. And no, the populations they came from did not die out. There are many species of finches. I can’t say where they came from.

My explanation doesn’t require any proof. It’s simple. Its based on observation and common sense. And it is right.

ah ok, so you believe in evolution now? You are saying the birds got to the island and then evolved to fit their environment, forming 14 or 15 new species. well you are right, so that's cool and glad we could agree on something. also glad you believe in evolution now

Altho I guess the obvious question I have, is if it's possible for 2 species of finches to go there and evolve into 14 or 15 new species, isn't it a simpler and better and more likely explanation that it was just 1 species that originally came over?

I mean you would be able to tell from the dna of the birds that they evolved from 2 different populations, and that doesn't seem to be the case from what I can find.

it's not just large and small beaks, there's a whole range of beak sizes and shapes depending on food supply.

 

[Split Rock]

Remember what I said about homogeneity. Traits work their way through a population until every member of the population has the trait. That’s what happened on every island. You end up with 14 or 15 species. You don’t begin with 14 or 15 species.

I know I said two populations arrived at the islands. I should have said some birds from population A and some birds from population B arrived at the islands. And of course they didn’t just get up and leave for the islands one day either. They could have strayed or got lost. Maybe they got caught in a storm that blew them off track. I don’t know. That’s not important. The important point is that the birds from population A had large beaks and the birds from population B had small beaks. The birds with the larger beaks were able to crack open the nuts on island 1 so that‘s where they stayed. The birds from population B were not. So they moved over to island 2 where the food was acceptable. The size of the beak determined where the birds ended up.

Of course they came from the mainland. They must have come from somewhere if they were not native to the islands. And no, the populations they came from did not die out. There are many species of finches. I can’t say where they came from.

My explanation doesn’t require any proof. It’s simple. Its based on observation and common sense. And it is right.

OK... now I'm confused. You say that 2 species evolved into many on the islands? This is called adaptive radiation, and that is exactly what we say happened. It is evolution. You are just claiming that they all came from two species instead of just one. That seems to be a rather trivial point to be making, but OK.

 

[WretchedMan]

In every thread I've seen you post in, all you do is talk down to other people. Which makes me chuckle at your "Ambassador for Christ" title.

If I come across as talking down to everyone, it isn't my intention. I am assertive and sarcastic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can come off differently than intended in text and, if I'm not watchful, I can take it too far.

I apologize for offending you and I apologize for getting as snarky as I did on the Morality of the Flood thread. I did go over the top there and your criticism is justified.

Wow, ok, it's one thing to say that scientists are clueless but it's a completely different thing to say that abiogenesis is not possible. It wasn't too long ago that people were sure that you couldn't fix Tetralogy of Fallot (blue baby syndrome) with surgery. Being completely convinced that something is impossible is antithetical to science and gets us nowhere. It's a good thing scientists don't share your pessimism or we'd be stuck in the dark ages treating plague with incantations. This kind of attitude towards progress makes my stomach sick.

Those are not even remotely related.

There are still a great many things that we will be discovering but I don't think abiogenesis is one of them. All the evidence says it doesn't happen and even when designing an experiment with an atmosphere most favorable for the theory, it was a failure. In the 50 years since, there has been no progress and the hypothesized make up of the atmosphere Miller and Urey used is now claimed to not have even been possible.

The fact that you don't even accept evolution shows how little you understand science. So I wouldn't expect you to be the authority on abiogenesis.

I never claimed authority. It's an internet discussion. I'm expressing my view based on all I have studied about the issue.

I don't accept universal common descent and I don't accept the philosophy it is used to prop up. That has nothing to do with my understanding of science. I just recognize where the science ends and the philosophy begins.

How condescending of you! The hits keep rolling.

What was condescending? I acknowledge I can be a smart alec, but you are either overly sensitive to what I say or just playing the victim card here.

As a Christian, to not hope and pray for someone to come to repentance would mean being apathetic to their eternity. It was a sincere statement. If it offends you, then I guess you'll just have to be offended.

Naturalism is the philosophy that there are only natural explanations for phenomena in this world. It rejects the supernatural as an explanation. This is science. Science does not work with the supernatural by definition.

No, that isn't science. You just acknowledged in the first sentence that it is philosophy.

Science deals with what can be observed. A miracle, by definition, is a rare occurrence that is outside of the observable norm. Acknowledging miracles, or at a minimum being agnostic of them, does not prevent you from making scientific observations, discovering laws and principles, or formulating experiments based on what you learn.

Adding a priori theological, historical, and philosophical claims onto science via naturalism is dealing with the supernatural, by definition, regardless of your claims to the contrary. In addition, if there is evidence of a creator or a phenomenon that is beyond the material universe, it mandates that we ignore it and instead impose a naturalistic explanation on those events.

