If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
And thus must be also rejected by scientists as no being no more scientific than "intelligent design."
At least ID has faith in something. After all, one has to ultimately accept God on faith. But how does one accept the absence of God on faith?
Are you familiar with the views of IDer Michael Denton? His idea that things of this world are formed by natural processes, but that those are teleological processes, is challenging to both creationists and scientists alike.
Veritas veritate
New member
One cannot accept the absence of God on faith; one must believe there is no God not accept it. You cannot be an atheist without God... this is a little rabbit trail, but it bothers me when someone asks if I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. You don’t accept Christ, you acknowledge him. He is your Savior whether or not one believes it. In fact, I Believe the apostle Paul when he tells Timothy that Jesus Christ is the Savior of ALL men.
I can’t say that I am, but I am familiar with teleological processes and arguments.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
From Denton's Nature's Destiny:
...it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
I don't see anything here that would conflict with Darwinian theory or any subsequent modification of it. Darwin, after all, supposed that God just made the first living things, and made a world in which everything else evolved from them.
Nevertheless, Denton appears to still think that evolutionary theory has a crisis. I don't understand why.
...it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
I don't see anything here that would conflict with Darwinian theory or any subsequent modification of it. Darwin, after all, supposed that God just made the first living things, and made a world in which everything else evolved from them.
Nevertheless, Denton appears to still think that evolutionary theory has a crisis. I don't understand why.
"The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained."
The overwhelming evidence for old earth evolution is self evident in the earth itself. Young earth creationism is itself a very young religious speculation by priests and found only in the writings of the priesthood.
The overwhelming evidence for old earth evolution is self evident in the earth itself. Young earth creationism is itself a very young religious speculation by priests and found only in the writings of the priesthood.
6days
New member
Actually Caino... from the oldest manuscripts we see believers defending the truth of God's Word. Old earth beliefs is a compromise between the plain understanding of God's Word and secularism. In Scripture we see various people arguing against old earth evolutionism. We can also see most of the early church fathers arguing against old earth, rooted in paganism. Even those who argued the creation days were allegorical, (A sudden creation) they still argued the Biblical view... a young earth. (And contrary to your claim, some of these people were certainly not in the priesthood.Caino said:
Jesus also thought this was an important issue. After all, He went to Calvary based on the foundations of the literal history of "first Adam", and a creation not subjected to entropy / corruption, until after man sinned.
From the oldest manuscripts we see the faith in God that men have had down through the ages.
Believers have been persuaded by a priest class of ignorant, fallible men, that their own writings came down from God. The motive was to maintain control.
Supporters of the false doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures have been mistreating every new prophet of spiritual truth as well as facts that conflict with their misapplied faith.
You have been dedicated almost exclusively to the denial of the reality of the facts of the earth, real scientific investigation and the ridiculous claims of religious men, the same kind of flawed humans who rejected the Son of God. The effort that you have put into belligerent denials is proof of the overwhelming truth that you are in denial of.
Jesus knew the scripture was flawed, it was not his mission to reform Judaism.
After Jesus left, a new religion ABOUT Jesus evolved and became a replacement for the religion OF Jesus, his original gospel taught before the rejection. It was the religion he had hoped that your fellow pig headed scripture worshipers would have adopted.
I’ve adressed your faith replies before. You believe in the false doctrine of the inspiration of the scripture. Your replies are self hypnotizing statements of faith and refutations of facts in defense of erronious speculations and conjecture concerning the meaning of certain events in the distant past.
The Israelites created one of many creation stories by appropriating Mesopotamian lore and connecting it to their own exaggerated place in the world. Christian theology exploits Hebrew theology, they put the new wine into the old wine skins
The world is full of people who believe religious narratives that are untrue. You would do well to get honest, face reality and revise your theology.
6days
New member
That can also be an interesting discussion Caino. But, there is no purpose if you just try move goal posts when you are slightly challenged.
If YEC and other historic claims in Genesis were true then we could easily observe those claims in the archeological strata.
6days
New member
Yes... that is true. And we can discuss that. But you keep jumping from one assertion to the next. Did you wish to defend the claim you made that I replied to... or will you just keep posting your talking points.Caino said:
Your claim that 'Young earth creationism is itself a very young religious speculation'... was false. Did you want to defend that? Admit you mis-spoke? Or, try move the goal posts again?
