proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

That's just fried air.That's highly naive.

Again, I've been debating this stuff for over a decade. If you can point me to argument for evidence of intelligent manufacture of DNA (beyond human genetic engineering mind you), that doesn't boil down to an argument from incredulity then I'd love to see it.

 

[Hieronymus]

What she was looking for was a response to the friend's question about evolution (and dinosaurs). The correct response is that evolution is compatible with Christianity and with the existence of an intelligent designer.

How?
You can't have a natural(istic) explanation for a supernatural creation.

 

[sfs]

How?

How can evolution be consistent with an intelligent creator? By having a creator who works through evolution, of course. That would include both one who works through natural processes and one who intervenes from time to time in otherwise natural processes.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's not an assumption. It's the very definition of phylogenetics.

Alright, but my point is the same.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm talking about.

Biologists have moved well past making the case for evolution and into taking that knowledge and using it for practical applications.

I think it's called genetics.

For example if you look up things like 'phylogenetic shadowing' and 'phylogenetic footprinting', you'll find techniques used in modern genomics that directly apply data from phylogenetic trees. And this data is being applied to aid in the discovery of functional regions of the genome or prediction of gene functions.

Here's an example: Phylogenetic Shadowing of Primate Sequences to Find Functional Regions of the Human Genome | Science

Heck, there are even patents based on applied evolutionary biology.

Well, as i said, this can be used as a good piece of evidence to make a case for evolution, but i don't think it poses a problem for creationism.

What 'new data' are you talking about? If you're talking about DNA sequences, we already know perfectly well how novel DNA arises: replication and variation/mutation.

But that's the assumption you use as a conclusion.
You decided: procreated mutations = evolution.
And in a sense this is true, but it's no explanation for purposeful complex systems arising over time.

 

[Hieronymus]

How can evolution be consistent with an intelligent creator? By having a creator who works through evolution, of course. That would include both one who works through natural processes and one who intervenes from time to time in otherwise natural processes.

No, because as you didn't quote, i said:

You can't have a natural(istic) explanation for a supernatural creation.

Because the ToE has no God, no intelligence in it as a factor.
It's naturalism = the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

 

[sfs]

No, because as you didn't quote, i said:

I didn't quote that part because I thought your first question was the more important one, and that was the one I was answering.

Because the ToE has no God, no intelligence in it as a factor.

Neither does any other scientific theory, yet most people have no trouble reconciling chemistry, say, with theism.

It's naturalism = the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

No, what you're describing is naturalism, not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is, surprisingly enough, a scientific theory about evolution. It's not a philosophical belief about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.

 

[lesliedellow]

Because the ToE has no God, no intelligence in it as a factor.
It's naturalism = the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

So? How are creationists proposing to make God into a term in a scientific formula?

The THEOLOGICAL belief that God is the ultimate cause of all things is not incompatible with a SCIENTIFIC description of the universe, but they most definitely are not the same thing.

 

[Hieronymus]

I didn't quote that part because I thought your first question was the more important one, and that was the one I was answering.

Neither does any other scientific theory, yet most people have no trouble reconciling chemistry, say, with theism.

Of course.
But in this case it's about the ORIGINS of our mindbogglingly complex reality, living nature in particular.
How we can do stuff within this reality is within the natural realm, like physics and chemistry and biology = the natural sciences.

No, what you're describing is naturalism, not the theory of evolution.

The ToE is a natural(istic) theory / idea.

The theory of evolution is, surprisingly enough, a scientific theory about evolution. It's not a philosophical belief about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.

Why don't you read my long post where i explain this very thing:

....
So it's a philosophical belief.
But, it's also the paradigm in which science is conducted, that is, the natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry and biology.
So the scientists can only approach it within the natural paradigm.
But it becomes a religion when you make it naturalism or science-ism.
This necessitates the familiar models to involve HUGE amounts of time, to give it more chance of all coming about by chance.
Because there is no room in natural science for intelligent influences.
A supernatural being doing / having done stuff is unapproachable by science.
But what they have us believe is that they know that there never was any supernatural intelligent influence, like a creator, God.
And they're even right in a way, by saying that it's not scientific to try to incorporate God or gods or what have you, in the equation.
But this simply means it's beyond the grasp of science.
It does not mean that God is not a better explanation for the existence of our reality.
In fact, God existing and creating (or having created) is a far better explanation for the existence of our reality than far fetched, ambiguous models with many holes and problems of their own.
But people, myself included, need a couple of years to de-programme the years of indoctrination and suggestion that is and has been bombarded upon in numerous ways.
....

