Evidence for theistic evolution

[Audie]

Ken wrote:
Is biblical faith backed up by scientific theory and empirical evidence? If not, then it may be what you (subjectively) call reasonable justification; but not I. If it is, then my point still stands because scientific theory and empirical evidence is not required for belief.

Religious belief requires no theories or empirical evidence.

But if it's the mass cause of empirical evidence you require, that is very attainable. if you take all the sequential steps it was necessary to take for the final physical formation of our world from the beginning of time, the (big bang), including but not even closely limited to the following... add one grain of sand to the original material in the Bang and our universe never even got the kick start it needed to survive, it would have collapsed in on itself, the inflation rate either any faster, created an envelope of gas that never could have coalesced, any slower and it clumped in to matter that could not have inflated continually as is does to this day, too hot and it would always be a gas, too cold it would have been matter only, coalescence of matter of our galaxy in just he right proportion to allow for the orbital effects of all the galaxy on just our solar system, which is in just the right place within the plane of the galaxy so as to allow just the right amount of nucleic radiation so as not too much to burn everything out of existence or too little to cool the entire system so our star, a fourth generation star would never have seen the light of day because no further star formation would have occurred after the first generation. Thea never collides with the earth in just the right orbital plane so as not to destroy both planets, in fact just right so as to create the materiel and eventual coalescence of the moon. No moon no tidal effect, no 24 hour day, nor consistent earthly rotation. Neptune and Uranus switch planetary orbit around the sun, allowing for the gigantic mass gravity of Jupiter (within it's current orbit because of the switch) as our greatest protector against asteroids, comets and rougue planetary killers. 4 ice ages, 4 or 5 mass extinctions, ... this list of natural potential for falling down is literally endless ...

and we haven't even gone in to the actual manufacture of man, who has his own distinct DNA grouping, although close (95%) to a chimpanzee... (were there chimpanzee's around when man was and if so why haven't they evolved in to men as some think we evolved from them)... question after question after question that, as it turns out equals an equivalency odds rate of (for the creation of our earth and ourselves) of 10 to the minus 120th. Consider Ken, most lottery winners beat the odds (miraculously at that) of 10 to the minus 7th...
and this isn't just a one shot willie like the lottery, these odds were continued and stretched out over 14 billion years of creational odds smacking accuracy for us to be here.

and no matter what you call Him, because the "odds" of self or natural creation are so remote that, the, He who is the prime Mover who created everything, has just cause for His creation is more a matter of justifiable belief than not, and can be supported for and from over 5000 years of data gathering from reliable resources as the Old Testament, New Testament, Talmud, Koran, personal and public revelation and a plethora of further knowledge compounded by literally billions of faithful followers of God...

He who was, Is and Always will be isn't just a choice of admirable faith, based on reasonable justification, it's a compendium of choice beyond reasonable justification. It's the non belief in a Prime Mover who's finger is on creation, who presumes and prefers the possibilities of 10 to the minus 120th odds for the existence of our world today via natural processes alone, and the lives we live herein.

were there chimpanzee's around when man was and if so why haven't they evolved in to men as some think we evolved from them)... question after question after question

I will assume you mean were there chimps around when man first appeared?

The answer would be no, rather, that people and chimps share a common ancestor.

There were, as perhaps you know, quite a few now extinct species of apes (note that people are classified as apes) that were bipedal. Far more similar to humans than any of the non human apes of today.
One line of descent survived. Thats us.

As for "why havent they evolved into people" I guess the simplest answer is just to say that at each stage of their history, each generation of that group found that its survival favoured the mutations that took them on the path they followed. Thats how evolution works. There is no "goal" that evolution is working toward.

NOBODY has ever presented it as being that humans are descended from cbimps.

Do you feel it is entirely reasonable to dismiss as false a theory that you so little understand?

[EssentialSacrifice]

I will assume you mean were there chimps around when man first appeared?
Correct, I read they have the closest of all bipedal apes to our DNA. Use monkey's in general if you like, as long s it can be confirmed empirically...

The answer would be no, rather, that people and chimps share a common ancestor.

