I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[1robin]

There is no such thing as "the faith position" as some different Christian's and Christian denominations don't share your interpretation.

The very first exposure that I had that the creation accounts didn't necessary have to be taken literally was from a Catholic priest I happened to talk with at a bowling alley back in the early 1960's. His answer, however, confused me since I was attending a fundamentalist Protestant church that opposed the concept of evolution, which I eventually left about 6 years later largely due to taking classes in biology and theology during my undergrad years.

As much as I want to comply with your requests, to do so would violate what I said in post #542

 

[exchemist]

Ok, if you can't (and you can't) provide proof that the bible is wrong about evolution then that would mean we are only dealing with probabilities. Probability is a subjective quality in this context. The trickle of data is IMO is not enough to justify a metric ton of theory. I hold that faith position and faith is completely justied unless you post a defeater for my faith.

Again we get an ounce of data. You simply think that ounce is enough to justify the theory but I do not. Without "proof" we are stuck at an impasse.

I simply disagree. I do not think there is sufficient evidence to believe cows and whales have a known ancestor in common. Sorry but you have way more faith than I do.

Instead of proof lets use the best inference to a conclusion. I do not believe common descent is the best inference to a conclusion, however I do believe that the ounce of data we have makes microevolution and a common designer is the best conclusion.

So long as you don't say your beliefs are supported by science, you can believe what like.

What do you think the bible says about evolution?

I would say it says nothing at all. But then I am like Origen, one of the early church fathers, Origen - Wikipedia in that, like him, I am not a biblical literalist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course you could have predicted my ending our discussion, I have been telling you it was coming for more than a week. As much as I want to comply with your requests, to do so would violate what I said in post #542

Post 542 is merely a lame excuse.

 

[metis]

But then I am like Origen, one of the early church fathers, Origen - Wikipedia in that, like him, I am not a biblical literalist.

Actually the literalistic approach really didn't become even remotely popular until the 1800's as a response to "modernism".

Theologians very often use the word "variation(s)" to show that two or more verses don't seem to blend too well, plus sometimes an event reported in the scriptures may not hold up to other sources. It was always understood until the 1800's that the purpose of the scriptures was for faith, not for objective history.

When I was in my early teens (MANY moons ago), in the Sunday School class I was in at my local Protestant church, I was given a book that I think the title was "Harmony of the Scriptures", whereas different narratives were laid side by side, thus to supposedly prove that the gospel narratives do match. Except they often didn't, and that was clear enough for even this 13 year old to see.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I have offered to do this several times and I even posted the first step. I wanted you to participate in the effort to interpret the verses in question. Is that what you want to get to the bottom of first?

You are the one who brought the Bible into this, so the interpretation is up to you. It is also a matter of what evidence would convince YOU that there is evidence for common ancestry between biblical kinds. I can't define what would convince you. Only you can do that.

Since it is the biblical terms that in question the terms biologists prefer are irrelevant (arbitrary).

First, irrelevant and arbitrary are two different things. Clades in biology are not arbitrary because they are based on objective standards which are synapomorphies (i.e. shared features). They may be irrelevant to what you are talking about, but they are not arbitrary.

Second, you need to tell us what is relevant. Otherwise, we feel a bit like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. We put all this effort into finding this supposed evidence for you, but you jerk the football away at the last moment and say, "Nope, that's not it".

Because the verses in question from the bible seem to suggest that "kinds" refers to things similar in appearance. For example wolves, dogs, and coyotes seem to be of the same type of "kind". However we should first go back and see what the bible verse are specifically. I defend the bible and so what the bible claims is what we should concentrate on first. Do you want to do so?

To a biologist, all mammals have similar appearances. In fact, all vertebrates have similar appearances. "Similar", as you have defined it, is the epitomy of arbitrariness. What units is similar being measured in? How do you determine when something is similar or dissimilar?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The term best inference to a conclusion has nothing to do with biology, intelligent design, or Christianity. It simply implies that all that can be done is to look at the evidence and make the best conclusion we can. That would be true no matter what branch of knowledge is under discussion except for self awareness. Why on earth would you have a problem with any of this? Tell you what, I hate to get hung up on semantic technicalities. What terms would you like to use?

The problem is how you determine what the best inference is. Is the best inference the one that best fits your religious beliefs? How exactly do you determine what the best inference is?

Yeah, I have over 190 semester hours in a scientific field, work in a DOD defense lab, and have a degree in mathematics. I believe I know a little about how science works. Give me a break.

In any of your scientific work, was a supernatural designer ever the verified answer to any of the problems you faced? I'm guessing not. Biologists are no different.

My position is the faith position. My faith is perfectly justifiable unless you provide a defeater.

How is faith justified? Faith is the belief that something is true in the absence of evidence demonstrating that it is true. It is the least justified position one can take.

 

[metis]

As much as I want to comply with your requests, to do so would violate what I said in post #542

Of course you could have predicted my ending our discussion, I have been telling you it was coming for more than a week. As much as I want to comply with your requests, to do so would violate what I said in post #542

That's rather convenient as not only did you have time with these two above posts, but you also had several other rather lengthy posts.

I think the reality is quite different, namely that there simply is no scientific evidence that supports your premise that micro stop before becoming macro, and I tend to think that you do know that but can't bring yourself to admit it. I've asked this of several others here, and all I ever get back is either the sound of crickets or some cut & paste from a creationist website.

Fortunately, in a survey I saw probably about 40 or so years ago, most Christian theologians (about 70%, if my memory is correct-- which is sometimes questionable, I'd admit) do not have a problem with the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

 

[exchemist]

Actually the literalistic approach really didn't become even remotely popular until the 1800's as a response to "modernism".

Theologians very often use the word "variation(s)" to show that two or more verses don't seem to blend too well, plus sometimes an event reported in the scriptures may not hold up to other sources. It was always understood until the 1800's that the purpose of the scriptures was for faith, not for objective history.

When I was in my early teens (MANY moons ago), in the Sunday School class I was in at my local Protestant church, I was given a book that I think the title was "Harmony of the Scriptures", whereas different narratives were laid side by side, thus to supposedly prove that the gospel narratives do match. Except they often didn't, and that was clear enough for even this 13 year old to see.

Indeed. The whole business is retrograde and foolish.

 

[1robin]

You really do not understand the terms that you are using. I have offered to help you to learn why we know that you are wrong. A good starting point for you is to learn what the scientific method is and how it is used. Along with that is the concept of evidence. You clearly do not understand what is and what is not evidence. It would not take you long to learn and could save you a massive amount of time in the future.

See post #542, this is why I wrote it.

 

[1robin]

And that has been presented. That you do not understand how your beliefs have been refuted does not mean that has not happened. Once again you need to learn the basics. And what scientific field did you study and at what level? You claim to understand how science works and then you demonstrate that you clearly do not. This is why I keep offering to help you on the basics.



What premises do you think that he used? How are they invalid?



But that has been demonstrated in many different ways. This would be so much faster if we went over the basics first.

See post #542, this is why I wrote it.

 

[1robin]

Post 542 is merely a lame excuse.

542 is lame? Who could stand up to arguments this powerful and persuasive?
See post #542, this is why I wrote it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See post #542, this is why I wrote it.

It remains a lame excuse.

When you are ready to learn the basics of science I am more than happy to help you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

542 is lame? Who could stand up to arguments this powerful and persuasive?
See post #542, this is why I wrote it.

You need to learn the difference between an argument and an observation. Your post is lame. Only the cowardly take such a route. Why are you afraid to learn even the basics of science? It will be handy in many other internet debates and does not take that long to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See post #542, this is why I wrote it.

Wait, you presented that post because you are terribly ignorant about the basics of science? Now that makes no sense at all. Stay away from firearms. You have a tendency to shoot yourself in the foot.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is incoherent.

No it has not. It is true that at least 2 posters attempted to provide what I asked (but you have not). I looked over every specific example anyone attempted to post but none of them seemed to be proof of common descent. Stop trying to debate me by proxy. Make your own points and stop referring to things contained in other people posts.

A small investment of? I have to spend every spare moment I have typing as fast as possible just to not fall behind and you in particular require 90% of my time is spent in just correcting the mistakes in logic and reading comprehension contained in your posts.

Hello Robin,

I hope you are doing well.

May I suggest that, if you are strapped for time, perhaps spend that limited time dealing with the substantive posts that pertain to the thread topic, rather than these types of posts that have very little, if anything, to do with it. Just a suggestion that may help.

 

[1robin]

So long as you don't say your beliefs are supported by science, you can believe what like.

My claim is that the bible's claim are consistent with science. The bible claims that microevolution exists but it limits it. That is consistent with what science has ever observed.

What do you think the bible says about evolution?

The same thing I have been saying for weeks. Lets back up and start with the actual verses in question.

Genesis 1:21
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

17 Bible verses about Living Things

I would say it says nothing at all. But then I am like Origen, one of the early church fathers, Origen - Wikipedia in that, like him, I am not a biblical literalist.

I agree that the bible can be figurative or symbolic at times. It would depend on which verse is under discussion.

 

[exchemist]

My claim is that the bible's claim are consistent with science. The bible claims that microevolution exists but it limits it. That is consistent with what science has ever observed.

The same thing I have been saying for weeks. Lets back up and start with the actual verses in question.

Genesis 1:21
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

17 Bible verses about Living Things
I agree that the bible can be figurative or symbolic at times. It would depend on which verse is under discussion.

But what do you think it says, in your own words, about evolution?

Because these verses you mention do not seem to me to preclude evolution as the means by which all these creatures came to be created. I don't find, anywhere in the bible, anything that says created life has to be static and unchanging with time. Where do creationists get this idea from?

In fact it could be argued that "Let the earth bring forth living creatures......" is exactly what we see in the process of evolution, from microscopic cells all the way through to the variety we see now.

Or, if not, why not?

 

[1robin]

You are the one who brought the Bible into this, so the interpretation is up to you. It is also a matter of what evidence would convince YOU that there is evidence for common ancestry between biblical kinds. I can't define what would convince you. Only you can do that.

Well, I thought that you could follow along and see how this kind of thing is done.

First, irrelevant and arbitrary are two different things. Clades in biology are not arbitrary because they are based on objective standards which are synapomorphies (i.e. shared features). They may be irrelevant to what you are talking about, but they are not arbitrary.

You can use either term you want, I think both apply. I don't know what you meant by the term "Clades".

Second, you need to tell us what is relevant. Otherwise, we feel a bit like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. We put all this effort into finding this supposed evidence for you, but you jerk the football away at the last moment and say, "Nope, that's not it".

I was waiting for you concerning the interpretation of the bible verses in question, if you do not want to follow along I will go ahead and give you my interpretation but without an explanation. Is that how you want me to go about this?

To a biologist, all mammals have similar appearances. In fact, all vertebrates have similar appearances. "Similar", as you have defined it, is the epitomy of arbitrariness. What units is similar being measured in? How do you determine when something is similar or dissimilar?

Again, the terms used by a modern biologist are virtually irrelevant. We need to go back and see what the bible says then see if any observation defeats it. Is that what you want me to do?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

My claim is that the bible's claim are consistent with science. The bible claims that microevolution exists but it limits it. That is consistent with what science has ever observed.

Until you show us a way to measure these limits you can't make any such claim. How can you say that evolution has not gone beyond some limit when you can't even define what that limit is?

 

[1robin]

You are the one who brought the Bible into this, so the interpretation is up to you. It is also a matter of what evidence would convince YOU that there is evidence for common ancestry between biblical kinds. I can't define what would convince you. Only you can do that.



First, irrelevant and arbitrary are two different things. Clades in biology are not arbitrary because they are based on objective standards which are synapomorphies (i.e. shared features). They may be irrelevant to what you are talking about, but they are not arbitrary.

Second, you need to tell us what is relevant. Otherwise, we feel a bit like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. We put all this effort into finding this supposed evidence for you, but you jerk the football away at the last moment and say, "Nope, that's not it".



To a biologist, all mammals have similar appearances. In fact, all vertebrates have similar appearances. "Similar", as you have defined it, is the epitomy of arbitrariness. What units is similar being measured in? How do you determine when something is similar or dissimilar?

I think this is redundant. Didn't you just post this?