Evidence for theistic evolution

[Kenny]

Kenny

Do you really believe life adapting is evolution?

No. First of all I am by no means an expert on Evolution but I would probably call adaption when a creature is able to adapt to it's environment; sorta like a dog shedding his winter coat during summer time. I would call Evolution when a creature's off spring has changed to the point of being different than the creature due to the environment, and doesn't have the option of changing back to what his parent was. Adaption changes back and fourth as needed according to the environment; evolution is just a change.

Ken

Evolution is just a change? Hasn't evolution always been about one kind of life evolving over time changing to another kind of life?

Actually it's both. Species change is what they call "macroevolution". That's when the species would be unable to reproduce with it's original ancestors. Microevolution is change, but not to the extent of species change. Judging from what you said; I believe what you call adaption is the same as microevolution.

K

[melanie]

So yes Ken, there are things in the bible that defy scientific reasoning, that's kinda the point! As I said choose to not believe, your choice, but seems a bit silly to point out to christians what we already know.

Point out to Christians what they already know? You might want to inform the Christian I was responding to. This appears to have eluded him.

So if your going to criticise the belief in the occurrence of miracles then best to sweep the whole spectrum with that brush.

I wasn’t criticizing miracles; the person I was responding to asked me to give examples of biblical claims that science would disagree with.

Ken

Ummm remember you said

According to science; many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong

Then Rick

care to back this up with an example?

You

sure you wanna go there,

Then you mention Noah's flood, Jonah and the whale, Joshua and the sun. The latter two undoubtedly miracles.
So yes Ken it was indeed you who attempted to discredit the bible by saying that miracles defy science.
Genius

[Kurieuo]

Why do you say evolution is not natural selection acting on mutations?

I didn't say that but rather "It certainly isn't a black and white natural selection acting on random mutations as Darwin proposed."
If that is all you mean by ToE then no need to go further. Most here accept that.
But, I'm sure that is not all you want us Christians to accept.

And why do you wish to use labels like "naturalism"? Calling ToE "naturalism"
(in disguise) doesnt seem helpful in any way.

In any discussion I've seen to date, lips start curling over the moment God is mentioned.
So, that says to me, clearly the issue is not rejection of ToE -- but most likely more that one is rejecting Naturalism.
Such that, if there are issues with Naturalistic Evolution, the hairs stand on end.

Those who'd believe in Theistic Evolution have a way out in many instances.
Since the seemingly impossible could be done if the initial life and "settings" were finely tuned in the beginning.
God still needs to work within the laws of nature though since Theistic Evolution says God doesn't intervene after creating that initial seed of life.
So any impossibilities in natural laws would still present issues for Theistic Evolution.

On the other hand, Naturalistic Evolutionists are quite happy to believe in the most enormous odds against them.
I've seen it with fine tuning arguments we often present. They often just say something like, no matter how improbable, the fact we're here shows that the improbable happened (which really begs the question).

To be clear, by Naturalism -- I am not talking about mere natural laws and processes -- but the philosophical position that prejudicially (imo) draws a boundary between what is "natural" and "supernatural". In particular, Naturalists positively exclude the possibility of God acting in the universe.

Which reminds me, you didn't answer my question: "Do you consider belief in God as more unscientific to no belief in God?"
If you feel that belief is God is less scientific than no belief in God, then that says to me you've confused science with your philsophy about the world.

Id agree that PC, yec, oec, gap, are all beliefs. They are all front end loaded, with the assumption that there is a god pulling the strings.

ToE is naturalism and therefore just a belief, if that suits you as a way to get out of it, fine. ToE is naturalism and naturalism can be dismissed. Ok...

ToE as Atheists throw the term is often just about Naturalism (a philosophy) in disguise.
Therefore I think it is as front end loaded as PC, YEC, OEC, Gap or what-have-you...
That is, if you think front loading is adding Theism into the equation.

Science is no respecter of philosophical positions.
Scientific data isn't any more or less Theistic or Atheistic. It is just what it is.
Therefore, if one gets annoyed at the mere mention of someone drawing a personal conclusion of God based upon where the see the facts of reality point, then that is a philosophical peeve -- not a scientific one.

