Why this debate forum doesn't matter

[ViaCrucis]

The Bible isn’t just “a book”.

It’s history. Provable, verifiable, accurate, history.

No one is siting her

The Bible isn't a book. Let alone a history book.

The Bible is a collection of books, many different kinds of books. Some of those books contain history, yes, but that doesn't make the Bible a history book.

The Christian bible is, depending on who you're asking, a collection of between 66 and ~80 books (it can get complicated in some cases).

That makes the Bible a library of books, not a book. In fact the English word "Bible"ultimately comes to us from the Greek word βιβλία (biblia), "books", plural; through the Latin borrowing of the same, biblia. Hence biblia sacra, "[the] sacred books" from whence, "The Holy Bible". It's not a title for a book, it is a reference to the received sacred writings in the Christian Church accepted as canonical for use in the Christian Church.

That's what the Bible is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[USincognito]

There is not really any "evidence" for evolution, scientifically.

No. That simply isn't true. There's literally mountains of evidence (no need for scare quotes).
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is simply material that has been interpreted from the assumption that evolution must be true.

Incorrect. And please spare us the Creationist magic words.

Real science requires two things: observation and repeatability. Lacking those what you have is faith-based. Not science.

People who actually understand science know that observations are not limited to real time and before our eyes and repeatability means replicating observations our outcomes, not events. For instance, we don't need to contract with the Magretheans to recreate the earth in order to study geology.

And please stop with ridiculous rhetoric.

Evolutionists choose to believe that a rock of infinite density floated around in empty space, then spontaneously blew up in violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics. To me, this is a silly belief.

Of course it's silly. Asinine straw men are always silly. And what you have written here isn't even a good straw man because the Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with evolution. You also clearly don't understand thermodynamics (hint - cosmological expansion has nothing to do with heat transfer in closed systems)

 

[USincognito]

Is it my interpretation of the big bang theory that you think is wrong? Please explain, scientifically, where the rock came from.

No part of the Big Bang Theory states that:
- a rock was floating around in space
- said rock was infinitely dense
- said rock spontaneously blew up
- said rock blew up period

If you seriously think that your straw man is an accurate representation of the Big Bang Theory then you have absolutely no understanding of the the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Tayla]

I'm just point out to you that evolution is not some random process and that I don't require some "magical" explanation for why my perceptions are generally reliable.

Natural selection is anything but random.

I accept evolution but am troubled by the randomness required to generate mutations and other changes that natural selection subsequently operates upon. I think that at least some of these are not random at all but are in some way directed, perhaps at the quantum mechanics level in which the wave function collapses in a directed manner. This is, of course, a variety of intelligent design which, I admit, is not science.

 

[Tayla]

In fact, by acknowledging that our senses indeed aren't always reliable and can even be quite deceptive, how do YOU explain that in a worldview where we are supposedly created by some all-powerful, all-intelligent engineer???? What, he couldn't create humans who's brains would actually perceive reality like it really is 100% of the time?

Your comments are based on a certain conception of God and his nature, and I agree that many Christians have these conceptions. However, I am a Christian and I do not think of God this way. I see no problem with God's involvement in directing evolution without violating anything about what science has learned. In fact, God's subtle interactions would not be discernible to us at all.

 

[Tayla]

A tool which is very good at answering question about reality.

Science is the only way to learn about the material physical universe. But there are a few evidences of things that are not material. Consciousness for one. Also, the fine tuning of the physical constants. And the incredible unlikeliness that random mutations designed and created the spectacular chemical biological structures and functions. "I think, therefore I am."

 

[gaara4158]

Science is the only way to learn about the material physical universe. But there are a few evidences of things that are not material. Consciousness for one. Also, the fine tuning of the physical constants. And the incredible unlikeliness that random mutations designed and created the spectacular chemical biological structures and functions. "I think, therefore I am."

These things are at best unexplained, not evidence of something beyond material.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I accept evolution but am troubled by the randomness required to generate mutations and other changes that natural selection subsequently operates upon. I think that at least some of these are not random at all but are in some way directed, perhaps at the quantum mechanics level in which the wave function collapses in a directed manner. This is, of course, a variety of intelligent design which, I admit, is not science.

Sounds like what you're saying is that you believe that God is directing evolution to an extent, but doing so in a manner that we can't detect (yet), thus giving the appearance of randomness.

Sound about right?

 

[Tayla]

These things are at best unexplained, not evidence of something beyond material.

They are not merely unexplained, but are, rather, outside the paradigm.

 

[Tayla]

Sounds like what you're saying is that you believe that God is directing evolution to an extent, but doing so in a manner that we can't detect (yet), thus giving the appearance of randomness.

Sound about right?

Yes. I doubt it will ever be detected. Who is looking for it?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes. I doubt it will ever be detected. Who is looking for it?

Everybody. That's what scientists do, is test their theories. So far there is no sign of "outside" influence. Personally, I don't think that such a thing will ever be discovered--I don't think God needs it.

 

[bhsmte]

Here is the deal.

In some, their personal faith belief, is very important to their personal psyche. Therefore, any evidence that contradicts this personal belief, is going to be met with robust defense mechanisms (denial, confirmation bias, etc.), to help protect the personal belief. In essence, it is too painful for these folks to acknowledge the abundance of evidence that contradicts their belief and those defense mechanisms are engaged.

Only when, it becomes too much work and too painful, to keep denying well evidenced reality, will people eventually adapt their beliefs and they do this, on their own time and when it is their own idea. The first reaction on someone else presenting them evidence that contracts their personal faith belief, is almost always going to be denial.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes. I doubt it will ever be detected. Who is looking for it?

What would be the point of looking? If God doesn't want to be found, He won't be found.

 

[Tayla]

Personally, I don't think that such a thing will ever be discovered--I don't think God needs it.

How does God work within evolution if he can't intervene in it somehow? Does he just wind up the universe in such a way it will occur on its own and let it go?

 

[Speedwell]

How does God work within evolution if he can't intervene in it somehow?

He doesn't have to. The nature of causality is more complex and contains more dimensions than you suppose. Science only deals with part of it--natural causality.

Start here; you might as well begin at the beginning.

Aristotle on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Does he just wind up the universe in such a way it will occur on its own and let it go?

Some people still think so, but quantum indeterminancy has pretty much scotched it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've written community because philosophy does help personally, but not so much in a community.
Please give a few examples if you disagree.

There's an entire branch of philosophy devoted to community issues - covering politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, etc. - it's called political philosophy.

Another related branch of philosophy relevant to communities is the philosophy of ethics.

Even if it does have a few applications, science has way more. The cities we live aren't a product of philosophy, is it?

One could argue about whether science is natural philosophy and technology is applied science, but in any case, it's not competition for the 'most applications'.

There's a good argument that philosophy helps us decide the goals that science and technology enable us to achieve; i.e. science and technology are, in a sense, the tools of philosophy.

 

[gaara4158]

They are not merely unexplained, but are, rather, outside the paradigm.

How can you possibly say that when we don’t actually know what the answers are?

 

[Astrophile]

Science actually requires theories to be challenged and questioned all the time. It's how science makes progress. But "challenging" involves a wee bit more then stuffing fingers in your ears, screaming lalala and waving a bible around.

How can you stuff your fingers in your ears and wave a Bible around at the same time?

 

[Ophiolite]

How can you stuff your fingers in your ears and wave a Bible around at the same time?

All you need is a forked tongue.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How can you stuff your fingers in your ears and wave a Bible around at the same time?

Step 1: Grab a bible in the thumb and pointer finger of one of your hands.
Step 2: Without dropping the bible, stuff your pinkie fingers into each ear, with the hands twisted such that the bible hangs below the position of the pinkie fingers.
Step 3: Swivel wrist, resulting in a waving motion of the bible while still keeping that ear plugged with the pinkie finger. The rushing noise that accompanies the pinkie finger moving around in the ear will drown out any blasphemies you would have otherwise heard if the pinkie finger in and of itself doesn't block out enough noise.

There, make that into a wikiHow, with some adequately drawn images displaying the actions described.