Reflex
Active Member
The relevance, I think, is evidence of purpose.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theistic Evolution?
- Thread starter Deidre
- Start date
By "evidence", do you mean "inference"?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
What evidence of purpose? Obviously I get that the car is designed for a specific purpose, but humans certainly don't seem to be.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Good luck with that.My captive breeding program hasn't been successful so far, but I have high hopes.
I hope they do better than sharks do in captivity.
Not mention that it is observable that cars require intelligent intervention in order to increase their numbers and change their designs. For animals, it is observable that they have the capability to replicate and mutate with what is present in their own bodies. If animals lacked reproductive organs or genes, then evolutionary theory would have a big problem.
If you feel that a Creator is behind the design of everything, you come away thinking differently about 'purpose.' I even thought humans have a purpose, albeit maybe not an objective one, even when I left faith. But, now as a believer, I find a more objective purpose behind a Creator 'creating' life to begin with.
Reflex
Active Member
How do you make that determination? The evolution in both examples is obvious. The only reason you get that the car is designed for a specific purpose is because you see it from an anthropic point of view, it's something you can relate to. Absent that, the purpose is invisible. Purpose is not a physical object that is subject to empirical verification, any more than a principle is subject to empirical verification.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
True as the mornin' dew.
Reflex
Active Member
Irrelevant (post #267), not to mention that what you are saying is exactly what changed Antony Flew's mind.
Last edited:
True enough, but does it become an either/or proposition because of the word 'arbitrary?'
How about the frauds ?You don't actually believe this, right? There is a plethora of evidence for human evolution.
http://x-evolutionist.com/why-are-there-evolution-frauds-if-evolution-is-a-proven-fact/
http://x-evolutionist.com/why-are-there-evolution-frauds-if-evolution-is-a-proven-fact/
http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm
http://nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
See also this one re carbon dating etc.-
http://www.icr.org/article/117/270/
Covellite
Active Member
Controversy behind Rh negative blood type.
(Rh-negative, means that there is no specific proteins on the surface of red blood cells - membrane form.)
I don't know much about this, but even some science authorities claim that Rh negative blood type phenomenon proofs that some "external" influence changed pre-humans into humans.
Rh-negative blood is also not able to be duplicated or cloned.
Rh-negative mother mostly cannot bring Rh-positive offspring (it is possible now, with medical assistance). That characteristic is present only in human spices - some can say we are two spices in this regard.
Most Rh-negative people are from Europe. Another original group were the Eastern/Oriental Jews.
Rh factor is direct link to our Primate origin. Lack of Rh factor is almost impossible, because it needs whole different immune system to be involved later. To change immune system it would take hundred of thousands years.
Rh-negative blood holds recessive gene, so in a term of evolution it should evaporate until now.
Rh-positive people should be more resistant to some infections because of Rh membrane protective role.
So, there is a weak point in evolution theory. I wouldn't be much surprised if "someone" put his finger on pre-humans to create us.
(Rh-negative, means that there is no specific proteins on the surface of red blood cells - membrane form.)
I don't know much about this, but even some science authorities claim that Rh negative blood type phenomenon proofs that some "external" influence changed pre-humans into humans.
Rh-negative blood is also not able to be duplicated or cloned.
Rh-negative mother mostly cannot bring Rh-positive offspring (it is possible now, with medical assistance). That characteristic is present only in human spices - some can say we are two spices in this regard.
Most Rh-negative people are from Europe. Another original group were the Eastern/Oriental Jews.
Rh factor is direct link to our Primate origin. Lack of Rh factor is almost impossible, because it needs whole different immune system to be involved later. To change immune system it would take hundred of thousands years.
Rh-negative blood holds recessive gene, so in a term of evolution it should evaporate until now.
Rh-positive people should be more resistant to some infections because of Rh membrane protective role.
So, there is a weak point in evolution theory. I wouldn't be much surprised if "someone" put his finger on pre-humans to create us.
It's relevant to what Guy Threepwood was arguing: that the evidence that cars evolved is the same that living things evolved. Whether or not there is a purpose behind evolution is a different matter.
Changed his mind about what?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I'd say yes. Either it's a matter of chance or design, guided or unguided, either we have purpose for existing or just a reason-
Isn't this the real crux of the matter?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
exactly, yet the evidence for natural evolution v design is identical for both isn't it? i.e. it's not evidence for either.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Superior designs out compete inferior ones in their particular environments. Surviving to multiply in numbers and be improved further.
Am I talking about cars or animals?
The algorithm is the same, natural selection of superior design goes without saying either way, and says nothing in itself about chance v design.
The question is how a significant improvement in design appears in the first place. We know it can happen by design, by chance is a little trickier to establish
Reflex
Active Member
Nope, not a different matter at all. "Theistic evolution" implies purpose. Purpose is not subject to empirical verification, any more than a principle is subject to empirical verification. Purpose is established by inference only. To say one can establish purpose with respect to the evolution of cars and deny that one can do the same thing in regards to biological organisms is creating a double-standard that no rational person can abide by.
Er...really?
Antony Flew
Note: The likes of Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins are rank amatures compared to Flew and not even in the same league.
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
Dennett is hardly an amateur, his credentials and work show this. More so he doesn't rehash failed creationist arguments that Flew seemed to accept in old age. The same ideas he rejected for most of his life.
Shad
Veteran Member
The items are different hence why your watchmaker analogy fails and has failed for centuries. The watch is completely unnatural. You are 3 centuries behind in your philosophical arguments. The key piece of the argument missing is evidence. We can find people that make watches, places where watches are made. We have no evidence of a designer, no process, no methods, nothing.
in the nt book of 1 john 4:8 god is understood as love. this isn't something new.
love = god
like krishna was the god of love
http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses/krishna.htm#.Vpqc6VJ36vA
here we see the same idea as god with the word delight for love and the word delightful for divine
http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=love
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/divine?s=t