Jump to content


Photo

How Can God Use A Cause If Evolution Is A Cause?


  • Please log in to reply
209 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 February 2017 - 01:20 PM

Often I hear theistic evolutionists and atheists argue; "but God could have used evolution."

 

The problem I have with this statement, is that science explains things by natural causes, and those causes aren't really caused.

 

For example, with biological evolution, if we assume abiogenesis, well, biological evolution would then occur based on natural selection and mutations and other factors. You would say "what caused biological evolution?" Really the answer is, "nothing, it is a cause."

 

So then if biological evolution causes a horse and a bat to exist, then that was because pre-existing matter and natural processes existed for it to act upon.

 

The real problem I have is that theistic evolutionism is basically the assertion God used the various types of evolution but science itself if asked if there is another cause needed would say, "no, the scientific answers have been given, the cause of the species is biological evolution, the cause of life is abiogenesis, the cause of the big bang is....well....the various gibberish about nothing exploding" etc...

 

So then if a theistic evolutionist asks of each theory; "Can God have used this process this theory describes?" Isn't the answer this; "No, because those theories are there to explain why certain facts are caused, and the answer to the cause of those facts is the theory we are expounding, so the scientific answer is that evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang ARE the explanations of the facts, and any other extra causes are not parsimonious to science. We have given scientific answers to why life exists, why species exist and why the universe exists."

 

Darwin himself also said that he would totally abandon evolution theory if it in any way required God as part of it's premises.

 

So it seems to me science doesn't have to come out and explicitly state that God is not there, but this silence about God is really a vacuous point people make about science not having an opinion about God, because implicitly those scientific theories are explanations of the things God said He caused in the bible, in place of God.

 

So it seems to me the complaint; "science says nothing about God", is really a little bit like saying; "This racist has never said anything bad about the Chinese, he only is racist towards black people."

 

So what - if he is prejudiced based on skin colour, he doesn't need to say anything, because we know his personality is to be prejudiced.

 

In the same way, science doesn't say anything about God directly, because it doesn't need to, it's theories speak loudly by saying this; "God is not there, because here are the scientific causes for the things God allegedly created, which is how it happened without God.".

 

Conclusion; I believe theistic evolutionists are deluded and atheists can be liars, because they know it is advantageous to propagate the codswallop that secular science, "says nothing about God".

 

:P


  • eddified likes this

#2 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 February 2017 - 03:52 PM

Often I hear theistic evolutionists and atheists argue; "but God could have used evolution."
 
The problem I have with this statement, is that science explains things by natural causes, and those causes aren't really caused.

 
For example, with biological evolution, if we assume abiogenesis, well, biological evolution would then occur based on natural selection and mutations and other factors. You would say "what caused biological evolution?" Really the answer is, "nothing, it is a cause."

i'm beginning to wonder if evolution ever occured at all, especially if we can take koonin at face value.
animal phyla arrived here fully formed with no detectable intermediates to the previous nexus (eukaryotic super groups) and it doesn't appear to conform to the tree pattern.
science has not demonstrated the single source scenario.

the above completely smashes what we have been told about evolution.
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 23 February 2017 - 03:57 PM

You're right there Bilbo my lad, and I'm with Frodo Koonin on this one!!

 

How can Goku even have the gaul to face us after these two historic posts at EFF? I wouldn't know! The only way to stop is to quit!

 

:farmer: 


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#4 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 March 2017 - 08:32 PM

Surely God "Could have" used the process of "Evolution" as well as a myriad of other speculative processes to create Man....But, at the end of the day, all of those man made speculations are MEANINGLESS AND WORTHLESS.. The ONLY thing that should be important to ANY Christian is NOT how God "Could Have" done it... But how He SAID THAT HE DID IT.. I have FAR more respect for Atheists than I do for Theistic Evilutionists / Oval-Earthers / Wolves in sheeps clothing who think they can mix the truth of God's word with Satan's greatest lie from hell..

What fellowship does light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”…
  • eddified likes this

#5 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 02 March 2017 - 12:08 PM

Surely God "Could have" used the process of "Evolution" as well as a myriad of other speculative processes to create Man....But, at the end of the day, all of those man made speculations are MEANINGLESS AND WORTHLESS.. The ONLY thing that should be important to ANY Christian is NOT how God "Could Have" done it... But how He SAID THAT HE DID IT.. I have FAR more respect for Atheists than I do for Theistic Evilutionists / Oval-Earthers / Wolves in sheeps clothing who think they can mix the truth of God's word with Satan's greatest lie from hell..

