Theistic Evolution?

[Fool]

Cars are machines. Humans are organic, natural animals. So, I fail to see the relevance.

and yet in physics everything vibrates at a certain frenquency.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/resonance.html

hylozoism

E = m(c*c)

1st law of thermodynamics
energy cannot be created or destroyed. the form it takes, simply changes.

 

[Fool]

I agree that those are actually 'good' definitions or fitting for how I 'see' God. And love (true unconditional love) is defined as that, as well. Is this what you mean?

yes, conditional makes something finite. unconditional makes it infinite.

http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=condition&allowed_in_frame=0

 

[Reflex]

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.

Dennett is hardly regarded as a "deep thinker" even within his own circle. In comparison to Flew, he is, indeed, an amateur. (Hyperbole is not credentials.) If Dennett had any smarts at all, he would stay away from the likes of the other three "horsemen."

And like Flew's critics, you seem to be blaming old age for his change of mind without having talked to him or reading his work.

Kinda reminds me of Sartre's lover's vicious attack on Sartre in response to his deathbed confession. (I don't know why I even bothered to look at the ignored messages.)

 

[Parsimony]

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.

The question of "Did evolution occur?" is different from "Does evolution have a purpose?". The car analogy implies that, since cars did not evolve, organisms did not evolve either. The two are demonstrably not equivalent cases.

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.

All I see is him believing in God because he couldn't think of a naturalistic cause for abiogenesis. What does that have to do with evolution?

 

[Deidre]

Cars don't evolve though. Semantics, but I get the analogy. ^_^

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

So, the answer is never.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How about the frauds ?
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/

How about focusing on the thousands and thousands that are not frauds rather than the one or two that were (and were subsequently debunked by the scientific community)?

P.S. Peppered moths aren't a fraud.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/6/843.full

 

[SkepticThinker]

exactly, yet the evidence for natural evolution v design is identical for both isn't it? i.e. it's not evidence for either.

Maybe, if you completely ignore genetics.

 

[Gambit]

There is evidence, sure. But, there isn't verifiable evidence, so any level of certainty is out the window. And, God of the Gaps arguments don't really get us anywhere, and they don't provide any evidence. I also see that passage from Paul in Romans as being incorrect. I think it is clearly not that obvious.

A metaphysical argument to explain why there is something rather than nothing is not a God of the Gaps argument. Why? Because the mystery of existence is beyond the purview of science.

 

[leibowde84]

How about the frauds ?
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/

Of course there are frauds in every field of study. We are human, and some humans have bad intentions on both sides of the issue. One such group is those that doubt dating techniques merely because of certain people's dishonesty.

Think about how many people there are who have used people's religious beliefs as a weapon dishonestly.

 

[Theunis]

How about focusing on the thousands and thousands that are not frauds rather than the one or two that were (and were subsequently debunked by the scientific community)?

P.S. Peppered moths aren't a fraud.

The way they were presented by glueing them to trees was the fraud.
It is apparent that the lighter ones did not evolve into dark ones because they were no longer camouflaged and thus got gobbles up. The dark ones increased in numbers and also did not evolve.

The point remains why is there fraud when they like to say evolution is a proven fact?

It is not unlike a poster on another forum who said evolution is the ultimate and that murderers have no choice because evolution made them that way !

 

[Theunis]

Of course there are frauds in every field of study. We are human, and some humans have bad intentions on both sides of the issue. One such group is those that doubt dating techniques merely because of certain people's dishonesty.

Think about how many people there are who have used people's religious beliefs as a weapon dishonestly.

This I classify as the best and most honest reply. I like it.

 

[Shad]

Dennett is hardly regarded as a "deep thinker" even within his own circle. In comparison to Flew, he is, indeed, an amateur. (Hyperbole is not credentials.) If Dennett had any smarts at all, he would stay away from the likes of the other three "horsemen."

Nope. Both have doctorates in Philosophy, both taught at prestigious schools. The only reason you think Flew is special is due to a book written by a Christian in his name recycling the very arguments Flew dismissed when he was mentally fit. You put forward a guilt by association, again, due to you disliking these figures which is fallacious. If I had more information about you I could probably find a relationship you have with an individual that I do not like to black mark you as if that individuals views must be your own.

And like Flew's critics, you seem to be blaming old age for his change of mind without having talked to him or reading his work.

I blame his old age since all the arguments used in the book linked were refuted and rejected by him for decades. It is only when he was old did this change happen, right before he was admitted to a hospital due to his declining mental capabilities.

Kinda reminds me of Sartre's lover's vicious attack on Sartre in response to his deathbed confession. (I don't know why I even bothered to look at the ignored messages.)

Nope, it is a conclusion that has merit if you read anything written by Flew before his mental collapse and abuse by a Christian author using arguments Flew refuted decades ago.

 

[Shad]

A metaphysical argument to explain why there is something rather than nothing is not a God of the Gaps argument. Why? Because the mystery of existence is beyond the purview of science.

It is the definition of a God of Gaps. Fill the unknown with a presupposition rather than say "I do not know" All metaphysical argument fall under this fallacy even metaphysical naturalism. Which is why I reject it and state "I do not know"

 

[Deidre]

My question was how do you differentiate God from things like "love" and "light"? How do you define God in a way that doesn't merely equate God with things we already know to exist.

How you respond to believing in God, is one 'way,' perhaps. My life was rather flat when I was an atheist, not an unhappy life, but just flat. Since returning to faith, I have an inexplicable joy that even when things are tough, it is still there. It isn't imposed upon by me, however, it reinforces my belief that the Holy Spirit is providing this strength and joy. This, I cannot prove to anyone, but I know myself. I know my own life, and how I naturally respond to things, and there has always been a tendency to worry, but since returning to faith, that aspect of my life is gone. Again, I can't prove this to another, but why should I need to for it to be real to me?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The way they were presented by glueing them to trees was the fraud.
It is apparent that the lighter ones did not evolve into dark ones because they were no longer camouflaged and thus got gobbles up. The dark ones increased in numbers and also did not evolve.

The point remains why is there fraud when they like to say evolution is a proven fact?

It is not unlike a poster on another forum who said evolution is the ultimate and that murderers have no choice because evolution made them that way !

The peppered moth experiment was replicated (and vindicated) in 2012 by Majerus, Cook, Grant, Saccheri and Mallet:
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/8/4/609

Living organisms evolve - that is a fact of biology. Whether or not somebody once tried to pass some piece of fake evidence off for something real has no bearing on the massive amount of actual evidence that supports evolution.

What you're saying is that if somebody say, pretended to be a doctor and gave phony medical advice to someone once, then that somehow invalidates the entire field of medicine forever. Surely you can see how silly that is.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

What is the purpose of humans generally?

 

[leibowde84]

How about the frauds ?
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/

There are frauds in every area of study. Why would that say anything about the plethora of non-fraudulent evidence that supports evolution?

 

[leibowde84]

exactly, yet the evidence for natural evolution v design is identical for both isn't it? i.e. it's not evidence for either.

Whether or not evolution was "designed" by God or not, it is still supported by the evidence. There is tons of evidence that supports the ToE over creationism without speciation.