Why Evolution is True (2)

[createdtoworship]

You told me that the Bible was the inspired word of God and that it is literally true or something along those lines. Now, Grady, there is nothing wrong with that ... it's a free country the last time I checked. But, and no offense, that eliminates you as objective when it comes to certain scientific questions, IMHO.

Atoms haven't been directly observed either, grady; both atoms and macro evolution are inferred based on the physical evidence.

well then according to you no Christian can ever, ever be a true scientist.

Are you willing to accept this statement about your views?

BTW here is a refutation to that view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

 

[createdtoworship]

It is also curious that you fail to give the two sentences after the quoted material.

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, 31.

Lewontin is saying that we don't insert God into science for the same reason that we don't insert evidence-planting Leprechauns in to forensic science. If you are going to propose miracles and gods who break natural laws, then you have given up any hope of finding the truth.

so when you ask about there being no "divine foot in the door", what was Richard Lewontin talking about when he mentions the "divine foot in the door?" Are you saying you disagree with him, if so.....why post more of his work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

well then according to you no Christian can ever, ever be a true scientist.

Are you willing to accept this statement about your views?

BTW here is a refutation to that view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Being a Christian does not mean that you accept the Bible as the infallible word of God. What makes you think that is a must for Christianity?

 

[createdtoworship]

Being a Christian does not mean that you accept the Bible as the infallible word of God. What makes you think that is a must for Christianity?

well if you don't believe in a literal adam and eve, then you dont' believe in original sin, if you dont' believe in original sin, then you don't need to be saved from your sin. If you don't need to be saved from your sin, why believe in Jesus? Believing in Jesus is the definition of a Christian, so there is no need to be a Christian if there is no literal Bible. and I would question ones faith in the gospel message if they reject a literal fall of adam. however one may come upon ones sinfullness by other means but if they reject the original sin they are at a lack of explaination of why they are sinners. this can lead to doubts about if they are in fact sinners. then we have the problem all over again. are they truly in need of salvation or not, and are they christian?

 

[StormanNorman]

well then according to you no Christian can ever, ever be a true scientist.

Are you willing to accept this statement about your views?

No, because it is incorrect; there are plenty of good scientists that are also Christians. But, depending on what one believes as absolute, infallible truths as a part of their faith, it could compromise their objectivity when it comes to certain scientific questions that might contradict those truths.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, because it is incorrect; there are plenty of good scientists that are also Christians. But, depending on what one believes as absolute, infallible truths as a part of their faith, it could compromise their objectivity when it comes to certain scientific questions that might contradict those truths.

well that boils down to your definition of christian. please see my last post regarding a literal bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well if you don't believe in a literal adam and eve, then you dont' believe in original sin, if you dont' believe in original sin, then you don't need to be saved from your sin. If you don't need to be saved from your sin, why believe in Jesus? Believing in Jesus is the definition of a Christian, so there is no need to be a Christian if there is no literal Bible. and I would question ones faith in the gospel message if they reject a literal fall of adam. however one may come upon ones sinfullness by other means but if they reject the original sin they are at a lack of explaination of why they are sinners. this can lead to doubts about if they are in fact sinners. then we have the problem all over again. are they truly in need of salvation or not, and are they christian?

Original sin is a flawed moral concept. Many Christians do not accept the concept.

It seems you are making the mistake of thinking that your kind of Christianity is the only kind of Christianity. With roughly 40,000 variations you could not be more wrong.

 

[StormanNorman]

well that boils down to your definition of christian. please see my last post regarding a literal bible.

Not really. The gist of my point which is when one is and isn't able to perform science objectively has nothing to do with the definition of Christian or any other faith for that matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

so when you ask about there being no "divine foot in the door", what was Richard Lewontin talking about when he mentions the "divine foot in the door?"

He was mentioning unevidenced and unfalsifiable supernatural mechanisms.

Are you saying you disagree with him, if so.....why post more of his work?

Are you saying that you disagree with him? Do you think that unevidenced and unfalsifiable miracles can replace evidenced natural mechanisms? Do you think that forensic scientists should just give up their careers because all of the fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene could have arrived there by a miracle? Do you think scientists should stop looking looking at fossils because they could have been magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity? Do you think scientists should should stop studying gravity because it has no natural mechanism, but is instead caused by supernatural beings through miracles?

 

[Loudmouth]

well if you don't believe in a literal adam and eve, then you dont' believe in original sin, if you dont' believe in original sin, then you don't need to be saved from your sin. If you don't need to be saved from your sin, why believe in Jesus? Believing in Jesus is the definition of a Christian, so there is no need to be a Christian if there is no literal Bible. and I would question ones faith in the gospel message if they reject a literal fall of adam. however one may come upon ones sinfullness by other means but if they reject the original sin they are at a lack of explaination of why they are sinners. this can lead to doubts about if they are in fact sinners. then we have the problem all over again. are they truly in need of salvation or not, and are they christian?

If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?--Dr. Francis Colliins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf​

The bigger question is how could you be a christian if you think God's creation is one big lie?

 

[Delphiki]

One cannot edit out all the miracles, and the fact one would try speaks volumes about the nincompoopery of that individual.

"Thomas Jefferson: nincompoop" - dad

Jesus being born was a miracle. Did he edit that out?

Yes.

He was born for a reason as foretold by prophets and would have signs that followed Him too show Who He was.