What fellowship does light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people.”…

 

It seems to me like "science" is a modern day idol: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

 

When "science" is where we look for all truth and answers, that seems like a form of idolatry to me. When Theistic Evolutionists place God's word on equal footing with what "science" says about evolution: again, that's a form of idolatry.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#6 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 03 March 2017 - 01:26 AM

It seems to me like "science" is a modern day idol: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

 

When "science" is where we look for all truth and answers, that seems like a form of idolatry to me. When Theistic Evolutionists place God's word on equal footing with what "science" says about evolution: again, that's a form of idolatry.

You're very wrong about science. Science -- different from religion -- does not claim exclusivity. While you can't be a christian and muslim at the same time, science doesn't exclude this. A lot of people combine a career in science while remaining faithful.

 

Second point, there are quite some truths that fall outside the scope of science. Politics, the judicial, ethics, artistic truths, all these things science is mute about.

Science is very good in answereing questions about the physical world, but a lot of questions are not physical per se.



#7 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 March 2017 - 06:02 AM

You're very wrong about science. Science -- different from religion -- does not claim exclusivity. While you can't be a christian and muslim at the same time, science doesn't exclude this. A lot of people combine a career in science while remaining faithful.

 

Second point, there are quite some truths that fall outside the scope of science. Politics, the judicial, ethics, artistic truths, all these things science is mute about.

Science is very good in answereing questions about the physical world, but a lot of questions are not physical per se.

 

"You're very wrong about science. Science -- different from religion -- does not claim exclusivity. While you can't be a christian and muslim at the same time, science doesn't exclude this. A lot of people combine a career in science while remaining faithful."

 

It depends whether you are talking about REAL Science ( Science that conforms to the Scientific Method ) OR Metaphysical Scientific Fairy Tales like the Mindless MYO mud to Man Myth (Evolution) which indeed IS a religion all to itself..

 

 

"Science is very good in answering questions about the physical world, but a lot of questions are not physical per se."

 

That is true, but Scientists are arrogant and foolish enough to think that they can answer those questions as well... :muscular:

 

Like these...

 

(1) How could all of the matter, order, and complexity in the universe have possibly come to be by uncaused and unguided processes?

 

"Scientific" Answer.. "Nothing or a tiny dot "Exploded" by accident.

 

 REAL Answer...  It COULD NOT HAVE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

 

(2) How can red blood cells and soft tissue last for over 100 million years without biodegrading?.... 

"Scientific" Answer... IRON.

 

REAL Answer..They COULD NOT HAVE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

 

(3) How could a self replicating DNA molecule, encoded with millions of lines of specified and irreducible complexity have possibly emerged uncaused from heat, air and mud..?

 

"Scientific" Answer.. hydrothermal vents, RNA nucleotides, panspermia, primordial ooze. lightning strikes, coacervates, archaea....

 

REAL Answer..... IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED... EVER, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

 

 

I could go on and on like this for hours.... At least I hope you get the idea.. :kaffeetrinker:

 

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and

the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do

not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) :topic_closed:



#8 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 03 March 2017 - 09:43 AM

A lot of people combine a career in science while remaining faithful.

james tour:
I used to believe that my outward confession of skepticism regarding evolution was also of little consequence to my career as a scientist. Specifically, in the past, I wrote that my standing as a scientist was “based primarily upon my scholarly peer-reviewed publications.” Thirty years ago, that was the case. I no longer believe that, however. Ever since the time of the legal case referenced above, I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions— which is a further testament to the disheartening collateral damage resulting from lawsuits. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinian Theory. I never thought that science would have evolved like this.
. . .
Hence, by my observation, the unfair treatment upon the skeptics of macroevolution has not come from the administration level, at least at Rice University. But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with theories of evolution, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained?
www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

tour isn't alone in his views.

