Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

[koolair]

The reason I believe in theistic evolution, SubductionZone, is that the concept of God, depending on your model, fulfills needs not met by atheistic evolution or by the classical picture of God as he is in his own nature. I could go into more detail here. However, for now, I will just say that many assume there is only one model of God or picture of God as he is in his own nature. That is not true. There are two models in contemporary Christian thought. The classical model, which came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture, has been rejected in many circles in favor of a more dynamic model, which allows one to reconcile God with evolution.

It sounds like you view Yahweh as a gap filler. Don't have an explanation? Therefore Yahweh.

Regarding Scripture, I vie it as a combination of divine inspiration and human thought. The Bible was written by males living in a prescientific culture and subject to the limitations imposed by that culture.

In other words, science is the basis for reality. No empirical evidence? Then it didn't happen.

I do not consider inerrant and believe that God did not intend it to be an accurate geophysical witness in the first place.

Then perhaps Jesus is a fairy tale. How could you know?

I view the Genesis account as actually consisting of two contradictory accounts from different time periods. The reason they are side by side in the Bible is that the Biblical authors couldn't make up their mind which tradition was correct and so put them both in.

There you have it. They were dumb and we are so smart.

I know this could sound heretical, but could it be that countless people engage in eisegesis and as a result, are simply confused?

 

[koolair]

Propose a mechanism then.

Divine intervention is not a mechanism, by the way.

What? You're telling him to prove his theistic worldview without the Bible?

Why don't YOU prove your scientism without using science?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Just because you can walk 20 ft does not mean you can walk 20 miles.

You missed the point. Let's use myself as an example. It's like you saying I am capable of walking to the car but it's impossible for me to walk 20 miles to my car. However, I can demonstrate that to you. Just like the overwhelming evidence for evolution from several independent studies concludes that genetic mutations in populations over generations is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.

Your attempt to showcase the absurdity is actually a good example of why it's reasonable to accept natural selection but reject evolutionism.

"Evolutionism" is not a word. It's more of a strawman. You say that you accept natural selection. Please explain what are the limits to it and what is the mechanism of these limits?

What you're doing is assuming the subsequent fallacy. Not good.

genetic mutation and natural selection are observable facts. A 1st year biology student could show you this in the lab.

 

[koolair]

Spinner981, many persons how accept theistic evolution, such as myself, do not think that the Genesis account of creation is an accurate geophysical witness. And I don't think God ever intended it to be. As I said in another post, I view the Genesis account as actually two highly contradictory accounts of creation.

Solipsism

 

[essentialsaltes]

I believe you're begging the question. You assume the layers of earth represent the passage of time when in fact it is well known that dirt, rocks, and minerals settle according to density after being swirled around in water.

I believe you're engaging in a non sequitur. Neither the geological layers nor the fossils within them are ordered according to density, so your comment is irrelevant.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Just because you can walk 20 ft does not mean you can walk 20 miles.

Sure it does. All you have to do is walk 20 feet 5,280 times. If you have all the time in the world, you can get it done.

 

[koolair]

I believe you're engaging in a non sequitur. Neither the geological layers nor the fossils within them are ordered according to density, so your comment is irrelevant.

Point is, given all the empirical data and other known knowns, you cannot conclude geostratification is explained by time.

 

[koolair]

Sure it does. All you have to do is walk 20 feet 5,280 times. If you have all the time in the world, you can get it done.

Aside from the fact that you're assuming you have all the time in the world, it would be absurd to walk 20 ft 5,280 times with the express *purpose* of getting to work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Point is, given all the empirical data and other known knowns, you cannot conclude geostratification is explained by time.

It is the only explanation that is not refuted by reality.

 

[koolair]

I am astounded at the lack of epistemological self consciousness at this forum. How do you know what you think you know is true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am astounded at the lack of epistemological self consciousness at this forum. How do you know what you think you know is true?

Sorry, you are only describing yourself.

 

[KWCrazy]

You posts don't demonstrate that. Please tell me, what do you think evolution says?

Why, because I disagree with you? Is it my fault that you have your own definitions which you've twisted to fit into what you've chosen to believe?
Evolution is a theory of common origins which pretends that all of live began with a single common organism and progressed from there. As a scientific theory it's laughable because it can only be supported by circular reasoning. None of the required biological processes have ever been found to exist. Is there a commonality throughout creation? Certainly. What would one expect when the same Creator using the same elements and the same blueprint for life creates plants and animals with similar related characteristics to live in the same environment.

Not knowing something doesn't mean "god did it"

Knowing that matter cannot be created, that it is not infinite, and that it exists proves that the answer of origination cannot be found within the universe. Science requires an external creator. Of course, the laws of physics have no bearing on your personal definition of reality, do they?

Can you elaborate what you mean by this? Or better yet, can you cite a research paper that makes this claim?

It's called the First Law of thermodynamics; you know, science stuff; the stuff you ignore while pretending molecules-to-man is scientific.

The supernatural is not testable.

No kidding? I'm impressed! So because something outside of the physical world cannot be tested outside of the physical world, you who have a supernatural soul denies its existence. Boy, are YOU in for a surprise! You can't disprove that the supernatural exists. You doubt it based on your own non-experience. However, many of us have had actual experiences and know it to be true. To us, your claims illustrate foolishness.

I don't know how life originated.

I do.

Would you like to apologize for putting words in my mouth?

You are preaching a theory of the origin of species that can't explain the origin of the species and you think I should apologize??

