• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by paul becke, Feb 19, 2019.

  1. RC Tent

    RC Tent Member

    218
    +20
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    I have already told you that I am aware of the reasons why you think "we" know.

    Belief in a first cause that had no first cause is really not something that can realistically be presented as "Godmustadunnit". Nothing collapses into anything because of it, it does not collapse at all. The physical world might, and all science will be gone with it, but a non-physical God that did create it won't be going anywhere. (Unless that God was never there).

    The perspective that "God did it." does not mean God must have done anything, it does not mean that a person thinks science is a conspiracy against God, it does not mean that the person who said it knows nothing (they might even know a lot of science) - it means they possess a conviction, a belief that you do not agree with. That is all.
     
  2. RC Tent

    RC Tent Member

    218
    +20
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    Yes they do make claims regarding science...based on their declared religious foundation, why do you think that people cannot have a religious perspective on science? Clearly, you have a scientific perspective on religion, but you will not politely tolerate anyone having a religious perspective on science.

    When I say that they are not conducting "modern science" I do not mean that they are not contemporary, that they are somehow historical ministries....I mean they are not bound by the same parameters that science is at this time.
     
  3. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,469
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    And the result is Kent Hovind telling people that men killed T. rex by pulling off it's "tiny"arms. If you apply religion to scientific questions, that's what you get. Pretty much the same as if you try to apply science to the supernatural.

    Instead of imagining what I think, why not ask first? I have a religious perspective on science. Sometimes, when I'm out by myself in nature, it all comes together for me. And I see how amazing it is that He could make a world in which all this comes about as He intended. A humbling epiphany. I feel sorry for those who can't see what I've seen, or who are unwilling to accept a God that wise and powerful. Pretty much all the men I've studied under have the same experience. Even Stephen Gould, an agnostic, once admitted that he wondered if this is all here because God wanted to share it with someone.

    If more non-scientists had an informed religious perspective on science, there'd be less trouble in the world.

    I'm merely pointing out the cautionary tale of lightning bolts thought to be God tossing them at sinners. I'm not intolerant of people who think like that. I'm only pointing out that they lead themselves away from the truth thereby. And a Christian should never do that.
     
  4. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,469
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Barbarian observes:
    Nope. It just collapses into "Godmustadunnit." But evolutionary theory explains why it is that way. Would you like to learn how we know?

    Unlikely, but I could be wrong. Why does evolutionary theory show why whales have horizontal flukes and sharks have vertical tail fins? Why does the theory show why mammals have simple lower jaws and complex ears, while reptiles have complex lower jaws and simple ears? What do you think?

    But the answers to the above two questions by most creationists are so presented. The last time I asked, a creationist said that "God designed them that way." When I asked why they both had the same shape, he said "Common creator; common design." If it's different, "Godmustadunnit." If it's alike, "Godmustadunnit."

    Which, in the long view, is true enough. God created everything; some people just aren't comfortable with the way He did it.

    Like the man who "helped" the balloonist lost in a fog. Balloonist yells down to a man on the ground "Where are we?"

    The man yelled back, "You're in a balloon."

    True enough but useless for the problem at hand. That's what "Godmustadunnit" means.
     
  5. RC Tent

    RC Tent Member

    218
    +20
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    Seriously, there are people who know why people believe in evolution, who do know the evidence, and actually just do not believe that science is the ultimate arbiter of all reality.

    Your assumption that only ignorance or dishonesty could possibly explain why anyone doubts it as truth is not science, it is an attitude.


    So you can prove your empathic and mind reading skills with science can you? Otherwise, you don't really have much here except what certainly appears to be another condescending assumption.

    Okay, but since this is simply the assumption that everyone is constantly trying to pass a biology or geology exam, and therefore you see everyone who in fact is not even trying to do that as failing the exam. When someone says "God did it" they are making a statement of faith, not answering a biology quiz.
     
  6. paul becke

    paul becke Regular Member Supporter

    +791
    Catholic
    UK-Labour
    They've forgotten more about the imaginary evidence for Evamalution than you're ever likely even to read about. Every new discovery that goes counter to the evolutionists' stated beliefs, elicits a hilariously predictable response : 'My ! Evolution is always surprising us, isn't it ?'

    Why don't you expose those 'know-nothing' shabby heretics by writing a book demolishing Behe's book Darwin Devolves, which you can buy cheaply, if you are quick ?
     