The Jefferson bible is an extraction from the King James New Testament where Jesus encourages ethical behavior and there is no holy spells, supernatural woo, or other high fantasy bits.

We do have the original scriptures,

No you don't.

so how can someone warp them?

They can warp them by saying the version they have that was written in medieval English 1500 years after the original is actually the original and read it as a totally literal and factual piece of non-fiction. Pretty much what most actual nincompoops do.

We can compare what they translate to the original.

If that were the case, then you'd gladly admit the errors, faults, and contradictions the KJV has regarding reality -- and should the actual original be completely discovered or revealed, the error, faults, and contradictions between it and KJV as well.

But hey, I can't blame you for knowing next to nothing about your own doctrine -- after all, you're the guy who thinks the laws of physics change in a manner that perfectly and coincidentally forms contrary evidence of itself over long periods of time and great distances...

 

[createdtoworship]

He was mentioning unevidenced and unfalsifiable supernatural mechanisms.

so now you are changing the bars yet once more. you originally asked. "what divine foot" and now you are saying that something unfounded exists for sure. so which is it?

 

[dad]

"Thomas Jefferson: nincompoop" - dad



Yes.



The Jefferson bible is an extraction from the King James New Testament where Jesus encourages ethical behavior and there is no holy spells, supernatural woo, or other high fantasy bits.

So nincompoopery then, by a nincompoop. We get that. One cannot ignore the fact Jesus is what it is all about, and that He fulfilled Scripture by raising from the dead, healing the deaf and lame and blind, etc. Period. It doesn't matter at all what some long dead nincompoop said at all.

They can warp them by saying the version they have that was written in medieval English 1500 years after the original is actually the original and read it as a totally literal and factual piece of non-fiction.

In other words some can actually do what Jesus said..believe it.

If that were the case, then you'd gladly admit the errors, faults, and contradictions the KJV has regarding reality --

They exist in your head. That is reality.

and should the actual original be completely discovered or revealed, the error, faults, and contradictions between it and KJV as well.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

But hey, I can't blame you for knowing next to nothing about your own doctrine -- after all, you're the guy who thinks the laws of physics change in a manner that perfectly and coincidentally forms contrary evidence of itself over long periods of time and great distances...

New laws..not a change IN laws. That is contrary to nothing in physics.



.

 

[dad]

Original sin is a flawed moral concept. Many Christians do not accept the concept.

The new testament clearly says we are born into sin. Those who do not accept it do not accept God's word.



.

 

[Tellastory]

Everything, when it comes to the heart condition on the other side. We are new creatures. God is working on the hearts of His people. Inside. The kingdom of heaven is within us. He creates in us a clean new heart. Forget the old man, and how he hated classmates or whatever. We are becoming dead to sin and the old nature. He changes us.

Listen to the Almighty tell you in His Own words!

Eze 11:19 -And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

Now when will this happen in light of what you are saying that the evolution theory is true? Hyper-evolution of our salvation in progress? See how that works?

If you doubt God's words as they were written in Genesis in that He created all things good when He has made them in that day when there was morning & evening that day and not in the process of becoming good, then evolution has no part in creation.

If death was in the world because of sin, then there can be no death before Adam & Eve had sinned, and so they were made good that day when God had created them.

Indeed, the second chapter going into more detail of that sixth day shows God recreating every animal for Adam to name while seeking a helpmeet and finding none; that means there was no hyper progression of evolution from the lower animals to the next stage in evolution at all.

Isaiah 55:11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

So when Moses had written Genesis as led by the Holy Spirit to do, believe what God had said thru Moses, or at the very least, lean on Jesus Christ and trust Him as your Good Shepherd to see the truth in His words as kept by those that loved Him & His words in the KJV.

 

[Loudmouth]

so now you are changing the bars yet once more. you originally asked. "what divine foot" and now you are saying that something unfounded exists for sure. so which is it?

Where did I say that something unfounded exists? You are putting words into my mouth.

Lewontin is using the term "divine foot" to mean unevidenced and untestable beliefs. That is why I kept asking for evidence, and got none in return.

Lewontin is saying that we are committed to materialistic explanations because the other option is to give up finding answers altogether, and to just believe in miracles. Once you start treating unevidenced and untestable beliefs the same as scientific theories backed by evidence, then you have given up trying to find the truth.

 

[createdtoworship]

Where did I say that something unfounded exists? You are putting words into my mouth.

Lewontin is using the term "divine foot" to mean unevidenced and untestable beliefs. That is why I kept asking for evidence, and got none in return.

Lewontin is saying that we are committed to materialistic explanations because the other option is to give up finding answers altogether, and to just believe in miracles. Once you start treating unevidenced and untestable beliefs the same as scientific theories backed by evidence, then you have given up trying to find the truth.

so you again state "unevidenced and untestable beliefs" exist. So which is it, they exist (divine foot in the door)? or they do not?

 

[Loudmouth]

so you again state "unevidenced and untestable beliefs" exist.

The beliefs exist, yes.

That which they believe in? No evidence that any such deity exists.

 

[createdtoworship]

The beliefs exist, yes.

That which they believe in? No evidence that any such deity exists.

so then when you asked " what divine foot" you forgot these said beliefs or what?

 

[Loudmouth]

so then when you asked " what divine foot" you forgot these said beliefs or what?

I asked for evidence that these beliefs are true. If there are no observations, then there is nothing for science to consider.