here's koonin on the tree of life concept:
At the distinct risk of earning the ire of many for associating with a much-maligned cultural thread, I call this major change the transition to a postmodern view of life. Essentially, this signifies the plurality of pattern and process in evolution; the central role of contingency in the evolution of life forms (“evolution as tinkering”); and, more specifically, the demise of (pan)adaptationism as the paradigm of evolutionary biology. Our unfaltering admiration for Darwin notwithstanding, we must relegate the Victorian worldview (including its refurbished versions that flourished in the twentieth century) to the venerable museum halls where it belongs, and explore the consequences of the paradigm shift.
- forbes

you know, i keep repeating this, it's totally irrelevant whether there is a god or not.
this stuff works, and figuring out how is the job of science.

i can say this, the biomolecular processes of the cell is simply beyond mind boggling.
and it had to come together all at once, epigentics, transposons, all of it.
dumb luck?

#9 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 06 March 2017 - 01:41 PM

Politics, the judicial, ethics, artistic truths, all these things science is mute about.


Philosophy masquerading as the scientific method is constantly poking its head into politics, for good or worse.

#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 March 2017 - 12:09 AM

Often I hear theistic evolutionists and atheists argue; "but God could have used evolution."

 

The problem I have with this statement, is that science explains things by natural causes, and those causes aren't really caused.

No.  They are caused by God.  However, it is scientifically impossible to prove that.

 

The problem is that science is incompetent to examine supernatural causes.

 

For example, with biological evolution, if we assume abiogenesis, well, biological evolution would then occur based on natural selection and mutations and other factors. You would say "what caused biological evolution?" Really the answer is, "nothing, it is a cause."

No.  God is the ultimate cause.  Biological evolution is His tool.

 

The real problem I have is that theistic evolutionism is basically the assertion God used the various types of evolution but science itself if asked if there is another cause needed would say, "no, the scientific answers have been given, the cause of the species is biological evolution, the cause of life is abiogenesis, the cause of the big bang is....well....the various gibberish about nothing exploding" etc...

Let me give another way of looking at it....

 Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College. Writings include: Astronomy: Fundamentals And Frontiers (Wiley, 1972); God And The Astronomers (Norton, 1978); The Enchanted Loom (Touchstone, 1983); Has been described by Paddy Chayevsky as "the greatest writer on science alive today."

Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces.

The first scientific indication of an abrupt beginning for the world appeared about fifty years ago. At that time American astronomers, studying the great clusters of stars called galaxies, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.

This discovery led directly to the picture of a sudden beginning for the Universe; for if we retrace the movements of the moving galaxies backward in time, we find that at an earlier time they must have been closer together than they are today; at a still earlier time, they must have been still closer together; and if we go back far enough in time, we find that at a certain critical moment in the past all the galaxies in the Universe were packed together into one dense mass at an enormous density, pressure and temperature. Reacting to this pressure, the dense, hot matter must have exploded with incredible violence. The instant of the explosion marked the birth of the Universe.

The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion. It was literally the moment of Creation.

From a philosophical point of view, this finding has traumatic implications for science. Scientists have always felt more comfortable with the idea of a Universe that has existed forever, because their thinking is permeated with the idea of Cause and Effect; they believe that every event that takes place in the world can be explained in a rational way as the consequence of some previous event. Einstein once said, "The scientist is possessed of a sense of infinite causation." If there is a religion in science, this statement can be regarded as its principal article of faith. But the latest astronomical results indicate that at some point in the past the chain of cause and effect terminated abruptly. An important event occurred-the origin of the world-for which there is no known cause or explanation within the realm of science. The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.

This is a distressing result for scientists because, in the scientist's view, given enough time and money, he must be able to find an explanation for the beginning of the Universe on his own terms-an explanation that fits into the framework of natural rather than supernatural forces.

So, the scientist asks himself, what cause led to the effect we call the Universe? And he proceeds to examine the conditions under which the world began. But then he sees that he is deprived-today, tomorrow, and very likely forever-of finding out the answer to this critical question.

Why is that? The answer has to do with the conditions that prevailed in the first moments of the Universe's existence. At that time it must have been compressed to an enormous-perhaps infinite-density, temperature and pressure. The shock of that moment must have destroyed every relic of an earlier, pre-creation Universe that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. To find that cause, the scientist must reconstruct the chain of events that took place prior to the seeming moment of creation, and led to the appearance of our Universe as their end product. But just this, he cannot do. For all the evidence he might have examined to that end has been melted down and destroyed in the intense heat and pressure of the first moment. No clue remains to the nature of the forces-natural or supernatural that conspired to bring about the event we call the Big Bang.

