to the atheists on the board

[jem]

I said nothing negative about you. Is your understanding of the state of science not allowed to change.

I thought your old statement regarding evolution was accurate, and you are one of the few people I have meet in years even attempting to make a definition.

Now I see you sort of went back to the definintion of evolution is a fact and then defined --sort of the weak theory of evolution. This weak theory is the only legimate place to draw the line.


My point was that that line has changed. A few years ago it was a sceintific fact that we evolved from monkeys (or goo or whatever). Now it is a theory again. I say that is a triumph for truth and frankly I do not care if we evolved from monkeys or not. I just want the truth to be taught in our schools.

So in college, I was taught you can't make money trading and that we evolved from monkeys. Now, I know one to be false and one to be a theory. I respect your arguments and did not mean to piss you off.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Evolution is not a science, it is a theory.

That change occurs begs the question, why?

Quote from dgabriel:

Evolution as a science is theistically neutral. It is not interested in God.

 

[dgabriel]

There are two kinds of groups who regard evolution as a theory and not science:

1) Those who wish to situate biology under the umbrella of religion, and deny the mere possibility of Godlessness in inquiries into origin of life.

2) Those who don't understand evolution and/or the scientific method.

Evolution is a scientific fact as a process. Changes in the gene pool over time has been proven.

If evolution and its mechanisms are under the active direction of God, then it is indeed not a science, as God, as creator, and presumably, changer, or programmer is not subject to natural laws. The same can be said for all other scientific pursuits.

If the creator is actively managing life on earth, we are completely subject to his whim.

Saying that If an all powerful creator runs the show of life, then evolution is not theistically neutral, is a true statement, but a circular logic. I regard my refrigerator as theistically neutral, but if God is operating it, well then it is not theistically neutral. And if he is running it, would he be kind enough to keep the vegetables fresher longer?

Applying Theism to questions of life, human origins, cosmological ontology is a perfectly valid or pursuit, but to impose
a Creator as the default answer because you find the others philosophically unappetizing is a type dumb Puritan intolerance.

Better, if there is a creator, start from a postion of skepticism and prove it scientifically. Give the data, piece together the argument, and prove the case.

There is a solid mountain of data behind evolution.

Bring me a mountain of data behind the existence of a Creator.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Science can measure change, and observe the mechanics of change, but can't answer the questions as to why the changes in biological organisms occur naturally. They chalk it up to random events, mutations and the like.

What is the proof of that randomness over design? There is none.....simply theory.

Just because we lack the ability to see a design, or to predict a result doesn't mean that order and design are not at work in the process.

Is it more likely that it is random, or by design? Really, there is no existing proof either way, as we have no basis to calculate the odds that an organism will "evolve" at any given point and time.

"Better, if there is a creator, start from a position of skepticism and prove it scientifically. Give the data, piece together the argument, and prove the case."

It may be equally true that if there is a creator that He would prefer we start from a basis of faith in order to find Him.

You presuppose the nature of God is such that a scientific approach is the best way to overcome skepticism of His existence, when in fact skepticism is a function of a preconceived approach. Skepticims may be in fact something to be overcome in order to come to know about and learn about God.

Children are not by nature skeptical, they are receptive and trusting. They are taught to become skeptical, so one could suggest that skepticism is not an innate position, but a cultured and biased one.

Perhaps one as an adult should view the world with the innocence and receptivity of a child, rather than the skepticism of one who has chosen a skeptical filter to determine what would be God's nature.

Quote from dgabriel:

There are two kinds of groups who regard evolution as a theory and not science:

1) Those who wish to situate biology under the umbrella of religion, and deny the mere possibility of Godlessness in inquiries into origin of life.

2) Those who don't understand evolution and/or the scientific method.

Evolution is a scientific fact as a process. Changes in the gene pool over time has been proven.

If evolution and its mechanisms are under the active direction of God, then it is indeed not a science, as God, as creator, and presumably, changer, or programmer is not subject to natural laws. The same can be said for all other scientific pursuits.

Saying that If an all powerful creator runs the show of life, then evolution is not theistically neutral, is a true statement, but a circular logic. I regard my refrigerator as theistically neutral, but if God is operating it, well then it is not theistically neutral.

Applying Theism to questions of life, human origins, cosmological ontolgy is perfectly valid and tenable or pursuit, but to impose
a Creator as the default answer is a type dumb Puritan intolerance.


Better, if there is a creator, start from a postion of skepticism and prove it scientifically. Give the data, piece together the argument, and prove the case.

 

[kungfoofighting]

Quote from dgabriel:

I am afraid that you do not understand evolution as biologists do. Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

Evolution is a fact.

The implications are subject to interpretation.

Best wishes,

DG

Actually, I do. Not that it makes me an expert, but biology was my college major. So I am adequately familiar with the concepts being promoted. Darwin's definition of evolution included the concept that species evolve into separate species and attempted to give an account of how the earliest uni-cellular organisms are the ancestors of all modern living things. He theorized that natural selection was the mechanism by which inter-to-intraspecies evolution occurred. Remember the title of his famous work, "The Origin of Species"?

Modern evolutionists have changed the definition of evolution to one that is like the one you posted. They have backed away from including the "origin of species", aspect of their theory in the definition, in favor of a diluted, generic one that only acknowledges "change in the gene pool of a population over time." In doing so, they can now state authoritatively that "Evolution is a fact". Having children is thus "evolution", according to this definition. While it is certainly true that changes do occur in the gene pool of a population over time, that is all it is--a change in the gene pool of the population. This does not give an account of how one species begets a new species. Because evolutionists have not been able to determine a satisfactory mechanism for the origin of species, they are no longer willing to use Darwin's postulates in the definition of evolution.

Evolution as the process by which all species originated, is most definitely not fact. It is but a materialistic theory of life's origin.

 

[nevadan]

Quite a long discussion generated by your hypothesis, kungfoofighting. As a new member I am a little late in joining the discussion, but after reading most of the posts I would have to say that your position begs the question--Why would a house on Mars indicate the presence of God any more that a house on earth does? One can always arrive at the desired conclusion if an article of faith is presupposed.

 

[aphexcoil]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Science can measure change, and observe the mechanics of change, but can't answer the questions as to why the changes in biological organisms occur naturally. They chalk it up to random events, mutations and the like.

Who is "they?" Also, try downloading a game called "Game of Life" that was created by Conway and you will see that very complex designs can occur from random arrangments with simple universal rules.

Just because we lack the ability to see a design, or to predict a result doesn't mean that order and design are not at work in the process.

Or more importantly, that the terms "random" and "design" are often erroneous due to human limitations. Just because something appears random doesn't mean that it is.

Is it more likely that it is random, or by design? Really, there is no existing proof either way, as we have no basis to calculate the odds that an organism will "evolve" at any given point and time.

There is plenty of proof but humans haven't arrived at it, yet.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from harrytrader:

You want to kill me with all your questions I will take all my life to answer . You ask very good questions and I will try to make as good answers as I can but next week end because my stomach is crying and you can't do metaphysics in that state .

Wasn't trying to kill you off! I'm glad to see you've got your priorites set straight. First food, then metaphysics.

And the whole world stopped today over here anyway - Super Bowl you know...

 

[axeman]

"Bring me a mountain of data behind the existence of a Creator."

They have none. Just mere words.
That is the crucial difference. They like to PRETEND they are
on the same playing field as science, but the hard truth is,
they have nothing supporting their weak hypothesis.


The theists seem to believe that if they attack evolution enough,
it somehow supports thier weak ID hypothesis. But logically
this is simply not the case.

To take it to an extreme... they could prove evolution is completely
false beyond any doubt, and this would still not support ID
in the tiniest bit.

The theists need to acknowledge that ID must STAND ON ITS OWN
as a hypothesis.

So lets see you do it. We know evolution has at least SOME
evidence supporting it.

WHAT evidence is there for ID?

So far, I have seen NONE. Everyone seems to ignore this part.
It is therefore on the same playing field as a fairy tale,
instead of real science.

peace

axeman

 

[stu]

Quote from dgabriel:.........

There is a solid mountain of data behind evolution.

Bring me a mountain of data behind the existence of a Creator.

Quote from axeman:

We know evolution has at least SOME
evidence supporting it.

WHAT evidence is there for ID?

Quote from aphexcoil on : 05-28-03

"Study microbiology. It takes approximately 127 specific proteins to carry out the basic functions to keep a basic cell alive. There are thousands of specific enzymes that need to be coded in just the right way to make it all possible. The odds that they would just align themselves into one of the only configurations possible to begin life is beyond astronomical -- the number is so large as to be humanly incomprehensible.

Then one must consider all the specific physics constants that exist to make stars possible and our planet habitable.

If there is not a God, then there is something doing a very good impersonation of him/her."

Quote from aphexcoil on : 02-02-04

(in reply to ARogueTrader)...

Who is "they?" Also, try downloading a game called "Game of Life" that was created by Conway and you will see that very complex designs can occur from random arrangments with simple universal rules.

Quote from randynutts :stu where are you the theists smell blood

I am here randy, watching the evolution of aphex, whilst witnessing the extinction of purile argument, as presented by the likes of ARogueTrader