Jump to content


Photo

Should Christians Accept Evolution Theory?


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#61 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 January 2016 - 02:54 PM

Cal, that was not an, "insinuation" about you, it was just a comment that was all about me. That my own personal position is that I don't hold to any kind of personal, ad-hominem position during debates, where it gets into a fight between two people, attacking each other. perhaps both sides are guilty of that if they start attacking each other with the old character-assassination.

 

I was just letting Piasan know that he can still discuss these subjects with me on an intellectual level and I won't take it to any personal level of insults, etc..



#62 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,509 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 January 2016 - 02:59 PM

Enoch, I don't think you're quote-mining as long as you give a contextual quote, in fact I have written a topic about quote-mining you might enjoy.

 

I wasn't siding against you Enoch, I said "resentment" in reference to you, Piasan and Calypsis. (all of you), so I'm sorry if it seemed I was attacking you I was in fact trying to stop a fight be being the boring diplomat once again. :D

 

I actually don't know all of the issues between you and Piasan, and haven't read all of the posts between you.

http://evolutionfair...2-quote-mining/



#63 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 January 2016 - 05:46 PM

Cal, that was not an, "insinuation" about you, it was just a comment that was all about me. That my own personal position is that I don't hold to any kind of personal, ad-hominem position during debates, where it gets into a fight between two people, attacking each other. perhaps both sides are guilty of that if they start attacking each other with the old character-assassination.

 

I was just letting Piasan know that he can still discuss these subjects with me on an intellectual level and I won't take it to any personal level of insults, etc..

 

O.K. as long as you can tolerate him.



#64 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 18 January 2016 - 06:36 PM

The other "annihilation" was a proven quote mine from Enoch who cited a problem statement about Gibbs energy from the introduction of a paper.  The paper went on to discuss that the reaction in question was both spontaneous and rapid.  The conclusion of the paper was that the proposed problem did not exist.

You not only have a Scientific Acumen less than a 3rd Grader, which has been Thoroughly Documented "Proven" on this forum (If you need references just ask), you're a Liar sir.

 

This Bludgeoned your little Charade here: http://evolutionfair...-22#entry120040

......

 

I want you to make a Formal Charge here to the Moderators.  Let's raise the Stakes, if it's found to be "Quote Mining", I will leave and never post on this Forum Again.  If it's found not to be, " You Leave " never to return again.  How you like those apples? 

 

Let's see you SUPPORT your Claims.   :gotcha:

I decline to engage in taking this discussion further off topic.

 

The documentation of your quote mine on the Gibbs comment is in the 2LOT discussion linked in the (above) citation of your post.  Mike W has started a topic on the subject of quote mines and we can take it there.

 

You have been told before, I'm not some 19 year old recruit you can bully around.  At this point in time, based on your behavior toward just about everyone on the opposing side of the issue, I have very little concern for what you "want."   

 

If you want a formal charge filed to the moderators, go for it.



#65 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 January 2016 - 08:03 PM

Goku said:

I don't know what you mean by "we can not separate intelligence from something that supposedly is only observable."

I think you underestimate the learning process and the role faith functions with it. where did you get the idea that you can seperate water into h2o? Certainly not by looking at it and deciding that's the case. Somewhere along the way someone told you that water was made up of h2o. Why do you believe light travels at 186,000 mps while sound only 740 mph? Did you design experiments to test these theories? Have you in youin your 25 years of exstence ever observed a cow give birth to a whale or any other aanimal give birth to another body type?

Human come from the womb with a very basic operating system. Personality tendencies may be somewhat coded for however ident
ical twins have different perssonalitess and there is not enough genetic code to store our belef system in a single cell. Peronality seems to be acquired during maturaion. Try as hard as we may there are no two people like the Wrigley Cheing gum twins. lol


When performing science you of course need an intelligence (i.e. humans) to observe nature and do science.

Yeah! Other than tht Mrs Kenedy how did you like the ride through Dallas. Intelligence is the elephannt in the room so don't minimize it.
That's the point. To observe, or understand anything ingtelligence comes first.

But, just because you need intelligence to formulate the idea or observe that two hydrogen and one oxygen atom bind together to form water doesn't mean that an intelligence is therefore necessary for the natural process of covalent bonding to occur.

Try observing it withou intelligence! try this tet. Open a book in a language you don't read and write and see the importance of intelligence.

You need to define natural for me because you guys seem to think its some kkind of magical power that has aalways existed. Please explain how nature can do a better job of designing something. Am I wrong in assuming you are a part of nature and yet you can't go into a lab with all the raw ingredients of an abimal and make a cell that will grow up to be a horse but suposedly nature can.

This seems to be the fundamental flaw to your motif of 'evolution contradicts itself by needing an intelligence to formulate ToE to begin with'.

