weird news morphing into theology debate

[Rick]

Darwin is not science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQaReWoUyyQ

[RETAC21]

12 minutes ago, Rick said:

Darwin is not science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQaReWoUyyQ

Rather, the questioner is looking for an specific answer. 

What would have been the answer if the question was: Show me God creating an specific species?

[Rick]

13 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Rather, the questioner is looking for an specific answer. 

What would have been the answer if the question was: Show me God creating an specific species?

I was struck on how "learned" individuals an go from Darwin is right to there is no God in one thought. 

[R011]

3 minutes ago, Rick said:

I was struck on how "learned" individuals an go from Darwin is right to there is no God in one thought. 

God isn't needed to describe natural phenomena, like evolution.  That doesn't necessarily mean there is no God, just that He isn't specifically relevant to the issue any more than science can explain how Christ's sacrifice saved Mankind.

The argument about so0called macro evolution is greatly flawed s it assumes that one generation is Species 1 and the next Species 2.  Instead its more like one generation is Species 1.000, the next Species 1.001, the one after may be Species 1.002 or 1.0011 and so on.  Everything is a transitional form so no wonder you can't point to an exact moment when one species becomes another.  There isn't one.

Where does Gods fit in? He might not. He doesn't have to for the system to work.   I don't think He does myself but I could be wrong.  If He does, He does so subtly enough that we mere mortals can't tell.  IMO, trying to fit God into some pseudoscientific box is unfair to both science and God.

As for Creation, internal evidence shows the universe to be billions of years old.  We have some good guesses as the the mechanism that created it in its current form.  For all we know, the Big Bang was when God decided to say: "Let there be light!"  Or seven thousand years ago, He created a universe that was already billions of years old.  Either way, the only way to study God's creation is to take it as it is and leave the theological implications to church.

[RETAC21]

6 hours ago, R011 said:

God isn't needed to describe natural phenomena, like evolution.  That doesn't necessarily mean there is no God, just that He isn't specifically relevant to the issue any more than science can explain how Christ's sacrifice saved Mankind.

The argument about so0called macro evolution is greatly flawed s it assumes that one generation is Species 1 and the next Species 2.  Instead its more like one generation is Species 1.000, the next Species 1.001, the one after may be Species 1.002 or 1.0011 and so on.  Everything is a transitional form so no wonder you can't point to an exact moment when one species becomes another.  There isn't one.

Where does Gods fit in? He might not. He doesn't have to for the system to work.   I don't think He does myself but I could be wrong.  If He does, He does so subtly enough that we mere mortals can't tell.  IMO, trying to fit God into some pseudoscientific box is unfair to both science and God.

As for Creation, internal evidence shows the universe to be billions of years old.  We have some good guesses as the the mechanism that created it in its current form.  For all we know, the Big Bang was when God decided to say: "Let there be light!"  Or seven thousand years ago, He created a universe that was already billions of years old.  Either way, the only way to study God's creation is to take it as it is and leave the theological implications to church.

This.

Only wanted to add that evolution is not automatic, sharks have been around since 200 million years before the dinousaurs and they only need to be meanest critter in the ocean to keep on going. 

The question is poorly phrased, there's no way to demostrate that God wasn't behind the origin or life or that he was.

[Stuart Galbraith]

In my woefully inadequate understanding of theology, doesnt that come down to free will? That you cant believe in God, if you have proof of God?

[Rick]

20 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In my woefully inadequate understanding of theology, doesnt that come down to free will? That you cant believe in God, if you have proof of God?

Faith 

[sunday]

If there were irresistible evidence of the existence of God, then the human will would be unable to choose to not believe, and love Him. That would be against the free will of the human beings.

[Rick]

8 hours ago, R011 said:

God isn't needed to describe natural phenomena, like evolution.  That doesn't necessarily mean there is no God, just that He isn't specifically relevant to the issue any more than science can explain how Christ's sacrifice saved Mankind.

Well... Genesis 1:24, 24  describe what God did and Genesis 19, 20 describes what man named God's creations. And we've been naming things ever since.

As told in school long ago, science is the process by which we find the best explanations to observed phenomena. I haven't tried this but "...explain how Christ's sacrifice saved Mankind, " could, I think, be applied to how A.A. 