  7. RC Tent

    RC Tent Member

    218
    +20
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    I am not imagining what you think - you are posting what you think. You read certain obviously Creationist web sites as if they are trying to conduct science, because along with their statements of faith and declarations on Genesis, they also have articles about science. You are posting words about how you count that as attempts at science which fail....that is where, in your strongly expressed objections, you do not tolerate their choice to use faith as a basis of reality, then they interpret science in accordance with that faith.

    You have stated your objections, I did not imagine them.

    Your testimony about the natural world and how your faith is sometimes supported and strengthened when you are in it is all good, but it does seem to miss the point I am making. You are not actually talking about having a faith that impacts on your perspective on science - that is the study of the physical or natural world, you are talking about how you feel while actually in the natural world. That is what science studies....it is not what science is.

    You choose to take science as the arbiter of what is real, and figure it is okay to have a faith in something too...so why be so intolerant of people who take God (in their understanding) as the arbiter of reality, and then interpret science according to that?
     
  8. paul becke

    paul becke Regular Member Supporter

    +791
    Catholic
    UK-Labour
    Unfortunately for you evolutionists, your theory that doesn't even amount to a theory, having been left behind with the materialism that you fancied would lead you to all knowledge of the universe and life, itself - classical physics. You would never have discovered quantum physics in a month of Sundays, as the paradoxes have just kept proliferating. The only way progress has been made was by using the paradoxes as spring-boards for further discoveries by the normal logic of classical physics.

    'True enough but useless for the problem at hand. That's what "Godmustadunnit" means.'

    You still don't get it, do you ? It's the end of the line, or close to it, as far as physics is concerned. Only spiritual Christian knowledge will be helpful before long, if not from here on in.

    Why do you think all the great paradigms of physics were discovered by men who were not just Sunday Christians, but what would today be termed, 'religious nuts' ? Hmm ?


    The man yelled back, "You're in a balloon."

    True enough but useless for the problem at hand. That's what "Godmustadunnit" means.

    It seems to me that the evidence of QM suggests that the rabbi in the Talmud long ago, who stated that when a person dies a whole world disappears with him, had it just about right. We each live in a little world of our own, created, sustained, integrated and coordinated by God. Even the fact that the light from the head-lights of a car travelling behind another car travelling in the same direction, at a constant speed, will always hit the back of the car in front at its absolute speed, irrespective of the speed at which the latter is travelling.

    It means that the light photons or the agency behind them must know every person in the world, in order to make sure those photons don't only travel at its absolute speed minus the speed at which the car in front is travelling. Photons have a different framework of reference, distinct from space-time (although in this case, interacting with it), which quantum physicists, I believe, call 'non-locality').

    We call that 'theism' - a God in a personal relationship with every individual, and clearly with infinite knowledge and power.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2019
  9. paul becke

    paul becke Regular Member Supporter

    +791
    Catholic
    UK-Labour
    'Would you like to learn more about it?'

    Yes and no.
    Yes, I'd be intrigued to see what contortions, fantasies and misleading half-truths your authorities would come up with ; and
    No, I have not a scintilla of doubt that your authorities, compared to the likes of Behe and Meyer, would be fantasists, with only minimally greater intellectual integrity than Richard Lewontin. Read this and weep for the company you keep :

    Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote - creation.com
     
  10. NobleMouse

    NobleMouse We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord

    662
    +230
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    May be worth defining "evolution" here. What kind of evolution are you referring?

    If you're talking about evolution from a universal common ancestor over 3.8 billion years, then points 1 - 7 are definitely correct. Evolution on that scale requires new information and there are no naturalistic/materialistic processes that create the new information. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a closed case for me - there has been no proof that has ever been observed or reproduced, and this hypothesis has been rejected not only by creationists, but also the folks with the ID movement (such as Meyer, Behe, et al.), as well as even some with no religious affiliation at all.

    On the other hand, evolution as describing minor variations of life that result from the pre-programmed information already in the DNA (such as peppered moths, variations in hares, etc...), that does happen.
     
  11. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,469
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Perhaps you'd do better by learning what "theory" means. It's an idea or set of ideas that have been repeatedly verified by evidence. See above to learn about some of the evidence, or if you can't find it, I'll show you some.

    Evolutionary theory is not physics. Try again.

    (Barbarian checks) Nope. Still making useful new discoveries. But as you just learned, this isn't about physics.

    Don't see how that's going to get your house built, your computer designed, or your medical diagnoses.

    Einstein was a Spinozian deist. Newton was an Arian, who believed the Trinity was a later insertion into the Bible. Boltzmann wasn't particularly religious. Shrodinger referred to himself as an atheist. I don't agree with any of those on religion, but I wouldn't call them "religious nuts."
     
