Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[blü 2]

Your understanding of the Bible atributes magic to God - two different things.

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality. Like bringing light into being by uttering what amount to magic words.

To me the Bible is written by man who knew not so much about certain things as we know now.

The bible was written by a whole host of authors, using the stories and understandings of their time and place.

If you read 1 Samuel 21:1-14 you will understand that what you wrote is bull****.

If you read 2 Samuel 20, you'll see that it says God sent a famine and refused to lift it until a number of innocent people had been put to death.

So you don't belive that miracles happen?

Only in metaphor. There are no authenticated examples of a miracle that I'm aware of.

Yes i have noticed that , you stick to certain answering regardless of the writer on the other side.

I state my view, yes. Do you change your views depending on whom you're addressing?

But this is the thing , me and you we can speak science and agree on many , many things.
The only thing that we disagree here is that Science is the domain of everything.

There are great spaces in human culture filled by the imagination, with words, paintings, sculptures, architecture, maths, and so on. Their creators may or may not be informed by science, but by and large they don't regard themselves as finally bound by it.

Many of the things that you know now are false.Not just you , but also scholars.

Science proceeds by empiricism and induction. It doesn't pretend to make absolute statements. As Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't be refuted yet.

 

[Dimi95]

Some do. It seems to be the case here where the recognition of the use of logical fallacies is seen as an insult. In fact, it appears that no matter how it is delivered, the recognition of any flaw in an argument is seen as insult. It is to the point where I find the behavior insulting.

I think that whatever we write it will be the same.

But i do analysis a lot , that is what i have done for a long time , science is not the problem , it is the core of their belief.

 

[Dimi95]

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality. Like bringing light into being by uttering what amount to magic words.

So that means the Big-Bang is magic to you?

The bible was written by a whole host of authors

Correct , the Bible is not a book , it is collection of books written by different man.

, using the stories and understandings of their time and place.

Not all of them.
New Testament is different level , but you have failed to understand it.

If you read 2 Samuel 20, you'll see that it says God sent a famine and refused to lift it until a number of innocent people had been put to death.

I dare you and anyone else to find and present that passage here where God refused to lift it untill a number of innocent people had been put to death.

Only in metaphor. There are no authenticated examples of a miracle that I'm aware of.

Ok fair enough.

Just because you are not aware - it does not mean they don't exist.Sometimes you have to visit and explore some places and ask more about it.
I mean i feel stupid to give you evidence for miracles.

I state my view, yes. Do you change your views depending on whom you're addressing?

Depending what.
I don't know everything , and everything i know might not be true.
I accept that as it gets.

There are great spaces in human culture filled by the imagination, with words, paintings, sculptures, architecture, maths, and so on. Their creators may or may not be informed by science, but by and large they don't regard themselves as finally bound by it.

Spaces ? Like what ? Give an example

Science proceeds by empiricism and induction. It doesn't pretend to make absolute statements. As Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't be refuted yet.

It doesn't matter
Science deals with Science.
I don't critic Science here , i just say what it is,and you just try to make salad out of it.

We use science and science has been only beneficial to us.

I don't know why is this even to be discussed

 

[blü 2]

So that means the Big-Bang is magic to you?

You can't have read your own text. In Genesis God doesn't create light until long after [he]'s created the heavens and the earth.

New Testament is different level , but you have failed to understand it.

The NT contains five different versions of Jesus. Three of them (the synoptic three) promise the Apocalypse will happen within the lifetime of some of Jesus' hearers ─ Paul and John are silent on the point ─ but two thousand years later, still nothing. It's unambiguous.

I dare you and anyone else to find and present that passage here where God refused to lift it untill a number of innocent people had been put to death.

I trust you've read it. Why did God not lift the famine until after the killings?

Just because you are not aware - it does not mean they don't exist.

On what basis do you assert that? You were unable to explain what happened to bring light into being, and that was only in a story. If you can't explain how they work, how can you assert their existence in the total absence of hard evidence that they exist?

