Page 18 of 64
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:39 pm
by Kurieuo
Audie wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Audie wrote:RickD wrote:Audie wrote:
What data does he have that shows ToE as we know it today is false?
The book, if I remember correctly, puts forth a testable model for creation. Its purpose wasn't so much to prove evolution wrong, as to show that there is a testable model for creation.
What, exactly, is creation? Serious Q.
I often think the same question about Naturalism.
What exactly is it? Not your textbook definition as was given...
but rather why the demarcations.
Naturalism is like, going to the beach, sans, you know, beachwear.
And you talk about demarcations. Honestly people in Oz!
Theism is like that, but then we actually play in the sand and swim in the waves.
We see a
purpose to the beachwear other than just parading.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:18 am
by RickD
Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.
Care to back this up with an example?
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:07 am
by Audie
RickD wrote:Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.
Care to back this up with an example?
Could you commit to one particular meaning for something in the bible, that
might be subject to disproof?
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:09 am
by Byblos
Audie wrote:RickD wrote:Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.
Care to back this up with an example?
Could you commit to one particular meaning for something in the bible, that
might be subject to disproof?
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:14 am
by RickD
Audie wrote:RickD wrote:Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.
Care to back this up with an example?
Could you commit to one particular meaning for something in the bible, that
might be subject to disproof?
I guess that would depend on the word. The OT Hebrew language didn't have any where near as many words as modern english does.
So, the argument over yom comes to mind. Yom can literally mean a 24 period, and a long, finite period of time. Among other literal meanings.
Not sure if that answers your question.
And not that it even matters, because I have asked you multiple times, to post something in the bible that you think contradicts science, and you have refused to do so.
Maybe Ken will have the decency to back his assertion.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:31 am
by Audie
RickD wrote:Audie wrote:RickD wrote:Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.
Care to back this up with an example?
Could you commit to one particular meaning for something in the bible, that
might be subject to disproof?
I guess that would depend on the word. The OT Hebrew language didn't have any where near as many words as modern english does.
So, the argument over yom comes to mind. Yom can literally mean a 24 period, and a long, finite period of time. Among other literal meanings.
Not sure if that answers your question.
And not that it even matters, because I have asked you multiple times, to post something in the bible that you think contradicts science, and you have refused to do so.
Maybe Ken will have the decency to back his assertion.
Of course it doesnt answer anything. "It depends" doesnt have much meat on it.
We've two different ways of seeing this. To me, you refuse to commit to anything. So I can "refute" a six day poof, or a world wide flood and you can say,
well that is refuting a strawman. Or, it depends.
I dont think Ken can do any better, unless you are willing (that is, have the decency to)
commit to something.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:56 am
by Audie
Kurieuo wrote:Audie wrote:Accepting most of evolutionary theory....
You cant, you know, say you accept general relativity but you just dont accept black holes. Its a package.
ToE is like that too.
Disagree. ToE is an ambiguous concept.
I really don't think anyone knows what they mean by it anymore.
It certainly isn't a black and white natural selection acting on random mutations as Darwin proposed.
Everyone believes in evolution of sorts.
Most like yourself I think simply mean Naturalism. ToE is therefore Naturalism in disguise.
Just as much as ID might be Creationism in disguise, or so it seems to many.
If you don't mind sincerely answering this question --
Do you consider belief in God as more unscientific to no belief in God?
Seriously, what are your feelings on this question.
Audie wrote:Now, if someone can show that it fails to meet a prediction, or that the data somewhere does not match the theory (those two are probably the same thing)
then, there is some fatal flaw in the theory.
What is it, that is exactly making a prediction? What are the predictions?
Isn't assuming Naturalism always enough?
Audie wrote:If someone can come up with a different theory that is fully congruent with the
data and is successful with predictions that will be of great interest. Two incompatible theories that are equally matched to observation. I dont believe that has happened.
PC is of course, a hypothesis, like yec or oec. I dont believe that any of those are remotely adequate to explain data, and that such predcitions as there might be fail.
They're really just beliefs -- like Naturalism.
And interpreting the data for PC (Progressive Creation), TE (Theistic Evolution) and NE (Naturalistic Evolution) is much the same.
Only, I've mentioned previously some data that slants me to PC. Namely, the information issue.
But also mutual symbiosis, "convergent evolution", timing issues...
Let's take the Cambrian explosion.
Those who adhere to Naturalism will take this
as a strong example of macroevolution in action.
