Religious Views On Evolution

[Thomas]

Some times it is hard to determine if the scholar is sound.

Indeed. Then we tend to go with the consensus. Which is why the reading you assert, which no serious scholars assert, is most probably wrong.

You keep telling us the onus is on us to prove it, it isn't. You're the one telling us we're wrong, and yet as yet have supplied to proof of such.

 

[omega2xx]

Indeed. Then we tend to go with the consensus. Which is why the reading you assert, which no serious scholars assert, is most probably wrong.

First of all we doo not determine truth by consensus. Second, I haven't mentioned any scholars so how can you say they are most probably wrong and not a serious scholar.

You keep telling us the onus is on us to prove it, it isn't.

If you make a statement, the onus is on you to provide the evidence for it. If I make a statement the onus is on me to provide theevidence for it. If I make a statement and you said it is wrong, the onus is on you to show why it is wrong.

You're the one telling us we're wrong, and yet as yet have supplied to proof of such.

If I tell you your are wrong, I tell you why. Give me one example of where I did not supply evidence. Spiritual concepts can't be proved.

 

[wil]

You are correct you haven't mentioned any scholars...

Are you truly an evolution denier?

Do you believe in the new earth stuff?

If so exactly what do you base this belief on?

 

[omega2xx]

You are correct you haven't mentioned any scholars...

I can but they will not cause you to change you mind, unless you are willing to change your mind.

Are you truly an evolution denier?

Yes but not on Biblical grounds, but on scientific grounds.

Do you believe in the new earth stuff?

If you are referring to the Bible saying God will create a new heavens and a new earth, yes. Nothing last forever. Eventually there is no more paste in the toothpaste container. Our sun will run out of energy one day and there is nothing that can regenerate it. There will be no sun in the new heavens.

If so exactly what do you base this belief on?

IMO the only logical explanation for a universe so large, we don't know the extent of it, is that it was created by an Intelligent Designer. If I am right about that, then it seems logical to me that the God of love would tell people how to join Him in His new heaven and new earth.

If I am wrong, I have enjoyed learning abut God from the Bible and no harm is done. OTOH, if I am right, non-believes need to take the advice of the prophet Haggai---consider your ways.

 

[wil]

How old do you think the universe is?

Are you a believer in 7 days of creation?

Of the earth and universe being less than ten thousand years old?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

IMO the only logical explanation for a universe so large, we don't know the extent of it, is that it was created by an Intelligent Designer.

I realize you are stating your opinion. That you can call it 'logical' is beyond me though. The only explanation for the universe is that it was created by an Intelligent Designer? Seriously? The only one? What about that other thing that attempts to explain stuff like this. It's called science? They have some good explanations too.

 

[Thomas]

The only explanation for the universe is that it was created by an Intelligent Designer?

Stephen Fry, one of our 'national treasures', takes great pleasure in pointing out the very considerable flaws in the 'Intelligent Designer' argument. I think its one of those things that really jerks his chain ...

 

[omega2xx]

How old do you think the universe is?

I have no idea and neither does anyone else. The important question is not the age of the earth, but how it originated. Unless matter can create itself out of nothing, an omnipotent God is the most logical answer. Also science admits that life cannot come from lifeless elements. Again the most logical answer is an Intelligent designer.

Are you a believer in 7 days of creation?

I believe an omnipotent God could have done it 7 seconds if that suited His purpose.

Of the earth and universe being less than ten thousand years old?

I don't really know and I don't really care. The Bible does not give the age of the earth. If I had to bet the home place on it, I would bet on less than 10,000 years old.

Why do you believe in billions of years? Have you done any research into the dating methods used for those figures? Everyone need to have an "I'm from Missouri attitude."

 

[omega2xx]

I realize you are stating your opinion.

When it comes to the age of the universe, opinions are all anyone has.

That you can call it 'logical' is beyond me though.

I have been looking for someone who can explain, scientifically that is, how matter can create itself out of nothing, and life can come from lifeless elements. Have I found such a person in your explanation?

The only explanation for the universe is that it was created by an Intelligent Designer? Seriously? The only one? What about that other thing that attempts to explain stuff like this. It's called science? They have some good explanations too.

OK, what is sciences explanation and what scientific evidence do the offer to support what they say?