Spaces ? Like what ? Give an example

Literature, poetry, painting and drawing, sculpture, some architecture, dance, music, song, games, plays, opera, film, sport of all kinds, games of all kinds ─ and ceremonies and observances for births, birthdays, coming of age, weddings, funerals etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think you are spot on correct. I think a lot of the behavior towards science and supporters of science that is evident in these discussions comes from that very position of absolutism. They know absolutely, so no need to behave, learn, or offer rational objection.

Really the ftheme of these types of responses should be "why do I believe in God and evolution"?

 

[cladking]

So what real thing, what entity with objective existence, found in the world external to the self, do you intend to denote when you say "God" here?

If you say God is objectively real, a photo would be useful.

If I say something exists it is my job to be able to define it and to show at least one place it doesn't exist. I do not believe a creator doesn't exist. I merely see that there might or might not be an existential necessity for one. I don't have the luxury of knowing the answers and don't really know if I'm asking the right questions. If Darwin really went wrong ignoring the individual and ignoring consciousness them how far wrong might I go by ignoring the possibility that reality was created by some means other than logic?

It seems to me that belief in a creator (which I lack) is far superior for most individuals than belief in a science that provides every answer (which I also lack). Just because to date science has turned up mostly natural processes to explain reality hardly means this will always be true. Jumping to conclusion without experimental evidence is how science has always gone wrong.

As you know, the only manner in which gods (and all other supernatural beings) are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

While abstractions aren't real, they certainly symbolize things that are. For instance there may be no such things as "species" or "mammals" but there are still referents for the words and at the least they are handy mnemonics. Imagine trying to remember if every type of animal had hair or not without the word "mammal".


Humans have simplified reality down to something a child can recall and then forgotten that language and words aren't reality. If "God" exists we must first define It to even search. As is typical people put the cart before the horse.

 

[cladking]

You have to understand science and what has been done before.

And there's the problem in a nutshell.

All thought, all ideas are individual. Every scientists has his own unique models even if he doesn't know it. Since modern science is Observation > Experiment any human being can do it. Committees don't think and don't make observations or think of experiments.

Knowing what has come before is handy for metaphysicians though.

 

[blü 2]

If I say something exists it is my job to be able to define it and to show at least one place it doesn't exist.

I'd say it was your job to define it and satisfactorily demonstrate the reality of it. On your test, there are tens or more of septillions of planets on which humans don't exist, for example.

I do not believe a creator doesn't exist.

Do you mean a sentient, purposeful creator of the universe? Or would the Big Bang be a creator in your book?

I merely see that there might or might not be an existential necessity for one.

That would arguably lock you into an infinite regression, no? If the universe needs a creator, then that creator needs a creator, who in turn needs &c &c &c &c.

I don't have the luxury of knowing the answers and don't really know if I'm asking the right questions.

Science is at the least systemic in defining its purposes, methods and objects of study. Religion is anything but ─ there does not appear to be a satisfactory definition and description of a God with objective existence (as distinct from merely conceptual / notional existence) ─ or of 'godness', the real quality that would distinguish a real god from a real superscientist who could do what the real god can do.

Humans have simplified reality down to something a child can recall and then forgotten that language and words aren't reality.

Some may have. Many have not. Reality is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses. At no time in history have we been better informed about the earth, its nature and its creatures (ourselves included), and about the nature and apparent history of the universe.

 

[cladking]

There is no common notion like that I'm aware of.

I'm referring to the average Joe who came from a failed educational system and accepts whatever science is being foisted on him this week. They had bad science classes they didn't understand and think scientists are all geniuses. Most of these individuals think they do understand science and Peers are its priests. They believe Evolution is settled science and anyone who doesn't accept it is a fool, flat earther, or fundamentalist.

 

[YoursTrue]

You would have to ask those that hold that belief. There is no one dogma so what good would it do you to get one man's explanation? It is not the "right" explanation, it is only theirs. It works for them and that is all that matters.