 

This is a very surprising conclusion. Nothing in the history of science leads us to believe there should be a fundamental limit to the results of scientific inquiry. Science has had extraordinary success in piecing together the elements of a story of cosmic evolution that adds many details to the first pages of Genesis. The scientist has traced the history of the Universe back in time from the appearance of man to the lower animals, then across the threshold of life to a time when the earth did not exist, and then back farther still to a time when stars and galaxies had not yet formed and the heavens were dark. Now he goes farther back still, feeling he is close to success-the answer to the ultimate question of beginning-when suddenly the chain of cause and effect snaps. The birth of the Universe is an effect for which he cannot find the cause.

Some say still that if the astronomer cannot find that cause today, he will find it tomorrow, and we will read about it in the New York Times when Walter Sullivan gets around to reporting on it. But I think the circumstances of the Big Bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past-make that extremely unlikely.

This is why it seems to me and to others that the curtain drawn over the mystery of creation will never be raised by human efforts, at least in the foreseeable future. Although I am an agnostic, and not a believer, I still find much to ponder in the view expressed by the British astronomer E. A. Milne, who wrote, "We can make no propositions about the state of affairs [in the beginning]; in the Divine act of creation God is unobserved and unwitnessed."

Source: http://www.leaderu.c.../1truth18b.html

 

 

So then if a theistic evolutionist asks of each theory; "Can God have used this process this theory describes?" Isn't the answer this; "No, because those theories are there to explain why certain facts are caused, and the answer to the cause of those facts is the theory we are expounding, so the scientific answer is that evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang ARE the explanations of the facts, and any other extra causes are not parsimonious to science.

What a bunch of gobbeltygoop.  (I think that's like Mike's term "codswollop" (sp?)

 

Speaking as a theistic evolutionist....

God is fully capable of using natural processes to achieve His ends.

When the evidence of God's creation conflicts with the literal word of the Bible, the discrepancy must be resolved.  "Truth cannot contradict truth."

 

As with any of us, I tend to lean toward those things I understand best.  My engineering background gives me a pretty good understanding of physics.  I agree with Jastrow in that there some things that science will never be able to solve. The cause of the big bang and abiogenesis are among them.

 

... any other extra causes are not parsimonious to science.

Creation science is everything but parsimonious.

 

We have given scientific answers to why life exists, why species exist and why the universe exists."

Not "why," but "how." 

 

"Why" is a philosophical question that is beyond the scope of the natural and physical sciences.

 

Darwin himself also said that he would totally abandon evolution theory if it in any way required God as part of it's premises.

 

So it seems to me science doesn't have to come out and explicitly state that God is not there, but this silence about God is really a vacuous point people make about science not having an opinion about God, because implicitly those scientific theories are explanations of the things God said He caused in the bible, in place of God.

 

So it seems to me the complaint; "science says nothing about God", is really a little bit like saying; "This racist has never said anything bad about the Chinese, he only is racist towards black people."

 

So what - if he is prejudiced based on skin colour, he doesn't need to say anything, because we know his personality is to be prejudiced.

 

In the same way, science doesn't say anything about God directly, because it doesn't need to, it's theories speak loudly by saying this; "God is not there, because here are the scientific causes for the things God allegedly created, which is how it happened without God.".

That science doesn't say "Goddidit" is your real complaint, isn't it?

 

Can you present just one test available to science that can be used to show supernatural causation?  Just one.  I've been asking for decades and no one has been able to provide one.

 

Conclusion; I believe theistic evolutionists are deluded ....

Sorry, I was incapable of the mental gymnastics and contortions necessary to reconcile a truthful God with a universe that is more than 99.999999999% a fabrication.  If God's creation is a lie, how can the Bible to be trusted at all?

 

.....and atheists can be liars, because they know it is advantageous to propagate the codswallop that secular science, "says nothing about God".

I wish Scirus were still around.  It was a searchable database of over a hundred million scientific documents in various sciences.  We'll just have to settle for the NASA Astrophysics system which has only a little over 10,000,000 documents (based on a search for the word "the" in the abstract of a paper).

