"So true christians do NOT believe in evolution."

[shernren]

Granted i jumped the gun on that one, but how do u believe evolution started? "the big bang" = a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions do not produce life, and there is no record of this. If life were possible to come about through chemical reactions, then it would have to be considered spontaneous generation. SG has been disproven multiple times. Im just curious to know what you believe. I hope you dont take this offensivly because it is not intended to be, im just curious.

No! I'm not offended! Thank God I have thick skin. Though I'm not sure if that was evolved or created.

Big Bang = quantum-mechanical reaction. I assume you're referring to the event that God used to start off the universe, right? Well, there were no chemicals around then. Space unfurled and as it cooled energy started condensing into matter, and dark matter channeled that "normal" matter and caused it to cluster into galaxies and planets and ultimately us quarrelsome two-legged-things. I'm not saying God lit it and walked off. A billion things could have went wrong and I believe it was God who kept everything on track so that to the atheist it all looks instead like one massive coincidence. Go read A Brief History of Time etc. Science is amazing. It doesn't have to be your enemy.

I think you're referring to abiogenesis instead, right? "A" = without, "bio" = life, "genesis" = beginning. I.E. abiogenesis = the arising of life from non-life. Now, personally I don't believe in that.

But SG is very different from abiogenesis. If you look it up you'll see the theory was used to explain how maggots "arose" from meat etc. It always referred more or less to macroscopic life-forms, i.e. those you can see with the naked eye. Now, nobody believes that a big life-form can spontaneously come together from a chemical soup. That says nothing, however, about single-celled lifeforms, primitive lifeforms, etc. While nobody really has the full picture yet, scientists have taken many steps in figuring out just what happened. For example, when you put lipid (oil / fat) molecules in water they can sometimes self-assemble into membranes - so you have the outer covering of the cell. (I'm sure there are other complicated examples, but I can't remember them offhand.)

I believe that God may have used natural processes to bring about life. He directed those processes, if He did. But I believe that even if that is so, God will not allow our civilization to progress to the point where we can make our own life-forms scientifically from non-living chemicals.

I wouldn't encourage you to go to TalkOrigins just yet, unless there's something creationist you learnt that sounds extremely fishy. Look up science stuff at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org) and I'm sure you'll get a balanced, in-depth analysis, and normally there will be links to both sides of any dispute.

 

[artybloke]

That is only a guess that they evolved.

Not true. That is what all the evidence is currently pointing to.

Its more like... TOE's must ignore the foundation upon which their theory stands.

The Theory of Evolution is not based, nor more than any scientific theory, on a metaphysical basis. It is based solely on interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Sojourner<><]

The Theory of Evolution is not based, nor more than any scientific theory, on a metaphysical basis. It is based solely on interpretation of the evidence.

TOE began with Anaximander in 547 B.C. And Anaximander may have been interpreting evidence based on a pagan belief system. When a theory has its roots in a philosophy that is over 2500 years old I would think that the distinction between valid science and metaphysics would be blurred a bit.

 

[Sojourner<><]

the basic problem is that the statement "purposeless and mindless" is a metaphysical statement, not a scientific one. YECists consistently confuse science with the metaphysics human beings like Dawkins derive from their science. As a result they attack good science in the name of destroying bad metaphysics.

confusion all the way down.

I think that was a perfectly reasonable assessment. Purpose and intelligent design are supernatural in origin. But TOE is an attempt at a natural explanation for the origin of the species which does not take into consideration anything supernatural. So then couldn't you say that TOE is an explanation that involves "purposeless and mindless" processes?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

TOE began with Anaximander in 547 B.C. And Anaximander may have been interpreting evidence based on a pagan belief system. When a theory has its roots in a philosophy that is over 2500 years old I would think that the distinction between valid science and metaphysics would be blurred a bit.

Can you document any actual link between Anaximander's model and Darwin's formulation some 2400 years later?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I think that was a perfectly reasonable assessment. Purpose and intelligent design are supernatural in origin. But TOE is an attempt at a natural explanation for the origin of the species which does not take into consideration anything supernatural. So then couldn't you say that TOE is an explanation that involves "purposeless and mindless" processes?