I can take you on a tour of a car mfgr company and you can see humans put togehr cars from scratch. And yet when it comes to evo all we get is stories of how it allegedly happened. Where is the beef? Evo is supposed to be observable tetable and repeatable or it is not science. I appreciate you faith in Darwin! LOL

In science an observation is not limited to observing an event as if we were literally watching a movie". Observing the effects of phenomena count as observations.

I agree but phenomina is a causative agent so you are contradicitn yourself. Lets agree to call anything when we observe both cause and effect an event for clarity. So then evoluutuion is a cause and not an effect. In your sentence the phenomina (cause) was not observed only the effect has been observed. Agreed?

This is kind of key when dealing with forensic science when investigating a murder scene or something. While we don't have video or eyewitness accounts of the murder we can piece together a scenario of what did happen based on observing the effects/evidence of what was left behind as a result of said event.


We'd like to say we can do this with a great deal od acccuracy but DNA test has exonerated more than one "guilty" person.

Evolution does a similar thing in that we don't have a video or human historical written record of what happened millions and even billions of years ago, but we can observe things in the present to construct a model of what did happen.
[/quote]
We are not all knoowing except for you when it comes to God's existence. LOL We can be wrong as we are finite sources of information.

This is kind of key when dealing with forensic science when investigating a murder scene or something. While we don't have video or eyewitness accounts of the murder we can piece together a scenario of what did happen based on observing the effects/evidence of what was left behind as a result of said event. Evolution does a similar thing in that we don't have a video or human historical written record of what happened millions and even billions of years ago, but we can observe things in the present to construct a model of what did happen. Furthermore we can empirically test such models (i.e. science) by predicting what we should observe when looking at various genomes and transitional fossils as an example. The creationist argument pitting operational science against historical science is much ado about nothing.
[/guote]
OK Shakespeare. Then you can predict based on genome studies when the next phenotype will occur and so scince will be there to video some animal giving birth to a diferent phenotype. Show me a video or picture of this happening.
[quote]
Evolution doesn't say that offspring should be a different body type than its parents; such ideas are antithetical to ToE and would disprove ToE. One of the key ideas of ToE is that each generation is a slightly modified version of the generation before it.
[/quote]

Still no eyes in the ack of my head annnd nosignnnnnns any are evolving.

The fossil record does not support this claim withou a lot of mental gynstics (spin). We have a few frmae of the movie and the rest of the movie is missing or an artissts rendition.

[quote]
On one level I agree completely, if I understand what you are saying. I'm sure you are familiar with the notion of weak versus strong atheism, and why almost all atheists are weak atheists? You may be more familiar with the synonymous terms of agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism respectively

On the other hand we do have to decide whether or not we will behave as if God does exist or does not exist. While I may technically be agnostic on the existence of God, our actions demand that we behave as if one model of reality is correct and the other false. For example I will either have to sincerely pray to Yahweh tonight or not, and by not praying to Yahweh I am effectively taking the position that Yahweh does not exist, however implicit that admission is. This is one reason why I prefer the atheist label over the agnostic one. Or, for example, the Muslim requirement of praying five times a day at specific times with a specific code of conduct. I assume you do not observe this Muslim practice, and by not observing this practice your behavior demonstrates that you do not believe Allah exists.


Baloney. Drop your double standard. Who makes anyone do anything except their mind?
Three years ago did I have to exist or not exist to you? Did you have an opinion one way or nother? You are idoctrinating yourself with nonsense effectively denying your own individuality. You are capable of creating any belief you wish, and that's what you have done. You created all this including you claims of who can' or can not exist. It would be a good idea to think about your thinking! What's the point of craering non existet beings?

#66 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 18 January 2016 - 08:26 PM

Piasan, I agree that it is okay for us to have discussions and it doesn't have to lead to such, shall we say, "confrontational" personal, all-out wars. I must say I don't understand why the battle is so severe between Piasan/Enoch/Calypsis, I think some of those debates you guys have had have probably been going on for a long time, there seems to be resentment there.

Understand that, like Enoch, I don't take attacks on my integrity lightly.  The record shows the flare up was started by an unprovoked attack on several of us (including myself) by a YEC.

 

In terms of "resentment" and who holds it, I'll point out I've never put anyone on ignore and from there the record can speak for itself on that too .....

 

 

Personally I don't do resentment. I always treat all of these discussions as ultimately only intellectual disputes, I don't take it to the, "personal" level. (I hope).

That is how it should be.

 

I made this post because I don't want Piasan or Goku/Fjuri gurus, to think I hate them because they are not creationist.

There is no chance of that..... and I think the two creationists who have issues with me much treat everyone who disagrees with them the same.

 

That said, I apologize for the distraction and will make no further comments concerning it here....



#67 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 18 January 2016 - 09:05 PM

Getting back on topic.....

My only argument in this thread is that I don't buy that atheists want Christians to be evolutionist for innocent reasons. That is only a comment about the political motives of atheists, as I believe that even if they think their motives are good, I think they deep-down know that evolution makes atheism look good, and obviously leads many people to be atheist despite the technicality that you can be theist and evolutionist. Just as ID makes theism look good, despite the technicality that you can be IDist and atheist/agnost.

