Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theistic Evolution
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 58 (382066)
02-03-2007 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by subbie
02-03-2007 12:03 AM


Re: not be contrarian
Scientists reject ID as a scientific theory because there is no evidence for it
Who says? There is a ton of evidence for it. Heck, there is nothing but evidence for it. The reason some reject ID is that they deny consideration of God is valid in the first place.
Note your comment:
and because it invokes a supernatural agent
You guys define God as supernatural and then say science cannot by definition consider any supernatural agents and then claim you are being objective. There is no objectivity here on the part of evos. You say there is no evidence because you define all evidence as automatically excluding God by definition.
Science speaks to what we can observe, but it says nothing about matters of faith.
If that's the case, then why do scientists and evo advocates make dumb comments like a personal God is not real because of science, or that "there is no Designer" due to design imperfections, etc, etc,....The truth is evos are injecting your religious views into science all the time if you ask me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by subbie, posted 02-03-2007 12:03 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 02-03-2007 1:21 AM randman has not replied
 Message 48 by ReverendDG, posted 02-04-2007 6:29 AM randman has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 47 of 58 (382067)
02-03-2007 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
02-03-2007 1:08 AM


Re: not be contrarian
If that's the case, then why do scientists and evo advocates make dumb comments like a personal God is not real because of science,
Anyone who says such a thing is speaking from personal conviction, not from scientific proof. To the extent that they believe science supports them, I agree that it is a dumb comment. And wrong.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 02-03-2007 1:08 AM randman has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 48 of 58 (382297)
02-04-2007 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
02-03-2007 1:08 AM


Re: not be contrarian
Who says? There is a ton of evidence for it. Heck, there is nothing but evidence for it. The reason some reject ID is that they deny consideration of God is valid in the first place.
all of the evidence has been refuted or is a faulty argument to begin with
You guys define God as supernatural and then say science cannot by definition consider any supernatural agents and then claim you are being objective. There is no objectivity here on the part of evos. You say there is no evidence because you define all evidence as automatically excluding God by definition.
all i see is you trying to twist what scientists say about forces outside the natural world. by all logic a being that can change the very fabric of reality is untestable and beyond nature.
the only way god could be useful in science is if it is part of nature , which doesn't work since it can change nature
it is an invalid factor, thus redundent and irrelevent to science
If that's the case, then why do scientists and evo advocates make dumb comments like a personal God is not real because of science, or that "there is no Designer" due to design imperfections, etc, etc,....The truth is evos are injecting your religious views into science all the time if you ask me.
this is your problem rand, you can't seem to differate between someone giving their opionion from their own prespective and a statement given from the results of scientific study
you are making a huge strawman, its just like the whole pete rose thread, where you just ranted about someone making a personal statement about what they concluded from experence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 02-03-2007 1:08 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 02-04-2007 2:12 PM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 49 of 58 (382298)
02-04-2007 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
01-26-2007 3:10 PM