Interestingly I found out according to some recent polls, that over 50% of scientists believe in God or some supernatural being, 30% are Atheist and 20% remain agnostic. Go figure. Maybe the apparent schism between belief in God or true design and science are only in the eyes of a vocal Atheist pop culture.

All symbiosis is mutual of course.

• "Symbiosis is a relationship between two organisms: it can be mutualistic (both benefit), commensal (one benefits), or parasitic."
  - https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/ ... 987-10859/

What is it about convergent evolution or symbiosis that seems to you to call for supernatural intervention?

It points towards a very improbable, bordering on impossible, feat to account for naturally.
This to me it points towards a true designer behind it all.

But, as I've said previously.
To those who don't believe God exists... no matter how impossible something is to naturally occur, the fact we are here is evidence to them that however impossible it was for life the naturally evolved unplanned and unguided (symbiosis, the same organs or like that independently "evolved" several times) -- the impossible must have happened.

I don't place my faith in Naturalism though. I think it is a better gamble to place my belief in God.

You said you have some sort of data, can you be specific?

Happy to, I'll present something specific if you like a bit later.
I'm the house wife today so got to make some dinner.
RickD would be proud of me embracing my femininity.

Personally think men are better cooks.

[Kenny]

So yes Ken, there are things in the bible that defy scientific reasoning, that's kinda the point! As I said choose to not believe, your choice, but seems a bit silly to point out to christians what we already know.

Point out to Christians what they already know? You might want to inform the Christian I was responding to. This appears to have eluded him.

So if your going to criticise the belief in the occurrence of miracles then best to sweep the whole spectrum with that brush.

I wasn’t criticizing miracles; the person I was responding to asked me to give examples of biblical claims that science would disagree with.

Ken

Ummm remember you said

According to science; many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong

Then Rick

care to back this up with an example?

You

sure you wanna go there,

Then you mention Noah's flood, Jonah and the whale, Joshua and the sun. The latter two undoubtedly miracles.
So yes Ken it was indeed you who attempted to discredit the bible by saying that miracles defy science.
Genius

The reason I said that is because when discussing science in the class room with another guy, he said (paraphrasing) Science cannot prove the bible wrong. Then someone asked Audrie to post something in the Bible that contradicts science. Even though that specific question was not directed to at me, I posted something in the Bible that contradicts science.

I mean if you want to claim these events were the results of miracles; fine! I'm cool with that. But let's not pretend this stuff is backed up by science. The people I was discussing with were not talking about miracles, they were making claims about science.

Ken

[RickD]

Ken wrote:
I mean if you want to claim these events were the results of miracles; fine! I'm cool with that. But let's not pretend this stuff is backed up by science. The people I was discussing with were not talking about miracles, they were making claims about science.

Ken,
When you assert something such as this:

According to science; many of the claims of the bible can be proven wrong.

The onus is on you to back it up.

And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

If something is a true miracle, in other words, if it has no scientific explanation, science can't prove it wrong.

The best biblical example would be the resurrection of Christ.

[Kurieuo]

You said you have some sort of data, can you be specific?

"Evolutionary" data (appearance of common descent, natural selection, etc) can all be supported within the beliefs I mentioned (Progressive Creation [PC], Theistic Evolution [TE], Naturalistic Evolution [NE]). But, there is "data" that I think better supports PC than say a gradual natural evolution as required by TE/NE.

Simple is often best. So let's look at a simple scenario to illustrate a symbiotic relationship: Bees and flowers.

Bees pollinate flowers, and flowers provide nectar to bees.
Neither can really survive without the other.
Without them bees flowers would die, and without flowers, bees won't get the nectar and pollen they need to survive.
Pollination may happen in other ways -- manually, perhaps a wasp or other insect, but bees are quite efficient.

What seems a more likely scenario --
That the two evolved together, or that they were designed and created together?

Before I provide more complex examples,
I'd like just like a concession on whether this type of evidence (symbiosis) would in your mind point to direct creation of life at the same time, rather than all the life having evolved naturally at the same time? (which would be quite unlikely)

If not, maybe I'm better thinking of other data that you might find more convincing.
What type of data would lend more support to PC over TE/NE or vice-versa?

