empiracle evidence

[Koldo]

need to correct myself. Not the laws of empirical evidence , but empirical evidence.
Empirical research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which we, in general, use a basis for scientific research.
A machine is run by an operator is it not?

Not all machines.
Some of them are created to run without an operator, like windmills.

 

[camanintx]

If nature determines the outcome then does that statement within itself say that "nature" has will and volition in order to make determinations?

Does a boulder display "will and volition" when it rolls down a hill? Natural forces are called "natural" because their consequences are predetermined. Likewise, natural selection will favor those characteristics which improve an organisms ability to survive because it has to.

I believe, as some scientist have noted to say, that life eminates from life. I know it may sound obvious, but wonder what you think about that?

Are you familiar with emergent properties?

 

[apophenia]

Am I to assume that you would not concede to the possibility that God is eternal outside of time and space? The idea that he created time and space and we are presently in them? He is also, being God, able to enter time and space. This is how I see it. If we cannot determine that which is accidental then we cannot determine the opposite? Can we then determine anything?

I don't think we can determine anything.

"Now I do not know if I am Zhuangzi dreaming I am a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming it is Zhuangzi ".

 

[apophenia]

On other days, I might say we can determine certain things. I get the occasional bloodrush. But this is a Thursday. Actually, I am determined to make a delicious goat curry in my new slow-cooker.

 

[s2a]

Because you are new I will help you out. There might be a possibility that you can shake off any atheistic naturalism evolution brainwashing that you went though in the public school system, I don't know. First of all scientists can't even agree on what the definition of a species is. Here is the question, has any evolution been observed that produces a new family of organism? If we have 30,000 species of butterflies, that means nothing, they are still butterflies.

Here is how it could have happened and there is no scientific discovery that can disprove it. God could have created a male and a female cat kind of creature, fully whole in one day that had the genes in it to naturally select and creature all the cats in the cat family today. And God could have created a male and female human fully whole in one day who had the genes in them to naturally select to create all the races of humans that we have today.

What you will find is the ToE isn’t even a scientific theory, it is just a model and there are competing models out there that don’t get looked out just because they aren’t atheistic and naturalistic in nature. That is the only reason why science chooses the tree model over the orchard model, because it is the naturalistic one, it is because of philosophy, not science. Do your own research if you dare and you will find that the creation model best fits the evidence.

*brainwashed victim of public education rolls his eyes...*

Thank goodness we have enlightened folks like "Man of Faith" to "deprogram" us sad victims of science indoctrination...to instead accept that religious indoctrination remains the only "clear minded" path to veritable truth and enlightenment.....

If I only had a nickel every time someone tried to sell me that snake oil "revelation" of "revealed Truth" and higher order critical thinking...

...well, I'd have a lot of nickels at least...

*sigh*

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Could they not be one in the same?

No. Evolution is the process of how life changes over time. How life first developed is an entirely different process, since life must first exist for evolution to occur.

Still, within your analogy there are determing factors that come to gether to cause this incident. are there not?

They're not "within the analogy". The analogy merely requries a sieve and flour, that's all.

Where does one end and the other begin. From what I understand of the root word "science" it means "knowledge". Where is the line drawn between science and philosophy. Are they not both seeking out knowledge?

Science is a methodology for ascertaining truth, not just another word for "knowledge".

Does nature program this instinct?

If you want to put it like that.

 

[camanintx]

Am I to assume that you would not concede to the possibility that God is eternal outside of time and space? The idea that he created time and space and we are presently in them? He is also, being God, able to enter time and space. This is how I see it. If we cannot determine that which is accidental then we cannot determine the opposite? Can we then determine anything?

If time is simply how we measure change, then how can anything be "outside of time" unless it never changes? And if God never changes, how can it do anything much less create the universe and everything we know?

The way I see it, current scientific theory suggests that time began with the universe in the Big Bang. If there was no time when the universe didn't exist, then the universe is eternal even though it had a beginning.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

No. Evolution is the process of how life changes over time. How life first developed is an entirely different process, since life must first exist for evolution to occur.


They're not "within the analogy". The analogy merely requries a sieve and flour, that's all.