Theism is the belief that a supernatural Deity created the universe, the earth and life as we know it, and the same IS knowable intruding into the affairs of mankind. Deism believes the same EXCEPT the Deity is unknowable and DOES NOT intrude into the affairs of mankind.
this is a mess, theism is just the belief in gods, deism is the belief in gods who interact with man, theism has nothing to do with what gods do or don't do, deism is more of a philosophy about theism.
both words mean god
Atheism denies the existence of any Deity and the supernatural.
sort of, atheists can be eather strong or weak, namely active disbelief, or nonbelief in gods
ALL atheists accept and rabidly defend the Theory of Evolution, and most evolutionists, according to all polls are Theistic Evolutionists or Christians
thats not true, i know an athiest who rejects evolution too, and their are atheists who don't defend it, because they don't understand it
How could Christians, that is, persons who believe a resurrection miracle occurred accept the ORIGINS theory that all atheists accept?
like i've been saying YEC's are brainwashing people into thinking that inorder to be a christian you have to believe in genesis, which is complete nonsense, where in the bible does it say you have to believe in genesis, ray? or that not believing it denies the resurrection
If a resurrection miracle occurred then logically so did special creation miracles. But the fact of the matter remains: TEists and Atheists agree on ORIGINS that a supernatural deity is not responsible for the appearance of design seen in reality.
the two things do not logically follow, theres nothing that shows this is the way it works.
thats bS ray, TEists and athiests don't accept the genesis account as the true way it happened, that is the only thing, you are conflating the fact that they don't agree in how it happened, with the claim that god has nothing to do with it.
God could have made the world a different way than genesis said he did , so your argument fails
Logically, when Christians and Atheists agree on ORIGINS one group is not genuinely as such since Christians and Atheists are mortal worldview enemies.
see there you go again, you are equivlating christian with creationist, so no it isn't logical its not remotely logical since you are trying to change what christians have to believe in order to be a christian, the bible and christians before never said that you need to believe in genesis to be christian. in fact more church fathers would be shocked by literalism
We need only to explain why TEists THINK they are Christians when their views and positions say they are not.
bullshit, they believe in christ as the son of god and through him salvation from sin, origins has nothing to do with being a christian, unless you have some magic bible that has a new extra part that says "you must be a creationist to be a christian!" then no you are wrong
How is a claim of Christianity substantiated and verified?
by asking them if they believe in jesus as the son of god and part of the trinity and have repented sin and have been saved?
I contend that TEists are not real Christians based on the fact that when Christians and Atheists agree on origins then one party must be deceived.
which is the most irrelevent argument i've read in a while, who cares about origins? what does it have to do with belief in christ?
you are just arguing that because they don't believe in your nonsense they arn't christians in your eyes, but origins have zip to do with salvation or living a christ-like life

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-26-2007 3:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 02-04-2007 10:30 AM ReverendDG has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 50 of 58 (382312)
02-04-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by ReverendDG
02-04-2007 6:55 AM


ReverendDG writes:
this is a mess, theism is just the belief in gods, deism is the belief in gods who interact with man, theism has nothing to do with what gods do or don't do, deism is more of a philosophy about theism.
I think that your definition of deism is wrong. A deist would say that God does not interact with us at all.
wiki writes:
Prior to the 17th century the terms ["deism" and "deist"] were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist", respectively. ... Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words.... Both [theists and deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator.... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that god remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.
RverendDG writes:
TEists and athiests don't accept the genesis account as the true way it happened, that is the only thing, you are conflating the fact that they don't agree in how it happened, with the claim that god has nothing to do with it.
God could have made the world a different way than genesis said he did , so your argument fails
I realize that I'm splitting hairs here but I would say that a TEist can accept that the genesis account as being the true way it happened; the difference being whether it is read as literal truth or as metaphorically truth. My contention is that there is a far greater truth to be found in the Genesis account with a metaphorical reading of the account than if you try and diminish it by trying to make it scientific.
It tells us that God created. That is what is important. If you read it to say that we have been divinely given a consciousness that knows good and evil, right and wrong etc it is far more meaningful than if you see it is only important or true if if you are concerned about there being a literal talking snake.
By the way, the term TEist has been used quite a bit on this thread but I think that probably most of the people who would get that label would be those like myself. I'm not a TEist simply for the reason that I don't have the biological knowledge to argue either for or against the TofE. I'm prepared to accept it as being largely correct as this is the consensus amongst those that do have the scientific knowledge.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ReverendDG, posted 02-04-2007 6:55 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ReverendDG, posted 02-10-2007 3:37 AM GDR has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 58 (382389)
02-04-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ReverendDG
02-04-2007 6:29 AM


Re: not be contrarian
The design of the world is evidence of an Invisible Designer. As Ray says, what more do you want God to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ReverendDG, posted 02-04-2007 6:29 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ReverendDG, posted 02-10-2007 3:46 AM randman has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 52 of 58 (384112)
02-10-2007 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by GDR
02-04-2007 10:30 AM