The supernatural is divisive. Partly because there is no intersubjectivity, partly because of the private nature of the domain, partly because it relies on revelation as an epistemology. The decision to excise the supernatural from science was done long before biology worked out TofE, it was done in physics and astronomy, first.

Teleology is a problem in biology, first there was Aristotle and his system which dominated biological thinking for 2500 years in the West. Second is the fact that we find teleological explanations so natural in biological reasoning. Third, there is a metaphysical undercurrent from Darwin on that biology is an explanation to eliminate God from the world. But this is not science, it is metaphysics and we need to maintain that distinction.

To make a statement that life is meaningless and without purpose is a human value statement and it belongs in metaphysics. Chance is an ill defined subject, in biology it often means inability to pinpoint causes to effects, othertimes it is a statistical argument. Science talks about processes and ALWAYS de-teleologicalizes them, always speaks without reference to meaning. This is not because meaning is not valuable it is because science does not do meaning, it can't because no one can agree about the topic because there isn't anything to anchor it to in the real empirical world.

for instance, is your mating with your spouse(if you have one) random? of course not, sociological talks all the time about the not-random nature of human family formation. But can you show scientifically that you met your spouse purposefully? yet everyone feels that their marriage is ordinated and predestined to some degree. But this is not a scientific statement. Does that make it not true or wrong? only if science is the only true epistemology, which it is not. so science shows human matings to be not-random, but it doesn's say anything about your particular condition. But you want to say all kinds of things about your spouse and how you met and how important it is. These statements are valuable to you, but are not scientific statements, but maybe religious, maybe just value statements.

.....

 

[Sojourner<><]

Can you document any actual link between Anaximander's model and Darwin's formulation some 2400 years later?

I'm not a historian and I don't have the time to even attempt to trace the evolution of TOE over 2500 years, but I do know that Darwin didn't invent or discover the idea. He simply provided the first convincing model that could have possibly facilitated the supposed evolutionary process.

 

[GenemZ]

Not true. That is what all the evidence is currently pointing to.

Those doing that thinking are doing so in a box.

The Theory of Evolution is not based, nor more than any scientific theory, on a metaphysical basis. It is based solely on interpretation of the evidence.

Science must deny the existence of God. It has to.

It not only thinks inside a box. Its a black box. Yet, God never intended it to be that way.

Romans 1:18-20 niv
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

The function of biological life is too complex and wonderous to have happened by chance. It is too organized and interdependent within itself to have happened in an isolated state, one creation from the other.

Last night I saw a firefly flashing its light. I looked up to Heaven and thought what a super-beyond-genius my Lord is. Why should he need to lie?

Place Hawkins and Einstein next to the Lord and they will be seen as terribly limited retards in his sight. Yet, the Lord loves us just the same.

Men with higher IQ's who reject God in the equation of science, only have their glory when in the presence of simple men. Place them before the Lord's eyes and they are not able to take care of themselves. All men without God are retarded. A human retard who believes in Christ will be beyond genius when given his resurrection body. And, completely happy with a happiness that no position of advantage can be had in time by man.

" 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

God could have easily said....

"the Lord took favor on the ape, and blessed him. The next day the ape appeared as a man..... God said, its not good that he be alone. So, from all the apes he took a female and caused her to become woman."

If that were written? Then you would not be calling God a liar.

One might argue that I evolved because I am part like my mother, and part like my father... yet I am also unique unto myself. For if you equate change with evolution? Then we all evolve. But, that's only change within a controlled area. Yet, if I start sprouting wings? Horns? My tush begins to flash light at night? Then you would have evolution.

Excuse me. I have to go and dig worms for breakfast. Bye!


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Science must deny the existence of God. It has to.

It not only thinks inside a box. Its a black box. Yet, God never intended it to be that way.

show me a scientific statement that denies God.

the box science is within is clear one. open to whomever desires and is able to see what is going on. it is available to anyone anywhere. it is transcultural etc.

religion claims to be a black box with private information available only to those with revelation. look at some of the staements here, that you can only know things IF God smiles on you and reveals them to you. this is very different from science.

you have your science and religion boxes switched.
science = clear
religion = opaque

 

[GenemZ]

show me a scientific statement that denies God.