No! And I didn’t move any goal post! Young Earth Creationism is only 2,500+ years old. It dates to Babylon in Genesis. It’s speculation by the ignorant holy men who wrote the Old Testament books. Human history spans 1 million years. Life evolved for 550 million years on our 4.5+ billion year old planet.
You are defending a very young claim made by religious people.
You are defending a very young claim made by religious people.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Who said you were dodging?
I said...
... you're wrong about goddidit.
... you're wrong about boiling water.
... you're wrong about "the argument from contingency".
... you're wrong about "goddidit" being more of a problem for atheists than for theists.
...you're wrong about scientific theories.
... you're wrong about what scientists "believe".
... and ....
... you're wrong about who's "cleaning up all the hay around here".
Did I miss anything?
This thread has pretty much blown itself out, most do after 500 posts. If you'd like to continue we can do it here or you can start a thread or find one appropriate. PM me the thread.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
It isn't the atheist invoking the "goddidit fallacy"...
... it's the theist.
Please elaborate on how your explanation above differs from "goddidit" in any meaningful way.
Interplanner
Well-known member
A note for Jonahdog:
Going back to the sacred status of scientific literature in Jonah's comments, I would like to point how native American tracking skills can help us define science. You can take classes in this. An experienced tracker can tell now many months a coyote is pregnant by its tracking. There is a scene from the true "Alone, But Not Alone" American revolution period story that the 'Iriquois warrior could track as well running at full speed as we (Germans) could spending an hour at a set of prints.'
One of the main principles of the skill is about elapsed-time or 'freshness.' A person has to check closely, down to individual grains of sand or dirt, to make conclusions.
When you come at a question this way, it is like detective work, as I have mentioned from Lewis' essay. Everything is on the table. In geology, a person has to ask 'how fast did this happen?' as often as any other question. When you see a 500 ft high pile of sedimentary deposit with no aging layers or lines, you had a slurry that was powerful enough to push that much around before it desaturated--lost liquidity. 'where did it come from?' If you find sediment from Lake Missoula in Eugene, OR, excavations, you had to have enough speed to keep everything aloft. You had to have conditions to create such speed for the slurry. Gravity otherwise drops things as quickly as possible.
When the Oso, WA, hillside slide happened a few years ago, the geologists were surprised at the distance it covered. They expected about half the distance. They had all those piles of 'scientific literature.'
You hardly hear about this kind of thing in 'scientific literature', although the Brithish catastrophic geologist Ager is familiar with it even with his denial of Genesis of one of many records of cataclysmic mantle violence.
Going back to the sacred status of scientific literature in Jonah's comments, I would like to point how native American tracking skills can help us define science. You can take classes in this. An experienced tracker can tell now many months a coyote is pregnant by its tracking. There is a scene from the true "Alone, But Not Alone" American revolution period story that the 'Iriquois warrior could track as well running at full speed as we (Germans) could spending an hour at a set of prints.'
One of the main principles of the skill is about elapsed-time or 'freshness.' A person has to check closely, down to individual grains of sand or dirt, to make conclusions.
When you come at a question this way, it is like detective work, as I have mentioned from Lewis' essay. Everything is on the table. In geology, a person has to ask 'how fast did this happen?' as often as any other question. When you see a 500 ft high pile of sedimentary deposit with no aging layers or lines, you had a slurry that was powerful enough to push that much around before it desaturated--lost liquidity. 'where did it come from?' If you find sediment from Lake Missoula in Eugene, OR, excavations, you had to have enough speed to keep everything aloft. You had to have conditions to create such speed for the slurry. Gravity otherwise drops things as quickly as possible.
When the Oso, WA, hillside slide happened a few years ago, the geologists were surprised at the distance it covered. They expected about half the distance. They had all those piles of 'scientific literature.'
You hardly hear about this kind of thing in 'scientific literature', although the Brithish catastrophic geologist Ager is familiar with it even with his denial of Genesis of one of many records of cataclysmic mantle violence.
Ah, I was unaware that I suggested scientific publications were literature.
And other than the fact that scientists can be surprised, what is your point?
Greg Jennings
New member
Please provide some sort of evidence for your claim that the ocean could be 8000 ft higher.
Side note: don't you think there'd be some geological evidence of such MASSIVE tectonic activity in a matter of days?
Greg Jennings
New member
I've never heard that mars was covered by oceans. I know it once had flowing water because we can observe the old stream beds, and obviously it still has some water in the form of ice.
Meanwhile, have you figured out why Dinos and modern animals are NEVER found in the same rock strata?
No? Didn't think so
Begging the question is still a logical fallacy.