Then a Miracle Occurs...

[combatant]

Why do you single out evolution for this argument?
Your argument can be applied to any other area of the physical sciences; I simply repeated it for physics. I hope you can see two things from this example:

1. Divorced from the theosophic emotionalism of the evolution("ism") debate, the argument looks rather inane.

2. In areas of physics, as in evolution or any other field of science, when conflicts, discrepancies, "gaps", etc. arise, people acknowledge them and then investigate them. They don't say "physicsdidit" and leave it at that. However, in your scenario, one can say "intelligent design did it", and that's the end of the discussion, isn't it? A conclusion is reached, and therefore there is no need for further investigation. Thus intelligent design is an intellectual deadend.

The gaps and unresolved issues of evolutionism are far more serious than just claiming physics on the whole has problems. The difference is that these are things assumed to be true in evolutionism, and the said problems are critical as to if evolutionism is fact or not. Demonstrable... evolutionism is not, but physics has a load of areas that are easily demonstrable, whether precise mechanisms are known or not.

 

[Valkhorn]

The gaps and unresolved issues of evolutionism are far more serious than just claiming physics on the whole has problems. The difference is that these are things assumed to be true in evolutionism, and the said problems are critical as to if evolutionism is fact or not. Demonstrable... evolutionism is not, but physics has a load of areas that are easily demonstrable, whether precise mechanisms are known or not.

Give us examples. Show your work.

 

[shernren]

Detecting intelligent design within creatures is perfectly in line with science. No one is saying a miracle occurs today in order to explain anything. However, where intelligent design is the most likely answer, then we mustn't be afraid to admit that.

Evolutionism has innumerable things that are unexplained. There are massive gaps in the fossils, there are unexplained answers as to what exact mechanism evolutionism used, etc. BUT, they can fill in all their problems with specualtive conjecture, and "it-must-be's" because "we know evolutiondidit." Fanciful stories are not replacements for scientic facts. Thus, even though intelligent design is more feasible and logical, God can't exist (or create) to good scientific evolutionists, so evolutiondidit is the best possible answer, even though one really doesn't plausibly exist.

As a Christian I think it's pretty embarrassing that the number one evidence many Christians trot out for believing that a miracle has happened is essentially

cluelessness.

 

[JohnR7]

Hmmm... If Augustine had something specific in mind,

So what does he mean the orbit of the stars
in light of Platos belief that The stars and planets were carried around the Earth on spheres or circles,

 

[birdan]

The gaps and unresolved issues of evolutionism are far more serious than just claiming physics on the whole has problems. The difference is that these are things assumed to be true in evolutionism, and the said problems are critical as to if evolutionism is fact or not. Demonstrable... evolutionism is not, but physics has a load of areas that are easily demonstrable, whether precise mechanisms are known or not.

That's a bit too vague for a cogent reply. If you'd care to bring up some specifics, I'd be happy to discuss them with you. Physicists know that gravity exists, but have no 'theory of gravity' that holds up. That's pretty basic, don't you think? Why wouldn't that invalidate physics in the same way your unidentified evolution problems invalidate the theory of evolution? Heck, the two major areas of modern physics - relativistic physics and quantum mechanics - are not reconcilable, so physics is invalid? Without specifics, I still claim there is no difference between physics being invalid by your argument.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So what does he mean the orbit of the stars
in light of Platos belief that The stars and planets were carried around the Earth on spheres or circles,

That wasn't just Plato, but Ptolomy -- whose geocentric model of the solar system -- errors and all -- was accepted by the Catholic Church for thousands of years.

Remember Galileo?

 

[Loudmouth]

The gaps and unresolved issues of evolutionism are far more serious than just claiming physics on the whole has problems.

Actually, that is untrue. Evolution does have a unifying theory, the Modern Synthesis. Physics does not. There are many more basic questions left unanswered in physics than there is in biology.

The difference is that these are things assumed to be true in evolutionism, and the said problems are critical as to if evolutionism is fact or not. Demonstrable... evolutionism is not, but physics has a load of areas that are easily demonstrable, whether precise mechanisms are known or not.

Evolution has been observed, is continually observed, and can be observed in simple overnight experiments.

Besides, how is "it's a miracle" better than "we don't know yet, but we are searching for the answers"?

 

[Dr.GH]

The "orbit" of the stars? Does Augustine mean the orbit of the stars around the earth?

Not as I read his books. He used the word "orbit" to refer to the ability of astrologers to predict events like eclipses, and seasons.

 

[dad]

Science is a means to determine how something happens through entirely naturalistic processes.

Bingo, and if we assume that all came just from the natural, that we can see, then we omit all else. We limit ourselves to our senses, more or less, physical senses at that.

Science cannot involve anything which is untestable or unfalsifiable - i.e. anything supernatural.

No, it cannot, at it's present little level, thanks for admitting that.

​

The above cartoon is a very good example why we cannot invoke the supernatural or miracles in a scientific explaination.

No, we can't, any more than we can ask a dead man to run in a race.

It can basically stand for anything and link anything together. Say for example we wanted to show that Monkeys give birth to Pineapples.

You would be crazy.

We all know this is not the case, but by invoking the supernatural we can clearly show that they do:

1. Monkeys exist and some give birth
2. A miracle or supernatural influence happens
3. Pineapples appear
4. Therefore monkeys must give birth to pineapples through supernatural or divine influence.

Pinapples do not appear in a monkey womb. All we need to add is a little logic, and stick to the observed.

Of course you can show anything can happen this way, even the most impossible thing you can think of. Using the supernatural or divine influence can explain away anything and in doing so explains absolutely nothing.

Or everything.​

You cannot test anything miraculous or supernatural.