May I see your empirical evidence here ?

There were, as perhaps you know, quite a few now extinct species of apes (note that people are classified as apes) that were bipedal. Far more similar to humans than any of the non human apes of today.
One line of descent survived. Thats us.

May I see your empirical evidence here ?

As for "why havent they evolved into people" I guess the simplest answer is just to say that at each stage of their history, each generation of that group found that its survival favoured the mutations that took them on the path they followed. Thats how evolution works. There is no "goal" that evolution is working toward.

Well this can't be or just of what value is evolution if not to further the specie type to it's best end... mutations by generations...etc. that seems pretty goal oriented.


NOBODY has ever presented it as being that humans are descended from cbimps.

Yeah I get that, it was just a bad example of something that has transpired with near lineage DNA's .. close but no cigar stuff that some like to "link" humanity to with no empirical evidence. I am waiting, as are we all, with baited breath for that final link.

Do you feel it is entirely reasonable to dismiss as false a theory that you so little understand?

I thought that's what science did... dismiss or accept a theory until the empirical evidence show otherwise, or is this a part of the scientific method you so little understand?

You see, I feel that if you live by the law you die by the law. In my world, I would never want to be held accountable by God via the laws He proposed for my eternal life, because if living by the law even one mistake would damn myself by my actions.

In your world, if you want to make a point, you must do so empirically, no conjecture or extrapolation that leaves any doubt what-so-ever for an answer. I know you're out is Dorothy never gets to the end if the rainbow because there is always another question hence never a complete conclusion, but tasked as such you should not have a conversation that includes subjective analysis:

people and chimps share a common ancestor

There were, as perhaps you know, quite a few now extinct species of apes (note that people are classified as apes) that were bipedal. Far more similar to humans than any of the non human apes of today.
One line of descent survived. Thats us.


There is no "goal" that evolution is working toward

You can answer none of these with any more certainty than your current scientific level will allow and by science's own admission... there is always more to learn and none of know just exactly where that will take us, no matter how confident you are with current results.

[Kenny]

So If I understand you correctly; because you cannot see how things could have possibly turned out the way they did, you assume God and you assume God did it.

Ok Ken if you want to go down this road, explain it to me, how did it, did ?

As I said before, I do not have an answer to how things turned out the way they are. I refuse to make anything up, I admit I do not know. There are people working on finding out, but I am not one of those people; if you can find one of them perhaps they can give you a better answer than my I don't know.

Our science is hollow and at best a tag along to all that has been performed by God. Our science finds what has already been made and thinks that is enough for now, but we'll keep looking to see what else has been made and how... when the hard answers are not how,... they're why, and those are much harder to expound, and completely unable to be answered by empirical evidence alone.

Say what you want about science, but at the end of the day science can always sit back and proclaim it has filled many holes once occupied by religion.

Ken

[Audie]

I will assume you mean were there chimps around when man first appeared?
Correct, I read they have the closest of all bipedal apes to our DNA. Use monkey's in general if you like, as long s it can be confirmed empirically...

The answer would be no, rather, that people and chimps share a common ancestor.

May I see your empirical evidence here ?

There were, as perhaps you know, quite a few now extinct species of apes (note that people are classified as apes) that were bipedal. Far more similar to humans than any of the non human apes of today.
One line of descent survived. Thats us.

May I see your empirical evidence here ?

As for "why havent they evolved into people" I guess the simplest answer is just to say that at each stage of their history, each generation of that group found that its survival favoured the mutations that took them on the path they followed. Thats how evolution works. There is no "goal" that evolution is working toward.

Well this can't be or just of what value is evolution if not to further the specie type to it's best end... mutations by generations...etc. that seems pretty goal oriented.


NOBODY has ever presented it as being that humans are descended from cbimps.

Yeah I get that, it was just a bad example of something that has transpired with near lineage DNA's .. close but no cigar stuff that some like to "link" humanity to with no empirical evidence. I am waiting, as are we all, with baited breath for that final link.

Do you feel it is entirely reasonable to dismiss as false a theory that you so little understand?