As for being both theist and evolutionist, historically some 80% or so of evolutionists have been heists.  While that number is down, it's still a substantial majority.

 

My experience on these forums, which is admittedly anecdotal, is that most of those who abandoned theism as a result of evolution did so mainly because their religious mentors had drawn a line of "evolution or God, you can't have both."  I'm not aware of any surveys showing why people abandon their religious beliefs but I can give you a number of other reasons besides evolution.

 

I know of no atheist IDists.



#68 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 January 2016 - 11:27 PM

I made this post because I don't want Piasan or Goku/Fjuri gurus, to think I hate them because they are not creationist. 

 

While the nature of the evo-creo debate and its tangents tend to flare up emotions, I haven't perceived any malice from your posts. 



#69 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 January 2016 - 11:33 PM

Piasan
I would like to know how you feel Darwwiian evo and theistic evo differ if you think they do?

From my understanng Darwinian evo was created implying no need for intelligence. Also it has no goal so what happens just happens. Threfore, since God is intelligent and claims we are made in his imge we would have to be for odained to have His characterisitics. In other words He had a goal beings made in his image.




 



#70 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 January 2016 - 12:52 AM

(Note:  Larger font as a courtesy to Mike S.)

I would like to know how you feel Darwwiian evo and theistic evo differ if you think they do?

Darwinian evo makes no statement about God.  Even Mike W. has made it clear his objection is that Darwinian evo does not REQUIRE God.  (No other scientific theory states a requirement for God so why should evo?  Theistic evo takes the position that creation is an ongoing process directed by God.

 

I have no problem with the term "random" as applied to the process because the extreme complexity of the process combined with the number of interacting factors would look to us like random noise.  It's a lot like encryption that makes clear text look like gibberish if you don't have the key.

 

 

From my understanng Darwinian evo was created implying no need for intelligence.

No other scientific theory implies a need for intelligence, why should evo be any different?

 

It is also my understanding that Darwin was a trained minister who lost his faith with the death of his daughter..... long after his voyage on the Beagle.

 

 

Also it has no goal so what happens just happens.

Why should a scientific theory have a "goal?"

 

Can God not achieve his aims with something like the "butterfly effect" in which a miniscule change has huge repercussions?  Would we be able to detect God managing his creation in this way?

 

 

Threfore, since God is intelligent and claims we are made in his imge we would have to be for odained to have His characterisitics. In other words He had a goal beings made in his image.

Since God is not a physical entity, I think "image of God" has more to do with spiritual image than the physical.  We need to be careful using intelligence as a criteria since many animals display both intelligence and the ability to communicate.

 



#71 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 January 2016 - 05:19 AM

Piasan

Darwinian evo makes no statement about God. Even Mike W. has made it clear his objection is that Darwinian evo does not REQUIRE God. (No other scientific theory states a requirement for God so why should evo? Theistic evo takes the position that creation is an ongoing process directed by God.


Ok then, it has major differences as I thought.
Here I go again. Darwin was intelligent was he not? All theories are made by intelligent beings. You are personifying evo. That's a Mike Sumers no no. LOL

Why should a scientific theory have a "goal?"

Umm because they do! Goal and effect are the same core idea. The theory of evo is supposed to be the cause of an already observed effect (goal).

Since God is not a physical entity, I think "image of God" has more to do with spiritual image than the physical. We need to be careful using intelligence as a criteria since many animals display both intelligence and the ability to communicate.

We are spirit (mental) beings in a physical containment field (our body).

Your last statement seems prepotersrous to me! How can we avoid using intelligence (life)?

 

Why can't animals share inelligence (life) with God and us? Kindly explaun how we can avoid using intelligence to observe anything? What about quantum physics? Intelligence is the elephant in the room--a whole herd of them. LOL :)



#72 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 January 2016 - 01:55 PM

I decline to engage in taking this discussion further off topic.

 

 

Yea, you bet you won't.  Guess you didn't like those apples, eh?

 

 

 
  Mike W has started a topic on the subject of quote mines and we can take it there.

 

 

I wasn't gonna discuss it here anyway.  I said to MAKE IT OFFICIAL by taking it to the Moderators !! So as to...

 

"SUPPORT YOUR BASELESS "HALF-BAKED CLAIMS "

 

 

I'm certainly not responding to your HOGWASH over there lol.  It's already been dealt with, Laughingly HERE: http://evolutionfair...-23#entry120110 and here: http://evolutionfair...-22#entry120008

 

 

 I have very little concern for what you "want."   

 

 

Translation:  I can't SUPPORT MY Claims.  Thanks!  

 

pssst... we already knew.

 

 

If you want a formal charge filed to the moderators, go for it.

 

 

No Comment. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users