Rather than seeing such as naturally implausible like Progressive Creationists. So what PC sees as evidence against natural evolutionary processes, evolutionary proponents see as evidence for their beliefs.
In any case... I don't really care to disprove evolution.
Really, I think there's enough arguments against Naturalism.
However, I'd equally love to see predictions that might fault PC.
Personally, I believe not only does it support all data, but it has the greater explanatory power.
Why do you say evolution is not natural selection acting on mutations?
And why do you wish to use labels like "naturalism"? Calling ToE "naturalism"
(in disguise) doesnt seem helpful in any way.
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...
All symbiosis is mutual of course. What is it about convergent evolution or symbiosis that seems to you to call for supernatural intervention?
PC seems very vague to me, and up to each believer to invent his own meaning for it.
Its like RD and his 'disprove something in the bible", but no commitment to some specific meaning for anything.
You said you have some sort of data, can you be specific?
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:00 am
by RickD
Audie wrote:RickD wrote:Audie wrote:RickD wrote:Ken wrote:
According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.
Care to back this up with an example?
Could you commit to one particular meaning for something in the bible, that
might be subject to disproof?
I guess that would depend on the word. The OT Hebrew language didn't have any where near as many words as modern english does.
So, the argument over yom comes to mind. Yom can literally mean a 24 period, and a long, finite period of time. Among other literal meanings.
Not sure if that answers your question.
And not that it even matters, because I have asked you multiple times, to post something in the bible that you think contradicts science, and you have refused to do so.
Maybe Ken will have the decency to back his assertion.
Of course it doesnt answer anything. "It depends" doesnt have much meat on it.
We've two different ways of seeing this. To me, you refuse to commit to anything. So I can "refute" a six day poof, or a world wide flood and you can say,
well that is refuting a strawman. Or, it depends.
I dont think Ken can do any better, unless you are willing (that is, have the decency to)
commit to something.
Audie, you're not getting what I'm saying. You asked:
Could you commit to one particular meaning for something in the bible, that
might be subject to disproof?
And I cannot commit to a particular meaning of anything, unless you post the verse you have in mind. It's really not that difficult. You make an assertion that certain things in the bible contradict science. It's only reasonable that you are willing to be specific, and post an example of something that you believe contradicts scripture.
Audie,
It's simple. You post something in the bible that you think contradicts science. If I can show you why it doesn't contradict science, I will. If I can't, maybe someone else will.
But until you are willing to do your part, this whole discussion is useless.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:58 pm
by Philip
So many straw men, so little time!
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:18 pm
by Audie
Philip wrote:So many straw men, so little time!
Yes, I tend to think that when seeing the latest proof the ToE is all wrong.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:24 pm
by RickD
Audie wrote:Philip wrote:So many straw men, so little time!
Yes, I tend to think that when seeing the latest proof the ToE is all wrong.
I wouldn't say
all wrong.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:31 pm
by Philip
Audie, your avatar always looks so down and sad.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:43 pm
by RickD
Philip wrote:Audie, your avatar always looks so down and sad.
Aren't there any happy
atheists agnostics?
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:11 pm
by Audie
Philip wrote:Audie, your avatar always looks so down and sad.
Yes, you are right, Phil, it does.
If spent way too much of myself that way.
It just makes life better, if you smile.
Thanks, Im going to change it.
Sorry btw that I take some of my issues out on others, including you.
Im really glad you pointed that out.
Re: Evidence for theistic evolution
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:20 pm
by abelcainsbrother
All we still have is people preaching TOE is right yet no evidence life evolves.I am right when I say there is no evidence in science,including biology that demonstrates life evolves and this is why no evidence is given.I reject evolution because of a lack of evidence in science life evolves and nobody is trying to show me how I'm wrong.
Viruses,bacteria,finches,salamanders,fruit flies,frogs,etc which is evidence life evolves shows us life does not evolve,yet why are scientists lying to us telling us they evolved?
When they did not evolve at all,the only thing you see is variations in reproduction or life adapting which nobody rejects because we can see and observe variations in reproduction and the fact life adapts and you do not have to go in a science lab to know these are true but we are looking for evidence life evolves and are being lied to and tricked by scientists,yet when I point this out Audie thinks scientists would not do this because it is peer reviewed evidence,when they are doing it,as I have shown.
Scientists are lying to you telling you these things are evidence life evolves and this is peer reviewed evidence too,which shows that scientists are corrupted by money instead of doing real science.