I thought that's what science did... dismiss or accept a theory until the empirical evidence show otherwise, or is this a part of the scientific method you so little understand?

You see, I feel that if you live by the law you die by the law. In my world, I would never want to be held accountable by God via the laws He proposed for my eternal life, because if living by the law even one mistake would damn myself by my actions.

In your world, if you want to make a point, you must do so empirically, no conjecture or extrapolation that leaves any doubt what-so-ever for an answer. I know you're out is Dorothy never gets to the end if the rainbow because there is always another question hence never a complete conclusion, but tasked as such you should not have a conversation that includes subjective analysis:

people and chimps share a common ancestor

There were, as perhaps you know, quite a few now extinct species of apes (note that people are classified as apes) that were bipedal. Far more similar to humans than any of the non human apes of today.
One line of descent survived. Thats us.


There is no "goal" that evolution is working toward

You can answer none of these with any more certainty than your current scientific level will allow and by science's own admission... there is always more to learn and none of know just exactly where that will take us, no matter how confident you are with current results.

The empirical evidence for everything I said is very readily available. If your lack of curiosity is such that you dont care to to know, continue as before.

Evolution is not about "value" any more than is any other chemical / physical process about goals and values. The only end point to it is extinction, and in the meantime, best is whatever works, in that generation, to give the most surviving offspring.

This is very elementary stuff.

Regarding your "link", link to what? If your call is for DNA and skeletons from every single generation over the past five million years, thats not happening, any more than there is a detailed record of your entire life. All evidence known is consistent with ToE, there is no disproof ever found.

I asked if you think it legit to dismiss a theory you dont understand. That is NOT what science does. A theory must have a solid basis, to be a theory. After that, it is provisionally accepted until and unless disproof comes along. That is not remotely what you have done.


So again, do you feel it is legitimate to dismiss a theory you do not understand even on the simplest level?

(Oh, and if you really feel god has rules for you, then dont make up things about me, its a bad habit and is referred to somewhere in your book as bearing false witness)

[EssentialSacrifice]

Audiewrote. March 18. to ES

Considering the improbability of a civil conversation from you, please refrain from addressing me again

.

I kept my end of the bargain, it was you who could not... try harder now... silence please, no more self deprecating on your behalf...

[1over137]

Here is a big line

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

All is cleared.

NEW START.

[Kenny]

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Ken wrote:
When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating.

But what are you left with if your nose is plugged and your sense of smell no longer enhances your sense of taste.

If I am sick and my senses are not working correctly, I go by their “track record” of how they preformed when I was well
Of course if there is no track record you've come to a dead end on an empirical basis alone.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Relying on our senses is a natural thing but non nonsensical if impaired in any way, and cannot be relied up to be reliable, albeit non justifiable reason from unreliable senses... or resources of information.

It may not be perfect, but it’s the best I’ve got.
Infallible man willing to risk it all on his own self perceived intelligence.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
Empirical evidence can only go so far. After that, there is still a world out there that needs explaining and at some point you have to rely on your interior self for those explanations.

That’s where we differ; I don’t rely on my “interior self” for explanations. I prefer to go as far as I can, continue to look, but until I find; I admit to not having an answer yet.


so you come to a closed door and never go further while I open the door and find answers to questions you don't know to ask.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:
This is when I find, in all circumstance when required, that my belief in God is of paramount importance and beyond reasonable justification.

Yeah! I've noticed
Actually Ken, I'm not so sure, by the way you answer, if you've noticed anything I've said at all.

ES
Of course if there is no track record you've come to a dead end on an empirical basis alone
Ken
But there is a track record.

ES
so you come to a closed door and never go further while I open the door and find answers to questions you don't know to ask.
Ken
It’s not enough to find answers, it’s about finding the right answers.

ES
Actually Ken, I'm not so sure, by the way you answer, if you've noticed anything I've said at all.
Ken
Don’t assume that because I don’t agree with you, I haven’t been listening.

Ken

[Audie]

Audiewrote. March 18. to ES

Considering the improbability of a civil conversation from you, please refrain from addressing me again

.