How has a natural causation for life been proved impossible?

Impossible is a word we used to describe things that can't happen.

There are several abiogenesis studies that are active. You seem to think science isn't allowed to explore this question.

Oh, you can explore anything you want, but you can't get around the fact that amino acids cannot create a single protein without manipulation, let alone the minimum of 200 proteins required to form the simplest of living things; let along the problem of chilarity and the insane probability of 200 left handed proteins.

Creation websites try to claim that RNA is not self replicating.

I don't care.

All the evidence points to universal common ancestry of a single cell.

There is no evidence whatever for a magical Frankencell begetting all living things. That's just what someone told you and you believed it. Funny that you can believe a simple cell can create all living things but that a very real God cannot.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Point is, given all the empirical data and other known knowns, you cannot conclude geostratification is explained by time.

Certainly we can. It was clear to geologists hundreds of years ago, and the development of radiometric dating has confirmed their observations.

 

[koolair]

Sorry, you are only describing yourself.

How do you know Jesus is alive and well, seated at the right hand of Yahweh?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Aside from the fact that you're assuming you have all the time in the world, it would be absurd to walk 20 ft 5,280 times with the express *purpose* of getting to work.

Yes, but the analogy is about evolution. And evolution has had, if not quite all, more than half the time in the world. And evolution has no teleological purpose, so your complaint (that it would be absurd for evolution to achieve its purpose in this way) has no force.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, KW, your post contains one too many personal attacks on me. I don't put up with that and it is against the rules here. If you want to dialogue with me, you need to cease the glamming and inflammatory rhetoric. On the other hand, if you are just going to send me personal attacks, that is no problem for me. I'll just know to hit Delete whenever such garbage crops up in my mailbox and complain to the MODs that you need censored, which I know they will not hesitate to do.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, AV1611, your remark about JERD does seem a bit silly and I honestly wondered just how much literature you have red on the DH.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Why, because I disagree with you?

No, because you don't understand evolution. If you have a question, ask it.

Is it my fault that you have your own definitions which you've twisted to fit into what you've chosen to believe?

Evolution isn't a belief system. It's the foundation of biology that is supported by several independent scientific discipline that all come to the same conclusion. It's not my fault you don't know how to evaluate scientific evidence. If you have a question, ask it.

Evolution is a theory of common origins which pretends that all of live began with a single common organism and progressed from there.

Evolution doesn't pretend about anything. Do you know the definition of the word theory in the scientific context? It's a well substantiated hypothesis of some aspect of the natural world, acquired by the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

As a scientific theory it's laughable because it can only be supported by circular reasoning.

Which line of evidence would you like to discuss first? Embryology, DNA and genetics, fossil record, genetic drift, nested hierarchy of traits, examples of observations made in the lab and in nature, comparative anatomy? Nothing circular here. I don't think you understand how to use the scientific method.

What would one expect when the same Creator using the same elements and the same blueprint for life creates plants and animals with similar related characteristics to live in the same environment.

If this is your hypothesis, please tell me what test you can run that demonstrates your hypothesis to be true. More importantly, describe the falsifiable test you ran to make sure you aren't wrong.

Science requires an external creator.

Every single discovery science has ever made throughout history turned out to be natural. No God needed.

It's called the First Law of thermodynamics; you know, science stuff; the stuff you ignore while pretending molecules-to-man is scientific.

Thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. They might have to do with abiogenesis though, as one physicist has begun to test. Time will tell if he's right or wrong.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

You see, science gets to keep asking the tough questions. It doesn't pretend to know everything.

No kidding? I'm impressed! So because something outside of the physical world cannot be tested outside of the physical world, you who have a supernatural soul denies its existence.

Why should I believe something exists if I cannot observe and test it?

I have a soul!? Can you tell me where it is and what it does? What test did you run to confirm this?

Boy, are YOU in for a surprise! You can't disprove that the supernatural exists. You doubt it based on your own non-experience. However, many of us have had actual experiences and know it to be true. To us, your claims illustrate foolishness.

Your big surprise for me was you committing the fallacies of shifting the burden of proof and argument from personal experience? Sorry, i'm not impressed by nonsensical arguments.

I do.

Evidence?

Impossible is a word we used to describe things that can't happen.

This does not answer my question. I'll ask it again. How has natural causation for life been disproved? Right now the intellectual honest answer for question of how life began is I don't know.

I don't care.

You don't care that a creationist site is willing to lie about self replicating RNA? Isn't lying a sin?

There is no evidence whatever for a magical Frankencell begetting all living things. That's just what someone told you and you believed it.

It's what the evidence tells us. There is no authority in science. It follows evidence to it's logical conclusions. It cares about what is true even if that truth isn't what we want it to be.

Funny that you can believe a simple cell can create all living things but that a very real God cannot.

There is no evidence to suggest that a God exists. Until then, my position of an agnostic-atheist stands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know Jesus is alive and well, seated at the right hand of Yahweh?

I don't know that. Why would I even think that?

 

[koolair]

Certainly we can. It was clear to geologists hundreds of years ago, and the development of radiometric dating has confirmed their observations.

Geology has been studied for aeons prior. They did not interpret the data as representing millions of years.

Actually the concept of evolution is thousands of years old. In our line of history it originated with the Greek philosophers. So in reality our modern theory of evolution is based on a priori knowledge.

IIRC, radiometric dating also reveals living snails as being tens thousands of years old.