Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

[Soandso]

I deny what is illogical and without substance. Some people deny the effectiveness of vaccines. I wonder how many who say I'm a science denier believe in and appreciate vaccines?

Curious, but what do you base your sense of logic on?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you agree that the theory of evolution and Christian theology are incompatible? How do we reconcile undirected genetic variation subject to natural selection with man being made in God's image? I consider those ideas, one being teleological and the other requiring no intent or intelligence incompatible.

I would say that the two can coexist. I know that it was meant to be historical when written (not by Moses). But who would expect the early Hebrews to get anything scientifically correct. Christians can and do largely ignore the Old Testament. The morals of the OT are atrocious and most Christians can see that. The defense, ignore 90% of the OT. I can even quote one of the NT verses that gives them an out:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

— 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)

If you read that nothing in that verse says that the Bible is inerrant. It does not even imply it. Any writing that is clearly fictional or immoral if read literally can be reinterpreted to be a morality tale or allegory as an excuse by apologists.

And since all Christians reinterpret the Bible or pick and choose which parts that they want to believe I do not see why that would not work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I deny what is illogical and without substance. Some people deny the effectiveness of vaccines. I wonder how many who say I'm a science denier believe in and appreciate vaccines?

One need not "believe in " vaccines. The science is out there. One can verify that vaccines work for themselves. Knowledge trumps belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Lol you missed it. Ok. It's ok. I will repeat though for your edification. Some educated individuals love exploring caves, oceans (like the capsule that apparently imploded) and the like. That is their enjoyment in life.

And you just like telling them that whatever they've discovered must be wrong, without ever having bothered to look into it yourself. That appears to be your enjoyment in life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Curious, but what do you base your sense of logic on?

What I see and do not see in reality. For instance, I SEE humans looking like humans, no matter the complexions of their skin. Or length of their legs. They're humans, not evolving to anything else. I SEE pictures of dinosaurs and descriptions of what is (like the size and shape of bones). I do not see beyond conjecture that they changed over millions of years to become little birds. My sense of logic tells me the reality of evolution is beyond putting bones together as well as dating of them.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you just like telling them that whatever they've discovered must be wrong, without ever having bothered to look into it yourself. That appears to be your enjoyment in life.

Not sure what you're referring to but when I read about evolution I see lots and lots of conjecture. On the other hand, do I believe vaccines work? Yes. Do I believe science can determine if a person has a bacterial infection? Yes. Do I believe surgeons can help some people live a better life? Hope that helps explain my viewpoint somewhat. Not to forget, do I believe dinosaurs evolved to become birds? (Guess. )

 

[Soandso]

What I see and do not see in reality. For instance, I SEE humans looking like humans, no matter the complexions of their skin. Or length of their legs. They're humans, not evolving to anything else. I SEE pictures of dinosaurs and descriptions of what is (like the size and shape of bones). I do not see beyond conjecture that they changed over millions of years to become little birds. My sense of logic tells me the reality of evolution is beyond putting bones together as well as dating of them.

So your sense of logic is based on your own subjective experiences?

 

[YoursTrue]

I also believe it inconsistent with reality that a person claiming to be rational would refrain from justifying logically his position regarding religious beliefs and evolution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not that they PROVED anything consistent with the theory. Birds so far have remained birds...dinosaurs notwithstanding. They're extinct. Oh yes, I take vaccines when I decide to and have respect for those who developed them.

Birds remained birds -- and they all look basically the same, right? Bird-like? Here are some (and tell me the first one doesn't look a bit dino-ish! While you're at it -- can you show why your creator chose so many variations -- but only AFTER the last dino had disappeared -- and then why your creator didn't want dinos anymore anyway? Bring us all up-to-date with your wisdom about the why of the world as it is, from your knowledge of what your creator wanted.

 

[Soandso]

I also believe it inconsistent with reality that a person claiming to be rational would refrain from justifying logically his position regarding religious beliefs and evolution.

So it would be consistent with reality for rational people to logically justify their positions regarding religious beliefs and evolution with randoms on the internet? That just seems like someone with too much time on their hands, imo

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not to forget, do I believe dinosaurs evolved to become birds? (Guess. )

I don't need to guess. You just think the dinosaurs found somewhere better to go, and the birds were invented by Whoever to take their place. I bet you couldn't give us pursuasive reasons why, however.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I see and do not see in reality. For instance, I SEE humans looking like humans, no matter the complexions of their skin. Or length of their legs. They're humans, not evolving to anything else. I SEE pictures of dinosaurs and descriptions of what is (like the size and shape of bones). I do not see beyond conjecture that they changed over millions of years to become little birds. My sense of logic tells me the reality of evolution is beyond putting bones together as well as dating of them.