I kept my end of the bargain, it was you who could not... try harder now... silence please, no more self deprecating on your behalf...

Care to honour 1/137 in this regard?

[1over137]

Audiewrote. March 18. to ES

Considering the improbability of a civil conversation from you, please refrain from addressing me again

.

I kept my end of the bargain, it was you who could not... try harder now... silence please, no more self deprecating on your behalf...

Care to honour 1/137 in this regard?

My post was after ES's post. Not before.
But your post is after my post

[PaulSacramento]

Say what you want about science, but at the end of the day science can always sit back and proclaim it has filled many holes once occupied by religion.

Really?
Since religion deals with the supernatural, where exactly has science "filled the holes" ?

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More

a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"

Science is about observing and commenting on the natural world, the world that CAN be observed and studied.

[Audie]

Audiewrote. March 18. to ES

Considering the improbability of a civil conversation from you, please refrain from addressing me again

.

I kept my end of the bargain, it was you who could not... try harder now... silence please, no more self deprecating on your behalf...

Care to honour 1/137 in this regard?

My post was after ES's post. Not before.
But your post is after my post

yes, I know. I was asking if ES would care to honour your request for the future.

[abelcainsbrother]

Ken wrote:
Is biblical faith backed up by scientific theory and empirical evidence? If not, then it may be what you (subjectively) call reasonable justification; but not I. If it is, then my point still stands because scientific theory and empirical evidence is not required for belief.

Religious belief requires no theories or empirical evidence.

But if it's the mass cause of empirical evidence you require, that is very attainable. if you take all the sequential steps it was necessary to take for the final physical formation of our world from the beginning of time, the (big bang), including but not even closely limited to the following... add one grain of sand to the original material in the Bang and our universe never even got the kick start it needed to survive, it would have collapsed in on itself, the inflation rate either any faster, created an envelope of gas that never could have coalesced, any slower and it clumped in to matter that could not have inflated continually as is does to this day, too hot and it would always be a gas, too cold it would have been matter only, coalescence of matter of our galaxy in just he right proportion to allow for the orbital effects of all the galaxy on just our solar system, which is in just the right place within the plane of the galaxy so as to allow just the right amount of nucleic radiation so as not too much to burn everything out of existence or too little to cool the entire system so our star, a fourth generation star would never have seen the light of day because no further star formation would have occurred after the first generation. Thea never collides with the earth in just the right orbital plane so as not to destroy both planets, in fact just right so as to create the materiel and eventual coalescence of the moon. No moon no tidal effect, no 24 hour day, nor consistent earthly rotation. Neptune and Uranus switch planetary orbit around the sun, allowing for the gigantic mass gravity of Jupiter (within it's current orbit because of the switch) as our greatest protector against asteroids, comets and rougue planetary killers. 4 ice ages, 4 or 5 mass extinctions, ... this list of natural potential for falling down is literally endless ...

and we haven't even gone in to the actual manufacture of man, who has his own distinct DNA grouping, although close (95%) to a chimpanzee... (were there chimpanzee's around when man was and if so why haven't they evolved in to men as some think we evolved from them)... question after question after question that, as it turns out equals an equivalency odds rate of (for the creation of our earth and ourselves) of 10 to the minus 120th. Consider Ken, most lottery winners beat the odds (miraculously at that) of 10 to the minus 7th...
and this isn't just a one shot willie like the lottery, these odds were continued and stretched out over 14 billion years of creational odds smacking accuracy for us to be here.

and no matter what you call Him, because the "odds" of self or natural creation are so remote that, the, He who is the prime Mover who created everything, has just cause for His creation is more a matter of justifiable belief than not, and can be supported for and from over 5000 years of data gathering from reliable resources as the Old Testament, New Testament, Talmud, Koran, personal and public revelation and a plethora of further knowledge compounded by literally billions of faithful followers of God...