The argument about so0called macro evolution is greatly flawed s it assumes that one generation is Species 1 and the next Species 2.  Instead its more like one generation is Species 1.000, the next Species 1.001, the one after may be Species 1.002 or 1.0011 and so on.  Everything is a transitional form so no wonder you can't point to an exact moment when one species becomes another.  There isn't one.

Agree. Species "A" cannot change to Species "B." A statement evolutionists cannot respond to. 
 

Where does Gods fit in? He might not. He doesn't have to for the system to work.   I don't think He does myself but I could be wrong.  If He does, He does so subtly enough that we mere mortals can't tell.  IMO, trying to fit God into some pseudoscientific box is unfair to both science and God.

I think you got it with the noun. "system." The earth is a designed system for life to flourish on earth. Authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" describe the how it is impossible for the earth and life to be created just by chance. In Genesis man is given the responsibility to maintain God's creation.
 

As for Creation, internal evidence shows the universe to be billions of years old.  We have some good guesses as the the mechanism that created it in its current form.  For all we know, the Big Bang was when God decided to say: "Let there be light!"  Or seven thousand years ago, He created a universe that was already billions of years old.  Either way, the only way to study God's creation is to take it as it is and leave the theological implications to church.

Agree with one caveat. God created, man describes said creations via science, and science can connect the dots on how God's creations work as best as man can. Which will be incomplete. 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

55 minutes ago, Rick said:

Faith 

Thats the word, I knew there was a better expression.

[RETAC21]

7 minutes ago, Rick said:

I think you got it with the noun. "system." The earth is a designed system for life to flourish on earth. Authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek in "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" describe the how it is impossible for the earth and life to be created just by chance. In Genesis man is given the responsibility to maintain God's creation.

This is obviously incorrect. Chance can very well create life and intelligent life evolve, given a sufficiently large population of events  Since we are talking the Universe here, there's been more than enough opportunities for life to be created by chance.

Should there be life in every single planet on the Solar System and nowhere else, then that would point out to "something", but, as far as we know, that is not the case.

You cannot argue with science using faith and you cannot argue with faith using science.

[sunday]

20 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Since we are talking the Universe here, there's been more than enough opportunities for life to be created by chance.

In absence of multiple data points, there is no way to know that. The Universe being big and old is no reason to affirm that any event, by unlikely that it could be, needs to have occurred.

For instance, there is this isotope whose half life is about a billion times longer than the current estimated age of the universe. In this case, the enormous age of the Universe has not been enough for that isotope to disintegrate into another.

[Rick]

26 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

This is obviously incorrect.  Chance can very well create life and intelligent life evolve, given a sufficiently large population of events  How?

Since we are talking the Universe here, there's been more than enough opportunities for life to be created by chance. Where?

Should there be life in every single planet on the Solar System and nowhere else, then that would point out to "something", but, as far as we know, that is not the case. Should?

You cannot argue with science using faith and you cannot argue with faith using science. From your post you are having faith that chance can create life in a very well manner. 

 

[Rick]

I believe the Teleogical Argument as described by Geisler and Turek describes the universe best.

1. Every design has a designer

2. The universe is a highly complex design

3. Therefore, the universe had a designer. 

Another piece of evidence is the Anthropic Principle, that thee universe is extremely fine-tuned (designed) to support life on earth.

Just one for instance, Jefferey Zweerink a U.C.L.A. research physicist has said that if gravitational force was altered by 0.00000000000001 %, the sun would not exist. 

But this is not the main reason for religion. Authentic religion is to bring man closer to God via his son Jesus Christ as written in the Bible. 

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

 

I am no Atheist, but I don't mix science (the observable, proven world) with faith (by definition, unprovable)

I don't need to show how chance happens to know it exists: flip a coin 100 times and you will approximately get 50 heads and 50 tails, but the result of each toss will be determined by a multitude of factors (weight, air resistance, gravity, etc. ) none of which require an intelligent designer but all of which will have an impact on the final result.

How many times has the coin of life been flipped in the whole Universe? billions upon billions, and we only know of one successful outcome. Does that prove there's a designer? no, does it prove there isn't a designer? no. It also means that it is probable that life has sprung in more than one place, but is not proven so far.

