toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[eameece]

Sorry, eameece, I don't agree.

Fair enough

What evolution does explain is how species evolve into other other species. Living things are all related by dna, and the dna contains the clues that tell us how different species are related.

Except it does not really fully explain it; there are "gaps" in the evidence, which you have to fill in with "God."

Life is not "sacred" any more than "death" is sacred - it is a process, and you are just putting the superstition back into a process that is wonderful enough without all this "new age" mumbo jumbo.

Science takes the wonder out of it, along with the superstition. It takes the life out of life. And life IS sacred.

Stop pretending that "old-fashioned mechanism" is all that scientific theories are about nowadays, the basic laws don't change, but as we refine them, our understanding of them and how they act does.

Old fashioned mechanism is not all that science is about these days. However, it is still what mainstream neo-Darwinian evolution is all about. In addition, science can only study externals, not life itself. It is inherently useful, and inherently limited in its application to what can be empirically tested and logically explained. But there's always more in heaven and earth than what science can tell us. So we have other ways of knowing.

Most modern sciences weren't even imagined in your mechanistic, materialist artificial demarcation and inserting scripture isn't going to help your "understanding" even if it does make you feel "all warm inside"!

Most modern science is mechanistic and materialist, and based on those unexamined assumptions; although some recent scientists venture into fuzzy areas like indeterminacy, chaos theory and quanta.

I myself don't need to "insert" scripture, although it is symbolically and metaphysically interesting, and some might find that it "warms their souls" and connects them to divine ideas. Myself, since I perceive my soul and its connection to the divine directly, I am already "warm inside!" (whether I pick up the Bible and read it or not).

 

[eameece]

At least there is a practical use for chemistry and plumbing.

Actually evolution theory has provided many links among living species that are useful for medicine (and other things too IIRC).

 

[noguru]

At least there is a practical use for chemistry and plumbing.

Animal husbandry and horticulture are practical uses of evolution.

 

[kalliste]

eameece wrote

"Except it does not really fully explain it; there are "gaps" in the evidence, which you have to fill in with "God."

Not at all - there are gaps in the evidence that get filled over time, not god.

If you don't share my wonder, that is one thing; to maintain that rationalism has none is wishful thinking.

Warm and/or fuzzy, I still don't see any need to reach for the "supernatural" as you do.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

But according to you, some thousands of years ago it did not exist. And science says the same thing (except they say it was over 4 billions years ago).

According to you, a believer in Genesis, the Earth was created on the first day, and there was morning and evening with no Sun, but just a Light (in some part of the "heaven" but not others) that later went away. But since Genesis is not a scientific treatise, it does not explain how any of this happened. So you have to fill in the details if you are curious about how it all happened. So you study science, which tells you among other things that the Earth rotates, and why, and that means studying the processes of how things happen; and for life, that includes evolution.

It's a far step up from reality coming from nothing. In 1992, the Big Bang model (which was a Christian concept believe it or not), observed a miraculous prediction which had many scientists proclaiming they had found the 'Holy Grail' of cosmology. That's right, scientists were admitting the strong possibility of God seeing how this model was from biblical hermeneutics (ancient desert nomads as you call it) and not science.
What happened, I wonder.. oh yeah, 'skepticism' happened. Christians gave evidence for God, and atheists wished it away.
Now, 'gravity' is the physicist's god.
I see the logical fallacy in this. It's a shame that atheists don't.

 

[eameece]

eameece wrote

"Except it does not really fully explain it; there are "gaps" in the evidence, which you have to fill in with "God."

Not at all - there are gaps in the evidence that get filled over time, not god.

Sure, but they won't ever all be filled. Because evolution only deals with external appearances, not with motivation and life force. That is too subtle for sense-based logical methods.

If you don't share my wonder, that is one thing; to maintain that rationalism has none is wishful thinking.

Rationalism is a broad term, but no I don't think scientific analysis and testing or the knowledge it yields has any "wonder" in it, though of course scientists have a curiosity that can be called wonder.