As it stands, common descent. natural selection, etc... can be sustained by all three.
So these can't be used as evidences to distinguish one really above the other.
What data would help in your eyes? Data that you wouldn't just dismiss out of hand.
I don't want to put in time and effort if that'll be the case.

I think symbiosis is good one, but perhaps you don't?
And the higher the number of life participating in a symbiotic relationship, to me, the more likely things appear designed and created rather than evolved naturally together (especially if random and all by chance, rather than planned out, this perhaps rules out NE but not necessarily TE).
Bees are flowers are just a 2x symbiotic relationship. But, there a symbiotic relationships of four and higher.

[Kenny]

And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

If something is a true miracle, in other words, if it has no scientific explanation, science can't prove it wrong.

I am not the one who claimed the examples I provided were miracles; that was someone else who came into the conversation. I simply listed a couple of examples of biblical claims that would not be backed up by science. Didn't you ask Audie to list something in the bible that contradicts science and you would show that it does not? I gave 2 examples.

The best biblical example would be the resurrection of Christ.

The resurrection isn't even apart of this conversation. I gave 2 examples; Noah's Ark, and Joshua's war, and I was very detailed on how they contradicts science. Go ahead and show they do not.

Ken

[RickD]

And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

If something is a true miracle, in other words, if it has no scientific explanation, science can't prove it wrong.

I am not the one who claimed the examples I provided were miracles; that was someone else who came into the conversation. I simply listed a couple of examples of biblical claims that would not be backed up by science. Didn't you ask Audie to list something in the bible that contradicts science and you would show that it does not? I gave 2 examples.

The best biblical example would be the resurrection of Christ.

The resurrection isn't even apart of this conversation. I gave 2 examples; Noah's Ark, and Joshua's war, and I was very detailed on how they contradicts science. Go ahead and show they do not.

Ken

Ken, my point was this:

RickD wrote:
And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

It's obvious that you don't see the difference.

[Audie]

Why do you say evolution is not natural selection acting on mutations?

I didn't say that but rather "It certainly isn't a black and white natural selection acting on random mutations as Darwin proposed."
If that is all you mean by ToE then no need to go further. Most here accept that.
But, I'm sure that is not all you want us Christians to accept.

And why do you wish to use labels like "naturalism"? Calling ToE "naturalism"
(in disguise) doesnt seem helpful in any way.

In any discussion I've seen to date, lips start curling over the moment God is mentioned.
So, that says to me, clearly the issue is not rejection of ToE -- but most likely more that one is rejecting Naturalism.
Such that, if there are issues with Naturalistic Evolution, the hairs stand on end.

Those who'd believe in Theistic Evolution have a way out in many instances.
Since the seemingly impossible could be done if the initial life and "settings" were finely tuned in the beginning.
God still needs to work within the laws of nature though since Theistic Evolution says God doesn't intervene after creating that initial seed of life.
So any impossibilities in natural laws would still present issues for Theistic Evolution.

On the other hand, Naturalistic Evolutionists are quite happy to believe in the most enormous odds against them.
I've seen it with fine tuning arguments we often present. They often just say something like, no matter how improbable, the fact we're here shows that the improbable happened (which really begs the question).

To be clear, by Naturalism -- I am not talking about mere natural laws and processes -- but the philosophical position that prejudicially (imo) draws a boundary between what is "natural" and "supernatural". In particular, Naturalists positively exclude the possibility of God acting in the universe.

Which reminds me, you didn't answer my question: "Do you consider belief in God as more unscientific to no belief in God?"
If you feel that belief is God is less scientific than no belief in God, then that says to me you've confused science with your philsophy about the world.

Id agree that PC, yec, oec, gap, are all beliefs. They are all front end loaded, with the assumption that there is a god pulling the strings.

ToE is naturalism and therefore just a belief, if that suits you as a way to get out of it, fine. ToE is naturalism and naturalism can be dismissed. Ok...

ToE as Atheists throw the term is often just about Naturalism (a philosophy) in disguise.
Therefore I think it is as front end loaded as PC, YEC, OEC, Gap or what-have-you...
That is, if you think front loading is adding Theism into the equation.

