|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What we must accept if we accept evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Fine.So do I. As a Christian, so do I.
So, we now have logical reasons to believe in evolution. Do you believe that the TOE is the best logical explanation so far for the Evolution we see? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
You've forgotten where the point came from. You asserted that the Catholic position had a problem. I pointed out that actual Creationist views had similar problems - and therefore rejecting evolution does not solve the problem.t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Evolution, if it happened seems to rely on the fall and is thus reconcilable with it. If evolution happened, there was no Fall. I suppose you might claim that evolution occurred after the Fall, which would have had to happen about 4 billion years ago. But if there was a Fall, that means that man sinned, so man would have had to have been around 4 billion years ago. That contradicts TOE, which says that man is a very late arrival.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Do you believe that the TOE is the best logical explanation so far for the Evolution we see? No question about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm talking about logical necessities. It is logically necessary that if you accept TOE, you do not accept incorporeality as a possibility. Yet you have failed to actually show that using any logical construction. You've just asserted it. You are telling me that I can not logically believe that populations change due to variations in heredity and a selection process AND that I should pay homage to the Leszi when I visit his grove? How on earth does what your saying make any kind of logical sense? The only supernatural entity that is being rejected is a 'spirit of population change'. In fact, one can accept the spirit of population change, and believe that it causes that which we term 'random mutations'. What you are saying is effectively to accept the ToE one must be a naturalist, rejecting the supernatural, otherwise you are being logically inconsistent. You have not shown how or why this is the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Okay, so now we have logical reasons to believe that Evolution happened and that the TOE is the best explanation to date of the process.
Many, if not most Christians would agree with you, certainly many if not most Christian clergy agree with you.
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. from An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science So a large body of Christians find that there is logical support for both the fact of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution as an explanation. Does that falsify your assertion? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So a large body of Christians find that there is logical support for both the fact of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution as an explanation. Does that falsify your assertion? No, it does not. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Their view is sentimental, not logical. They are trying to have it both ways, and you can't have it both ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The germ theory does not logically exclude "mind." Neither does ToE.
It has nothing to do with the origins of human life Careful. ToE is not about the origins of human life. ToE is an explanatory framework for understanding why populations change. It doesn't explain where humans come from unless you start from the well tested hypothesis of common descent, and then we have one common population which has changed over time. The ToE is very good at explaining why populations change so it can be applied. If common descent is not true, we are plugging erroneous information into ToE.
or the purpose of life as does evolution. The theory of evolution explains in physical observable terms how populations change. How their allele frequencies can vary over time and what physcial parameters we know that cause this change. It is nothing to do with the purpose of life. I wish it were, but it has as much to say with the purpose of life as does Germ Theory. Precisely nothing. Let's see if you can spot the purported meaning of life in this summary of ToE The theory of evolution explains how a population's allele frequencies have changed over the course of several generations. It states that heriditable traits, such as DNA, vary slightly from generation to generation, these variations are then acted upon by a selective pressure, so that certain variations are statistically more likely to have higher reproductive success than others. Thus certain variations will become less frequent, others moreso. ToE has no comment on the purpose of life, it just helps explain what all life seems to do:- Reproduce and change generation after generation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, it does not. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. Their view is sentimental, not logical. They are trying to have it both ways, and you can't have it both ways. I'm sorry but that seems to be simply another unsupported assertion on your part. I have supplied
yet all you have supplied to counter that weight of evidence is your argument from incredulity. Where in what I presented was sentiment expressed? If you cannot point out what I presented from "sentiment" as opposed to logic, how can you stand by your assertion? If you wish to continue to assert that
robinrohan writes: The idea here is to study what evolution necessarily includes. I've identified several corollary concepts. If you accept TOE, you must also accept the following: 3. atheism
that is fine, but it appears you are doing so out of sentiment, and in opposition to the weight of evidence that has been presented. Would it not be better if you reworded your assertion to say that you believe that if someone supports the fact of evolution or the TOE one must accept atheism? It would still be an incorrect belief but then everyone, even YECs are entitled to hold their incorrect beliefs. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You've forgotten where the point came from. You asserted that the Catholic position had a problem. I pointed out that actual Creationist views had similar problems - and therefore rejecting evolution does not solve the problem OK, but who cares for this discussion that the YEC view has logical problems? I said the Roman Catholic view has logical problems. And you say, well, even if we dismiss evolution, there are still problems with the idea of a good God. But that does not affect my argument which is that evolution shows there is no god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
science is not an avenue of truth. it is the observation of natural processes. it has nothing to do with 'truth'. This strikes me as double-talk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Wow, what a sick thread. I agree with you rohan That's funny, Prophex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
15 billion years ago there was energy. That energy formed "minds". Those "minds" could influence energy, and they formed matter. This matter formed into the universe as we see it today.
The "minds" tweaked matter to form self replicating nucleotides, and helped these replicators along slightly in their quest. A billion years later the "minds" saw that this 'life' was still running and they had an idea, "what if we had 'life'? Wouldn't that be fabulous?" They tweaked again and multicelularity was born. Millions of years of playing and one design was proving succesful, Dinosaurs. "Perhaps we can be dinosaurs!" Several "minds" inhabited these creatures but the experiment was cut short by rogue cadre of "minds" who one morning threw a gigantic asteroid at earth. This 'morning star' wiped out the dinosaurs in one swoop, and the head "mind" behind the attack was dubbed the light bringer. He was very adversarial, but he was eventually banished in realm of energy maintained by It that is, the great "evermind". Meanwhile, the mammal experiment was doing wonders, and a bit of tweaking led to primates, and finally to humans. About 2 million years ago these "minds" started to inhabit these humans, and devised a channel system whereby new "minds" are automatically injected into fetuses as part of the normal reproductive event...so called 'sexual energy'. Thus, the purpose of "life" is to give every mind a "go" at experiencing this rollercoaster ride of physicality. There you go, one could easily accept the theory of evolution, but reject materialism and naturalism AND have a purpose in life to boot. If one rejects pure naturalism one can easily reject the Natural History of life, and instead employ the theory of evolution to generate a supernatural history of life. As they say in the IT world, Garbage In, Garbage Out. Some people believe that supernaturalism is Garbage, so they would say that any history of life that you concoct using the ToE that includes supernaturalism will be garbage. Some people believe that pure naturalism is garbage. Trying to concoct a History of life with the ToE only using naturalism is going to produce garbage. Edited a typo and a confused sentence. This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 22-January-2006 05:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
On the contrary it is relevant that the same problem applies to positions that reject evolution. Because it shows that evolution itself is not the problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Would it not be better if you reworded your assertion to say that you believe that if someone supports the fact of evolution or the TOE one must accept atheism? It would still be an incorrect belief but then everyone, even YECs are entitled to hold their incorrect beliefs. I don't see what difference it makes if I put the words "I believe" in front of the statement. Obviously it's my belief; otherwise I wouldn't have said it. But it's not a belief based on faith or whim or sentiment. It's a belief based on logic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024