How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith

[Subduction Zone]

"No need" for evidence, you mean. That's funny!

This is an extremely dishonest post on your part. You are either lying or amazingly ignorant. I can't blame @Audie for her last post when you respond in this manner.

Fossil evidence is not the only evidence. If a dishonest person sets an artificially high bar not meeting that bad does not mean that there is not any evidences.

 

[rrobs]

Ignoring the explanation is no honest. Your post looks like an attempt of lying by omission. There is no excuse to edit out the part of a post that explains what you did wrong and pretend that it does not exist.

And as a person that does not understand logic or how to debate properly you should not use phrases, such as "false premise" that you do not understand. Parroting others again only makes you look worse. You should try to learn from your errors so that you do not repeat them.

We should all learn from errors. Can't argue with that. I never claimed infallibility.

As far as the rest of your comment:

1Cor 4:3-4,

3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.​

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This is an extremely dishonest post on your part.

No it isn't. You basically assumed the precursors were there, when none have been found, ie., the evidence hasn't been found. And won't be.

Fossil evidence is not the only evidence.

Oh, really? For organisms millions of years old, what other evidence do you think there is? Don't say DNA, lol.

 

[rrobs]

Well, that is different!

Cool.

After I finish a quick wet noodle lashing
I will see what else you have to say.

No lashing in order. Bad timing, that's all. I just wasn't quick enough on the edit. Thanks though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it isn't. You basically assumed the precursors were there, when none have been found, ie., the evidence hasn't been found. And won't be.

Bearing false witness. A logical conclusion drawn from evidence is not an assumption. You should avoid that word since you put the burden of proof upon yourself when you use it.

Oh, really? For organisms millions of years old, what other evidence do you think there is? Don't say DNA, lol.

if you can't be polite and honest there is no point in trying to help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We should all learn from errors. Can't argue with that. I never claimed infallibility.

As far as the rest of your comment:

1Cor 4:3-4,

3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.​

Quotes from a book of myths are worthless. And rude.

Try again.

 

[blü 2]

Who invented science?

Humans invented the scientific method, which is close enough to what science is.

Who is the one who demonstrated what an incredible scientists he really is?

Archimedes? Newton? Maxwell? Einstein? Other?

Everything in creation is a product of science and principles that humans are only really beginning to comprehend.

Please don't mistake the science of physics with the physical entities and phenomena that the science of physics studies.

To put that another way, everything in creation is a product of physics, not of science.

Now, if it takes intelligent humans to mimic the constructions and designs evident in nature, what makes you think that the originals had no intelligent designer?

Because I have an enquiring layman's understanding of evolution. And if you understood evolution, I dare say you'd agree.

Can all those things just be fortunate accidents with no intelligence directing them?

Yes. Just read the science.

Humans have only discovered what already was. They taught themselves by trial and error to identify the systems that are already in place.

To be fair, they've had quite a few good ideas of their own. The car, the electric shaver and the scanning electron microscope are three of countless examples.

...so who put them there? Mr Nobody?

No, My Lady Nature.

Have you considered that evolution might be one gigantic fairytale?

Of course. But in the face of the mountains of examinable evidence and repeatable lucid demonstration supporting the modern theory of evolution, and the perfect vacuum where evidence to the contrary should be, I find that view completely untenable.

Evolution is not taught as a suggestion, it is taught as absolute truth....ask any student. They never see the guesses in the text and yet they are always there.

Then those teachers, like all teachers of science, should point out to their pupils that all the conclusions of science are derived from empiricism and induction, and as such can never be protected against a counterexample we may find tomorrow ─ or may never find, perhaps because it isn't there.

All the conclusions of science are tentative, a work constantly in progress. Nature is examined with great care, transparency, honesty and freedom from bias. Hypotheses are proposed and tested. Conclusions are reasoned from examinable evidence, published, scrutinized and debated by others with expertise. Those conclusions are constantly revisited and retested, again openly, honestly and transparently.

If religion worked like that, perhaps a credible religion would emerge. Or perhaps there'd be no religion.

How can you delete "prove" when human existence is at stake. If you can't prove something then it is not a fact.

