Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree bugs are interesting. But again, gorillas and cockroaches have not invented printing presses and the internet. There's a difference of capabilities.

So. I can't see as well as a falcon or carry as much as an elephant. I can't sense objects in the dark like bats or under the sea like porpoises.

We are different species in different environments that evolved different abilities. That we can use a computer, read and write books, and learn about the world around us may place a moral burden on us to act rationally with the world, but does it mean we are morally, physically and divinely special in the context? It certainly doesn't provide a basis to reject the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

So. I can't see as well as a falcon or carry as much as an elephant. I can't sense objects in the dark like bats or under the sea like porpoises.

We are different species in different environments that evolved different abilities. That we can use a computer, read and write books, and learn about the world around us may place a moral burden on us to act rationally with the world, but does it mean we are morally, physically and divinely special in the context? It certainly doesn't provide a basis to reject the theory of evolution.

That is why falcons are part of God's creation and did not evolve "naturally" from some whatever LUCA.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Here’s a “miracle”:

Design Is Independent of Any Religious Claim | Evolution News

In this article I will explain why, as someone who is agnostic about many religious claims, I find the inference to intelligent design impossible to refuse.

evolutionnews.org

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is why falcons are part of God's creation and did not evolve "naturally" from some whatever LUCA.

That is not what the evidence indicates.

Do you think the evidence was planted there to confuse us. That doesn't make sense with God wanting us to know by providing prophets, a Savior and the Bible.

So, there must be some other explanation or perhaps some people that claim how the Bible should be interpreted are wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not what the evidence indicates.

Do you think the evidence was planted there to confuse us. That doesn't make sense with God wanting us to know by providing prophets, a Savior and the Bible.

So, there must be some other explanation or perhaps some people that claim how the Bible should be interpreted are wrong.

I think there are fossils but it does not mean that fish evolved naturally to humans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is why falcons are part of God's creation and did not evolve "naturally" from some whatever LUCA.

That falcons apparently evolved does not remove them from God's creation or Kingdom.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think there are fossils but it does not mean that fish evolved naturally to humans.

You have said this many times, without really being able to articulate a basis for it. I'm not sure that it is worth the trouble of recycling this or not.

Evolution is not reliant on the evidence of the fossil record, but is supported by it. There is no other explanation for that record that has held up.

Then there is all the other evidence from numerous fields that also says the same thing. Evolution.

It is either ignore that and make up reason for doing so or accept it and try to understand what that means in terms of faith and belief.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not what the evidence indicates.

Do you think the evidence was planted there to confuse us. That doesn't make sense with God wanting us to know by providing prophets, a Savior and the Bible.

So, there must be some other explanation or perhaps some people that claim how the Bible should be interpreted are wrong.

The evidence indicates that it is beyond human understanding to explain with certitude how falcons became as they are. Or similarly, how fish evolved to humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

That flacons apparently evolved does not remove them from God's creation or Kingdom.

Oh. May I ask you to delineate that a bit?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The evidence indicates that it is beyond human understanding to explain with certitude how falcons became as they are. Or similarly, how fish evolved to humans.

Not that I know. The evidence indicates that we do have the ability to understand and develop theories that explain the evidence contextual to theory.

It seems that it is those that do not like those explanations that seem to find it beyond their understanding. But their ignorance is not my problem or a limiting factor in understanding by others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh. May I ask you to delineate that a bit?

I accept that falcons, humans, plants, living things evolved. I believe in God. Therefore, evolution cannot remove one from God. Therefore, the demands of some groups that interpretation of scripture must be thus and so is mistaken.

That is as much as I will explain about this. I don't want to get into a contest or see a repeat of what went on before.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh. May I ask you to delineate that a bit?

I accept that you reject the theory of evolution because of what you have chosen to believe and how. I have no issue with that. But you don't limit this to yourself and demand that the entire world see it your way. I do have an issue with that.

I don't consider your personal decisions, choices, limitations and bias to be any sort of basis to reject a scientific theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have said this many times, without really being able to articulate a basis for it. I'm not sure that it is worth the trouble of recycling this or not.

Evolution is not reliant on the evidence of the fossil record, but is supported by it. There is no other explanation for that record that has held up.

Then there is all the other evidence from numerous fields that also says the same thing. Evolution.

It is either ignore that and make up reason for doing so or accept it and try to understand what that means in terms of faith and belief.