 

[omega2xx]

Stephen Fry, one of our 'national treasures', takes great pleasure in pointing out the very considerable flaws in the 'Intelligent Designer' argument. I think its one of those things that really jerks his chain ...

What evidence does he offer to support saying there are flaws in Intelligent design? I will take great pleasure in pointing to the flaws in his OPINIONS, which will not be based on real science.

Most people today do not understand the adage "jerking the chain. Before the modern day toilets, the water for flushing was in a tank over the head of the toilet. To flush the toilet, they jerked a chain that cause the water to flow into the toilet, flushing it.

If you provide what Fry calls flaws, I will jerk the chain and wash them down with the rest of you know what.

 

[Thomas]

What evidence does he offer to support saying there are flaws in Intelligent design?

Contemporary 'Intelligent Design' is a pseudo-science. Check it on wikipedia. As for Fry, he offers plenty of examples in nature which show that if there is a Designer then he is capricious and, sometimes, needlessly cruel, with a wicked sense of humour. Ebola, for example ... what's the point or purpose of that?

(Intelligent Design as proposed by the likes of Aristotle and Aquinas are more nuanced matters, but that's not what people mean when they speak of ID today.)

Fry's 'OPINIONS' are based on proven scientific observation, whereas Intelligent Design is based on an unproven assumption.

The eye is often put forward as an example of Intelligent Design by authors like Michael Behe, which he describes as "irreducibly complex" and could not have evolved naturally. Unfortunately for Behe, the eye and other natural phenomena he puts forward all have demonstrable evolutionary pathways. Peer-review research of the scientific community dismisses ID altogether.

They also point out that there are certain flaws in the eye which, had a designer set out to design an eye from the outset, would not be there. They are there because the eye evolved naturally through evolutionary means.

If you take man, there is a huge amount of redundant material in his dna. If there was a Designer designing man from the get-go, then this detritus would not have found its way into the system. It's there because it's the legacy of the evolutionary process.

 

[omega2xx]

Contemporary 'Intelligent Design' is a pseudo-science. Check it on wikipedia. As for Fry, he offers plenty of examples in nature which show that if there is a Designer then he is capricious and, sometimes, needlessly cruel, with a wicked sense of humour. Ebola, for example ... what's the point or purpose of that?

All diseases, catastrophes, evil etc are the results of the fall. God did not design evil ect., Satan did. God's creation was very good.

(Intelligent Design as proposed by the likes of Aristotle and Aquinas are more nuanced matters, but that's not what people mean when they speak of ID today.)

What do they mean today. IMO ID means there is intelligence responsible for all designs, even bad ones.

Fry's 'OPINIONS' are based on proven scientific observation,

They are not and when I am thru with this post, I will go to your link and show where he does not mention anything proven by real science.

whereas Intelligent Design is based on an unproven assumption.

It is a theory based on logic---matter can't create itself out of nothing---life can't originate from lifeless elements., and I guarantee he will not explain how they did originate.

The eye is often put forward as an example of Intelligent Design by authors like Michael Behe, which he describes as "irreducibly complex" and could not have evolved naturally. Unfortunately for Behe, the eye and other natural phenomena he puts forward all have demonstrable evolutionary pathways. Peer-review research of the scientific community dismisses ID altogether.

They do not. One basic scientifically, proven truth of genetics is that for the offspring to have a certain characteristic, that characteristic had to be in the gene pool of it s parents---no gene for bones, no bones, not gene for arms, no arms, no gene for fins, no fins.

They also point out that there are certain flaws in the eye which, had a designer set out to design an eye from the outset, would not be there. They are there because the eye evolved naturally through evolutionary means.

Again I will guarantee you they did not offer any real scientific evidence to prove that.

If you take man, there is a huge amount of redundant material in his dna. If there was a Designer designing man from the get-go, then this detritus would not have found its way into the system. It's there because it's the legacy of the evolutionary process.

It always amazes me that intelligent people are willing to accept things for which there is no real scientific evidence.

I am going to you link and show where he does not offer any real scientific proof for what he claims.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

When it comes to the age of the universe, opinions are all anyone has.

This is an incredibly ignorant comment. You obviously have no respect for facts if you believe the age of the universe is only opinion driven.

So basically you are a believer in Intelligent Design, you have made that abundantly clear. Being so, there is zero point in continuing a conversation with you about the subject. You automatically reject science as being able to explain anything and your counter arguments to any realistic answer will be pseudo biblical double talk.