By dropping the word 'prove' to avoid ambiguity with the way that word is used in maths, symbolic logic and other defined systems, and substituting 'satisfactorily demonstrated' (where the satisfaction is that of our hypothesized impartial but informed onlooker).

He is not any gender in a physical sense, but refers to himself that way so that we humans will understand his position as head of his 'household'. He portrays himself as a Father. The Bible has very little to say about who and what dwells in the spirit realm, but suffice it to say, there is enough to allow us to see spirit beings as mighty powerful creatures, which is what the word "god" means essentially.

What and where is the 'spirit realm'? What objective test will distinguish it from the imaginary?

If God is real, then God has objective existence. If God has objective existence, then God is out there in reality, with real properties that identify God as God, just as capybaras and joshua trees have real properties which define them. So what real properties define the real God? What are the examiners of reality to look for that will tell them whether any real thing is God or not?

What's the real, not imaginary, test for real, not imaginary, godness?

 

[Deeje]

Humans invented the scientific method, which is close enough to what science is.

Humans did not invent science.....they merely study what already exists and try to understand what mechanisms drive life on earth and complex laws in the wider universe. Someone with great intelligence had to put that material there in the first place IMO.' Nothing comes from nothing' and 'all life springs from pre-existing life'...science knows this and yet argues against it in evolution.

Because I have an enquiring layman's understanding of evolution. And if you understood evolution, I dare say you'd agree.

What is that old adage? "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".....science tends to gloss over what it can't prove, giving the impression that things are considered a foregone conclusion, but are in reality based on very flimsy evidence....as I said, it appears to be an elaborate castle built on nothing but toothpicks.

To be fair, they've had quite a few good ideas of their own. The car, the electric shaver and the scanning electron microscope are three of countless examples.

And without the intelligence unique to humankind, science would be as useful to us as it is to my dog. I don't see too many in the animal kingdom inventing much of anything. If they figure out how to use a stick, naturalists get all excited....

No, My Lady Nature.

You are gazing at the wrong parent.

Of course. But in the face of the mountains of examinable evidence and repeatable lucid demonstration supporting the modern theory of evolution, and the perfect vacuum where evidence to the contrary should be, I find that view completely untenable.

That is just the point...there are "mountains" of "evidence" that all rely on interpretation to confirm their validity. Bias dictates how evidence is to be interpreted. That means that provable evidence...i.e. of the substantiated kind amount to a hill of beans in reality. All they have are mountains of assumption and suggestions if the truth be told.

Then those teachers, like all teachers of science, should point out to their pupils that all the conclusions of science are derived from empiricism and induction, and as such can never be protected against a counterexample we may find tomorrow ─ or may never find, perhaps because it isn't there.

If only it was taught that way. But we all know it isn't. Any assault on the 'sacred cow' is met with insults about one's intelligence and an accusation of not understanding what evolution is. I understand perfectly well what they claim evolution is and I strongly contest it.

By dropping the word 'prove' to avoid ambiguity with the way that word is used in maths, symbolic logic and other defined systems, and substituting 'satisfactorily demonstrated'

No, by dropping the word "prove" you simply reinforce the truth about what is taught....nothing can be proven, therefore there is no truth....just supposition. Its a poor substitute IMO.

What and where is the 'spirit realm'? What objective test will distinguish it from the imaginary?

When scientists figure that out, I'm sure they will let you know. They are infants in this area of scientific knowledge. Just because they cannot invent a test for something, doesn't mean it isn't there...surely deep space exploration is continually proving this to be true? Do earth bound scientists really know much of all there is to know? I believe they have only scratched the surface.

 

[Polymath257]

What is that old adage? "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".....science tends to gloss over what it can't prove, giving the impression that things are considered a foregone conclusion, but are in reality based on very flimsy evidence....as I said, it appears to be an elaborate castle built on nothing but toothpicks.

A common misquote. See my signature.

 

[Deeje]

A common misquote. See my signature.

Meh...close enough.....it doesn't alter the truth of the statement Got a tooth pick?

 

[Audie]

Meh...close enough.....it doesn't alter the truth of the statement Got a tooth pick?