 

[Hieronymus]

So? How are creationists proposing to make God into a term in a scientific formula?

It's beyond the realm of the natural sciences.
That doesn't mean science can dismiss it, it means they can not approach it.

The THEOLOGICAL belief that God is the ultimate cause of all things is not incompatible with a SCIENTIFIC description of the universe, but they most definitely are not the same thing.

You fail to realise, as many do, that SCIENTIFIC in this case means NATURAL.
Theology is another ballpark altogether.

 

[Hieronymus]

Again, I've been debating this stuff for over a decade. If you can point me to argument for evidence of intelligent manufacture of DNA (beyond human genetic engineering mind you), that doesn't boil down to an argument from incredulity then I'd love to see it.

After a decade i fear it is no use..

 

[Hieronymus]

Th biggest hurdle is to accept that 'science' as we get it pushed down our throats, in regard to the origins of our reality, is naturalistic propaganda.
This is not what science is supposed to be, it is not science.
Science has 'mutated' into an opinionating authority just like religion used to be.
It is in fact the 'religion of naturalism' (so to speak) that is pushed down our throats under the GUISE of science.
"Claiming to be wise, they became fools."
Please, fellow Christians, don't be fooled.
Or should i say: un-fool yourselves.
I know it's not easy though.
They have a lot of their naturalistic models worked out pretty elaborately.
But when it comes down to the basic questions of explaining the origins of the mind blowing complexity of our reality, they have no proper answers.
They just assume and have you believe that God didn't have anything to do with it.

Again, i know it's hard to believe that what we know as 'science' is not science but naturalism.
This poses no problems in the natural sciences, but it does dismiss God as Creator.

 

[Larniavc]

No.
Evolution as in the origins of species is historical, astronomy is looking at the present.
You know this.

It's actually looking at the past. Light can only travel so quickly.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's actually looking at the past. Light can only travel so quickly.

He was referring to our solar system and earth.

 

[Jimmy D]

This is not what science is supposed to be, it is not science.

What is science supposed to be?

 

[Larniavc]

He was referring to our solar system and earth.

So what is the boundary as what you consider the present. Pluto is 327 light minutes away.

Is that the past or the present?

 

[Velaut]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

Hi Camila,
i can imagine many of the posts here, interesting as they may be, are not helping you. Why don't you just discuss with your friend, with the knowledge and insight that you have?
If you just copy arguments that are posted here, maybe you don't fully understand or agree with, maybe you misquote, your friend can retort and then you don't know what to say. That way it is not a discussion between you and your friend but between this forum and your friend.

BTW, Which christian way do you want to defend? (yes, there are many) And are you so certain about it? Why want to prove it is the true way instead of argumenting it as a good way? You want to prove him wrong, but what has he said? In your message he only asked a question. You can't prove a question wrong.

When you talk to your friend, please do it with an open mind, which you would expect from him/her too. Possibly you might give him a new idea. And equally possible, you may get a new idea from your friend. As you do, don't see it as 'loosing' the discussion, rather as learning something, finding a new piece of the puzzle.

 

[sfs]

They just assume and have you believe that God didn't have anything to do with it.

Who are these people? What you're saying is not a scientific conclusion, yet you're attributing it to science. In short, what on earth are you talking about? Have you ever read any scientific work on evolution?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Been there done that.

Yes, been there and you haven't proved a thing. Let us know when you can stop claiming, and start proving.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Why do fundamentalists even CARE to propose a scientific view of creationism?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Can you prove creation is a fact?

Not to you, or to anyone who is either incapable or unwilling to use simple common sense reasoning.

I can at least say, all thing that are here by other than natural means, are created, so that is proof enough for me the rest was created as well. If that doesn't work for you and you'd rather go with "it just appeared"...have at it.