That is not logic. Nor is it rational reasoning.

If you look at the other great apes there is not one clear trait that they share that we do not have. Forward looking eyes. Hands with opposable thumbs. Fingernails instead of claws. Dry noses. Well articulated shoulders. Color vison. The Vitamin C gene shut off in exactly the same way in all of us. Head to toe we can find similarities that we share with the that we do not share with other animals. Your mistake was looking for differences instead of looking at ways that we are the same.

Or to put it another way. If chimps and orangutans share a trait, we have that trait too.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't need to guess. You just think the dinosaurs found somewhere better to go, and the birds were invented by Whoever to take their place. I bet you couldn't give us pursuasive reasons why, however.

The reason is that however it happened, it didn't happen by mindless chance. And aside from guessing about similarities there is nothing to reason about. But if you want to say there is, your choice.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The reason is that however it happened, it didn't happen by mindless chance. And aside from guessing about similarities there is nothing to reason about. But if you want to say there is, your choice.

Read your words. You are making a very positive claim "It didn't happen by mindless chance." And you are making that claim without being able to provide one single atom of evidence for it -- not one, nothing, nil. Just "I don't know, so it must have been, right, eh, huh?"

Darwin -- and thousands of serious scientists since -- have been able to demonstrate an immense amount of how that "mindless chance" works (it's called "natural selection" but since you don't read, you'll just have to take that on faith). If I had the time (and the futile desire to try and teach the unteachable), I could provide millions of words very real science showing how it happened.

And you can provide -- well, frankly, nothing but "I don't understand it, so it can't have been that -- therefore I'm right." This is not intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason is that however it happened, it didn't happen by mindless chance. And aside from guessing about similarities there is nothing to reason about. But if you want to say there is, your choice.

The claim that evolution is "mindless chance" clearly do not understand the theory. And yet you keep claiming that you do. Natural selection, a huge part of evolution , is the opposite of chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read your words. You are making a very positive claim "It didn't happen by mindless chance." And you are making that claim without being able to provide one single atom of evidence for it -- not one, nothing, nil. Just "I don't know, so it must have been, right, eh, huh?"

Darwin -- and thousands of serious scientists since -- have been able to demonstrate an immense amount of how that "mindless chance" works (it's called "natural selection" but since you don't read, you'll just have to take that on faith). If I had the time (and the futile desire to try and teach the unteachable), I could provide millions of words very real science showing how it happened.

And you can provide -- well, frankly, nothing but "I don't understand it, so it can't have been that -- therefore I'm right." This is not intelligence.

And as I just posted myself, natural selection is n ot chance. Variation is part of the theory, but since we are dealing with large populations it is inaccurate to call that "chance" as well. The lottery is a good comparison. Who wins the lottery is a matter of chance. But in lottery after lottery, as the prizes continue to go up, we do have a "winner" sooner or later. What are the chances of someone eventually winning the Powerball ? They are approaching one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And as I just posted myself, natural selection is n ot chance. Variation is part of the theory, but since we are dealing with large populations it is inaccurate to call that "chance" as well. The lottery is a good comparison. Who wins the lottery is a matter of chance. But in lottery after lottery, as the prizes continue to go up, we do have a "winner" sooner or later. What are the chances of someone eventually winning the Powerball ? They are approaching one.

It does seem, doesn't it, that there is some need for an ability to "think big," as well as to imagine outside of one's own actual experience, to really get evolution. It's one thing to say, for example, that numbers don't get that much bigger by adding just one to them. After all, no matter how many people are on the bus, there's always room for one more, isn't there?

But do that a thousand times, a million times, even a billion times, and what might that look like?

It's my observation (I could be wrong) but most evolution deniers, when they're not denying solely on religious grounds, simply lack the ability to see how much change can happen when you do things millions, rather than dozens, of times. A kind of poverty, really.

 

[Father Heathen]

No it isn't. You hope you and your family doesn't get hurt by outside interference like war, drunk driver savages, inept medical treatment, and the like. That's part of your hope...right? Oh, also drowning. Being shot by a gun invented by those you consider non-savages, right? Just trying to help out with understanding your hope for the future. I hope no one suffers. But so far that hope isn't being realized.

What do societal ills have to do with evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

About death and evolution, evolution is said to be MINDLESS. It doesn't have a mind. It is not intelligent. Because evolution does not have a mind or a brain. It is what it is.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do societal ills have to do with evolution?

when people kill one another it does not make for a happy life.