He who was, Is and Always will be isn't just a choice of admirable faith, based on reasonable justification, it's a compendium of choice beyond reasonable justification. It's the non belief in a Prime Mover who's finger is on creation, who presumes and prefers the possibilities of 10 to the minus 120th odds for the existence of our world today via natural processes alone, and the lives we live herein.

were there chimpanzee's around when man was and if so why haven't they evolved in to men as some think we evolved from them)... question after question after question

I will assume you mean were there chimps around when man first appeared?

The answer would be no, rather, that people and chimps share a common ancestor.

There were, as perhaps you know, quite a few now extinct species of apes (note that people are classified as apes) that were bipedal. Far more similar to humans than any of the non human apes of today.
One line of descent survived. Thats us.

As for "why havent they evolved into people" I guess the simplest answer is just to say that at each stage of their history, each generation of that group found that its survival favoured the mutations that took them on the path they followed. Thats how evolution works. There is no "goal" that evolution is working toward.

NOBODY has ever presented it as being that humans are descended from cbimps.

Do you feel it is entirely reasonable to dismiss as false a theory that you so little understand?

Sorry,not trying to be rude but there is no evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves and the evidence used as evidence life evolves only shows reproduction or adaptation,they tricked you Audie.They used reproduction or adaptation for evidence life evolves and explained life evolves and you believed them,despite what the evidence showed.You're looking at the evidence all wrong,assuming life evolves when you look at the primates.The primates are proof and evidence for a former world existed on this earth before God created this world,there were men-like creatures living in the former world but since you assume life evolves you are making them fit into evolution when you do not even have evidence life evolves.

I hope this helps.

[Audie]

ABC, you have made quite a number of unsupportable statements, about me and about science. Its tiresome to detail them all.

Here are some general thoughts tho:

The less education one has, the easier they are to fool. Also, the easiest to fool is oneself.

A start is to understand how much of what one does not know.

There is a enormous body of data that supports ToE, despite any hand wave.

The way science works is, if there is a well supported theory, the way to
disprove it (if it can be disproved) is with facts. Data. Counter evidence.

Neither you nor anyone else on planet earth has succeeded in disproving the ToE.

Nobody who knows any science will be interested in anything you say unless you can back it with solid data, something you have never done.

Nobody else has ever done it either, not just picking on you.

Please dont bother to respond unless you can back what you say with verifiable data.

[abelcainsbrother]

ABC, you have made quite a number of unsupportable statements, about me and about science. Its tiresome to detail them all.

Here are some general thoughts tho:

The less education one has, the easier they are to fool. Also, the easiest to fool is oneself.

A start is to understand how much of what one does not know.

There is a enormous body of data that supports ToE, despite any hand wave.

The way science works is, if there is a well supported theory, the way to
disprove it (if it can be disproved) is with facts. Data. Counter evidence.

Neither you nor anyone else on planet earth has succeeded in disproving the ToE.

Nobody who knows any science will be interested in anything you say unless you can back it with solid data, something you have never done.

Nobody else has ever done it either, not just picking on you.

Please dont bother to respond unless you can back what you say with verifiable data.

My evidence is the same peer reviewed evidence you believe supports evolution,since science has never demonstrated life evolves though,all of this peer revised evidence can be used as evidence that a former world existed with different life in it than the life in this world.This is what the evidence confirms.You just seem to not want to look at the evidence from a different perspective than evolution.You seem to only want to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective and overlook that this is the kind of evidence we would expect to find if a former world existed that perished before God created this world.I cannot make you look at the evidence in the earth from this perspective.

[Kurieuo]

My 5 senses are reinforced by each other. When I taste something, my sense of smell reinforces whatI am eating. When I hear someone speak, my sense of sight reinforces my hearing as I see their lips move; etc. not to mention the fact that they are reinforced by everyone else's 5 senses.

Why does that matter? (serious question)

Why does what matter?

What does it matter that your senses are reinforced by each other?
How does that mean what you sense is in fact true any more than someone's senses reinforcing each other who experiences schizophrenia or even when dreaming?

For something to prove itself as a valid theory of knowledge, it cannot use itself. Such is circular.
So give me some other reasoning. Unless you just blindly accept such.