I think that your definition of deism is wrong. A deist would say that God does not interact with us at all.
lol not sure what happened there, i must have needed sleep that day
I realize that I'm splitting hairs here but I would say that a TEist can accept that the genesis account as being the true way it happened; the difference being whether it is read as literal truth or as metaphorically truth. My contention is that there is a far greater truth to be found in the Genesis account with a metaphorical reading of the account than if you try and diminish it by trying to make it scientific.
but that isn't true, TEists accept scientific answers for how things came to be as they are, now people looking at genesis as being a story from a group of people and it having cultural meaning might work. But people who accept theistic evolution do not consider genesis to have any validity as a historical narrative
It tells us that God created. That is what is important. If you read it to say that we have been divinely given a consciousness that knows good and evil, right and wrong etc it is far more meaningful than if you see it is only important or true if if you are concerned about there being a literal talking snake.
yes i agree that god created, just not as genesis says, TEists accept that god used evolutionary systems to come up with current lifeforms
By the way, the term TEist has been used quite a bit on this thread but I think that probably most of the people who would get that label would be those like myself. I'm not a TEist simply for the reason that I don't have the biological knowledge to argue either for or against the TofE. I'm prepared to accept it as being largely correct as this is the consensus amongst those that do have the scientific knowledge.
true maybe you are a TEist, all it really requires i guess is the belief that god can use evolution to lead to us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 02-04-2007 10:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 02-10-2007 6:58 PM ReverendDG has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 53 of 58 (384113)
02-10-2007 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
02-04-2007 2:12 PM


Re: not be contrarian
The design of the world is evidence of an Invisible Designer. As Ray says, what more do you want God to do?
sigh, you have claimed this before, but for some reason i've never seen you show this is remotely true.
do you have anyway to tell if something is designed? we can tell a human designed object from a non-human designed object, being that we human and can compare them, using our own knowledge of human design.
what would we have to compare with? we have no way of picking and choosing what life is designed and not designed, theres no way to compare them
this argument you make is purely absurd, its a pure circuler argument.
as for what god can do, he can mark things like we do so we know what is designed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 02-04-2007 2:12 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 4:47 PM ReverendDG has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 54 of 58 (384246)
02-10-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ReverendDG
02-10-2007 3:46 AM


Re: not be contrarian
Human intelligence is able to design and create and so we can see the properties of what constitutes design, such as order, principles, etc,....
To claim, well, we don't know what God is like so all we can do is compare human intelligence is a sham statement really. We don't really know what gravity is like either, but we know it by it's effects. We see the effects of Intelligence in the design of the universe.
I ask again: what more do you want God to do?
Send Himself as a man, His "Son", down to show us the way, be crucified and rise again? Oh yeah, already did that.
Have millions of people be touched by Him and share that with others?
Oh yeah, already did that.
Give us intelligence and creative abilities so we can see what design is like, and so understand that the world around us contains design?
Oh yeah, already did that.
The properties of design are clear, such as order, and the world demonstrates those properties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ReverendDG, posted 02-10-2007 3:46 AM ReverendDG has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 55 of 58 (384274)
02-10-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ReverendDG
02-10-2007 3:37 AM


ReverendDG writes:
yes i agree that god created, just not as genesis says, TEists accept that god used evolutionary systems to come up with current lifeforms
I agree, however I have to admit that it is interesting that Genesis agrees that creation wasn't just a matter of poof and everything was in place, but that it was done in an evolutionary fashion even if the order doesn't agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ReverendDG, posted 02-10-2007 3:37 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 8:29 PM GDR has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 58 (384298)
02-10-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by GDR
02-10-2007 6:58 PM


evolutionary fashion?
I hear what you are saying, and there is a lot of textual evidence it wasn't a "poof" sort of thing, but to say it was evolutionary, imo, is a stretch.
Maybe, but then again, it's pretty vague. "Let the waters bring forth" sounds like evolution. "Formed from the ground" sounds like ID. "Let us make man..." sounds like special creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 02-10-2007 6:58 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by GDR, posted 02-10-2007 8:42 PM randman has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 57 of 58 (384303)
02-10-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
02-10-2007 8:29 PM


Re: evolutionary fashion?
I don't want to make anything much out of this. I'm just saying that the Genesis account is accurate in that everything wasn't all created at once.
As I said, the main point is that it says we are created and that we have been given a moral code.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 8:29 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 02-10-2007 8:47 PM GDR has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 58 (384305)
02-10-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by GDR
02-10-2007 8:42 PM


Re: evolutionary fashion?
well, I was just making a point not so much to argue but to explore the whole concept. It's something that seems a bit ignored by both creationists and evos. The Bible is quite complex and often eludes man's concepts and limitations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by GDR, posted 02-10-2007 8:42 PM GDR has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024