Re Should: we know there isn't life on every planet in the Solar System, this is an observed result, faith will not change that.

And I don't need faith to tell me life can appear by chance, mathematics and the observed result (there's life on Earth) demostrates it can.

Re design: no, there's not a designer for every design. Re evolution the coronavirus is evolving before your eyes, and it doesn't need a designer, just evolution to become better adapted at the human host.

Re religion, all fine, so I guess Jews Buddhists, and other infidels (including those before JC was born) are condemned to Hell then...

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

In absence of multiple data points, there is no way to know that. The Universe being big and old is no reason to affirm that any event, by unlikely that it could be, needs to have occurred.

For instance, there is this isotope whose half life is about a billion times longer than the current estimated age of the universe. In this case, the enormous age of the Universe has not been enough for that isotope to disintegrate into another.

We have an observed result (there's life on Earth), so not every event would have happened, but we know this event has happened. We don't know how likely this event is to happen, but given current knowledge, we know it's more likely to happen somewhere else than to not happen anywhere else at all.

[sunday]

One data point does not mean anything when it comes to formulate a theory.

Current knowledge in the matter is restricted to that data point, so the anthropic principle is as scientifically valid as the random apparition of life, for instance.

[RETAC21]

9 minutes ago, sunday said:

One data point does not mean anything when it comes to formulate a theory.

Current knowledge in the matter is restricted to that data point, so the anthropic principle is as scientifically valid as the random apparition of life, for instance.

Yes, it is, and even 2 data points are not going to change that, so you cannot solve this Faith vs Science debate in this instance, both are valid.

But if you go back to the original question (creationism vs evolution) there's no evidence of creationism and plenty of data points on evolution.

[sunday]

3 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Yes, it is, and even 2 data points are not going to change that, so you cannot solve this Faith vs Science debate in this instance, both are valid.

But if you go back to the original question (creationism vs evolution) there's no evidence of creationism and plenty of data points on evolution.

That bit on the emergence of life is not strictly a reason vs. faith discussion, as the argument between Lemaître's Big Bang Theory, and Hoyle's Continous Creation was not about the existence of God, but a purely scientific one, that was resolved with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Aquinas' Five Ways are equally valid in either theory.

On Creationism, the Roman Catholic position has been to treat Genesis as metaphoric, something not valid for most Protestant denominations, and differentiate between body and soul. Evolution of bodies looks like highly likely, but there are issues with the apparition of human intelligence.

 

[MiloMorai]

Why is the Christian god the superior god?

[Wobbly Head]

3 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Why is the Christian god the superior god?

 Better marketing

[sunday]

1 minute ago, Wobbly Head said:

 Better marketing

Being the Only One also helps.

[RETAC21]

52 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Why is the Christian god the superior god?

Not the Christian one, the Catholic one, we just let the infidels enjoy their ways until final judgement

There's a bit of human exceptionalism re intelligence - it can be shown to be an adaptative response because hominids lacked some of the characteristics required to survive in the sabana, such as speed, teeth or venom, therefore having to resort to tools and cunning.

One thing led to another and eventually someone took the bold step to eat an oyster...

[R011]

8 hours ago, Rick said:

 

You misunderstand.  Species A [b]does[/b] turn into Species B.  It just doesn't happen all at once and takes a very long time.

 

As for the current, temporary, state of the Earth and humanity somehow being proof of define intervention, that's a fallacial argument.  It assumes we have a end state that must have been planned, otherwise how could we have got to it?  Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Firstly, there is no end state.  As is everything, we are in a transitional mode.  We'll always be in a transitional mode.  That we are more or less suited to our environment is always going to be the case or we'd be extinct or have never existed.  That we are intelligent - well, it's a big universe.  Intelligence is going to show up somewhere in the billions of galaxies with billions of inhabitable star systems over billions of years.  We just happen to luck out.  Someone/thing had too.

 

Edited January 15, 2021 by R011

[sunday]

5 minutes ago, R011 said:

That we are intelligent - well, it's a big universe.  Intelligence is going to show up somewhere in the billions of fallacies with billions of inhabitable star systems over billions of years. 

That is only an unproved hypotheses. We know there is intelligent life in the Universe, ours, but we do not know how life or intelligence appeared.

Edited January 15, 2021 by sunday