My comments probably come across as very harsh, just reading them on a computer screen so let me assert my purpose for this post. My intent here is not to be harsh with you. My intent is to state the obvious, that the gulf between what you believe and what the majority of the world believes is so deep that there is no chance for any form of genuine discussion, much less debate. It is a pointless exercise and I have never been a tilt at the windmill kind of guy.

 

[Thomas]

It is a pointless exercise and I have never been a tilt at the windmill kind of guy.

That'll be me then, mea culpa but, as Bonnie Raitt said, 'the boy can't help it'

 

[wil]

Omega... live well...

But as far as discussion with you goes...

You just jerked the chain.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Why is everyone so surprised when on a faith based forum they encounter someone who places God above human constructs? I think you guys are being incredibly rude here. Just because someone does not accept what you see as scientific fact is no reason to label their views ignorant. Especially on a faith based forum. That's not what we're here for. Shoot, I'd rather err on the side of God myself.

 

[omega2xx]

This is an incredibly ignorant comment. You obviously have no respect for facts if you believe the age of the universe is only opinion driven.

Obviously you are ignorant of the problems evolution uses for dating objects. Present the facts you are so proud of and lets see if the are truly facts.

So basically you are a believer in Intelligent Design, you have made that abundantly clear. Being so, there is zero point in continuing a conversation with you about the subject. You automatically reject science as being able to explain anything and your counter arguments to any realistic answer will be pseudo biblical double talk.

There is your major mistake. If you want to discuss evolution, I will not use the Bible. I will use real science, which evolution does not use and show you why the TOE is a scientific fraud.

My comments probably come across as very harsh, just reading them on a computer screen so let me assert my purpose for this post. My intent here is not to be harsh with you. My intent is to state the obvious, that the gulf between what you believe and what the majority of the world believes is so deep that there is no chance for any form of genuine discussion, much less debate. It is a pointless exercise and I have never been a tilt at the windmill kind of guy.

What we and the world believes is irrelevant. Only what can be proved is relevant. Lets 'stick to what science has proven. When a concept ca't be proven, we must depend on logic. It would be helpful if you presented on thing the TOE has scientifically proven. If you direct me to some link that says something has been proven, please post and highlight the evidence they offered.

Don't worry about offending me. Conservative Christians who accept ID are always treated harshly. Your was not as bad as most.

 

[omega2xx]

Omega... live well...

But as far as discussion with you goes...

You just jerked the chain.

That's the response I always get when the person can't back up what they say with evidence.

Have a nice day.

 

[Thomas]

That's the response I always get when the person can't back up what they say with evidence.

Speaking of which, you said you'd provide evidence to refute Stephen Fry, but haven't ... ergo ...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Why is everyone so surprised when on a faith based forum they encounter someone who places God above human constructs? I think you guys are being incredibly rude here. Just because someone does not accept what you see as scientific fact is no reason to label their views ignorant.

I understand what you are saying. The issue, at least for me, is as I stated above. The chasm between his belief structure and mine is so far a divide that it is impossible for us to have a meaningful discussion. For example, it isn't what "I" see as scientific fact that is relevant. It is that the majority of 'reality'* based people accept that science's goal is to be as fact based as possible. Which Omega flatly rejects.

There is no conflict with accepting a fact based reality and also having a belief in a divinity. Thomas can do it. So can you. So do I for that matter. We all have very different views on what divinity is, and we do accept that there are differences. Some differences some of us will accept, some differences some of us will reject.

To say that science is false, to say that only that which can be proved is relevant while defining 'what can be proved' as almost nothing factual - that is not a person for which debating is worth the effort. For me, any way. Any, and I mean ANY scientific proof I give to Omega, he will shred with pseudo-science. It isn't, as he said to Wil, that a person who cannot give evidence proves they cannot back up what they say. That is not the issue here. It is the pointlessness of the exercise.

*Reality - I really dislike using that world. I have studied a great deal about what we know of what we call reality and much of it is very different from what we have been led to believe. Reality is far deeper and grander than anything we have the ability to understand. Sound like a theological statement, does it not? It isn't though. My study of reality is through science, not religion. Any how I dislike using that word, but I do not have a better one to use in its place.