To me it makes more sense to adjust one's beliefs according to reality instead of claiming that God is a liar, but you can do whatever you want.

I find it interesting that there are those here who are reluctant and unwilling to say why they believe in God. And then there are those who are convinced they can speak with dead persons. The evidence is their own thoughts, I suppose. Few are willing to really go into it.
Yet upon serious examination for me, there is more reason to believe in my God than there is to accept or believe in (however one wants to call it) the theory of evolution. Evolution is said to lead to death. No one can say really from what or where life started. God promises life, since He is the giver of life. I believe logic shows that.
Isaiah 11 is something that is an outstanding promise from God, promising wonderful harmony and peace.
“And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand.”

 

[PureX]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

No. But there are some reasonable theories.

It is a misnomer to presume that science "knows things". That is not how science works. Science observes, and speculates, devises tests, then caries them out and observes some more, and refines the speculation. The result will be theories that function when tested, or theories that do not. The ones that do not are then disregarded. But science does not formulate "conclusions" that it then claimed to "know are true".

That's the 'scientism' cult that does that. Not science. So please try not to fall for their nonsense, and understand that science is not offering us certain knowledge. It is offering us information about how various aspects of our physical reality appear to interact. And so are observably related.

 

[cladking]

I'd say it was your job to define it and satisfactorily demonstrate the reality of it. On your test, there are tens or more of septillions of planets on which humans don't exist, for example.

I'm one man working alone and don't know anything. It is our job to prove or disprove God after providing a definition. I'm not even working on it and have several other avenues of research. All I can do is keep an eye open.

Do you mean a sentient, purposeful creator of the universe? Or would the Big Bang be a creator in your book?

I don't know. I see no reason a Creator has to be sentient or have a sentience we'd recognize as such. There are no rules for discovering reality other than to invent experiment to show it.

Certainly it's possible that a "big bang" created the universe and could be confused as God or have been caused by God. Perhaps this universe was created and a tiny bit of matter from another dimension was intentionally allowed into it through a point.

It's above my pay grade to have all the answers or even any answers at all.

Science is at the least systemic in defining its purposes, methods and objects of study.

Our science must reduce things to experiment. Some things like "mechanics" are easily reduced to experiment and some things are impossible. The problem arises when we extrapolate experiment to apply to all things. It does but that doesn't mean our specific extrapolations are legitimate.

Some may have. Many have not. Reality is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

At the risk of picking nit our science due to its nature requires an Observer. As such we are a part of reality and of our experiments. Consciousness is someday going to be the New Frontier but this day could be a long time away.

 

[YoursTrue]

You would think that someone making claims about agriculture as if those claims were fact, would have at least looked at Wikipedia to learn some actual facts.

I'm still not sure how biological evolution would have had a negative impact or any impact on the development of agriculture as seems to have been the claim. Perhaps this was just a very bad way to say that breeding of plants and animals models natural evolution. But I sort of doubt that. Seems to be the implication of accepting evolution would preclude recognizing the gradual nature of the origin of agriculture or falsify it. Somehow. It is difficult to know from what @cladking posts exactly what he thinks is valid fact and what is just seemingly made up and offered as fact.

My God promises life (yes, my God, the One that I believe caused life to be on this earth), He does not promise death for all humankind in the future. Since the God I recognize is all-knowing, He is well aware of the theory of evolution that people devise from artifacts and fossils and remnants. Yet there is nothing scientists can bring forth to show the small tiny mutational changes they hypothesize leading from one type of fish to land crawlers over the millions of years these mutations are claimed to have happened in.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. But there are some reasonable theories.

It is a misnomer to presume that science "knows things". That is not how science works. Science pbserves, and speculates, devises tests, caries them out, observes some, and refine the speculation. The result will be theories that function when tested, or thearies that do not. But science foes not formulate "conclusions" that it then claimed to "know".

