Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Shemjaza]

The native Americans have story tellers who memorize the histories they tell. Such an historical narrative is considered to be more accurate then a written account in cultures that maintain them.

So have you become a Native American creationist (spirits, white buffalos, manatou, etc.), or do you recognise that a mix of oral history and legends isn't a reliable way of examining the past?

 

[mark kennedy]

So have you become a Native American creationist (spirits, white buffalos, manatou, etc.), or do you recognise that a mix of oral history and legends isn't a reliable way of examining the past?

That wasn't my point, the point was the oral tradition is considered more accurate then written histories.

 

[Speedwell]

In your opinion, is there any way to verify what His thoughts were?

No. We don't even know what the state of His knowledge was generally, with respect to the omniscience of God the Father, although He made it clear that He didn't know everything. As a man of His time, He may well have believed the Genesis stories were in some sense historical. On the other hand, figurative interpretations of Genesis have been entertained by some for as long as the book has been in existence, so we just can't know. What we do know is that the specific interpretive doctrines of the creationists, Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, perspicuity and self-interpretability are all Protestant novelties unknown in the time of Christ.

 

[Shemjaza]

That wasn't my point, the point was the oral tradition is considered more accurate then written histories.

But not in any way reliable... so?

 

[Brightmoon]

I think you are failing to note the word “alone” that I generally try to follow the words “evolution” and “biology” with in my comments, meaning I do not subscribe to the notion that they “alone” are the answer to why we are here. I do not deny some form of evolution or variation is part of that process, but it still puzzles me that anyone would consider such a means to have come about on its own without God, and the mysteries by which He accomplishes things.

In my opinion ( and all religious beliefs are opinions because we really have no way of confirming any religious beliefs) God created using natural methods and we’re unable to figure out His/Her fingerprints . Since we can’t find the evidence that God did anything I have no problem whatsoever leaving it out of science. Now I do believe that God did create everything but adding a religious belief (or any other manic juju) to science is saying that you’ll shoehorn a untestable hypothesis into valid research just because. It makes no sense to do that .

 

[mark kennedy]

But not in any way reliable... so?

That's your opinion, which is beside the point.

 

[mark kennedy]

In my opinion ( and all religious beliefs are opinions because we really have no way of confirming any religious beliefs) God created using natural methods and we’re unable to figure out His/Her fingerprints . Since we can’t find the evidence that God did anything I have no problem whatsoever leaving it out of science. Now I do believe that God did create everything but adding a religious belief (or any other manic juju) to science is saying that you’ll shoehorn a untestable hypothesis into valid research just because. It makes no sense to do that .

The thought never occurred to me, call it what you will, God acting in time and space to create life is essential doctrine. After that science is fine and of course, evolution starts there. This isn't about biological adaptive evolution, no one who seriously thinking about the issues has a real problem with that. This is about the point of origin and thus, beyond the reach of natural science. To get into the core questions of our origins you have to go beyond that methodology of science, not stand against it.

Metaphysics: The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.

‘they would regard the question of the initial conditions for the universe as belonging to the realm of metaphysics or religion’ (Metaphysics, Oxford Dictionaries)​

Creation is a first principle, pure and simple. Assuming exclusively naturalistic causes is metaphysics. When the skeptic intrudes into this subject matter, which is beyond inductive scientific investigation into natural phenomenon, they leave the comfortable confines of empirical science. They enter into the domain of the philosopher and theologian and have had terrible luck trying to work out unified theories. String theory for instance, the theory of everything Einstein was working on till his death, has never worked.

​

 

[Brightmoon]

The Big Bang has been confirmed by physicists and so has inflation. This isn’t my field so... As far as life starting from chemicals there has been enough evidence in the decades since miller Urey to support that as well . Jack Szostak has been doing a lot of work on this and I’m seeing new research about it almost every month . There’s still no evidence for creationism

 

[Speedwell]

God acting in time and space to create life is essential doctrine.

Perhaps so, but the notion that He must have done so using naturalistic forces as understood by science, or did so instead of using naturalistic forces, is not.

Assuming exclusively naturalistic causes...

​

Which the methodological naturalism of science does not do.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Big Bang has been confirmed by physicists and so has inflation. This isn’t my field so... As far as life starting from chemicals there has been enough evidence in the decades since miller Urey to support that as well . Jack Szostak has been doing a lot of work on this and I’m seeing new research about it almost every month . There’s still no evidence for creationism

Ok the Big Bang doesn't bother me, God spoke and BANG!, there is was. As far as the Miller-Urey experiments the came up with some very crude amino acid sequences that were random, scattered and not connected to anything remotely resembling life.

"The key thing," Szostak says, "is to get started: to go from zero genes to one gene." This moment of "getting started" is the focus of Szostak's research: to discover the first "living chemistry", or, as Szostak puts it, "that transition from chemistry to biology": when a clump of molecules first became a living thing. (Biochemist Jack Szostak's Search for the First Cell, 2012. Harvard)
​

How close are we? Genetic material is missing, perhaps RNA. They claim progress in 2012, he claims in a few years he is optimistic that they will get the recapitulation of the origin of life. Question, did he get it done?

