Evidence for theistic evolution

[Kurieuo]

AbleCain, of course, I do not believe man evolved from any other species. I, mostly, only challenge evolutionists (whatever evolutionary scenarios they accept) who insist the process could have been Godless, because WAY prior to any such processes, they have FAR more difficult things to explain. As their actual choices are only one of two possible "causes."

When you say "the process" what do you mean? And what by "godless"?

Seriously! It may be that a god made the universe, but is one needed, for example, to
supervise and direct every raindrop to its destination?

To put an argument in a nutshell that is sure to and has annoyed many irrational Atheists.

Evolution without God is a purely random, unplanned and/or undirected process along with all that it causes.
If you believe in a purely unguided and random process guiding evolution, then you have a defeater for trusting in your evolved rationality and as such any belief that you hold as being true.
BUT, if you believe your rationality leads you to truth (for example that evolution is true), then a godless random process must be false for it can't provide you with rational grounding in your beliefs.

In summary, you can't rationally ground your beliefs if you exclude God from the picture. Including the belief that raindrops don't need supervision.

This is one reason why I say anyone who believes in evolution as the cause of life's diversity (and believes such is true), ought to rationally believe in God rather than believe in Naturalism.

So you find its rational to think that there is some being, greater than the entire universe / multiverse, who makes it his business to guide every little raindrop?

That's not quite what I'm saying milady.

Although it is absolutely 100% more rational to believe God exists who makes it His business to sustain and guide every little raindrop, than to believe all such systems that include precipitation and life that depends upon such just popped into existence from nothing with any God/gods.

As for my original points, I've opened up a new thread because this one has become far too cluttered.

[Audie]

AbleCain, of course, I do not believe man evolved from any other species. I, mostly, only challenge evolutionists (whatever evolutionary scenarios they accept) who insist the process could have been Godless, because WAY prior to any such processes, they have FAR more difficult things to explain. As their actual choices are only one of two possible "causes."

When you say "the process" what do you mean? And what by "godless"?

Seriously! It may be that a god made the universe, but is one needed, for example, to
supervise and direct every raindrop to its destination?

To put an argument in a nutshell that is sure to and has annoyed many irrational Atheists.

Evolution without God is a purely random, unplanned and/or undirected process along with all that it causes.
If you believe in a purely unguided and random process guiding evolution, then you have a defeater for trusting in your evolved rationality and as such any belief that you hold as being true.
BUT, if you believe your rationality leads you to truth (for example that evolution is true), then a godless random process must be false for it can't provide you with rational grounding in your beliefs.

In summary, you can't rationally ground your beliefs if you exclude God from the picture. Including the belief that raindrops don't need supervision.

This is one reason why I say anyone who believes in evolution as the cause of life's diversity (and believes such is true), ought to rationally believe in God rather than believe in Naturalism.

So you find its rational to think that there is some being, greater than the entire universe / multiverse, who makes it his business to guide every little raindrop?

That's not quite what I'm saying milady.

Although it is absolutely 100% more rational to believe God exists who makes it His business to sustain and guide every little raindrop, than to believe all such systems that include precipitation and life that depends upon such just popped into existence from nothing with any God/gods.

As for my original points, I've opened up a new thread because this one has become far too cluttered.

In what way is it not what you are saying?

And

Can any discussion of any process be possible without first addressing the origin of the universe???????

[Byblos]

Im going to take a guess that byb cant even show me the small courtesy of respecting my request that he not address me again.

I dont like people making up things about me, as he has done over and over. Once too often from byb was enough.

If you don't like what I have to say then you have the option of not responding but you're not going to bully me into submission by making bogus claims that I (and so many others you've accused of the same thing) are "inventing" things about you. If you have specifics we can certainly discuss them like rational adults and if they warrant an apology you will get one, I'm not above it. Can you say the same?

But to answer your point directly, no, you do not get the courtesy or respect you have not shown others. It's a 2-way street. And you do not get away with stating inconsistencies or half-truths while falsely claiming others are inventing things about you in an effort to summarily dismiss them and their valid points without regard.

Enough is enough. I won't put up with it.

