Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR
Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 120 (31161)
02-03-2003 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
02-03-2003 12:09 PM


quote:
Given the large number of phenomena once attributed to God that now have natural scientific explanations, what gives you any confidence that those things you attribute to God today won't be explained by science tomorrow?
I like this question a lot. I really do.
From a Christian perspective, I don't doubt that science may one day explain certain phenomena once attributed to God. However, I don't think that scientific explanations diminish the faith at all, but they actually reinforce it. From my point of view, God created the universe around us, and science merely provides observational explanations for such things. Who is to say that God didn't intend for us to discover such things from the beginning?
Where we run into gray area is when science tries to explain something that hasn't been directly observed. And that is where the debate comes in.
And we're going off topic. Sorry.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 12:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 9:01 AM Satcomm has replied
 Message 86 by Mytym, posted 02-04-2003 10:50 AM Satcomm has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4802 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 79 of 120 (31185)
02-03-2003 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
02-03-2003 12:09 PM


You (Percy) stated:
You're just restating your initial premise, and my reply is the same. Given the large number of phenomena once attributed to God that now have natural scientific explanations, what gives you any confidence that those things you attribute to God today won't be explained by science tomorrow?
--Most of the gaps to me are black holes that science will never explain in a ToE manner. Granted, science may become more profound in relativistic empiricism.
--As to your stating you are a theist (which I already remember you implied about 6 months ago when you stated you attended an evangelical group, I believe) your response is not a theistic confidence, at least in the biblical sense.
--I know you despise my preaching so I'm swift: Consider: Hebrews ch 11 where it states the first criteria of theistic faith: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that the things which are seen were not made by the things which do appear."
--You and Schraf are taking the premise that the things which are seen must be made by the things which do appear. This seems to me atheistic when you assume all the scientific gaps have empirical explanations.
--Likewise scientific problems are already admitted in the literature. Naturally, of course, a FEW gaps will become explained scientifically I grant you. The gaps you and I discussed are entropic-like contradictions, gaps of profound improbability, etc., real problems for the mega-ToE and YEC alike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 12:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 9:10 AM Philip has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 81 of 120 (31230)
02-04-2003 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Satcomm
02-03-2003 4:23 PM


Satcomm writes:
And we're going off topic. Sorry.
Hmmmm, good point! Perhaps we could consider the current diversion as an example for Jet of how it is possible to disagree yet still be civil.
Where we run into gray area is when science tries to explain something that hasn't been directly observed.
I think you'll find that this definition places you on a slippery slope because of the ambiguous definnition of "directly". If an experimenter who takes a reading off a gauge wears eyeglasses, is that directly or indirectly? Directly, right? Few would assert that use of eyeglasses makes an observation indirect.
But what about the gauge itself. Let's say the gauge is attached directly to the pipe whose pressure it measures. Is that directly? Even though we're using a gauge to detect the pressure rather than our own senses? Most people would probably believe this is directly. What if the gauge is part of an instrument panel with wires connected to a sensor in a pipe out in the industrial plant? Is that direct or indirect? What if it's radio telemetry to a satellite - direct or indirect?
And what of things that are impossible to directly observe, such as electrons and quarks, or the interiors of the earth and sun? Is science to be cut off from studying them because they are not directly observable?
The key requirement for science is not direct observation, but evidence. And the key requirement for gathering evidence is establishing a chain of causation from the event itself to the human observable expression of that event.
A simple example of this is the filming of a bullet hitting a lightbulb. It happens too fast for the human eye to perceive, but high speed photography can stop the bullet and provide a record of events that we could never directly observe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Satcomm, posted 02-03-2003 4:23 PM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 10:25 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 82 of 120 (31232)
02-04-2003 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Philip
02-03-2003 7:54 PM


Phillip writes:
Most of the gaps to me are black holes that science will never explain in a ToE manner.
Perhaps you could provide an example of one of the gaps you have in mind.
--As to your stating you are a theist (which I already remember you implied about 6 months ago when you stated you attended an evangelical group, I believe) your response is not a theistic confidence, at least in the biblical sense.
Whose interpretation of the Bible? I'm certainly aligned with some very large Christian denominations in not making a literal interpretation of the Bible, such as the Methodists and the Catholics, and they're theistic religions.
The gaps you and I discussed are entropic-like contradictions, gaps of profound improbability, etc., real problems for the mega-ToE and YEC alike.
You listed a bunch of things in an earlier post, a couple of which you include here, but we didn't discuss it, and to be honest, I don't know what they are. You'll have to be more specific.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Philip, posted 02-03-2003 7:54 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by John, posted 02-04-2003 9:34 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 96 by Philip, posted 02-05-2003 11:06 PM Percy has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 120 (31239)
02-04-2003 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
02-04-2003 9:10 AM


quote:
Whose interpretation of the Bible? I'm certainly aligned with some very large Christian denominations in not making a literal interpretation of the Bible, such as the Methodists and the Catholics, and they're theistic religions.
Just an observation, but none of the denominations take the Bible literally. There are always some passages that get white-washed, usually the parts about slavery and polygamy/taking concubines. Also, even among the most fundamental barring a tiny minority, the OT flat-earth is conveniently overlooked.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 9:10 AM Percy has not replied

Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 120 (31252)
02-04-2003 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Percy
02-04-2003 9:01 AM


quote:
I think you'll find that this definition places you on a slippery slope because of the ambiguous definnition of "directly".
Exactly my point: ambiguous. Open to interpretation and debate.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're saying. And I find your statements fascinating. Almost like asking "How do we know what is real and what is not?"
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 02-04-2003 9:01 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John, posted 02-04-2003 10:32 AM Satcomm has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 120 (31253)
02-04-2003 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Satcomm
02-04-2003 10:25 AM


quote:
Exactly my point: ambiguous. Open to interpretation and debate.
So where do you draw the line?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 10:25 AM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 11:10 AM John has replied

Mytym
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 120 (31262)
02-04-2003 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Satcomm
02-03-2003 4:23 PM


In my opinion the grey area is when we take the Bible as being the word of God. Science simply serves as a tool to explain why events occur in the way that they do. It does not aim at proving the non-existence of God. Just because things didn't happen the way it is mentioned in the Bible has no bearing on God's existence, as the Bible is just a book written by man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Satcomm, posted 02-03-2003 4:23 PM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 10:58 AM Mytym has replied

Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 120 (31264)
02-04-2003 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Mytym
02-04-2003 10:50 AM


quote:
In my opinion the grey area is when we take the Bible as being the word of God. Science simply serves as a tool to explain why events occur in the way that they do. It does not aim at proving the non-existence of God.
Agreed. That is where faith comes in. Hence the name of the forum that we're posting in. Faith and science are two different things.
quote:
Just because things didn't happen the way it is mentioned in the Bible has no bearing on God's existence...
I find this statement ambiguous. How do you know the validity of this?
quote:
, as the Bible is just a book written by man.
Actually the Bible is a library of books written by several different people throughout history. It is my opinion that all of them are saying the same thing.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Mytym, posted 02-04-2003 10:50 AM Mytym has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Mytym, posted 02-04-2003 11:09 AM Satcomm has replied

Mytym
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 120 (31272)
02-04-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Satcomm
02-04-2003 10:58 AM


In my opinion the grey area is when we take the Bible as being the word of God. Science simply serves as a tool to explain why events occur in the way that they do. It does not aim at proving the non-existence of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. That is where faith comes in. Hence the name of the forum that we're posting in. Faith and science are two different things.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because things didn't happen the way it is mentioned in the Bible has no bearing on God's existence...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this statement ambiguous. How do you know the validity of this?
* As you say, that is where faith comes in.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
, as the Bible is just a book written by man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the Bible is a library of books written by several different people throughout history. It is my opinion that all of them are saying the same thing.
* I didn't say it was written by a man, I said it was written by "Man", as in humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 10:58 AM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 11:15 AM Mytym has replied
 Message 91 by jdean33442, posted 02-04-2003 11:18 AM Mytym has not replied

Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 120 (31273)
02-04-2003 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by John
02-04-2003 10:32 AM


quote:
So where do you draw the line?
When something seems to hinder practicality, logic, and wisdom. That's usually the point where I'll investigate and research.
You guys are a good source of information, btw.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John, posted 02-04-2003 10:32 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by John, posted 02-04-2003 11:26 AM Satcomm has replied

Satcomm
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 120 (31275)
02-04-2003 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Mytym
02-04-2003 11:09 AM


quote:
As you say, that is where faith comes in.
So you're going by your own faith alone? How very unscientific of you.
quote:
I didn't say it was written by a man, I said it was written by "Man", as in humans.
Ok, I'll give you this for not being specific enough. But it was necessary to correct that statement, as it isn't simply "one book" like the Koran, for example. I agree that it was written by humans. The debate comes in as to whether it is inspired by God or not. I think it is.
------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Mytym, posted 02-04-2003 11:09 AM Mytym has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Mytym, posted 02-04-2003 11:22 AM Satcomm has not replied

jdean33442
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 120 (31276)
02-04-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Mytym
02-04-2003 11:09 AM


quote:
* I didn't say it was written by a man, I said it was written by "Man", as in humans.
And what is science to you? Science to me is a series of theories. Theories written by man.
Your faith lies in science, nothing wrong with that. But don't forget it is FAITH you have in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Mytym, posted 02-04-2003 11:09 AM Mytym has not replied

Mytym
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 120 (31279)
02-04-2003 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Satcomm
02-04-2003 11:15 AM


Perhaps those who contributed toward the writing of the Bible drew their inspiration from God, but I doubt God had much input into the end result.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 11:15 AM Satcomm has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 120 (31281)
02-04-2003 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Satcomm
02-04-2003 11:10 AM


quote:
When something seems to hinder practicality, logic, and wisdom. That's usually the point where I'll investigate and research.
But the question was, perhaps this wasn't clear, where is the line between direct and indirect observation? Your answer doesn't seem to address this, except very vaguely. As a rule of thumb, I understand your response. I've 'known' that something was wrong with an statement or idea for days or weeks before realizing what that something is. However, what I am getting at is this: Creationists often discount evolution as not being directly observable yet accept science which is equally not-directly observable as far as I can tell. I want to know where that line is drawn.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 11:10 AM Satcomm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Satcomm, posted 02-04-2003 11:49 AM John has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024