Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Science?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
66 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_wepwawet_*

Guest_wepwawet_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2005 - 02:02 PM

You may not directly observe him, but you can see evidence of His existence.

Evidence which does not have a more plausible natural explanation? And an example would be.....what?

My contention is that it's intellectually dishonest  to deny evidence of intelligent design.  You may not believe in a creator, but the evidence is undeniable.

View Post

You believe that people can only deny ID and the creator by willfully lying to themselves. We can't look at the evidence and see a natural answer; no...we have to look, see God staring us in the face and then deny him deliberately. Evolutionists must be active servants of Satan fighting God in order to believe what they believe.

Do you understand how corrupt that argument is? It's not worthy of comment scientifically, it is nothing but medieval religious zealotry. You don't even bother to point to the actual evidence that you speak of; nope, you just tell everyone with a differing opinion how intellectually dishonest they are because they refuse to see your truth.

So answer this question: How can I have an honest, intellectual discussion with someone who refuses to acknowledge I am honest?

#62 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 05 December 2005 - 02:14 PM

chance> If the universe is 100% naturalistic then the answer is yes.
If there is some supernatural element it has yet to be discovered (provisional no).

I think it very unlikely in these modern days that if a supernatural event occurred, science could not come to the conclusion that a supernatural event occurred, but I hesitate to give a qualified yes to that, as one may also state that the supernatural mechanism is not understood and may yet have a naturalistic source.  E.g. were the miracles reported in the Bible to have occurred in modern times one might state that perhaps they may not have been an act of divine will, God could have used a machine that manipulates energy/matter.


I define "supernatural" as a law that man does not understand.


Then we have a definition problem:

A law we don’t understand is nothing more than something undiscovered e.g. Atomic fusion, would have meant nothing to a society that did not understand atomic theory.


Definition of supernatural according to my dictionary – “being beyond the powers or laws of nature”, “miraculous”.




God does not practice "magic". He understands and uses laws of the universe. Thus, intelligent design is "supernatural" only in that it is not understood by man's knowlege. Evolutionist likewise believe in "supernatural" laws. They assume that laws exist even though they don't understand them. They assume that life self-organized although they can't explain how. They view life's existence as evidence that it evolved.


I’m not sure you have your theology correct in this matter, I.e. If God only uses the laws of nature he cannot be a supernatural being by definition, and thus not a god just a really good scientist, yes? It also begs the question that if man had the understanding (or only partial) of God we could do the same things.

From my experience God is supposed to bring things into and out of existence via divine will alone, while some may call this magic I feel this ‘cheapens’ the description. Devine will is very many orders of magnitude greater than magic. Magic IMO is a mythical human ability to have very much weakened godly powers, not to be confused with ‘Stage Magic, conjuring, or illusion’.

#63 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 05 December 2005 - 07:46 PM

quote=chance,Dec 5 2005, 02:14 PM


Then we have a definition problem:

Definition of supernatural according to my dictionary – “being beyond the powers or laws of nature”, “miraculous”.
I’m not sure you have your theology correct in this matter, I.e. If God only uses the laws of nature he cannot be a supernatural being by definition, and thus not a god just a really good scientist, yes?

I believe that God does not create laws of the universe, but abides by laws. He understands the laws fully. I realize that others believe differently.

It also begs the question that if man had the understanding (or only partial) of God we could do the same things. 

Very interesting conclusion. We are all offspring of Diety and as such ultimately have divine potential.

#64 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 December 2005 - 01:09 PM

chance> Then we have a definition problem:

Definition of supernatural according to my dictionary – “being beyond the powers or laws of nature”, “miraculous”.
I’m not sure you have your theology correct in this matter, I.e. If God only uses the laws of nature he cannot be a supernatural being by definition, and thus not a god just a really good scientist, yes?

I believe that God does not create laws of the universe, but abides by laws. He understands the laws fully. I realize that others believe differently.


OK that helps in my understanding, I believe there is something similar in freemasonry where God is described as “the great architect”.


It also begs the question that if man had the understanding (or only partial) of God we could do the same things. 

Very interesting conclusion. We are all offspring of Diety and as such ultimately have divine potential.


To me that would seem a logical assumption, but I fear we have strayed well and truly off topic (albeit interesting ground).


I can see how using your definitions you see religion and science are sort of different sides of the same coin.
However to answer the question “is science religion” I think we must stick to the majority convention found in dictionaries and law, even if for no other reason than to be able to be on the same page. For eventually law and decisions rely on a common definition conventions so that all can make and understand law.