[Philip]

Audie: "Seriously! It may be that a god made the universe, but is one needed, for example, to supervise and direct every raindrop to its destination?"

Once I have set the parameters of my software to "random," yet within certain parameters, while not micromanaging how it works, I still ultimately have control over them. I can override the system I created and control, any time I so desire. Is that how God does it? I don't know. I don't think (on most days) He decides what color socks I put on. I am a free being with choices - some sinful - meaning, He doesn't micromanage my choices. He won't even micromanage my choices concerning Him (acceptance or rejection).

Audie: "The raindrops pick up CO2, and sink into the ground. Moving underground
the water dissolves a bit of calcium carbonate and
thus are limestone caves made. That is the process,
thats how they form."

Would you call it godless, or what?

Again, you are back to pointlessly talking about processes, while the real question you constantly fail to address is WHAT or WHO made the processes even possible, their mechanisms, their programming, their essential elements? Who set the processes into motion? It's just more of "look at what's in my right hand because in my left hand I've got NOTHING."

Audie: "Good illustration of how knowing nothing about a subject makes it look boring."

OK, there's a typical sarcastic and condescending statement by Audie.

Audie: "I do agree with you to the extent that discussing it with the know-zero-creo is senseless."

No arrogance there either, right, Audie?

Audie: "I guess we all do senseless thing, like argue Splash-Splash vs total immersion. "

ALL of those beauts in just one post. Oh, you are such the innocent little lamb.

Another attempt to belittle while not addressing the real issue.

Audie, NO one has falsely accused you of anything. You have prolifically made many such sarcastic, condescending and arrogant statements - so, OWN them! Shall I gather a page of them for review? So, stop playing "victim," put on your "big girl" pants, and develop a bit more of a thick skin. Whenever someone points out that you are playing a game of smoke-and-mirrors, you attack them and act as if people were out to get you. Or you act as if you are their intellectual superior. Mostly, because you have unreasonable faith in highly improbable and unproven things. Yes, FAITH!

[Audie]

Audie: "Seriously! It may be that a god made the universe, but is one needed, for example, to supervise and direct every raindrop to its destination?"

Once I have set the parameters of my software to "random," yet within certain parameters, while not micromanaging how it works, I still ultimately have control over them. I can override the system I created and control, any time I so desire. Is that how God does it? I don't know. I don't think (on most days) He decides what color socks I put on. I am a free being with choices - some sinful - meaning, He doesn't micromanage my choices. He won't even micromanage my choices concerning Him (acceptance or rejection).

Audie: "The raindrops pick up CO2, and sink into the ground. Moving underground
the water dissolves a bit of calcium carbonate and
thus are limestone caves made. That is the process,
thats how they form."

Would you call it godless, or what?

, their mechanisms, their programming, their essential elements? Who set the processes into motion? It's just more of "look at what's in my right hand because in my left hand I've got NOTHING."

Audie: "Good illustration of how knowing nothing about a subject makes it look boring."

OK, there's a typical sarcastic and condescending statement by Audie.

Audie: "I do agree with you to the extent that discussing it with the know-zero-creo is senseless."

No arrogance there either, right, Audie?

Audie: "I guess we all do senseless thing, like argue Splash-Splash vs total immersion. "

ALL of those beauts in just one post. Oh, you are such the innocent little lamb.

Another attempt to belittle while not addressing the real issue.

Audie, NO one has falsely accused you of anything. You have prolifically made many such sarcastic, condescending and arrogant statements - so, OWN them! Shall I gather a page of them for review? So, stop playing "victim," put on your "big girl" pants, and develop a bit more of a thick skin. Whenever someone points out that you are playing a game of smoke-and-mirrors, you attack them and act as if people were out to get you. Or you act as if you are their intellectual superior. Mostly, because you have unreasonable faith in highly improbable and unproven things. Yes, FAITH!

Again, you are back to pointlessly talking about processes, while the real question you constantly fail to address is WHAT or WHO made the processes even possible

That is A question, one to which nobody has the answers, and which while of importance, perhaps, if one did find out, WHAT, as they say, has it to do with the price of tea?

To me, this is like you say its pointless to discuss the process of building a car, if we dont know the ultimate secrets of the universe. Pointless to discuss anything at all.