 

Here's the link:  http://adsabs.harvar...ct_service.html

 

Go ahead and search the physics and astronomy databases.  I found less than 1,000 that have the word "God" in the abstract.  The ones I checked were mostly from education journals discussing cultural matters, not the physical or natural sciences. 


  • eddified likes this

#11 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 09 March 2017 - 11:02 PM

No.  They are caused by God.  However, it is scientifically impossible to prove that.
 
The problem is that science is incompetent to examine supernatural causes.
 

No.  God is the ultimate cause.  Biological evolution is His tool.
 

Let me give another way of looking at it....
 Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College. Writings include: Astronomy: Fundamentals And Frontiers (Wiley, 1972); God And The Astronomers (Norton, 1978); The Enchanted Loom (Touchstone, 1983); Has been described by Paddy Chayevsky as "the greatest writer on science alive today."
Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces.
The first scientific indication of an abrupt beginning for the world appeared about fifty years ago. At that time American astronomers, studying the great clusters of stars called galaxies, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.
This discovery led directly to the picture of a sudden beginning for the Universe; for if we retrace the movements of the moving galaxies backward in time, we find that at an earlier time they must have been closer together than they are today; at a still earlier time, they must have been still closer together; and if we go back far enough in time, we find that at a certain critical moment in the past all the galaxies in the Universe were packed together into one dense mass at an enormous density, pressure and temperature. Reacting to this pressure, the dense, hot matter must have exploded with incredible violence. The instant of the explosion marked the birth of the Universe.
The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion. It was literally the moment of Creation.
From a philosophical point of view, this finding has traumatic implications for science. Scientists have always felt more comfortable with the idea of a Universe that has existed forever, because their thinking is permeated with the idea of Cause and Effect; they believe that every event that takes place in the world can be explained in a rational way as the consequence of some previous event. Einstein once said, "The scientist is possessed of a sense of infinite causation." If there is a religion in science, this statement can be regarded as its principal article of faith. But the latest astronomical results indicate that at some point in the past the chain of cause and effect terminated abruptly. An important event occurred-the origin of the world-for which there is no known cause or explanation within the realm of science. The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.
This is a distressing result for scientists because, in the scientist's view, given enough time and money, he must be able to find an explanation for the beginning of the Universe on his own terms-an explanation that fits into the framework of natural rather than supernatural forces.
So, the scientist asks himself, what cause led to the effect we call the Universe? And he proceeds to examine the conditions under which the world began. But then he sees that he is deprived-today, tomorrow, and very likely forever-of finding out the answer to this critical question.
Why is that? The answer has to do with the conditions that prevailed in the first moments of the Universe's existence. At that time it must have been compressed to an enormous-perhaps infinite-density, temperature and pressure. The shock of that moment must have destroyed every relic of an earlier, pre-creation Universe that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. To find that cause, the scientist must reconstruct the chain of events that took place prior to the seeming moment of creation, and led to the appearance of our Universe as their end product. But just this, he cannot do. For all the evidence he might have examined to that end has been melted down and destroyed in the intense heat and pressure of the first moment. No clue remains to the nature of the forces-natural or supernatural that conspired to bring about the event we call the Big Bang.
 
This is a very surprising conclusion. Nothing in the history of science leads us to believe there should be a fundamental limit to the results of scientific inquiry. Science has had extraordinary success in piecing together the elements of a story of cosmic evolution that adds many details to the first pages of Genesis. The scientist has traced the history of the Universe back in time from the appearance of man to the lower animals, then across the threshold of life to a time when the earth did not exist, and then back farther still to a time when stars and galaxies had not yet formed and the heavens were dark. Now he goes farther back still, feeling he is close to success-the answer to the ultimate question of beginning-when suddenly the chain of cause and effect snaps. The birth of the Universe is an effect for which he cannot find the cause.
Some say still that if the astronomer cannot find that cause today, he will find it tomorrow, and we will read about it in the New York Times when Walter Sullivan gets around to reporting on it. But I think the circumstances of the Big Bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past-make that extremely unlikely.
This is why it seems to me and to others that the curtain drawn over the mystery of creation will never be raised by human efforts, at least in the foreseeable future. Although I am an agnostic, and not a believer, I still find much to ponder in the view expressed by the British astronomer E. A. Milne, who wrote, "We can make no propositions about the state of affairs [in the beginning]; in the Divine act of creation God is unobserved and unwitnessed."
Source: http://www.leaderu.c.../1truth18b.html
 
 

What a bunch of gobbeltygoop.  (I think that's like Mike's term "codswollop" (sp?)
 