Warm and/or fuzzy, I still don't see any need to reach for the "supernatural" as you do.

I can't speak to your needs. I can only speak to mine. There is a lot to discover that does not meet the eye or the test tube. I have a need to know that goes beyond what science can ever tell me. But that does not mean I have to devalue what science CAN tell me, or settle for fairy tales to explain what science can tell me.

 

[noguru]

It's a far step up from reality coming from nothing. In 1992, the Big Bang model (which was a Christian concept believe it or not), observed a miraculous prediction which had many scientists proclaiming they had found the 'Holy Grail' of cosmology. That's right, scientists were admitting the strong possibility of God seeing how this model was from biblical hermeneutics (ancient desert nomads as you call it) and not science.
What happened, I wonder.. oh yeah, 'skepticism' happened. Christians gave evidence for God, and atheists wished it away.
Now, 'gravity' is the physicist's god.
I see the logical fallacy in this. It's a shame that atheists don't.

:think:

Maybe God uses gravity.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

:think:

Maybe God uses gravity.

Gravity makes things round and round things go round and round in a universe representing an expanding sphere.
Tis' obvious that God fancies circular objects

 

[noguru]

Tis' obvious that God fancies circular objects

:thumb:

Well at least spherical or semi-spherical.

 

[Jukia]

Gravity makes things round and round things go round and round in a universe representing an expanding sphere.
Tis' obvious that God fancies circular objects

And according to Haldane, he has an inordinate fondness for beetles.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

And according to Haldane, he has an inordinate fondness for beetles.

Biologists' remarks mean exactly squat when it comes to God, for self-evident reasons which anti-theists wish away.

 

[noguru]

Biologists' remarks mean exactly squat when it comes to God, for self-evident reasons which anti-theists wish away.

Unless of course it is in the humorous manner often used by Mark Twain.

:rotfl:

I'm pretty sure God has a better sense of humor than any of us.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Unless of course it is in the humorous manner often used by Mark Twain.

:rotfl:

I'm pretty sure God has a better sense of humor than any of us.

I've always loved this one, personally. Less humorous, but very deep and thought-provoking:


If God is what people say, there can be no one in the universe so unhappy as He; for He sees unceasingly myriads of His creatures suffering unspeakable miseries--and besides this foresees how they are going to suffer during the remainder of their lives. One might as well say, "As unhappy as God."

 

[Jukia]

Biologists' remarks mean exactly squat when it comes to God, for self-evident reasons which anti-theists wish away.

Hmmm, you guys usually like Haldane.

But then theists remarks about science can be overlooked for the self-evident reasons that they ignore the real world and depend on fear and the oral tradition of Bronze Age shepherds.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Hmmm, you guys usually like Haldane.

But then theists remarks about science can be overlooked for the self-evident reasons that they ignore the real world and depend on fear and the oral tradition of Bronze Age shepherds.

Christian theologians came up with the Big Bang theory from interpreting the writings of those 'Bronze Age shepherds'. That is now the standard of physics. It could be said that atheists are the ones that choose to ignore reality.

 

[Jukia]

Christian theologians came up with the Big Bang theory from interpreting the writings of those 'Bronze Age shepherds'. That is now the standard of physics. It could be said that atheists are the ones that choose to ignore reality.

I think it was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. But the evidence came from science, especially from Edwin Hubble early on. that same evidence gives the lie to a literal interpretation of Genesis, doesn't it. Six day creation does not quite make it.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I think it was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. But the evidence came from science, especially from Edwin Hubble early on. that same evidence gives the lie to a literal interpretation of Genesis, doesn't it. Six day creation does not quite make it.

One can follow Genesis literally and still posit an old universe. I'm just going to color code it., it makes it easier to convey the explanation.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Opening sequence
This is really important to note. If the Earth was formless and void, does it even exist as of yet? If so, how is there water if it is void? Therefore, 'waters' is taking on a different context other then literally water. It is taking on the meaning of 'emptiness'.
God created light, which would be the matter/energy in the universe. When He separated the light from darkness, it is being said that the energy/matter in the universe began to scatter and collide.
And the evening and the morning marked- the end of the 1st Day or the start of the 1st? You see, there is no way to prove either or, even if you read all the way to the last one.
I fond it interesting because they say the Church is guided by the Spirit, and Jews always interpreted Saturday as the Sabbath. And yet, the Church changed it to Sunday. Coincidence?

