Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:And I want to thank Hana for posting those verses. I saw an utter lack of humility and patience on my side as well. I could have done better than what I did. Reminded of how we should behave towards others and how we usually do.

neo, it's for all of us (mods including )

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:I think this whole notion of calling something a fact or a belief is just utterly silly. I don't see the harm in anyone calling something a fact. Does it make it so? Perhaps, or maybe not. If one disagrees with a 'fact' let them state why and let's move on.

It's not just calling something a fact that's the problem. It's calling ones beliefs a fact, while insulting those who disagree with that 'fact'.

I'm not sure why everyone is having a hard time understanding this.

If everyone made posts saying their creation stance is fact, and insulting those with differing views, then it could get pretty miserable around here.(not that it's not getting miserable now).

So let me propose a formula if I may (subject to the mods' agreement of course).

- One may call certain evidences as fact even if others disagree as long as no disparaging remarks of other beliefs (also stated as fact) occurs.
- One may post links in support of their 'facts' even if said links contain disparaging remarks about others' beliefs as long as that's not the main purpose of said links.

This should cover all the disagreements. If this is acceptable to all then we should just move on.

Since I was the one who started this, I'll respond.

Byblos wrote:
So let me propose a formula if I may (subject to the mods' agreement of course).

- One may call certain evidences as fact even if others disagree as long as no disparaging remarks of other beliefs (also stated as fact) occurs.

In regards to this specific "resource only" thread, I agree.
In a normal thread where debate is allowed, there can be disparaging remarks about others beliefs, as long as the remarks are within board guidelines.

- One may post links in support of their 'facts' even if said links contain disparaging remarks about others' beliefs as long as that's not the main purpose of said links.

In a normal debate type thread, there can be disparaging remarks about differing beliefs, even if it IS the main purpose of the links. As long as the board guidelines are followed.

In a "resource only" thread, where the purpose of the links is supposed to just be a resource, it should be taken on a link by link basis. There will be less leeway given to links in this type of thread, because it is supposed to be a resource thread containing "positive" arguments for the side being discussed.

In a resource only thread such as the one in question, moderators reserve the right to temporarily lock the thread(as I did) when an overwhelming amount of links are posted before a moderator gets to check each link(as was the thread in question).

Guys,
I'm not going to be anal about this. Neo posted a crapload of threads, and one caught my eye, so I temporarily locked the thread, because I was at work, and I wanted time to look at the links to see if they were appropriate for discussion at hand. Did you notice that I didn't delete any of the links? I'm not here to censor anyone's right to post his opinion.

To lessen the chances of a mod temporarily locking a future thread, give more time in between posting links, and/or don't demand the thread be a "resource only" thread. That way someone can address the link in the same thread.

Rick, next time just post a post saying you are locking it temporarily to view it since overloaded.

1over137 wrote:Rick, next time just post a post saying you are locking it temporarily to view it since overloaded.

Hana, that's kinda sorta what I did. I wrote:

And, you wanted this thread to just be a reference thread for you to post links to educate others of what evolution is. Ive briefly looked at a couple of your links, and they have statements disparaging creationism and creationists. You can't even stick to your own rules you wanted for this thread. So, until I have time to go through each link you posted, to be sure they're just informational links explaining evolution, this thread is locked.

Of course the thread had gotten heated by that point, so that's why I worded it that way.

My apology.
Also, pm-ing the poster would not be bad too.

It's not just calling something a fact that's the problem. It's calling ones beliefs a fact, while insulting those who disagree with that 'fact'.

It's the bolded part (above) that is the REAL problem. Sometimes there can be sincere disagreement over what a "fact" is. And we don't have to agree. We can call each other out, rebut, etc. But when one says that something is a fact, surely we all recognize that it is a fact TO THEM. That shouldn't offend - we hear such things asserted every day - some accurately, much inaccurately.

If everyone made posts saying their creation stance is fact, and insulting those with differing views, then it could get pretty miserable around here (not that it's not getting miserable now).

If something is not provable beyond all reasonable doubts - which some things, by their very nature, just CAN'T be - then it is personal BELIEF and not yet established fact. Does someone asserting such a thing insult some because they believe differently/believe it to be factual? Yes, but that means they are taking it personally. And unless someone is adding personal insult to such statements, I just don't see the problem. One person's fact is another's conjecture or outright wrongful statement. Again, it's the belittling, insulting PERSONAL attacks that are the problem. Being dismissive - even sometimes sarcastic - isn't necessarily wrong IF it is ONLY aimed at the statement, viewpoint or belief, and not at the person. But the problem is, some here don't seem to know the difference.