The basis I see scientists assert is almost like that of the frame of a jigsaw puzzle, putting pieces in the set places. Only it doesn't work. The frame cannot be testified to by science. I can speak of telomeres, which are fascinating, but to say these evolved cannot be certified. It's almost like going to a notary and getting the stamp of verifiability. Of course, that doesn't mean the notary may not be deceived, or lie.I see no reason to disqualify that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. How the organisms may have intermingled (interbred) is another story.

 

[YoursTrue]

I accept that falcons, humans, plants, living things evolved. I believe in God. Therefore, evolution cannot remove one from God. Therefore, the demands of some groups that interpretation of scripture must be thus and so is mistaken.

That is as much as I will explain about this. I don't want to get into a contest or see a repeat of what went on before.

I'm ALMOST the same way, but I do not discount the Bible and I"m not saying that you do either. But the more I look into the posits of evolution, the less inclined I am to believe what we see around us, even in the form of birds, came about by evolution alone. And, like you, I say no further. With an exception right now. In the beginning...God created the heavens and the earth. Thank you for your answer, appreciate it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The basis I see scientists assert is almost like that of the frame of a jigsaw puzzle, putting pieces in the set places. Only it doesn't work. The frame cannot be testified to by science. I can speak of telomeres, which are fascinating, but to say these evolved cannot be certified. It's almost like going to a notary and getting the stamp of verifiability. Of course, that doesn't mean the notary may not be deceived, or lie.I see no reason to disqualify that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. How the organisms may have intermingled (interbred) is another story.

The evidence that is available to everyone supports the theory. It is not proof of the theory. Proof is not a standard of science. You have been made amply aware of this.

I'm not clear on how you or anyone would be able to interpret and understand proof to know it for what it is if it existed. That would require an omniscience I don't know to exist in humans.

What you keep saying is that you reject it because you cannot see. You are exercising a logical fallacy as the basis for your rejection and, in effect, declaring yourself and your acceptance of that fallacy as the basis for others to reject the theory too.

I wouldn't do that and couldn't accept that as a valid basis to reject the explanations and theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

I accept that you reject the theory of evolution because of what you have chosen to believe and how. I have no issue with that. But you don't limit this to yourself and demand that the entire world see it your way. I do have an issue with that.

I don't consider your personal decisions, choices, limitations and bias to be any sort of basis to reject a scientific theory.

Not to carry on, but the reason I am engaged in these types of conversations about creation vs evolution is because I really did (and still do) want to find out how people view this.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence that is available to everyone supports the theory. It is not proof of the theory. Proof is not a standard of science. You have been made amply aware of this.

I'm not clear on how you or anyone would be able to interpret and understand proof to know it for what it is if it existed. That would require an omniscience I don't know to exist in humans.

What you keep saying is that you reject it because you cannot see. You are exercising a logical fallacy as the basis for your rejection and, in effect, declaring yourself and your acceptance of that fallacy as the basis for others to reject the theory too.

I wouldn't do that and couldn't accept that as a valid basis to reject the explanations and theory.

Not to carry on, perhaps another time. Thank you for your thoughts, appreciate it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm ALMOST the same way, but I do not discount the Bible and I"m not saying that you do either. But the more I look into the posits of evolution, the less inclined I am to believe what we see around us, even in the form of birds, came about by evolution alone. And, like you, I say no further. With an exception right now. In the beginning...God created the heavens and the earth. Thank you for your answer, appreciate it.

I don't discount the Bible. I just recognize that we don't really understand it with the fullness and completeness that some people seem to feel they possess.

I don't discount my abilities to observe and understand so readily and easily. Considering that we both see them as coming from God, it wouldn't be something I could do to reject those gifts. Or reject them in others that may be and are very likely to know and understand science and the evidence to an even greater degree than I do.

The Bible says Who and science us tells us the details is how I see it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not to carry on, but the reason I am engaged in these types of conversations about creation vs evolution is because I really did (and still do) want to find out how people view this.

I consider that all a good and worthy reason myself. I started much the same way.

I'll leave out my personal conclusions, but mention that I see many of the same arguments and attempts at them used against the science over and over for 30 plus years. There is much confusion among the people that reject science and often it is based largely on ignorance (not lack of intelligence) of the subject matter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not to carry on, perhaps another time. Thank you for your thoughts, appreciate it.

You are very welcome. As I appreciate yours too. Have a good day and pleasant evening.