At one time, geocentrism was the best observation people could make with limited measurement tools. Same goes for flat earth. But it's funny, it was religious dogma that held so tightly to geocentrism, not science. Science progressed, but dogma refused.

The man who was persecuted for the claim was a Christian and very little of the scientific community supported his findings. The conflict was between Copernican science, which Galileo argued for, and Aristotelian science, which was the dogmatic view of the scientific community and the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, instead of an oppressive church declaring what is and isn't permissible as science via its mandates, rules, and financing, we have a 'secular' government doing it. Regardless, my point stands. Scientists are just as susceptible as anyone else when it comes to being dogmatic about unreasonable paradigms, whether it is because of true belief, funding, or peer pressure.

"God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

~Galileo

Naturalism is the foundation of science. If processes in nature are not repeatable, science is worthless. I'm sorry but you simply do not understand science but really think that you do.

I do understand science and that natural processes are repeatable, observable, and predictable is not exclusive to, or originated in, Naturalism.

I roll my eyes at your arrogant belief that Christianity spawned science, but I'll leave that point alone. Sure, you can believe in God and be a scientist, but no scientists use God in their work. My dad is an extremely devout Protestant, but he's also a microbiologist. God does not factor into his research. He operates under the rules of science when he does his work.

Don't leave it alone. If it is so ridiculous why don't you show how those who were pioneers in science adhered to strict naturalism and excluded God from their work?

1. You have no evidence of a creator.
2. You have no evidence for creationism/ID.
3. Creationism/ID are not science because they are not testable.

Of course I have evidence. Just because you reject it doesn't change that.

ID most certainly is testable. Many aspects of creationism are as well but, like Darwinism, it is heavy with philosophical interpretations.

You make the same assumptions I do about the universe - that it behaves according to rules. The big difference between us is that you believe in God, and I don't. I don't see any evidence for God, and until I do, I won't believe in one. No evidence for God or anything supernatural = I have no reason to believe they exist = I'll stick with the natural world. YOU are the one adding a priori assumptions. You believe that there must be a God, and then shape your understanding of the universe around that. I prefer to study the universe directly. If God shows up, I'll adjust my model accordingly.

We both apply the assumptions of our paradigms to everything, including science. Everyone does. Yes, they are different. That is why I firmly believe that the foundational reason for this debate is entirely philosophical.

I am not bothered if scientists look for natural explanations. Given the subject matter it deals with, that should always be the first avenue in scientific inquiry. I am bothered when philosophy is paraded as science and dissenters are seen as ignorant heretics in need or reeducation. I am outraged when that philosophy is established and enforced on the populace via government coercion.

If the scientific community was content to stick to science, it would be great for everyone involved. As it stands it seeks to be the ultimate authority on reality, usurping philosophy, history, theology, and ethics on subjects it is not equipped to deal with.

This is not evidence, and until you post something substantial, your claims can easily be dismissed.

Regardless of what I post, it can be dismissed and I didn't post this as evidence.

 

[WretchedMan]

What is "Crawfishin'"? How am I supposed to answer a charge if I have no idea what you are talking about?

It's when someone tries to back off of a statement they've made or a position they've taken. If you ever watched a crawfish fleeing, it will make sense.

If you haven't, here:

YouTube - ‪Filming Crayfish/Crawdads Underwater‬‏

But in any case, I never once wrote anything personal about you. Every time I wrote it was to try to speak to what you wrote. Looking back, I see that I did sometimes use the word "you" when I could have maybe used a more neutral term, or a more descriptive phrase such as "the explanation you proposed," and if I was less than clear, I apologize.

Fair enough. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I did ask, and so, later, did Tiberius. And you still have not answered. You compared the difference between what is sometimes called "micro-evolution" and what is sometimes called "macro-evolution" to the difference between walking to California and walking to Mars. There is a very clearly defined limitation (the need for a solid surface and gravity to allow walking) which separates the two possibilities in the walking from Maine example. But there is no such limitation on evolution that Tiberius and I know of. If you know of one, you have given no indication that you do, much less tell us what it is.

Species primarily change generation to generation by the genetic processes Mendel discovered. This mix-match of genes is the culprit in ring speciation and animal husbandry and it does not necessitate mutations to achieve what we have observed it doing throughout human history. This mechanism can get you an incredible variety within the types such as canines or equines (walking Cali to Maine), but it is not going to get you from bacteria to man (walking Earth to Mars), without something else.

Y'all claim it is mutations, but have not shown, scientifically, that beneficial mutations can account for the development of any organ, metabolic system, or behavior, much less occur at a frequency required to account for all organs, limbs, systems, behaviors, etc. that exist.