Speaking as a theistic evolutionist....
God is fully capable of using natural processes to achieve His ends.
When the evidence of God's creation conflicts with the literal word of the Bible, the discrepancy must be resolved.  "Truth cannot contradict truth."
 
As with any of us, I tend to lean toward those things I understand best.  My engineering background gives me a pretty good understanding of physics.  I agree with Jastrow in that there some things that science will never be able to solve. The cause of the big bang and abiogenesis are among them.
 

Creation science is everything but parsimonious.
 

Not "why," but "how." 
 
"Why" is a philosophical question that is beyond the scope of the natural and physical sciences.
 

That science doesn't say "Goddidit" is your real complaint, isn't it?
 
Can you present just one test available to science that can be used to show supernatural causation?  Just one.  I've been asking for decades and no one has been able to provide one.
 

Sorry, I was incapable of the mental gymnastics and contortions necessary to reconcile a truthful God with a universe that is more than 99.999999999% a fabrication.  If God's creation is a lie, how can the Bible to be trusted at all?
 

I wish Scirus were still around.  It was a searchable database of over a hundred million scientific documents in various sciences.  We'll just have to settle for the NASA Astrophysics system which has only a little over 10,000,000 documents (based on a search for the word "the" in the abstract of a paper).
 
Here's the link:  http://adsabs.harvar...ct_service.html
 
Go ahead and search the physics and astronomy databases.  I found less than 1,000 that have the word "God" in the abstract.  The ones I checked were mostly from education journals discussing cultural matters, not the physical or natural sciences.



"No. God is the ultimate cause. Biological evolution is His tool"


Maybe YOUR god.. But NOT the Judeo Christian God of the Bible, Darwinism and Genesis are 180 Degree Polar Opposites...

I was forced to invent a term for people that have been so brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing Satan's biggest lie that they must perform mental contortions so they can allow themselves to believe that the Fraud of "Evolution" is somehow scientific in order to try to please God and Mamon...

Atheists know full well how important "Evolution" is to their Godless Worldview and they openly laugh at "Oval-Earthers, or, in other words, the same exact kind of people that Lenin endearingly referred to as "Useful Idiots"


The Atheists Know … Why Christianity has to Fight Evolution
‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’

Reference
G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist,

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins

#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 March 2017 - 11:36 AM

 

 

Piasan: Go ahead and search the physics and astronomy databases.  I found less than 1,000 that have the word "God" in the abstract.  The ones I checked were mostly from education journals discussing cultural matters, not the physical or natural sciences

 

Which proves absolutely nothing, because if you had read carefully, I addressed this point in message one where I said; "So it seems to me science doesn't have to come out and explicitly state that God is not there, but this silence about God is really a vacuous point people make about science not having an opinion about God, because implicitly those scientific theories are explanations of the things God said He caused in the bible, in place of God."

 

I could also have you chase the red-herring by asking you to find the word, "trinity" in the bible. The word may not be there but the trinity is there. In the same way secular science doesn't need to even mention God even once, because it claims natural processes did everything God told us He did.

 

It is naive to believe that because scientists or science don't come out and mention God in discussion, that the naturalistic, materialist theories are therefore not saying anything about God. They are saying a God that specially created, as Genesis talks about, does not exist. They are saying the things the bible told us about, did not happen in the context in which they were written.

 

The point is, if we ask scientists "do we need God" for evolution of species, (in other words to get species) the scientific answer is that, "no, we need evolution".

 

How can you deny that that simply is the answer you get from science. Do you think Hawkins and Strauss or whatever his name is, try to explain a Big Bang WITH God? No - they would argue the cause is naturalistic. They go to great lengths to explain it parsimoniously, without God.

 

Doesn't matter how much you varnish science, Piasan, the fact is it paints a Godless picture, a Godless scenario, where God is the third wheel on a bicycle or the third person on a date, or the third windscreen wiper on your windshield.