  12. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,469
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You attributed something to me that I didn't say. So there is that.

    If they make scientific claims, then they have to be judged in that context, just as a scientist making religious claims must be judged in terms of theology.

    That's demonstrably true. There are many prominent creationists who regularly pronounce things about science that are false. Would you like some examples?

    "Toleration" doesn't mean "freedom from criticism." I defend their right to do it; I'm just pointing out why it fails.

    As I said, I feel sorry for those who are unable to see nature as it is, and rejoice in God's power and wisdom. This is the sad aspect of YE creationism.

    As I pointed out to you, science is no more able to be an arbiter of the supernatural than religion is able to be an arbiter of the physical world.

    Perhaps you don't know what "intolerant" means. I'm aware of their right to believe as they will, just as anyone else is. I would fight for their right to do so. That does not mean anyone is immune to criticism of their ideas. It just means they are free to express them.
     
  13. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,469
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Show us one of those. Which of Darwin's five points do you think has been countered by recent discoveries? That's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know what you have. Tell us about it.

    If you're actually a Catholic, you should know that YE creationists are necessarily heretics. The Church considers the question of evolution and even of a literal six-day creation week to be open questions, and Catholics may believe either without being contrary to Church doctrine.

    More learned people than I, have done that beyond my ability. However, this is a message board, and you are more than welcome to present whatever you think his most convincing argument for creationism might be.

    That could be a real test for you, since Behe says he accepts evolution as true. He just thinks God has to step in every now and then, to keep it working properly.

    He's the guy, if you don't know, who testified in court that Intelligent Design is science in the same sense that Astrology is science.
     
  14. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,469
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    I, for example, don't believe that science is the ultimate arbiter of all reality. It's O.K. to be unscientific when the circumstances fit something else. I am often unscientific.

    To be precise, it's an inference from evidence.

    "People are usually down on things they aren't up on."
    Everett Dirkson

    You were the one attributing to me beliefs that I don't have.

    Why do you assume that? If I'm praying to God, for example, how would that apply? I think you are wrong here.

    Don't see how. I'm just pointing out the fact.

    If they try to answer why reptiles and mammals have jaws and ears of different complexities, by a statement of faith, they fail. Not a quiz, just a failure to answer.

    Pretty much like trying to use science to define the Trinity. It just won't work.
     
  15. M Walter

    M Walter New Member

    5
    +1
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I hate to be a jerk, but I really don't understand how anyone can accepts the tenets of evolution. It is irrational at best: lacks cause-and-effect, doesn't agree with basic thermodynamics, doesn't work mathematically, is contrary to the laws of probability, lacks empirical data, to name a few things, and besides it is really quite silly. What exactly do you get outta it...I mean the personal relationship?? There must be a great disparity in your life as your belief-system disagrees with reality so much.
     
  16. gordonhooker

    gordonhooker Franciscan tssf Supporter

    +1,040
    Anglican
    Married
    I realise there are quite a number of young earthers out there that would like to think that life on this planet is only about 10,000 years old, but it is not.

    Please repeat after me...

    Evolution of life and the belief in a creator God are not mutually exclusive...

    repeat again.......
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  17. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,469
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Mostly, because it's directly observed to happen. But also because Darwin's five points of evolutionary theory have been repeatedly confirmed by observation, and because the many, many predictions of evolutionary theory that have been since verified.

    Things like that.

    Direct observation has shown that selective pressure does indeed produce a change in allele frequencies that tend to make a population more fit to its environment.

    Tell us what process, required for evolution, violates any law of thermodynamics. Be sure to show which law and what process it is.

    Sounds good. Show us your numbers, and how you got them.

    Show us your numbers and how you got them.

    Even honest YE creationists admit the many, many transitional series of fossils are very good evidence for evolution.

    How do you think scientists have a personal relationship with natural phenomena?

    See above. And don't forget to show us that evidence, hear?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  18. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +6,013
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    So Paul, you haven't said -- what was risible about my use of common descent? What was wrong with the evidence I presented? You've made a lot of assertions and slung around a lot of insults, but when confronted with any scientific evidence, you get suddenly . . . shy.
     
  19. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +6,013
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I'm not going to echo the responses @The Barbarian just gave, but I'll try asking you the same question I asked Paul earlier: how much actual experience do you have with the science of evolution? Do you read scientific papers in the field? What are you basing your conclusions on?
     
  20. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +6,469
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Today's winner.
     
Loading...