I have read a great deal of the literature about the evidence of such things as the 'evolution' of feathers, eyes, legs, et al. and they all have one thing in common, the requirement to assume Naturalism, which I think is a faulty and discredited philosophy. They take some fossils, many time small fragments of a long dead animal, and spin a tale of how it lived, what its ancestors were, what it looked like, who its descendants are, etc. The language is saturate with 'probably', 'may have', 'could have', 'should have', etc. This is the language of speculation and hypothesis, not scientific evidence.

To sum it up:
1)Naturalism is a failed philosophy.
2)All the evidence for universal common descent is circumstantial and dependent on Naturalism's presuppositions.
3)Therefore, universal common descent is a failed hypothesis.

I don't need to spend all my time talking minutia of every naturalistic interpretation. I only need to demonstrate that Naturalism is false and that it has a negative impact on every area of human thought and discovery.

Some of your statement about naturalism seemed to make no sense if you were operating from basic scientific principles. I assumed that if we were not to be talking past one another, we should first agree on the basics. What you percieved as a "'Blue's Clues' style of science lectures" was an attempt to "define my terms.

Ok, sorry. The image that popped into my mind as I read your post was of one of those goofy preschool shows explaining something scientific to a kid in a diaper with pudding smeared all over his face.

There are two kinds of materialism (sometimes called naturalism): methodological materialism, limiting scientific inquiry to studying natural events and natural processes, and philosophical materialism, the belief that natural events and natural processes are all that exist.

Your statement, "Not every scientist operates under an assumption of naturalism and they are making interesting discoveries as a result. Naturalism is not needed to do good science and it is my observation that it has been detrimental in many ways." is true of philosophical materialism, but it is false of methodological materialism. Any non-atheist who does not see this distinction does not know science, and is in danger of rejecting science in favor of a muddled philosophy.

You make a good point here. I acknowledge that there are those who hold to a Methodological Naturalism for science but do not believe it represents reality.

In theory, I could almost accept Methodological Naturalism, but it runs straight into the same problem as the full blown philosophical variety. If Methodological Naturalism concerned itself with strictly scientific issues, it would be more benign. The problem is that it doesn't. If it did, we would not see such lockstep agreement on every level of this debate between the pure and the methodological when the discussion steps outside science and into philosophy, which it does most of the time.

Sure, a Methodological Naturalist may go to church and believe in Jesus, but at work, he is accepting the same presuppositions in the interpretations and theories as his colleague who doesn't drop his Naturalism when he leaves work, i.e. that there can be no supernatural explanation for anything in the universe.

If you accept a false philosophy only when doing science, it is not a virtue. At what point is any evidence of the Creator that you believe in admissible as evidence? How far will you go with Methodological Naturalism before it finally runs your theism under foot? Whenever it happens, you're just another nutty 'godidit' type to the true adherents of Naturalism.

If there was nothing in specific that you disagreed with in my "Blue's Clues" lectures, then perhaps it was just sloppiness on your part about the word "naturalism," similar to the sloppiness on my part about the word "you" and not the problem I thought it was. Still, it never hurts to stop and define one's terms to make sure that everyone starts off on the same page.

Again, sorry if I misread you, and the Blue's Clues was just to illustrate how I perceived you talking to me like a kid that just soiled himself and had never heard the word science before. It was probably nothing like Blue's Clues. I was just grabbing for something of that genre.

I wasn't differentiating between pure Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism because, in science, there is no appreciable difference.

To hold to theism, Christianity specifically, and Methodological Naturalism is an illogical dichotomy. Naturalism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. I am not saying that those who hold your position aren't Christians, please understand. I just think you hold to an irrational position.

 

[WretchedMan]

So why are you and your like not utilizing this incredible resource instead of just talking about it?
we all know why don't we.

Many are. Some who don't even believe life was designed are doing so now.

I had a funny feeling you would end up there, so the Dover trial ended with the right result after all, ID is just another name for creationism.

I believe in Jesus so ID is just another name for creationism? This doesn't follow.

 

[OllieFranz]

It's when someone tries to back off of a statement they've made or a position they've taken. If you ever watched a crawfish fleeing, it will make sense.

If you haven't, here:

YouTube - ‪Filming Crayfish/Crawdads Underwater‬‏



Fair enough. Sorry if I misunderstood.



Species primarily change generation to generation by the genetic processes Mendel discovered. This mix-match of genes is the culprit in ring speciation and animal husbandry and it does not necessitate mutations to achieve what we have observed it doing throughout human history. This mechanism can get you an incredible variety within the types such as canines or equines (walking Cali to Maine), but it is not going to get you from bacteria to man (walking Earth to Mars), without something else.