 

Yes, science does not say anything about motivational causes, etc...causes which aren't physical, but then the whole science community if asked certain questions, only gives Godless answers. If you ask the official view of morality from science, it gives you evolutionary psychology

 

These aren't things we are imagining Piasan, everything you get from secular science, is Godless, be it morality, the cause of the universe or the cause of life, no matter what the question is they have an answer that is a very Godless answer. You have made your wife science, and she is ugly as sin, and now you parade the hideous ogre around the place saying, "she is as pretty as a super model". ;)


  • Mike Summers likes this

#13 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 10 March 2017 - 01:28 PM

Doesn't matter how much you varnish science, Piasan, the fact is it paints a Godless picture, a Godless scenario, where God is the third wheel on a bicycle or the third person on a date, or the third windscreen wiper on your windshield.


Haha, the Toyota FJ Cruiser has 3 windshield wipers.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#14 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:43 AM

As you are probably well aware, I'm not very fond personifying ideas or inanimate objects. Nor is our thinking  sacrosanct. However it does not seem we are inhibited from thinking and believing anything we wish (try it and see). If only we weren't so doggone  creative. LOL

 

All humans share the ability to reason (practice science). So we think and reason) (practice science). It seems somewhat confusing to say that science has no opinion on whether there is a God or not. No "it" doesn't have an opinion because "it" is not an entity. Only the beings practicing science (reasoning) have opinions.

When Darwin created evolutionary theory he made sure to emphasize that it had no intelligent input. God could not have used evolution because that would violate Darwin's definition of what evolution is supposed to be--a design process that has no intelligent input. Neither can you or I use evolution  because we are intelligent.



#15 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:57 AM

Hey Piasan

Neither Mike the wiz's name nor my name is mentioned in the data base you refer to but that doesen't mean Mike nor I don't exist. lol


  • piasan and mike the wiz like this

#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 March 2017 - 01:00 PM

Hey Piasan

Neither Mike the wiz's name nor my name is mentioned in the data base you refer to but that doesen't mean Mike nor I don't exist. lol

Right.

 

And the fact that football isn't mentioned doesn't mean football doesn't exist either.  What it does mean is that neither you, nor Mike W, nor football, nor God is a topic of scientific discussion.



#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 March 2017 - 01:10 PM

As you are probably well aware, I'm not very fond personifying ideas or inanimate objects. .... So we think and reason) (practice science). It seems somewhat confusing to say that science has no opinion on whether there is a God or not. No "it" doesn't have an opinion because "it" is not an entity. Only the beings practicing science (reasoning) have opinions. 

I agree with all of that. 

 

No one thinks science itself has an opinion.  It's safe to say we all know science is inanimate.  The "opinion of science" is formed by scientists.

 

But it's a hellofalot easier to say "science" than "the consensus of opinion among scientists."



#18 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 March 2017 - 02:23 PM

First, a respectful suggestion, Blitz.....

 

Rather quote the entire post then recopy the portion you're commenting on outside the "quote" marks, it might be better to "quote" the post, then delete those portions you're not discussing.  You can do that multiple times.

 

IMHO, it makes things more clear as to exactly what you're discussing and eliminates a lot of extraneous material.

 

Atheists know full well how important "Evolution" is to their Godless Worldview and they openly laugh at "Oval-Earthers, or, in other words, the same exact kind of people that Lenin endearingly referred to as "Useful Idiots"

Just like many ID advocates look at YEC.

 

....  G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist,

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins

All I could find of Bozarth is he's a writer.... which means I can give him the same level of credibility as the clerk at my local convenience store.

 

I couldn't care less what Dawkins says about his philosophical/religious beliefs and how he gets his "intellectual fulfillment."   Frankly, Dawkin's misuse of science as a "disproof" of God irrigates me.

 

Science is incompetent to discuss God.  It's like using a tennis racket to play baseball.


  • eddified likes this

#19 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 March 2017 - 05:26 PM

Which proves absolutely nothing, because if you had read carefully, I addressed this point in message one where I said; "So it seems to me science doesn't have to come out and explicitly state that God is not there, but this silence about God is really a vacuous point people make about science not having an opinion about God, because implicitly those scientific theories are explanations of the things God said He caused in the bible, in place of God."

Like I said, your specific complaint boils down to: "Science doesn't say Goddidit."