Science is no respecter of philosophical positions.
Scientific data isn't any more or less Theistic or Atheistic. It is just what it is.
Therefore, if one gets annoyed at the mere mention of someone drawing a personal conclusion of God based upon where the see the facts of reality point, then that is a philosophical peeve -- not a scientific one.

Interestingly I found out according to some recent polls, that over 50% of scientists believe in God or some supernatural being, 30% are Atheist and 20% remain agnostic. Go figure. Maybe the apparent schism between belief in God or true design and science are only in the eyes of a vocal Atheist pop culture.

All symbiosis is mutual of course.

• "Symbiosis is a relationship between two organisms: it can be mutualistic (both benefit), commensal (one benefits), or parasitic."
  - https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/ ... 987-10859/

What is it about convergent evolution or symbiosis that seems to you to call for supernatural intervention?

It points towards a very improbable, bordering on impossible, feat to account for naturally.
This to me it points towards a true designer behind it all.

But, as I've said previously.
To those who don't believe God exists... no matter how impossible something is to naturally occur, the fact we are here is evidence to them that however impossible it was for life the naturally evolved unplanned and unguided (symbiosis, the same organs or like that independently "evolved" several times) -- the impossible must have happened.

I don't place my faith in Naturalism though. I think it is a better gamble to place my belief in God.

You said you have some sort of data, can you be specific?

Happy to, I'll present something specific if you like a bit later.
I'm the house wife today so got to make some dinner.
RickD would be proud of me embracing my femininity.

Personally think men are better cooks.

What "enormous odds"?

I cant figure out if God -belief is scientific or not.

Symbiosis, convergent and parallel evolution seem to be to be an obvious and
inevitable aspect of evolution. I wonder what you find odd about it.

If naturalism is about precluding a god, then Im not that. And as Im obsessive about avoiding a tan at the beach, thats also a sign that Im not a Naturalist.

[Kenny]

And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

If something is a true miracle, in other words, if it has no scientific explanation, science can't prove it wrong.

I am not the one who claimed the examples I provided were miracles; that was someone else who came into the conversation. I simply listed a couple of examples of biblical claims that would not be backed up by science. Didn't you ask Audie to list something in the bible that contradicts science and you would show that it does not? I gave 2 examples.

The best biblical example would be the resurrection of Christ.

The resurrection isn't even apart of this conversation. I gave 2 examples; Noah's Ark, and Joshua's war, and I was very detailed on how they contradicts science. Go ahead and show they do not.

Ken

Ken, my point was this:

RickD wrote:
And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

It's obvious that you don't see the difference.

I do know the difference. I never said science can prove the bible wrong, I said according to Science, claims of the Bible can be proven wrong. Do you know the difference?
The first one; the standard of proof is decided by the person science is trying to convince. (that could be anyone; even a Christian which would make proof darn near impossible)
The second one; the standard of proof is decided by science.

Ken

[RickD]

And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

If something is a true miracle, in other words, if it has no scientific explanation, science can't prove it wrong.

I am not the one who claimed the examples I provided were miracles; that was someone else who came into the conversation. I simply listed a couple of examples of biblical claims that would not be backed up by science. Didn't you ask Audie to list something in the bible that contradicts science and you would show that it does not? I gave 2 examples.

The best biblical example would be the resurrection of Christ.

The resurrection isn't even apart of this conversation. I gave 2 examples; Noah's Ark, and Joshua's war, and I was very detailed on how they contradicts science. Go ahead and show they do not.

Ken

Ken, my point was this:

RickD wrote:
And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

It's obvious that you don't see the difference.

I do know the difference. I never said science can prove the bible wrong, I said according to Science, claims of the Bible can be proven wrong. Do you know the difference?
The first one; the standard of proof is decided by the person science is trying to convince. (that could be anyone; even a Christian which would make proof darn near impossible)
The second one; the standard of proof is decided by science.

Ken

Kenny,

how are you going to prove a miracle wrong by science? You cannot do it! Miracles are out of the realm of science. Proving a miracle is wrong by science, is like proving the color of a car by listening to it.

[Kenny]

And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

If something is a true miracle, in other words, if it has no scientific explanation, science can't prove it wrong.