That's the 'scientism' cult that does that. Not science. So please try not to fall for their nonsense, and understand that science is not offering us certain knowledge. It is offering us information about how various aspects of our physical reality interact. And so observably relate.

What tests are there for evolution, may I ask? Remember -- you said science observes (did it observe the mutational changes said to have occurred over the millions of years). Tests? What tests did science perform demonstrating mutational changes in animals leading to new species? Now one might speculate, which is what science does...

 

[cladking]

My God promises life (yes, my God, the One that I believe caused life to be on this earth), He does not promise death for all humankind in the future. Since the God I recognize is all-knowing, He is well aware of the theory of evolution that people devise from artifacts and fossils and remnants. Yet there is nothing scientists can bring forth to show the small tiny mutational changes they hypothesize leading from one type of fish to land crawlers over the millions of years these mutations are claimed to have happened in.

Tiny little changes caused by survival of the fittest resulting in speciation is attractive and central to the scientism arguments. It is attractive because it removes everything we have no understanding of from the equation. Why understand individuals or consciousness if they can be canceled out of both sides of the equation? Why define "fitness" if it can just be defined as the cause of speciation? Who needs God at all if there's a well understood mechanism for life to arise and flourish? When you have all the answers there is no need for outside agents or unknowns.

Certainly mutations can lead to speciation but we know it occurs without mutation as well through observation and experiment.

People just want simple answers. I'm inclined to believe answers are far more complex than even reality itself.

 

[metis]

I do not reject science. I reject the product being bought and sold that is labeled "Science". I also reject any "science" not founded in experiment. There are not an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. There may not even be one pyramid built with one ramp. I reject as "theory" any conjecture founded on a belief in "survival of the fittest" and that gradual change is the only way to interpret the "fossil record". I reject the pervasive belief in science and I reject the common notion that science is based on genius. I reject the common belief that science is determined by consensus and that individuals are irrelevant. I reject the way science is taught in this country.

All these things are wrong and they are all destructive to the individual and the commonweal. Even if Darwin is right it would still be wrong to teach or believe Evolution as "settled science" there is now and never will be such a thing as "settled science" and such a belief can be used as an epitaph for the human species. We came, we believed, we all died.

Nothing but sheer nonsense, and a large part of your problem is that you clearly don't study.

Maybe start here: Evolution - Wikipedia

 

[PureX]

What tests are there for evolution, may I ask? Remember -- you said science observes (did it observe the mutational changes said to have occurred over the millions of years).

Yes. The evidence is buried in the ground, and much of it has been unearthed. But keep in mind this supports a specific theaory. It does not provide nor proclaim certainty. That's the 'scientism cult' that's doing that.

Tests? What tests did science perform demonstrating mutational changes in animals leading to new species? Now one might speculate, which is what science does...

We can observe the dramatic changes that occure from selective breeding. We can observe the dramatic changes that can occur via genetic mutation. And we can observe that some of these changes do get passed on generationally, especially if they result in a survival advantage. All of this supports the theory of the evolution of life forms.

 

[metis]

Of course I can't. No more than you can prove there was no Creator.

Logically, exactly how would one go about proving there are no deities?

Modern science is a powerful tool but where used improperly it can destroy. You are using it improperly.

Oh, so how in the world could you possibly know this? Are you omniscient?

In science, we rely exclusively on the "scientific method" period!!! It's obvious that technique is totally unimportant to you since you continually spout absurdities with no evidence provided.

 

[metis]

Do scientists proclaim which fish species started the journey from fish to land dwellers?

The evidence points in that direction.

 

[metis]

This has nothing to do with fundamentalism.

It very much does as most fundamentalists believe in scriptural inerrancy and more literalistic interpretations. The fundamentalist movement started in the 1800's in response against "Modernism" [liberal].

Speaking of evidence, many people believe Mary can deliver prayers to God or Jesus, whatever the case may be. What is the evidence for that, please?

It comes from early Church tradition whereas the living can pray for the dead and vice versa. Whether that concept is true or not is well beyond my pay grade.