As for my remark that it was a good illustration of someone not knowing what they are talking about, it was not sarcasm. using language that normally signifies the opposite,
I meant exactly what I said, and unlike some of the comments made to me, it happens to be true. He did illustrate that he knows next to nothing on the subject.

ALL of those beauts in just one post. Oh, you are such the innocent little lamb. :roll:

Now we have an actual example of sarcasm. Condescension too. Not to mention hypocrisy.

Audie, NO one has falsely accused you of anything.

Never said anyone did. My complaint is about people making up things. "You think that.." "You always..." when the statements are simply not true.

Suggesting that Im complaining of accusations is itself false, for that matter.

When I do complain of someone stating falsehoods, then Im playing victim.

I dont play smoke and mirrors.

I dont think anyone is 'out to get me", much as its obvious that some here dont happen to like me, which is fine, I dont like them. Hence the avoidance, and suggestion that they just dont address me.


Mostly, because you have unreasonable faith in highly improbable and unproven things. Yes, FAITH

Your opinion, stated as fact. And its not true.
Do you see some sort of difference between stating an opinion as fact, and making things up? I dont. In court they'd call it perjury.

Do you see no differences among the various meanings of the word "faith"?

Presuming you do not intend equivocation fallacy, lets look at this.


Which one do you mean?


1faith
noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs


1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of
: without question <took everything he said on faith>

[Proinsias]

Evolution as a theory isn't impacted by an acceptance or rejection of the metaphysical notion of an uncaused cause, nor does it contradict, or depend upon, theism. It plays well with a variety of metaphysical, philosophical & religious positions. What it does do is raise some questions about the creation event described at the start of the book of Genesis, but most of the questions raised are not particularly new questions. The allegorical vs literal interpretations of creation amongst the Abrahamic faiths far pre-dates Darwin and stretches back further than Christianity itself. It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

[Philip]

Evolution as a theory isn't impacted by an acceptance or rejection of the metaphysical notion of an uncaused cause, nor does it contradict, or depend upon, theism. It plays well with a variety of metaphysical, philosophical & religious positions. What it does do is raise some questions about the creation event described at the start of the book of Genesis, but most of the questions raised are not particularly new questions. The allegorical vs literal interpretations of creation amongst the Abrahamic faiths far pre-dates Darwin and stretches back further than Christianity itself. It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

SOUNDS like a profound statement. But let's dissect it!

Evolution as a theory isn't impacted by an acceptance or rejection of the metaphysical notion of an uncaused cause,

Of course not, it's a mere theory. It's truth or falsity isn't impacted by people's opinions of it. The truth is THE truth. Opinion doesn't change it.

... nor does it contradict, or depend upon, theism.

Well, if we're talking about the TRUTH of the theory, then that is not necessarily so. IF evolution (simple life to more complex creatures to man) occurred BY ITSELF/unCaused, it was totally pre-dependent upon so many incredible elements of the universe that were either always existing (just the right ones, mind you) or suddenly popping into existence from nothing, and THEN organizing THEMSELVES by THEMSELVES into massively complex information perfectly plugged into self-organized and massively complex systems, and THEN they began operating in perfect synchronization with other various, unfathomably fine-tuned systems. And even if the original building blocks (matter, dimension, energy, etc) somehow always existed, they would have been totally incapable of organizing into fine-tuned information plugged into so many massively complex systems, all somehow "jump-started" at the very same and perfect timing. Things don't get smart and organize on their own - much less come into existence to begin with. There is NO other thing studied that people believe such staggering improbabilities about - except, unbelievably, the universe.

It plays well with a variety of metaphysical, philosophical & religious positions.

Which is basically meaningless as to evolution's truth or falsity.

What it does do is raise some questions about the creation event described at the start of the book of Genesis,

So an unproven theory about an unobserved, untestable, unfalsifiable series of events manages to cast doubt on anything. No, it would have to be a CERTAINTY to do that. Don't over hype its ability.

... but most of the questions raised are not particularly new questions.

True, but that has nothing to do with evolution's truth or falsity.