'Waters' will play a role later in the days of Creation. Where people interpret it as water and land dividing, I see it as God 'knotting' the 'waters' of the universe into what will be Earth, making land appear. Also note that stars are not made when light was made, which fits perfectly into the Big Bang model.

There is much more to the Bible then what meets the biased eye.

 

[eameece]

One can follow Genesis literally and still posit an old universe. I'm just going to color code it., it makes it easier to convey the explanation.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Opening sequence
This is really important to note. If the Earth was formless and void, does it even exist as of yet? If so, how is there water if it is void? Therefore, 'waters' is taking on a different context other then literally water. It is taking on the meaning of 'emptiness'.
God created light, which would be the matter/energy in the universe. When He separated the light from darkness, it is being said that the energy/matter in the universe began to scatter and collide.
And the evening and the morning marked- the end of the 1st Day or the start of the 1st? You see, there is no way to prove either or, even if you read all the way to the last one.
I fond it interesting because they say the Church is guided by the Spirit, and Jews always interpreted Saturday as the Sabbath. And yet, the Church changed it to Sunday. Coincidence?

'Waters' will play a role later in the days of Creation. Where people interpret it as water and land dividing, I see it as God 'knotting' the 'waters' of the universe into what will be Earth, making land appear. Also note that stars are not made when light was made, which fits perfectly into the Big Bang model.

There is much more to the Bible then what meets the biased eye.

You have some good thoughts there. Your points also indicate that there's more to the Bible than meets those biased by literalism or YEC.

That the Earth was without form and void, means that it didn't really exist yet, is a good point. Philosophers say that before objects were created, the archetypes and forms of things existed. The circle and sphere is an example of this. Large objects all tend to imitate that one form.

Dividing land from the waters could be interpreted as the clustering of planets, as you suggest.

 

[noguru]

You have some good thoughts there. Your points also indicate that there's more to the Bible than meets those biased by literalism or YEC.

That the Earth was without form and void, means that it didn't really exist yet, is a good point. Philosophers say that before objects were created, the archetypes and forms of things existed. The circle and sphere is an example of this. Large objects all tend to imitate that one form.

Dividing land from the waters could be interpreted as the clustering of planets, as you suggest.

"You must spread some more points around before....."

Also, what I highlighted is not just any philosopher but Plato's concept of "the form". And strangely enough some theists see his ideas as part of the enemies arsenal, while other theists see his ideas as part of their own arsenal. One can never tell, can they?

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue sky's from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
And how we found
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

 

[Jukia]

One can follow Genesis literally and still posit an old universe. I'm just going to color code it., it makes it easier to convey the explanation.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Opening sequence
This is really important to note. If the Earth was formless and void, does it even exist as of yet? If so, how is there water if it is void? Therefore, 'waters' is taking on a different context other then literally water. It is taking on the meaning of 'emptiness'.
God created light, which would be the matter/energy in the universe. When He separated the light from darkness, it is being said that the energy/matter in the universe began to scatter and collide.
And the evening and the morning marked- the end of the 1st Day or the start of the 1st? You see, there is no way to prove either or, even if you read all the way to the last one.
I fond it interesting because they say the Church is guided by the Spirit, and Jews always interpreted Saturday as the Sabbath. And yet, the Church changed it to Sunday. Coincidence?

'Waters' will play a role later in the days of Creation. Where people interpret it as water and land dividing, I see it as God 'knotting' the 'waters' of the universe into what will be Earth, making land appear. Also note that stars are not made when light was made, which fits perfectly into the Big Bang model.

There is much more to the Bible then what meets the biased eye.

Interesting, on the one hand we have the fundy literalists and on the other we seem to have those that just like to make stuff up.