Silence is denial. Show me a scientific statement within recent times, that gives God any credit for being the answer....

the box science is within is clear one. open to whomever desires and is able to see what is going on. it is available to anyone anywhere. it is transcultural etc.

Science (at least secularist scientists) have locked God's Word out of any equation they create.

religion claims to be a black box with private information available only to those with revelation. look at some of the staements here, that you can only know things IF God smiles on you and reveals them to you. this is very different from science.

God does nor reveal things as you claim. What is revealed is a mystery that the key to understanding is held in the hand of God. He lets the unbelievers take a shot at it. He lets secularists take a shot at it. Then , when the time is right... he takes their theories and takes his shot at them... shooting them full of holes.

you have your science and religion boxes switched.
science = clear
religion = opaque

You have your data askewed... Its opaque to you for good reason. First of all. Christianity is not a religion. Yet, many have turned it into a religion using Christian trimmings, and calling it Christianity. Christianity is a way to life as God intended man to live. Its not simply a system of rituals and taboos to conform to. Conformity is religion. Christianity is creativity in its fullest.

1 Corinthians 2:14 niv
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Silence is denial.

likewise:
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

are the propositions for a X-Files conspiracy worldview.
not one with a scientific core.

Christianity is not a religion.

i'm not sure we even share a common language to be able to carry on an intelligent discussion. for my part i'd rather use words in roughly the same manner as the greater society rather than giving them my own private meaning, that allows words to be intersubjective, but that is just me i guess.



....

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm not a historian and I don't have the time to even attempt to trace the evolution of TOE over 2500 years, but I do know that Darwin didn't invent or discover the idea. He simply provided the first convincing model that could have possibly facilitated the supposed evolutionary process.

"No" would have been perfectly adequate.

 

[gluadys]

TOE began with Anaximander in 547 B.C. And Anaximander may have been interpreting evidence based on a pagan belief system. When a theory has its roots in a philosophy that is over 2500 years old I would think that the distinction between valid science and metaphysics would be blurred a bit.

The theory of evolution does not have its root in Anaximander's philosophy, nor any other philosophy.

It's true that the idea of evolution occurred to many people before the 19th century, for both reasons of observation and philosophical reasons. But an idea of evolution, a philosophy of evolution, is not a theory of evolution.

The first person I know of who propounded a theory of evolution was Lamark. His theory was wrong, but it was a theory. Darwin proposed a different theory of evolution, which, in its essential features was right. the theory of evolution therefore has its roots in Darwin's work. And his work is not about philosophy. It is about observations and a proposed mechanism that ties these observations together.

That is the difference between Anaximander and Darwin. Anaximander philosophises. Darwin proposes a mechanism. That makes Anaximander a philosopher and Darwin a theorist.

 

[gluadys]

One might argue that I evolved because I am part like my mother, and part like my father... yet I am also unique unto myself.

One might, but one would be wrong. Individuals don't evolve. Only species evolve.

Then we all evolve.

No, none of us evolve. We all die with the same DNA we are born with. But the range and frequency of variation in the species does change. So species evolve.

But, that's only change within a controlled area. Yet, if I start sprouting wings? Horns? My tush begins to flash light at night? Then you would have evolution.

No, you would not have evolution. First you would have to pass these features on to your children. And features a person acquires in their lifetime are not passed on to their children. So no possibility of evolution this way.

 

[shernren]

TOE began with Anaximander in 547 B.C. And Anaximander may have been interpreting evidence based on a pagan belief system. When a theory has its roots in a philosophy that is over 2500 years old I would think that the distinction between valid science and metaphysics would be blurred a bit.

So? Whenever a Christian speaks about spiritual vs. physical death, half the time he is interpreting evidence based on the pagan belief system of dualism.

