Page 14 of 34 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 334

Thread: Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

  1. Top | #131
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    ....Please identify the contradiction.
    "....What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic?" "Science"

    "....Once more, science is neutral on divine action"

    I asked you what to call evolution that isn't theistic and you said "science".

    And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.
    You said "science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" i.e. you seem to be saying that science does not specifically exclude divine action....

  2. Top | #132
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    But what about naturalistic biological evolution and guided biological evolution?
    In the first, you add a word unnecessarily.
    But many theists believe in biological evolution that is not completely naturalistic....
    In the second, you add an intelligence baselessly.
    You said ".....science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" - are you saying that according to science (including biological evolution), divine action could be possible?

  3. Top | #133
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    32,633
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    75,106
    Rep Power
    100

    Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    They are using awfully contrived labels. Better labels would be naturalistic evolution (which occurs naturally) and divine evolution (which occurs naturally by the design of some god(s)).
    I prefer "guided evolution" because it could be possible it is part of a simulation and an AI is involved that some people wouldn't consider to be a god. Or there could be retrocausality (probably not) where things from the future affect the past - also not involving a god.
    Guided. Yup, the guided AI intelligence that gave us Sickle Cell.

    It takes some serious misunderstanding to think a super long and terribly imperfect process of evolution is ‘guided’.

    Must be a pretty stupid entity that is guiding evolution!

  4. Top | #134
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,852
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,891
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    ....Please identify the contradiction.
    "....What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic?" "Science"

    "....Once more, science is neutral on divine action"

    I asked you what to call evolution that isn't theistic and you said "science".

    And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.
    You said "science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" i.e. you seem to be saying that science does not specifically exclude divine action....
    Speaking only for myself, if someone claims divine intervention then I should be able to design an experiment and make observations based on their definitions and claims. In other words what they are claiming to be divine intervention is nothing more than a claim that can be empirically documented. Carl Sagan was one to say we should make such investigations and perform such experiments based on observations.

    The problem arises when one cannot define terms. If I cannot define my terms then I cannot design experiments or make observations to either confirm or deny claims. For example people use the word miracle to describe natural phenomena all the time. If a miracle is something that happens very infrequently but is statistically predictable than their miracle is simply a natural event. They can apply any label they wish but it is still natural.

    If you are not familiar with the scientific method and do not understand the scientific method then we have a language barrier at least, and at worst an inability to communicate productively. Science is merely accumulated knowledge based on rational observation and experiment.

  5. Top | #135
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,532
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    18,239
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    But many theists believe in biological evolution that is not completely naturalistic....
    In the second, you add an intelligence baselessly.
    You said ".....science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" - are you saying that according to science (including biological evolution), divine action could be possible?
    Anything is possible, or nothing that doesn't happen was ever possible - take your pick.

    In science, "could be possibles" are only useful as the basis for questions such as "How, specifically, could this [unexplained thing] be possible?". Effective answers to that question always start with positing causes that are known to have effects via (somewhat at least) understood mechanisms. One can ask "If someone threw gas on here and lit it on fire, what would we expect to find in the ashes?". Asking What should we see in the ashes if GOD burned down this house??!" has never once proven to be a productive approach for science. And it never will be, because this hypothetical GOD, can have ANY EFFECT HE WANTS on ashes.

    The rhetorical question of "could divine action be possible?" is a matter for philosophers, not scientists.

    I will say though, that if the creation of the process of evolution was creditable to any God, it would be that God's #1 greatest achievement by my rating.

  6. Top | #136
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,442
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    4,241
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    .....Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic....
    But what about naturalistic biological evolution and guided biological evolution?
    Why did you delete the rest of the post where I explained my position?

    There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such.
    Everything we know about the universe with any degree of confidence is based on our observations of nature, and our inferences derived from those observations. Adding naturalistic before the word evolution is a trivial distinction that adds no no value to the discussion. You are only trying to muddy the waters here.

    Sometimes the process of evolution is guided by humans; we select livestock and plants to enhance certain characteristics of these organisms, but this is not the context in which you use the word guided evolution. Again, you are trying to muddy the waters in order to support your biases.

    I know what you believe because you have made those claims before in other threads. If you want to provide an alternate model for evolution that contradicts our understanding of how evolution happens, you should provide evidence to support your beliefs. Do you have evidence that our understanding of how naturalistic evolution works is seriously flawed?

  7. Top | #137
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Guided. Yup, the guided AI intelligence that gave us Sickle Cell.

    It takes some serious misunderstanding to think a super long and terribly imperfect process of evolution is ‘guided’.

    Must be a pretty stupid entity that is guiding evolution!
    Like I said in post #109 I think evolution just appears to take a long time and it appears to be naturalistic. If this is a simulation there are two main possibilities for the evolution we can detect:

    - Evolution is guided and it starts off with some forms of life and created a plausible evolutionary history -

    - Or evolution is not guided and it simulates it for hundreds of millions of years and you have to be happy with whatever the flip of the coin ended up with.

    In video games the world is designed by intelligences (or uses a designed procedural generation system) and usually involves injustice and things that can harm or kill the player - the problems in our world could be intentional.

    About the non-obvious intelligent force I believe in:


  8. Top | #138
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Why did you delete the rest of the post where I explained my position?
    I disagreed with:

    "Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic"

    I mean I've heard the term "theistic evolution" a lot - and it refers to biological evolution. I don't think your example of gravity disproves that evolution can be considered theistic. I didn't respond to that and other parts because I think my counter-argument would probably seem even weaker than usual.
    Adding naturalistic before the word evolution is a trivial distinction that adds no no value to the discussion.
    Yes it means that no intelligent force was intervening - intervention vs no intervention is a big deal.
    I know what you believe because you have made those claims before in other threads. If you want to provide an alternate model for evolution that contradicts our understanding of how evolution happens, you should provide evidence to support your beliefs. Do you have evidence that our understanding of how naturalistic evolution works is seriously flawed?
    I've been saying that it appears that evolution is naturalistic and that I'm unable to prove to skeptics that it is guided. (which is the whole point of a non-obvious God and the Futurama quote in post #137)

  9. Top | #139
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,442
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    4,241
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    ....Please identify the contradiction.
    "....What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic?" "Science"

    "....Once more, science is neutral on divine action"

    I asked you what to call evolution that isn't theistic and you said "science".

    And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.
    You said "science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" i.e. you seem to be saying that science does not specifically exclude divine action....
    You are suggesting that theistic claims are deserving of equal footing and equal consideration with the scientific model of evolution. You are wrong. We have no evidence that divine entities from outside our universe are interacting, or have interacted with anyone or anything in the visible universe. Given this lack of evidence, it is impractical and foolish to live our lives as if such interventions were real.

  10. Top | #140
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    You are suggesting that theistic claims are deserving of equal footing and equal consideration with the scientific model of evolution.
    Theists would claim that there could be evidence such as irreducible complexity - I think that there were no jumps in evolution - that it seems perfectly naturalistic....
    You are wrong. We have no evidence that divine entities from outside our universe are interacting, or have interacted with anyone or anything in the visible universe.
    Yes that's exactly how it appears to skeptics.
    Given this lack of evidence, it is impractical and foolish to live our lives as if such interventions were real.
    Well the Bible says to not put God to the test... but basically my experiences have just caused me to feel more hopeful in my life

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •