How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, I made a typo there. OK, science, you say, if I understand you correctly, does NOT teach there was no intelligent force behind the process of evolution. In other words, they (the scientists, for the most part) think there could be an invisible intelligent force behind the process of evolution but they don't find any evidence of that, so maybe they think there is, and maybe there is not, right?

They don't answer one way or another since science is methodlogoical naturalism and an intelligent force is not natural in the understanding of methodological naturalism.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're not really saying that none of the Bible writers wrote in symbolic references, are you?

No I am not saying that. You need to reread my posts. I said, "The believed what they wrote as a literal history." I do not believe you would accept that very much of the Pentateuch was symbolic, only some individual references, as symbolic.

Many more liberal Christians do not consider it literal history to take into account the many conflicts concerning what is known to day concerning the documented history and science. I doubt you would accept this,

Take into account at least one point where the book of Daniel describes the world powers as a goat and a four-headed winged leopard.

Yes, this may be considered symbolic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, I made a typo there. OK, science, you say, if I understand you correctly, does NOT teach there was no intelligent force behind the process of evolution. In other words, they (the scientists, for the most part) think there could be an invisible intelligent force behind the process of evolution but they don't find any evidence of that, so maybe they think there is, and maybe there is not, right?

It does not need a long drawn out explanation concerning how science considers religious beliefs and other beliefs that cannot be objectively verified by science. Science only deals with the objectively verifiable nature of our physical existence. The many conflicting beliefs of the ancient cultures and religions of the world cannot be objectively falsified in science, including the existence of Gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

What does that even mean?
Taken in isolation, mutations are random.

No, simply that mutations are not predetermined to be neutral, beneficial, or harmful. Natural selection determines this in the adaptation to changing environments, Of course, harmful mutations cause most effected individuals simply would not survive, Actually this is not a question of true randomness. It is simply a physical limitation of the potential beneficial nature of mutations,

All mutations do is increase the diversity of the genetics of populations of lifeforms. Natural selection in response to changing environments is basis for evolution. It is well known that when the diversity of the genetics and limited size of the population is low population of the species often become extinct as witnessed in recent history,

 

[shunyadragon]

So do you and scientists believe all life forms evolve or maybe only some of them or maybe some do not evolve?

No, not all life forms evolve, Evolution is in response to adaptation to changing environments, Of source some population and/or species become extinct and fail to adapt to changing environments,

There are many examples of species well adapted to a given environment that do not evolve as in some coastal and deep ocean environments.

 

[YoursTrue]

They don't answer one way or another since science is methodlogoical naturalism and an intelligent force is not natural in the understanding of methodological naturalism.

So then one would have to deduce from that -- that science would categorically refute the concept that there is an intelligence behind life (without saying it out loud or in print).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So then one would have to deduce from that -- that science would categorically refute the concept that there is an intelligence behind life (without saying it out loud or in print).

No, that it is outside the scope of science and thus unknown.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, not all life forms evolve, Evolution is in response to adaptation to changing environments, Of source some population and/or species become extinct and fail to adapt to changing environments,

There are many examples of species well adapted to a given environment that do not evolve as in some coastal and deep ocean environments.

So -- let me try to recap this -- briefly--very briefly--one or two fish developed body parts that allowed after a real long time for their descendants to live on land, no water dwelling -- and then a couple of these land dwellers by mutation with no intelligent force behind these mutations--evolve to gorillas, and humans. Would you agree with that very brief summary?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that it is outside the scope of science and thus unknown.

So then since it is outside the scope of science you say, it may or may not be the case that there is an intelligent force behind the changing forms of organisms, would you agree? Since it is outside the scope of science and thus unknown, it (an intelligent force) could be or may not be. Right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So then since it is outside the scope of science you say, it may or may not be the case that there is an intelligent force behind the changing forms of organisms, would you agree? Since it is outside the scope of science and thus unknown, it (an intelligent force) could be or may not be. Right?

Yes, science says nothing one way or another as a postive or negative.

 

[YoursTrue]

It does not need a long drawn out explanation concerning how science considers religious beliefs and other beliefs that cannot be objectively verified by science. Science only deals with the objectively verifiable nature of our physical existence. The many conflicting beliefs of the ancient cultures and religions of the world cannot be objectively falsified in science, including the existence of Gods.

As I understand it, because science finds no evidence of superior unseen intelligent forces, that does not mean these forces do not exist or -- that they do exist. In oither words, would you say the jury of science is out on this issue? In other words, it is not within the realm or scope of investigation according to scientists to determine whether there IS an unseen intelligent force behind the complexity of living matter?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, science says nothing one way or another as a postive or negative.

OK. Understood. So it (intelligence behind the complexity of life) may or may not be, according to science because it is not within their realm of investigation. But deducing that evolution is true is within their realm. Right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK. Understood. So it (intelligence behind the complexity of life) may or may not be, according to science because it is not within their realm of investigation. But deducing that evolution is true is within their realm. Right?

Well, that depends on how you understand true.

 

[gnostic]

That is correct. But to say (as someone did here) that everything is literal in the Bible is simply not true. So thank you for your observation.

Just so you will know, I used to believe both Genesis 1 & 2 literally. I don’t now, for the last 21 years.

Particularly Genesis 2:7, where god created man from soil - the “dust of the ground”.

Back in high school, after Year 9, I didn’t do biology subjects afterwards, nor at colleges, so I didn’t understand biology of cells that well at all.

These last 21 years, I learned more and more in my free time, and in the case with creation of Adam, I came to realisation that it was impossible and improbable, as I understood that topsoils of any type around the world, would be made of one of these types - clay, silt or sand, and such topsoils would be about 45% ± 5% of silicon-based minerals.

Silicon-based as in silicate (micas or feldspars, both can be found in clay soil, while feldspars can also be found in silt soil) or silica (eg sands, such as in sandy soil, and sometimes silt soil when mixed with feldspars).

No silicates and no silica have ever been found in any cell of any human body. Genesis 2:7 is obviously false, because biologically we are not made of any one of these soil-type.

So obviously, Genesis 2:7 shouldn’t be interpreted literally.

Understanding that these 2 different creation narratives are myths, made me realise the themes of these 2 creation myths weren’t about creation themselves, but about God. The themes of the 6-day creation (Genesis 1) and of Adam & Eve (Genesis 2 & 3) were really about moral messages:

• God is powerful, to be feared…
• …so humans must be faithful & obedience to God.

Myths are like allegories or parables, where there require to be messages behind these stories - moral messages.

Throughout the rest of Genesis, the themes and moral messages were the same, from Noah and to the 3 patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac & Jacob - plus Joseph. These people were success stories, whereas Adam & Eve had failed (disobeying God) and were punished.

From Exodus to 2 Kings, the faithful vs unfaithful, obedience vs disobedience, reward vs punishment, recycle throughout these books.

 

[Valjean]

Most here know that science teaches all life evolved and was mot designed by an intelligent force. Thus, some fish emerged slowly, very slowly from water -- developed legs by mutations and air-breathing lungs and nostrils and stayed on land. To recap: that's what many people believe, including scientists. That is my point. That is what the science of evolution teaches.

Science doesn't teach this. Anatomy evolves mostly by reproductive variation and natural selection, not mutation. As for design, inasmuch as there is neither need nor evidence for it science just doesn't consider it, since there is no evidence to examine.

Why do you consider magic poofing a more likely explanation of speciation than natural selection, when we can see selection operating all around us, with no evidence of any magical creation of new designs?

 

[YoursTrue]

That is only partly correct and misrepresents my complete posts, Yes, the authors of the Bible and the Church Fathers believed what they wrote literally true, but unfortunately it represents an ancient cultural mythology without any knowledge of science, therefore not remotely true.

So again, are you saying that the authors of the Bible and the church "fathers" believed what they wrote was literal, even when they clearly wrote symbolic references, such as in the book of Daniel? Perhaps you can clarify...?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, that depends on how you understand true.

Correct. So there simply is no real reference to how and what fish (as an example), morphed to apes, going through all the distinct stages.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Correct. So there simply is no real reference to how and what fish (as an example), morphed to apes, going through all the distinct stages.

No, it depends on what you consider true to mean.
I know what you are trying to do. To declare science in effect unreal.

So are you will to learn to become a global skeptic, as it seems you really want to play unreal?

 

[Sargonski]

Not sure how to do that. it's pretty straight forward.

No. Flight of planes (or birds or whatever) doesn't violate any natural law. It uses aerodynamics etc.
A rocket spending insane amounts of energy to achieve escape velocity doesn't violate any natural law either.


So?


So?

what is straigt forward .. is the obvious fact that to a cave-man a rocket taking off is magic .. a God-like Power. Just as to you .. a person levitating and flying away is a God-Like Power . what part of violating the law of gravity .. are you not sure about ... in relation to God like powers .. such that your brain can just not understand what on earth a God like power would be needed .. in order to violate gravity.

"So - So" So what friend so so- suck your toe - all the way to mexico" ?? sup with that mate - having difficulty understanding what a "God like Power" might be .. one that violates gravity .. "Not Sure ? - it's pretty straight forward"

 

[Pogo]

what is straigt forward .. is the obvious fact that to a cave-man a rocket taking off is magic .. a God-like Power. Just as to you .. a person levitating and flying away is a God-Like Power . what part of violating the law of gravity .. are you not sure about ... in relation to God like powers .. such that your brain can just not understand what on earth a God like power would be needed .. in order to violate gravity.

"So - So" So what friend so so- suck your toe - all the way to mexico" ?? sup with that mate - having difficulty understanding what a "God like Power" might be .. one that violates gravity .. "Not Sure ? - it's pretty straight forward"

An interesting way to say that your God is the god of the gaps not any defineable object/being but just the answer to what you don't know.