And Genez, show me any recent Christian scientific statement that has made God the reason for a particular phenomenon and thus deemed the phenomenon closed for further study.

rmswilliams? what's intersubjectivity?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

what's intersubjectivity?

it's a neat term. i first encountered it in the philo of science where it is used to describe the shared body of knowldege.
here is the essay that got me thinking in this direction:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter8.html

Elsewhere I have written in detail about The Scientific Artitude{5} and have described three interdependent levels of action that taken together provide an account of what doing science entails. At the first level, the individual researcher works alone; at the second level, the researcher participates in scientific communities; and at the third level, the researcher lives as a person in the world. This multilevel approach is necessary to understand the cognitive features of science, the social structure of science, and the relationship between science and other aspects of human life. The researcher engages in a dialectical process whose key elements are discovery and credibility. Discovery is the first part of the dialectic; credibility is the second. Individual scientists make discoveries; scientific communities make discoveries credible. That is, credibility is embedded in the social structure of science.
...
By turning toward others, scientists intuitively and implicitly move their research out of a strictly subjective framework. They transcend their subjectivity by becoming intersubjective. Intersubjectivity here refers to my recognition of others as people who are like me, whose basic experience of reality complements mine. If they were standing where I am standing, they would see something very similar to what I see. I anticipate that we share reciprocity of perspectives, an assumption that derives from my typical experience of the world as present not only to me but to others as well; as ours, not mine alone.{8}

this really is a must read on the topic.


what the word means is that there really is a world out there-objectivity, and that we can share things we think about it-intersubjectivity, even though you can not have access to my innermost thoughts and feelings-subjectivity.

in the case above, i am making it explicit that the use of the term religion in a unique and idiosyncratic way makes real communication (which relies on this intersubjectivity) impossible.


thanks for asking.


...

 

[Sojourner<><]

So? Whenever a Christian speaks about spiritual vs. physical death, half the time he is interpreting evidence based on the pagan belief system of dualism.

That's a sad result of an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, and it definately doesn't apply to all Christians... something I've been talking about in several threads.

The point is that evolution is not a new idea, and it may even predate Anaximander through pagan beliefs.

 

[Sojourner<><]

The theory of evolution does not have its root in Anaximander's philosophy, nor any other philosophy.

It's true that the idea of evolution occurred to many people before the 19th century, for both reasons of observation and philosophical reasons. But an idea of evolution, a philosophy of evolution, is not a theory of evolution.

The first person I know of who propounded a theory of evolution was Lamark. His theory was wrong, but it was a theory. Darwin proposed a different theory of evolution, which, in its essential features was right. the theory of evolution therefore has its roots in Darwin's work. And his work is not about philosophy. It is about observations and a proposed mechanism that ties these observations together.

That is the difference between Anaximander and Darwin. Anaximander philosophises. Darwin proposes a mechanism. That makes Anaximander a philosopher and Darwin a theorist.

The idea of evolution didn't originate with Lamark either. Look up the history of evolutionary thought from a credible source and you'll see that it originates in ancient philosphy.

 

[gluadys]

The idea of evolution didn't originate with Lamark either. Look up the history of evolutionary thought from a credible source and you'll see that it originates in ancient philosphy.

True. The idea of evolution goes deep in history.

But Lamark proposed the first theory of evolution.
And Darwin proposed the first successful theory of evolution.

Theories are not philosophies, nor are they based on philosophies.

 

[GenemZ]

And Genez, show me any recent Christian scientific statement that has made God the reason for a particular phenomenon and thus deemed the phenomenon closed for further study.

I have known those who qualified to be scientists who are Christian. They had no problem with interlacing God's hand in certain aspects of creation when speaking of how it had its foundation. Something that is taboo to mention in secular scientific circles. But, I would not expect anything different from unbelievers.

Because these scientists I knew are believers of God's Word, they do not consider man evolved from an ape..... The scientists I have known believed in multiple creations, and an old earth. At least, that was the stand of the ministry they were a part of. They were not YEC's.

Here is one Christian scientist who thought along the lines I do.

http://www.custance.org/insight.html

And, here is a work he did to explain what I understand to be about multiple creations.

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html


The scientists who attended the Bible College I did, did not believe that man was the result of evolution. Yet, they were not (as far as I know) having any problem with the fact that man has changed over the years to some extent. The problem with those who say TOE is valid, and at the same time say they are Christians, is that they call God a liar. God did not make man out from another species of creation. Man himself has evolved. But he remains a man.

Have a nice Day, GeneZ