The allegorical vs literal interpretations of creation amongst the Abrahamic faiths far pre-dates Darwin and stretches back further than Christianity itself

This has nothing to do with evolution theory.

It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired

But for Christians believing in evolution vs. ones who don't, their uniting faith in Christ makes that debate very superficial.

[Kurieuo]

It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

Any who believes in truth will be divided, because truth divides us. It doesn't mean the truth of the matter doesn't exist.

The allegorical vs literal interpretations of creation amongst the Abrahamic faiths far pre-dates Darwin and stretches back further than Christianity itself. It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

Also, if you're going to comment on what the Bible says, then you should at least be qualified to comment.
It isn't as easy to paint as "literal" vs "allegorical". I bet many who use the term "literal" don't even know the true meaning of it.
What do most Evangelical Biblical scholars mean by it? (these are after all the ones who advocate taking the Bible "literally").

I'd encourage you read over my posts here.
I know that I often loose people when talking, but happy to clarify anything there if you do wish to try and gain understanding of these matters.
But, until you are familiar with the issues then you have no right to comment on what is/isn't literal or interpretations really.
Nor you Audie. It's no different than YECs commenting to you about scientific matters.

[Audie]

It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

Any who believes in truth will be divided, because truth divides us. It doesn't mean the truth of the matter doesn't exist.

The allegorical vs literal interpretations of creation amongst the Abrahamic faiths far pre-dates Darwin and stretches back further than Christianity itself. It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

Also, if you're going to comment on what the Bible says, then you should at least be qualified to comment.
It isn't as easy to paint as "literal" vs "allegorical". I bet many who use the term "literal" don't even know the true meaning of it.
What do most Evangelical Biblical scholars mean by it? (these are after all the ones who advocate taking the Bible "literally").

I'd encourage you read over my posts here.
I know that I often loose people when talking, but happy to clarify anything there if you do wish to try and gain understanding of these matters.
But, until you are familiar with the issues then you have no right to comment on what is/isn't literal or interpretations really.
Nor you Audie. It's no different than YECs commenting to you about scientific matters.

You then will refrain from further comments on evolution, and likewise instruct phil, bip, abc, and the rest of the crew.

Regarding "rights", Im reminded of a dreadful limerick concerning an argument
between a gay fellow ( from Shiboom) and a lesbian.

[Kurieuo]

It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

Any who believes in truth will be divided, because truth divides us. It doesn't mean the truth of the matter doesn't exist.

The allegorical vs literal interpretations of creation amongst the Abrahamic faiths far pre-dates Darwin and stretches back further than Christianity itself. It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

Also, if you're going to comment on what the Bible says, then you should at least be qualified to comment.
It isn't as easy to paint as "literal" vs "allegorical". I bet many who use the term "literal" don't even know the true meaning of it.
What do most Evangelical Biblical scholars mean by it? (these are after all the ones who advocate taking the Bible "literally").

I'd encourage you read over my posts here.
I know that I often loose people when talking, but happy to clarify anything there if you do wish to try and gain understanding of these matters.
But, until you are familiar with the issues then you have no right to comment on what is/isn't literal or interpretations really.
Nor you Audie. It's no different than YECs commenting to you about scientific matters.

You then will refrain from further comments on evolution, and likewise instruct phil, bip, abc, and the rest of the crew.

Regarding "rights", Im reminded of a dreadful limerick concerning an argument
between a gay fellow ( from Shiboom) and a lesbian.

You're bearing your nostrils again.

The difference is, you have no understanding of hermeneutics and what Evangelical scholarship says.
You probably can't even correctly explain to me in your own words what "literal" is in Biblical scholarly terms?
Not that you care, but then you do care to go YEC is literal this and literal that. So you must know, right?

As for evolution. You also don't see that what you believe in as evolution, isn't really science but rather a Naturalistic philosophy at the end of the day.
That became clear in our earlier exchanges here when I provided some examples in scientific journals.
Your point of contention doesn't seem to be "evolution" but rather belief in "God".