I am not the one who claimed the examples I provided were miracles; that was someone else who came into the conversation. I simply listed a couple of examples of biblical claims that would not be backed up by science. Didn't you ask Audie to list something in the bible that contradicts science and you would show that it does not? I gave 2 examples.

The best biblical example would be the resurrection of Christ.

The resurrection isn't even apart of this conversation. I gave 2 examples; Noah's Ark, and Joshua's war, and I was very detailed on how they contradicts science. Go ahead and show they do not.

Ken

Ken, my point was this:

RickD wrote:
And, saying that science cannot prove the bible wrong, is different than saying that science backs up miracles in the bible. I hope you can see the difference.

It's obvious that you don't see the difference.

I do know the difference. I never said science can prove the bible wrong, I said according to Science, claims of the Bible can be proven wrong. Do you know the difference?
The first one; the standard of proof is decided by the person science is trying to convince. (that could be anyone; even a Christian which would make proof darn near impossible)
The second one; the standard of proof is decided by science.

Ken

Kenny,

how are you going to prove a miracle wrong by science? You cannot do it! Miracles are out of the realm of science. Proving a miracle is wrong by science, is like proving the color of a car by listening to it.

We are not talking about miracles. You said (paraphrasing) to list something in the Bible that contradicts science and you will show it does not. I'm waiting.....

K

[RickD]

Ken wrote:
We are not talking about miracles. You said (paraphrasing) to list something in the Bible that contradicts science and you will show it does not. I'm waiting.....

We may be talking about a miracle. It depends what in the bible you are talking about.
But let's address your first example, which IMO, is not a miracle.

Your quote and assertion is here:

According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.

Then you listed 3 examples of "claims" in the bible, that you attempted to show can be proven wrong by science.

I addressed the first one http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=40012

You still haven't responded to my answer. When we're finished with the first one, we can address another one.

[abelcainsbrother]

Kenny

Do you really believe life adapting is evolution?

No. First of all I am by no means an expert on Evolution but I would probably call adaption when a creature is able to adapt to it's environment; sorta like a dog shedding his winter coat during summer time. I would call Evolution when a creature's off spring has changed to the point of being different than the creature due to the environment, and doesn't have the option of changing back to what his parent was. Adaption changes back and fourth as needed according to the environment; evolution is just a change.

Ken

Evolution is just a change? Hasn't evolution always been about one kind of life evolving over time changing to another kind of life?

Actually it's both. Species change is what they call "macroevolution". That's when the species would be unable to reproduce with it's original ancestors. Microevolution is change, but not to the extent of species change. Judging from what you said; I believe what you call adaption is the same as microevolution.

K

You are missing my point nobody denies micro-evolution even though I think it should be called variations in reproduction,but even if you think micro evolution is change,that is not evolution and yet they -scientists are using micro evolution for evidence for macroevolution and yet you accept it.My question is why do you think giving evidence for micro evolution is evidence life evolves because as we can see there is no evolving going on as I pointed out with the evidence you brought up?

Also micro evolution is different than life adapting and nobody denies these,it is evolution that we don't accept because there is no evidence to show,prove or demonstrate life evolves. Do not think of evolution as just change,because evolution has always been about one kind of life evolving and changing into another kind of life over time and this is what the evidence does not show,even though they say it is evidence life evolves.

You cannot have life evolving only showing micro evolution or adaptation,it requires evidence for macroevolution and yet the evidence is either for micro or adaptation.

Also you cannot say life has evolved because it can no longer breed so that is not evidence either.Do you believe life evolves by faith and assumptions? Or do you go by evidence?

[abelcainsbrother]

I know science does not claim the earth's surface was leveled off but I'm saying if it was the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land on the earth right now.

I agree! But that's a different subject. Do you have any opinions on the other points I made?

Ken

How is it a different subject?You brought up Noah's flood implying how much water it would take to flood the whole earth,then asked where did the water go? I simply showed that if we leveled out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land.It may not can be done but there is plenty of water on the earth for global floods and it is evidence they happened.You see I give evidence for what I believe,why can't people who believe life evolves do it?

As for your other points I'll probably address them in the other thread although my God is powerful and can do miracles easily.It was a miracle when Jesus saved me and changed me on the inside to serve God as I did not change myself.