 

[Speedwell]

Ok the Big Bang doesn't bother me, God spoke and BANG!, there is was. As far as the Miller-Urey experiments the came up with some very crude amino acid sequences that were random, scattered and not connected to anything remotely resembling life.

"The key thing," Szostak says, "is to get started: to go from zero genes to one gene." This moment of "getting started" is the focus of Szostak's research: to discover the first "living chemistry", or, as Szostak puts it, "that transition from chemistry to biology": when a clump of molecules first became a living thing. (Biochemist Jack Szostak's Search for the First Cell, 2012. Harvard)
​

How close are we? Genetic material is missing, perhaps RNA. They claim progress in 2012, he claims in a few years he is optimistic that they will get the recapitulation of the origin of life. Question, did he get it done?

Will we ever get it done? I suspect that if we ever do, life will appear to have come about by exclusively natural causes--just like every other natural phenomenon we have investigated. You're looking for God's greasy fingerprints on His work. You won't find them.

 

[Brightmoon]

The point is that this 1 new research and 2 it’s difficult research. AND There’s no refuting research that shows that living organisms just blinked into place. And behe’s idea of a front loaded genome is silly because no cell could hold all of that genetic information

 

[Shemjaza]

That's your opinion, which is beside the point.

You just made it clear that you don't find it reliable.

You accept science when you don't disagree with its results.
You accept oral traditions when you don't disagree with the results.

Maybe it's not the systems that are relevant to you, just that it gives you the result you want.

 

[mark kennedy]

You just made it clear that you don't find it reliable.

You accept science when you don't disagree with its results.
You accept oral traditions when you don't disagree with the results.

Maybe it's not the systems that are relevant to you, just that it gives you the result you want.

I don't really care what the method of communication is, I take truth where I find it. I'm not opposed to science, or oral tradition for that matter. First and foremost I know what they are and I can come to a conclusion based on what they communicate when I encounter it.

 

[Brightmoon]

There’s nothing wrong with getting accurate verbal info and I agree about that, but it is hard to check because it’s so easy to change or delete . You have the same problem with written records but it’s not as severe a problem. However, science is a written record because we want to continually go back and check . Is this info still accurate? Sometimes, even most of the time it is . Sometime a small detail needs to be changed. Sometimes large details need to be added ( like adding epigenesis to evolution) . But adding unverified info or fantastic elements is just a waste of everybody’s time and money

 

[DogmaHunter]

so according to this logic: a grain of sand+another one+ another one+billions times the same we will get this?:

image from FIESA Sand Sculpture Festival 2018 - Pêra, Algarve - Portugal Confidential

So, do you actually genuinly believe yourself that you just made a valid point here?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok the Big Bang doesn't bother me, God spoke and BANG!, there is was. As far as the Miller-Urey experiments the came up with some very crude amino acid sequences that were random, scattered and not connected to anything remotely resembling life.

"The key thing," Szostak says, "is to get started: to go from zero genes to one gene." This moment of "getting started" is the focus of Szostak's research: to discover the first "living chemistry", or, as Szostak puts it, "that transition from chemistry to biology": when a clump of molecules first became a living thing. (Biochemist Jack Szostak's Search for the First Cell, 2012. Harvard)
​

How close are we? Genetic material is missing, perhaps RNA. They claim progress in 2012, he claims in a few years he is optimistic that they will get the recapitulation of the origin of life. Question, did he get it done?

Let's just assume he, or anyone else, will never get it done, for the sake of argument.

Do you feel like that gives you the required justification to claim that the god you happen to believe in (likely, by geographic accident), did it instead?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't really care what the method of communication is, I take truth where I find it.

And how do you differentiate truth from fiction?
How do you verify wich claim is true and which isn't?

I'm not opposed to science, or oral tradition for that matter.

Except when it disagrees with what you have decided to believe religiously, apparantly.

First and foremost I know what they are and I can come to a conclusion based on what they communicate when I encounter it.

By what method do you come to such a conclusion?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you are failing to note the word “alone” that I generally try to follow the words “evolution” and “biology” with in my comments, meaning I do not subscribe to the notion that they “alone” are the answer to why we are here.

Why? What evidence justifies this?

I submit that the only reason you think like that, is because you feel like your religion demands that the god you believe in, MUST be involved in the process.
Not because you actually have evidence that such is the case.

I do not deny some form of evolution or variation is part of that process, but it still puzzles me that anyone would consider such a means to have come about on its own without God, and the mysteries by which He accomplishes things.

Evolution is the inevitable result of systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition with peers over limited resources.

Your argument from incredulity, is not a reasonable objection.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

How close are we? Genetic material is missing, perhaps RNA. They claim progress in 2012, he claims in a few years he is optimistic that they will get the recapitulation of the origin of life. Question, did he get it done?

Where does he claim that we will get a 'recapitulation of the origin of life?'

What people are working on most of all is to find plausible explanations for the origin of life. Clearly people would like to know how life actually got started on Earth, but it is entirely possible that we will never find that out because too much evidence has not been preserved.

How close are we to finding plausible explanations of how life started? I'd say reasonably close. We have explanations at a high level of detail. We just need to be able to create more detailed versions of them.