 

The problem is that science is incompetent to explore supernatural causation.  I asked before...  "Can you give just one test available to science that will show supernatural causation?"

 

I could also have you chase the red-herring by asking you to find the word, "trinity" in the bible. The word may not be there but the trinity is there. In the same way secular science doesn't need to even mention God even once, because it claims natural processes did everything God told us He did.

The point of the database is to show that God is simply not a topic of scientific discussion.  It's not like there is some vast conspiracy among scientists to disprove God.

 

It is naive to believe that because scientists or science don't come out and mention God in discussion, that the naturalistic, materialist theories are therefore not saying anything about God. They are saying a God that specially created, as Genesis talks about, does not exist. They are saying the things the bible told us about, did not happen in the context in which they were written.

 

The point is, if we ask scientists "do we need God" for evolution of species, (in other words to get species) the scientific answer is that, "no, we need evolution".

 

This isn't because science is "anti-God."  One of the foundational assumptions of the physical sciences is that the universe is governed by natural laws that apply at all times and in all places.  When God chooses to suspend those laws and perform a supernatural act, His action is beyond the limits of scientific exploration.

 

I don't understand why you have so much difficulty with that concept as you pointed it out yourself with regard to the Flood in the Island Chain discussion.

 

Now, that doesn't distract from another foundational (philosophical) assumption of science which is:

The universe was created by a rational God and is therefore governed by natural laws that can be understood by rational beings.

 

How can you deny that that simply is the answer you get from science. Do you think Hawkins and Strauss or whatever his name is, try to explain a Big Bang WITH God? No - they would argue the cause is naturalistic. They go to great lengths to explain it parsimoniously, without God.

 

Doesn't matter how much you varnish science, Piasan, the fact is it paints a Godless picture, a Godless scenario, where God is the third wheel on a bicycle or the third person on a date, or the third windscreen wiper on your windshield.

Of course you're going to get a scientific answer from science.  Why would you expect otherwise?  As an atheist, of course Hawking(?) would explain it without God.  I'm not sure who Strauss would be. 

 

Yes, science is Godless.  It relies on the constancy of natural laws.  That's why we call them "natural" and "physical" sciences.  They are, pretty much by definition, limited to the realm of that which is natural and physical.  God is neither.  "Goddidit" is simply not a scientific explanation because His actions are outside the realm of scientific investigation.

 

Recall, Gould's N.O.M.A. ....

 

These aren't things we are imagining Piasan, everything you get from secular science, is Godless, be it morality, the cause of the universe or the cause of life, no matter what the question is they have an answer that is a very Godless answer.

Which reinforces that your real issue is that science doesn't say "Goddidit."

 

 You have made your wife science, and she is ugly as sin, and now you parade the hideous ogre around the place saying, "she is as pretty as a super model". ;)

It always amuses me when some creationist makes this kind of comment using advanced electronics on the internet.

 

If you don't like the "hideous ogre" give up your computer, cell phone, television, radio, modern medicine, most of the food you eat, etc, etc, etc.



#20 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 740 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 13 March 2017 - 07:49 PM

First, a respectful suggestion, Blitz.....
 
Rather quote the entire post then recopy the portion you're commenting on outside the "quote" marks, it might be better to "quote" the post, then delete those portions you're not discussing.  You can do that multiple times.
 
IMHO, it makes things more clear as to exactly what you're discussing and eliminates a lot of extraneous material.
 

Just like many ID advocates look at YEC.
 

All I could find of Bozarth is he's a writer.... which means I can give him the same level of credibility as the clerk at my local convenience store.
 
I couldn't care less what Dawkins says about his philosophical/religious beliefs and how he gets his "intellectual fulfillment."   Frankly, Dawkin's misuse of science as a "disproof" of God irrigates me.
 
Science is incompetent to discuss God.  It's like using a tennis racket to play baseball.



Then why do so many Evolutionary Scientists feel obligated to think otherwise..
Do you know more than they do?

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.


Atheists know full well how important "Evolution" is to their Godless Worldview and they openly laugh at "Oval-Earthers, or, in other words, the same exact kind of people that Lenin endearingly referred to as "Useful Idiots"


The Atheists Know … Why Christianity has to Fight Evolution
‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’

Reference
G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist,

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users