"Does not alter the truth that this is
how you choose to see things."

An outsider looking in does not see
JW as you do?

 

[Polymath257]

Meh...close enough.....it doesn't alter the truth of the statement Got a tooth pick?

Drink deep or taste not that Pierian spring!

That's precisely what science does: it goes beyond the fuzzy thinking of surface appearances and *tests* the ideas against real observations. if, instead, you base your beliefs on 'faith', that inevitably leads to shallow drinking.

 

[Milton Platt]

You're missing the point. During that period, there were thousands of species that appeared from the beginning to the end, but each one shows up abruptly, without any definite precursors.

Something evolution would not predict!

Actually, that would demonstrate an incomplete fossil record and nothing more.

 

[blü 2]

Humans did not invent science

Dogs, grass, microbes, lobsters, didn't invent science. Only H sap sap have done that.

.....they merely study what already exists and try to understand what mechanisms drive life on earth and complex laws in the wider universe.

They do all that and you call it 'merely'? You couldn't possibly say that if you had any comprehension of what our systems of investigation of reality have achieved.

By contrast, please list for me the great religious discoveries about reality in the last decade.

Someone with great intelligence had to put that material there in the first place IMO.

Yes, you've mentioned that but you've done nothing to demonstrate that it's true.

Nothing comes from nothing

I've thought a lot about the meaning of absolute nothing, the absence of energy, dimensions of time or place, the state of utter non-existence. I'm therefore persuaded that Occam's razor requires me to think energy pre-existed the Big Bang; that the Big Bang was a consequence of energy, not a cause of it.

and 'all life springs from pre-existing life'...

So you don't believe Genesis 1. Nice that we can at least agree about that.

science knows this and yet argues against it in evolution.

No, you completely misunderstand. Science knows that chemistry at some point became biochemistry became self-replicating biochemistry. It's true that this pathway isn't yet fully described; but I have a hunch that a credible description will become available in my lifetime. And yours.

Certainly I find the alternative ─ magic ─ to be wholly lacking in credibility.

What is that old adage? "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".....science tends to gloss over what it can't prove

Last time I asked you for an example of one of your sweeping generalizations of that kind, you didn't respond. But I'll try again. What's an example relevant to science in 2018 of science glossing over what it can't satisfactorily demonstrate? If you don't have such an example, please expressly say so.

That is just the point...there are "mountains" of "evidence" that all rely on interpretation to confirm their validity. Bias dictates how evidence is to be interpreted.

Again, a nice clear example of bias relevant to science in 2018 please.

No, by dropping the word "prove" you simply reinforce the truth about what is taught....nothing can be proven, therefore there is no truth....just supposition.

You know my objection to confusing 'proof' in maths with 'proof' ─ satisfactory demonstration ─ in eg law. Please state your definition of 'prove' here. What do you say is necessary to 'prove' something?

 

[Segev Moran]

Thanks for the update; i could have never guessed it from your quote [good to see how easy understanding goes wrong]

I think most of the times people just don't understand each other. I usually try to make sure i understand one's meaning of things as words are rather limited way of communicating.

Interesting that you make the distinction between "evolution being a description, not a thing", so it's not about exists or not, but about true or not

Evolution describes several processes that each explains a mechanism that we can observe.
Out of this, we assume that those mechanism that we can prove are true without a doubt, also apply to our past.
Natural selection for one, is the "mechanism" by which nature eliminated species that are not fit for their environment.
When i say nature, i do not mean nature has a "will" to eliminate species, rather that the specie itself cannot survive in the condition nature presents to it.

So to question evolution, you really need to question what it describe and for each part of it check and examine if it really happens as we describe it or not.

Then with God you talk about "exists" or not. And what is exists or a thing. Which or how many dimensions we talk about?

god is not a description.
You can describe a god (as you see it), but usually when people talk about god they have an actual entity in their minds (not a flesh and blood entity, but a thinking independent force with the ability to affect our reality.

While I have the idea that "God" is a description and not something that exists [at least not in earthly dimensions; so naturally it becomes description]

I disagree with this.
I do agree however that almost every one have a different way to describe god.
that's what makes it even harder to accept as real.