[abelcainsbrother]

I think alot of people who accept biological evolution think if they are educated about evolution it means its true because of their knowledge about it but its not so.You can know all about something and be totally wrong.Evolutionists like to insinuate that those who reject evolution need to take biology classes and be highly educated about it but that does not make it true at all.Evidence is what makes it true or not and evolution has been propped up by the media and they feel no real threat to evolution despite all of the debating about it as it has not effected the theory of evolution.

This is because the theistic ideas in the creation vs evolution debate have had no effect against evolution and others don't even deal much with evolution but just point out a creator.I believe it is because Christians have been using the wrong creation theory but people align their self with one of these theistic ideas and its like a team but it has had no effect against evolution so certain Christians just accept evolution but I don't see how it is reaching naturalistic evolutionists because they agree about evolution but just disagree about how it happened.

You can believe in a God or not and accept evolution.What we need is the true creation idea to defeat evolution which is the gap theory because we can use much of the very same evidence evolutionists use but instead of it proving evolution true it will prove a former world existed on this earth full of life that perished before God created this world.This would defeat evolution using much of the same evidence evolution uses.

[abelcainsbrother]

Think about the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate.Think how this would look if Ken Ham did this agreed the earth is old but instead of denying science he used much of the same evidence to prove the Gap theory true.He explained why the earth is old by explaining there was a former world on this earth,then showed fossils on a slide showing dinosaurs,trilobite's,primates,etc and explained this is the life that perished that existed in the former world.

Then he explained how modern science was started by Christians and explained how it is they who discovered the earth was old and it was not discovered old because of evolution then explained how this evidence was hyjacked away and made to fit into evolution science.He then proved it by teaching about Thomas Chalmers and geologists like William Buckland who discovered the first dinosaur long before Charles Darwin published his book.He then proved by "On the origin of species" written by Charles Darwin and explained how he was trying to thwart the Gap theory.He then explained how despite 150 years of evolution,not one scientist has ever proven or demonstrated life evolves and challenged Bill Nye to produce it.

Ken Ham would've won had he used the Gap theory.

[Audie]

It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

Any who believes in truth will be divided, because truth divides us. It doesn't mean the truth of the matter doesn't exist.

The allegorical vs literal interpretations of creation amongst the Abrahamic faiths far pre-dates Darwin and stretches back further than Christianity itself. It divides even those who hold to it as divinely inspired.

Also, if you're going to comment on what the Bible says, then you should at least be qualified to comment.
It isn't as easy to paint as "literal" vs "allegorical". I bet many who use the term "literal" don't even know the true meaning of it.
What do most Evangelical Biblical scholars mean by it? (these are after all the ones who advocate taking the Bible "literally").

I'd encourage you read over my posts here.
I know that I often loose people when talking, but happy to clarify anything there if you do wish to try and gain understanding of these matters.
But, until you are familiar with the issues then you have no right to comment on what is/isn't literal or interpretations really.
Nor you Audie. It's no different than YECs commenting to you about scientific matters.

You then will refrain from further comments on evolution, and likewise instruct phil, bip, abc, and the rest of the crew.

Regarding "rights", Im reminded of a dreadful limerick concerning an argument
between a gay fellow ( from Shiboom) and a lesbian.

You're bearing your nostrils again.

The difference is, you have no understanding of hermeneutics and what Evangelical scholarship says.
You probably can't even correctly explain to me in your own words what "literal" is in Biblical scholarly terms?
Not that you care, but then you do care to go YEC is literal this and literal that. So you must know, right?

As for evolution. You also don't see that what you believe in as evolution, isn't really science but rather a Naturalistic philosophy at the end of the day.
That became clear in our earlier exchanges here when I provided some examples in scientific journals.
Your point of contention doesn't seem to be "evolution" but rather belief in "God".

At the end of the day you is still flailin' your "flammer" (philosophy hammer) at every nail
you think you've detected.

[Kurieuo]

You're head is down the sewer I think.
Maybe that's why you keep seeing kites there.

[Audie]

You're head is down the sewer I think.
Maybe that's why you keep seeing kites there.

You arent qualified to comment on evolution and have no right to do do.

Your thread about "evolutionary" arguments illustrates this, consisting as
it does of "flammer" (aka flim flam).

But that is all my problem not yours.


(What the heck is "bearing nostrils"? Is it anything like
bearing frankincense?)