As an aside about evolution: It is non-replicable, unable to be observed, and there are other explanations that fit the very same evidences (like progressive evolution), that both match the Bible AND match the evidence. There are also some key, insurmountable problems (not if TE is true) that many claiming it to be fact simply ignore or gloss over. And, to me, such things present real problems for those saying it is a definitive scientific fact. But we don't all agree on that. So, as brothers in the Lord, I think we just need to agree to disagree on various beliefs - which some will no doubt call facts, despite that they are not yet so established - and don't make a big deal out of it. Nasty, ill-will-filled personal attacks - that is something that just shouldn't be tolerated. I think the blame here - to varying degrees - could be shared all around. Let's just forgive each other, better police the personal attacks - immediately and strictly warn of such in the future - and then, let's just MOVE ON!

1over137 wrote:My apology.
Also, pm-ing the poster would not be bad too.

I agree Hana. Anything we all can do to better communication, and limit misunderstandings, is a good thing.

Moving

... And forgiveness is very important

Neo, I know I said I would reply to your concerns, but my computer is not working on this website. As I'm typing this on my iPhone, picture me throwing my laptop against the wall, in sheer frustration.

Rick, pm me info about your laptop.

Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

I think there's some confusion here. See what I underlined in your quotes:

I think T.E is the only valid stance and if someone disagrees then he is free to. I don't mind that and I sure don't hope to convince them otherwise. But how does that make it dogma, I am not forcing anyone to follow me or my stance. All are free to choose their own creation stance and make of it what they think. Just as I don't ask you to not consider your stance as the only valid one, I am not asking anyone to agree with me.

Rick, I think evolution is a fact and I will say what I find true. You can say what you find true. Why do you have to ask me to say "its a belief" when its not? How can I say that? I can't. God started evolution, is a belief 100% and I agree I can call T.E a belief. But evolution is a fact and that is science its not a belief.

On one hand, you say you think TE is the only valid stance, and TE is a belief. On the other hand, you say evolution is a fact and that is science it's not a belief.

You seem here to be making a distinction between TE as a belief, and evolution as a scientific fact. Maybe you could explain.

RickD wrote:
I never said you weren't giving proof of evolution. You mixed your threads that were supposed to be resource threads about evolution, with threads that have a blog thats sole purpose is to insult God, and discredit Creationism.

Neo wrote:
Please pass me the link if this certain blog, I will check the post I linked and see if it insults God? And if it does I will remove it.

I started a thread about the blog, if anyone wants to discuss it.

Rick, I apologized to you earlier, and I do so again now, it was a very bad choice of words and my mistake when I talked about you taking science lessons from pastors, I am sorry I said that. I was wrong in your case, but a lot of people actually do that exactly and I have seen it plenty. I was under the wrong impression in your case and I hope you can see I didn't use those words again once I found that it wasn't so with you.

RickD wrote:
I understand, and I accept your apology. But what you said, added fuel to the fire. And it came across as arrogant and dogmatic.

Neo wrote:
I hope we can put that behind us now.

I only continue to mention it because it's relevant to what you keep posting. I'm all for putting it behind us.

Neo wrote:
I understand that Rick, what I don't understand is and was my point for posting it that we kind of have the wrong definition of Antisemitism being used here. Somehow people think anyone who remotely criticizes Jews is an anti semite, we need to correct this. The issue with FL was dropped earlier and to stir it again was not the reason I posted this point here again.

I understand Neo. I agree that some can be quick to use the "antisemitism card".

Neo wrote:
There is no board purpose which demands that evolution must be called a belief or a Christian like me who does not hold Adam and eve factual, is going against board rules and purposes. So on what grounds was I asked to back down or for having an agenda?

RickD wrote:
Again, only speaking for myself, it wasn't your belief that was my issue. It was the way you presented it as "fact", and insulting others that didn't believe as you do.

Neo wrote:
I think if I drop the insulting part, then there should be no problem, right?

I think my first response in this post needs to be addressed first, regarding what I see as a distinction you are making between TE as a belief, and evolution as a fact. I hope you can clear that up for me.

Neo wrote:
I asked him for an explanation then and I would like an explanation now but Rick, you were there, you read it, why didn't you question it or stopped it? Does it not sound like an insult, an ultimatum to you? It sure sounded to me. It was like he was addressing a troll who just dropped out and was about to be kicked.