I never thought that there were people who actually believed that God is something that "exists" as a thing [what dimension we talk about then?]

Dimension is not relevant to this question.
God either exists or not (being a force, an entity or any other concept)

Oh, now I get it. Is that the reason that atheist don't buy this whole God idea, being a thing? I can understand that. That thought never entered my mind even.

Not quite. Atheist don't think there is a sufficient proof that there is a god that have an actual effect on our realty (at least not in the way theist describe it)
If you call Gravity a force of god, is not something an atheist will argue about (unless you will claim that gravity is manipulated and maintained by god and it can stop any time god wishes it. then you will have to present some evidence to support this claim )

I mean I saw pictures of BeardMan, but never contemplated that to be real. Oh now I also understand that I never felt offended by atheists thinking.

That's good. I can't really understand why people get offended when someone tells them they think their beliefs are wrong.
I will never get offended if someone tells me he thinks evolution is a joke for example. who cares?
If one really believes and trusts his god, why would he be offended if someone doesn't share his belief? how does that change anything?

 

[Audie]

If only it was taught that way. But we all know it isn't. Any assault on the 'sacred cow' is met with insults about one's intelligence and an accusation of not understanding what evolution is. I understand perfectly well what they claim evolution is and I strongly contest it.


.

I will have to strongly contest your statement that you
understand evolution. It is as obvious that you do not as
it would be that I did not know football, if I tried
to be the announcer at a game.

Re what "we all know" about how science is taught.

It generally is taught badly in public schools.
So is everything else.

What you describe is not remotely like my experience.
What we "all know" is that overgeneralizing is a mistake.

As for questioning and sacred cows? I am well aware
of how touchy the religious can be about, what was that
word, "sacred"? That is a religious thing.

Popping up with silly ideas, shallow thinking and thinking
that those will challenge ToE is like a child saying calculus
is all wrong coz look they dont even use numbers!

IF some people have heard such nonsense a few times,
and get a dismissive or contemptuous attitude next
time someone says "Well then howcum we still have
monkeys", well, what do you expect?

Fact is, nobody ever has come up with any actual data
that indicates a problem with ToE.

You have not, nobody has. Name calling, like
"fairy tale", is not data.

IF anyone ever does, ti will be news of the highest order,
but till then, it is just nattering. Sorry-ah, aw we'd say
in HK, but that really is all it is.

 

[Audie]

Actually, that would demonstrate an incomplete fossil record and nothing more.

Why yes; and it will always be incomplete, so ToE will
always be wrong!

The history of the cowboy's life is also incomplete.
So, uh, what?

Often some species will be known-so far-from only
one specimen, maybe a leaf, a jaw bone, a bit of shell.

What shall we conclude from that? All that ever existed
is a jawbone? No mommy or daddy, no descendants,
no body, just a jawbone appeared in the rock.

(actually, that was a belief of the ancient Romans)

 

[BilliardsBall]

If one cannot determine when a fetus is human how is it moral to force a woman to carry that fetus? The Bible has at least two verses that strongly indicate a fetus is not a human being.

My point is the determination does not shift with science improving viability.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think that he may be demanding that we produce the soft bodied creatures that the initial small shelly fauna evolved from. Rather difficult since they left no record. Nor were expected to. He is attempting to make a special pleading fallacy. The sad thing is that even if life was miraculously created in the Cambrian he would still be an ape, he would still be a primate, he would still be a mammal, a tetrapod, a vertebrate and a chordate. That is where it would end for him. At least he could possibly claim that he was not related to a sponge with the poor argument that he is attempting to use.

He's doing the same thing as so many other creationists, i.e., exhibiting black/white thinking where something is either 100% absolutely proven or it's just a made up belief. His fellow Jehovah's Witness here is particularly fond of that way of "thinking".

 

[Jose Fly]

No it isn't. You basically assumed the precursors were there, when none have been found, ie., the evidence hasn't been found. And won't be.

No, they're there. I've posted descriptions of them before and in typical creationist fashion you've ignored it all each time.