Y'all claim it is mutations, but have not shown, scientifically, that beneficial mutations can account for the development of any organ, metabolic system, or behavior, much less occur at a frequency required to account for all organs, limbs, systems, behaviors, etc. that exist.

I have read a great deal of the literature about the evidence of such things as the 'evolution' of feathers, eyes, legs, et al. and they all have one thing in common, the requirement to assume Naturalism, which I think is a faulty and discredited philosophy. They take some fossils, many time small fragments of a long dead animal, and spin a tale of how it lived, what its ancestors were, what it looked like, who its descendants are, etc. The language is saturate with 'probably', 'may have', 'could have', 'should have', etc. This is the language of speculation and hypothesis, not scientific evidence.

To sum it up:
1)Naturalism is a failed philosophy.
2)All the evidence for universal common descent is circumstantial and dependent on Naturalism's presuppositions.
3)Therefore, universal common descent is a failed hypothesis.

I don't need to spend all my time talking minutia of every naturalistic interpretation. I only need to demonstrate that Naturalism is false and that it has a negative impact on every area of human thought and discovery.



Ok, sorry. The image that popped into my mind as I read your post was of one of those goofy preschool shows explaining something scientific to a kid in a diaper with pudding smeared all over his face.



You make a good point here. I acknowledge that there are those who hold to a Methodological Naturalism for science but do not believe it represents reality.

In theory, I could almost accept Methodological Naturalism, but it runs straight into the same problem as the full blown philosophical variety. If Methodological Naturalism concerned itself with strictly scientific issues, it would be more benign. The problem is that it doesn't. If it did, we would not see such lockstep agreement on every level of this debate between the pure and the methodological when the discussion steps outside science and into philosophy, which it does most of the time.

Sure, a Methodological Naturalist may go to church and believe in Jesus, but at work, he is accepting the same presuppositions in the interpretations and theories as his colleague who doesn't drop his Naturalism when he leaves work, i.e. that there can be no supernatural explanation for anything in the universe.

If you accept a false philosophy only when doing science, it is not a virtue. At what point is any evidence of the Creator that you believe in admissible as evidence? How far will you go with Methodological Naturalism before it finally runs your theism under foot? Whenever it happens, you're just another nutty 'godidit' type to the true adherents of Naturalism.



Again, sorry if I misread you, and the Blue's Clues was just to illustrate how I perceived you talking to me like a kid that just soiled himself and had never heard the word science before. It was probably nothing like Blue's Clues. I was just grabbing for something of that genre.

I wasn't differentiating between pure Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism because, in science, there is no appreciable difference.

To hold to theism, Christianity specifically, and Methodological Naturalism is an illogical dichotomy. Naturalism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. I am not saying that those who hold your position aren't Christians, please understand. I just think you hold to an irrational position.

Apologies accepted and apologies offerered for my part in the miscommunication.

In theory, I could almost accept Methodological Naturalism, but it runs straight into the same problem as the full blown philosophical variety. If Methodological Naturalism concerned itself with strictly scientific issues, it would be more benign. The problem is that it doesn't. If it did, we would not see such lockstep agreement on every level of this debate between the pure and the methodological when the discussion steps outside science and into philosophy, which it does most of the time.

Methodological materialism is a way -- the only way-- of doing science. Period. When materialism leaks into philosophy, it is philosophical materialism, even if the person using it does not believe himself to be a philosophical materialist. It is understandable that a true philosophical materialist would confuse the two, but a lot of people with faith and/or open minds on the possibility of non-material events and processes tend to confuse the issue as well. I suspect that we view this breakdown in the separation between the two kinds of materialism the same, but just think in different terms of the grey area due to these peoples' sloppy thinking.

I wasn't differentiating between pure Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism because, in science, there is no appreciable difference.

To hold to theism, Christianity specifically, and Methodological Naturalism is an illogical dichotomy. Naturalism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. I am not saying that those who hold your position aren't Christians, please understand. I just think you hold to an irrational position.

A scientific model is a limited representation of reality. One of the limitations on the model is that it is naturalistic. From a viewpoint inside a scientific model there can be nothing non-naturalistic. But like all models, it is not a perfect representation of reality. It is a simplification that allows us to understand a particular aspect of realities rules. A limitation of naturalism on the model does not force the same limitation on the reality.

If you keep this in mind, there is no dichotomy. Naturalism, if you mean philosophic materialism, and Christianity are mutually exclusive, I agree. Naturalistic scientific models and Christianity are not. We accept the model as long as it is useful. At the points where it fails to represent reality we switch to a different model. If some of those points require non-materialistic considerations, then we use a non-materialistic model. We just can't call the model scientific.