#65 Angelus-Tenebrae

Angelus-Tenebrae

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 58
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Toronto

Posted 07 December 2005 - 02:09 PM

You may not directly observe him, but you can see evidence of His existence.
My contention is that it's intellectually dishonest  to deny evidence of intelligent design.  You may not believe in a creator, but the evidence is undeniable.

View Post


I don't know whether that's evidence of nature or evidence of an "intelligent" designer. According to science, it's evidence of nature. According to religion, it could be anything. Evidence pointing to nature does not disprove the spiritual existence of any deity or other religious figure. I'm still open to non-physical existences of a spiritual realm, a god, deity or any other things considered spiritual.

#66 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2005 - 02:40 PM

I appologize for the late reply, but I had final exams to wrap up, so the studies took away from the fun..... :D

In science, no one has to. But scientists have discovered that it is highly improbable for a global flood to occur, for several reasons:


I think this demonstrates how unfair you are in the way you look at things. You see the flood as being 1st impossible, and then when pushed on it, it goes from "impossible" to "highly improbable".

If you want to start thinking in terms of improbability, then you should not accept abiogenesis, or evolution at all, since they can be shown to be statistically impossible.

Its good to be consistant in your thinking, and application of principles......

They are not. Science is the study of nature, even if materialistic, and that's all it was ever meant to be and probably will be. If creationists study the supernatural, then they are not scientists.


This is a straw-man argument if there ever was one. The creation vs. evolution debate is nothing more than using scientific data to see if it supports either's claims about the past. No creationist will ever say that you can study the supernatural via the scientific method.

Interpreting scientific evidence to see if it supports the Bible is no different than seeing if it supports the idea that the big bang occured, galaxies developed, planets developed, life developed etc..... Both are only interpretations of data and nothing more.

This is why evolution is not scientific, at least no more than creationism.

"molecule-to-man" is kind of ambiguous because you've missed out all the steps in between. Specifically, one single event of speciation won't account for a molecule becoming a man, and that's certainly not what evolution suggests anyways. Instead, many, many events of speciation are happening, and simultaneously. The evolutionary relationship shows that starting from a prokaryote, evolution of eukaryotes, multicellular organisms, radial and bilateral symmetry, diploblastic body plan, triploblastic body plan, notocord and vertebrates, terrestrial organisms, bipedalism and opposable digits occurred.


LOL,...... :D Molecules-to-man is ambiguous??????? Its hardly ambigous. The evolutionary scenario claims that this is what happened, it doesn't show anything.

Using speciation, which involves latteral, or negative changes in the genome is not evidence that you go from a microbe to a man, and its bad science, if not intellectually dishonest to claim that it can.

If you want to make this claim, then you have to demonstrate, not speculate, that observed speciation adds new information to the biosphere, to claim it as scientific evidence of microbes-to-man evolution occuring.

Let it be clear then, that when I speak of microevolution, I'm speaking of evolution that occurs under the speciation level.


Let it be also clear, that as stated above, that genetically isolating one group of flies from another group of flies is not evidence of microbes-to-man evolution. Its evidence of flies to flies speciation, and nothing more. IMO, this is still equivocating, at least its bad science.

As far as I'm concerned, any argument that any creationist has ever brought up has been debunked. If you can come up with a proper scientific hypothesis to support your theory and design an experiment for it, the scientific community would be more than happy to consider it. Of course, I realize I'm speaking to someone who believes science is a waste of time.


I hardly believe science is a waste of time. I think the bad science that evolutionists enagage in is a waste of time, but observational science(what evolution is not) is a fantastic thing.

Terry

#67 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 08 December 2005 - 06:56 PM

QUOTE(Angelus-Tenebrae @ Dec 4 2005, 11:45 AM)

As far as I'm concerned, any argument that any creationist has ever brought up has been debunked.

Would you care to justify such a bold statement?

If you can come up with a proper scientific hypothesis to support your theory and design an experiment for it, the scientific community would be more than happy to consider it. Of course, I realize I'm speaking to someone who believes science is a waste of time.


Can you site one experiment that documents that macroevolution is biologically possible? Evolutionists suppose that they have some sort of corner on scientific objectivity, when in reality they have nothing but speculations built on assumptions. Their "evidence" is convincing only to someone already emotionally steeped in evolutionary dogma.
I'm curious... who constitutes the "scientific community?"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users