Not with the promitive physical only instruments of present science, no. You cannot. Those who ask God, and try His word, and promises can, of course, however, because they tap into far far far far far far far far greater laws than the temporary present laws we think we understand.

You cannot show it to exist or not exist.
You cannot test it, or predict it, or use it to produce predictable results.

We can, however, and do daily, in many cases, despite YOUR lack of ability to comprehend, really what is actually going on out of the PO little realm.​

So, why is it that we have posters that think that science MUST include their particular interpretation of their religion?

They flatter poor little science there. Be grateful, and accept the compliment! They don't realize science is bound absolutely to the present.

Do they not realize that putting in a miracle as a missing step will explain nothing and allow for a myriad of other explainations equally as plausible?

Equally plausible to a natural only based and limited philosphy.

If you are a Creationist out there who feels that you must include the miraculous or supernatural in the steps of scientific inquiry, why?

Otherwise, science is so limited, that it is all but comical.

And how can you show that it is even needed if you cannot measure it tangibly or use it to predict anything?

We need eternal life, and heaven, and love that is beyond human love. We need hope for tommorow, and some fear of the Lord, to where we don't start killing, and setting up secret torture centers, etc.​

 

[Valkhorn]

Bingo, and if we assume that all came just from the natural, that we can see, then we omit all else. We limit ourselves to our senses, more or less, physical senses at that.

No. We limit ourselves only to what's testable and what is repeatable.

Pinapples do not appear in a monkey womb. All we need to add is a little logic, and stick to the observed.

Well with your logic it does since you feel we can insert the supernatural into anything then anything can happen.

 

[dad]

No. We limit ourselves only to what's testable and what is repeatable.

Like I said, the PO.

Well with your logic it does since you feel we can insert the supernatural into anything then anything can happen.

With God, all things ARE possible.

Mt 17:20
...and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Mt 19:26 - But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Lu 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. With science, I can tell you, the results are limited to the physical only present.

 

[Valkhorn]

With God, all things ARE possible.

Then how is your version of events right if we cannot test it or validate it?

 

[BVZ]

Claiming that science is somehow inferior because it is limited to the natural is like claiming cycling is inferiour because they don't use paddles.

 

[dad]

Then how is your version of events right if we cannot test it or validate it?

How is yours? You can't validate either, same or different past.

 

[Chalnoth]

How is yours? You can't validate either, same or different past.

By making predictions and testing those predictions. The same past is easily verifiable, and has been verified many times over.

The only thing we can't rule out is the possibility of a deceiver god who decided to fool us all into thinking that the Earth and universe were old, which you apparently believe in.

 

[dad]

By making predictions and testing those predictions. The same past is easily verifiable, and has been verified many times over.

Predictions swing both ways, and I'll go with fulfilled bible prophesy over the few PO prophesies anytime. Po predictions that start with PO assumptions, then expect us to be dazzled with PO results!! Ridiculous.
You jold up the little twmperature variations in the background of the universe as if that had to be caused only one way, because that PO way needed it. Big deal!!
Just because some fantasy universe proceeding out of a speck under the precedence of PO laws you can't show existed back then, says, we can expect some temperature differences, does not mean that is the best, or only explanation. By any stretch of the imagination.
The ONLY thing verified is your unfounded faith in the past as being the same, as well as the future, if you claim the sun will burn out, or that we can't yet see heaven, etc.

The only thing we can't rule out is the possibility of a deceiver god who decided to fool us all into thinking that the Earth and universe were old, which you apparently believe in.

Utter nonsense. Temperature differences leftover from a seperation of the spiritual from physical universes cannot be claimed by your pretend creator speck. You seem to think your present state in the past hunches take on godhood status when coincedence or dark inspiration have some predicted item actually somewhat match something in the present universe. Well, you can jump up and down and shout halelujah all you want, but CMB hits wit the split, more than a bit, no need for a fit, in the PO pit, where the laws of physics quit, fore they get into it, so from where I sit, I don't swallow that ****.

 

[Chalnoth]

Seriously, why bother with this argument? Your split idea is nothing more than a rationalization tool to continue to believe in ancient myths in the face of overwhelming evidence. Science must hold itself responsible to the evidence, and thus engaging in a rationalization of some ancient myth, as you are doing, would be utterly opposed to the culture of science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Utter nonsense. Temperature differences leftover from a seperation of the spiritual from physical universes cannot be claimed by your pretend creator speck. You seem to think your present state in the past hunches take on godhood status when coincedence or dark inspiration have some predicted item actually somewhat match something in the present universe. Well, you can jump up and down and shout halelujah all you want, but CMB hits wit the split, more than a bit, no need for a fit, in the PO pit, where the laws of physics quit, fore they get into it, so from where I sit, I don't swallow that ****.

Temperature differences? Now you're just making stuff up.

 

[dad]

Temperature differences? Now you're just making stuff up.

CMB

 

[dad]

Seriously, why bother with this argument? Your split idea is nothing more than a rationalization tool to continue to believe in ancient myths in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Overwhelming evidence of a same past does not exist any more than one iota of it. Seriously. Your trying to hold up a prediction or two as some great thing is silly. We have volumes of predictions, that are actually specific.
You have nothing at all to say the future is in the physical only state! The same is true if we look at the past. 'Oh, if we did appear from teensy speck, it would leave some warm and cool stuff' -does not monopolize all warm and cool stuff to mean that is all it could and must mean! That isn't even much of a contender. really.

Science must hold itself responsible to the evidence,

"Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. " !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)
Responsible to it's assumptions, you mean!!

and thus engaging in a rationalization of some ancient myth, as you are doing, would be utterly opposed to the culture of science.

As cultured as you think assumptions are, tested principles of faith in God are better!