Science is a methodology for ascertaining truth, not just another word for "knowledge".


If you want to put it like that.

No, I meant that the mediator for the origin of life and the evolutionary process are one in the same.

The analogy I was refering to was your last one about the fire.

Science has been given the definition today of being a methodology, but that is not its original meaning and even so, science is today used to seek out knowledge in a specific methodiacal (logical) way.


If nature programs instinct then I would think that that would require intelligence. My opinion.

 

[McBell]

If nature programs instinct then I would think that that would require intelligence.

why?


.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Not all machines.
Some of them are created to run without an operator, like windmills.

Who/what created the machines or devoloped the patterns/blueprints and the put them together?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Does a boulder display "will and volition" when it rolls down a hill? Natural forces are called "natural" because their consequences are predetermined. Likewise, natural selection will favor those characteristics which improve an organisms ability to survive because it has to.


Are you familiar with emergent properties?

I am not refering to a boulder,but nature since "nature' within the context of the sentence being given the attribute of cause in a cause and effect relationship. Nature hence is being personified here, is it not? So, can I even make that statement.

If natural selection has the ability to predetermine favored characteristics then does that then not give it creative power and then are we not playing a game of semantics?

 

[McBell]

If natural selection has the ability to predetermine favored characteristics then does that then not give it creative power and then are we not playing a game of semantics?

Where do you get the idea that natural selection "predetermines"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I meant that the mediator for the origin of life and the evolutionary process are one in the same.

In order to make that claim, you first must demonstrate that there is a mediator. So far, there is no reason to believe that there is a mediator for either process, so there is no reason to jump to that conclusion.

The analogy I was refering to was your last one about the fire.

That may have been some one else.

Science has been given the definition today of being a methodology, but that is not its original meaning and even so, science is today used to seek out knowledge in a specific methodiacal (logical) way.

What the etymological route of the word is is irrelevant. Science is a specific method used to examine and explain the natural world, philosophy is a broad range of topics and works that are generally centred around particular ideas, concepts or frameworks that attempt to explain or contextualize reality as a whole.

If nature programs instinct then I would think that that would require intelligence. My opinion.

And why would you think that? There is no reason whatsoever to think that natural instinct is the result of intelligence.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

If time is simply how we measure change, then how can anything be "outside of time" unless it never changes? And if God never changes, how can it do anything much less create the universe and everything we know?

The way I see it, current scientific theory suggests that time began with the universe in the Big Bang. If there was no time when the universe didn't exist, then the universe is eternal even though it had a beginning.

True God, if there is a God, would be unchanging (immutable). He/she would be the the originator of time. All would begin and end within him. Being finite we make decisions through a trial and era process. Gods , being infinite, makes decisions that are instantanious. God spoke eveything into existance in the Bible.

 

[Koldo]

Who/what created the machines or devoloped the patterns/blueprints and the put them together?

If you are talking about cells, then most likely the "forces of nature" like gravity, eletromagnetism, and so on.

 

[McBell]

True God, if there is a God, would be unchanging (immutable). He/she would be the the originator of time. All would begin and end within him. Being finite we make decisions through a trial and era process. Gods , being infinite, makes decisions that are instantanious. God spoke eveything into existance in the Bible.

this is nothing more than a pile of unsubstantiated claims being presented as though they are facts.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Where do you get the idea that natural selection "predetermines"?

Following the line of thought in the posting from camintinx. hope I spelled his name right.

 

[McBell]

Following the line of thought in the posting from camintinx. hope I spelled his name right.

So it is merely something you are desperately clinging to in hopes of ratifying your belief in god?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

this is nothing more than a pile of unsubstantiated claims being presented as though they are facts.

Let me clarify, there are those who take this view. Not all, and I am coming from this perspective. nothing has been substantiated here at all yet in any direction.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

So it is merely something you are desperately clinging to in hopes of ratifying your belief in god?

Personally, yes. Also if we are going to discuss evoluion vs. creationism we would have to accept the possibility of intelligent design and therefore the possibility of a creator. If we can not concede to this possibility then we can not debate between the two. Am I correct in this assumption? If not, then I apologize.