RickD wrote:
I tried to address this in the Moderator forum. While I won't go into details, I told Gman that I thought he was going about this the wrong way. So, while you didn't see it, it wasn't ignored by me.


Neo wrote:
Ok Rick, but you would agree that does not do a good job, for one, Gman made no corrections, he didn't gave any explanation for his behaviour and third I wasn't even given a hint that some action is being taken against bully behaviour by a mod when I had complained too in the op in this thread. I wish you would see that it establishes communications and root out misunderstandings. While I am glad you questioned this, I sure didn't see what happened as a result.

Neo,
I assure you that this is an issue the moderator team is addressing at this moment.*

Neo wrote:
Sure Rick, but that is exactly what Gman told me, calling my stance a lie, a false belief, a weak belief...implying I am swept away by scientists and fancy "dribble" and I didn't see anyone having an issue with that. So I am to back down but others need not to? And by what you said you should have an issue with that too.

*See my last answer above.

Neo wrote:

The thing is I only see the disrespecting others part as objectionable. I have no problems with a board member who is a Yec and calls it a fact, starting a resource thread, I don't see why that is problematic. That may be a very good discussion debate without insults of course.

From my pov, I see all creation stances including YEC, OEC/PC, and TE, as beliefs. When someone calls his creation stance a "fact", a red flag goes off in my head, because that is what Ken Ham, and others say. Calling one's creation belief a fact makes it sound like there's no room for any other creation beliefs, which would then be "less than fact". I'm just trying to avoid the same problems I encountered with certain YECs that left no room for other beliefs/interpretations.

Neo wrote:
Look here Rick, when you say to me "that I have a potential to lead others astray" as you said in the christians rejecting O.T thread, how respectful does that sound?

Neo, in that thread, you talked about Adam not being a literal person. IMO, and others on that thread, the comparison that is made in Romans, between Adam and Christ, is made meaningless, if either Adam or Christ isn't a literal person. And that leads down the road to questioning a literal need for Christ's work. Hence my believing that if you don't reconcile that, there's a "potential" to lead others astray. And when you throw away parts of scripture because you think it doesn't fit your belief that evolution is a fact, then that makes parts of scripture errant in your mind. And if parts of scripture are errant, why not all of it, including Christ?

Neo wrote:
Its not a matter of opinion here we are talking about science now. And I am saying this right now to highlight why I even went on to say that some of you get your science lessons from pastors, because what that article claimed was actually wrong and you insisted it isn't, in fact your article said that all T.E get their "facts" like this.

Neo, science deals with observation and interpretation of evidence. Interpretation deals with opinions. I'm seeing from your own words in that "Christians Rejecting Old Testament" thread, that you disregard parts of scripture because of your evolution beliefs. I can't see any way that's not a potential problem.

Neo wrote:
Guys, its wrong to just paint anyone as lost, leading others astray, who is not in agreement, that makes it more than that. It shows how evolution is not a welcome topic. If you subscribe to PC, i can disagree but I can't say you are lost or leading others astray. But if I subscribe to evolution and find it true than I am? Or that makes me somehow reject christ, salvation or the bible as worthless?

Neo, I'm certainly not painting all TEs with a broad brush here. I never said all TEs lead others astray. I never said you reject Christ. I said your discarding parts of scripture has a potential to lead others astray.

Neo wrote:
Rick, I humbly want to say and clear a few things. I think T.E is a belief, I agree with you all the way, we have no disagreement on this. But I don't think or can accept unless proven otherwise that evolution, a science mechanism, is a belief. It is not. And I don't appreciate that I am required to negate this. Outside of this board a healthy scientific community thinks its not because there is plenty of evidence its not. I have been studying some of it for more than a year and my conclusions are solid with what I have seen and read.

Neo, I think it would go a long way if you explain how you are differentiating TE and evolution. I don't see a difference. The kinds of evolution that I believe are true(micro, speciation) are part of my PC belief. I don't understand how you don't see evolution as not part of Theistic Evolution.

Evolution is change over time, which is an observable fact in nature.
TE is the belief that evolution was either guided by God or that God used a process that we call evolution in His ONGOING creative process.

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolution is change over time, which is an observable fact in nature.
TE is the belief that evolution was either guided by God or that God used a process that we call evolution in His ONGOING creative process.

Paul,
Evolution, meaning change over time, that is observable in nature, isn't only what Neo is arguing for. He's also arguing that the kinds of evolution that aren't observable, are fact as well.

If one believes in TE, then one believes evolution is guided by God. So, I'll ask Neo, how can you separate evolution from Theistic Evolution?