Theistic Evolution?

[leibowde84]

never stated they were mutually exclusive the same but when used in context they can be. scientist are seeking intelligence/information in the things they study, just as the military seeks information.

the word information comes from the root word to inform. meaning to give form to something.

seriously you can use a merriam webster dictionary definition and refuse to accept a thesaurus?

I'm not refusing to accept the thesaurus. I am pointing out that the way you used it, it is not the correct context for it to have the same meaning as "intelligence". "Intelligence" in the military context is merely "information" about the enemy. In the context we are using, Scientists seek to gain "intelligence" FROM "information". Intelligence comes from the understanding of information.

 

[leibowde84]

never stated they were mutually exclusive the same but when used in context they can be. scientist are seeking intelligence/information in the things they study, just as the military seeks information.

the word information comes from the root word to inform. meaning to give form to something.

seriously you can use a merriam webster dictionary definition and refuse to accept a thesaurus?

All in all, how is this even relevant to this thread? Maybe we should move on.

 

[Fool]

I'm not refusing to accept the thesaurus. I am pointing out that the way you used it, it is not the correct context for it to have the same meaning as "intelligence". "Intelligence" in the military context is merely "information" about the enemy. In the context we are using, Scientists seek to gain "intelligence" FROM "information". Intelligence comes from the understanding of information.

and information can come in any form. intelligence can come in any form. whether it is self aware, or aware of other self, is an issue for some.

that is the idea i'm conveying. something that can understand is not necessarily like that which can't but that doesn't mean there isn't something of intelligence/information there.

 

[leibowde84]

and information can come in any form. intelligence can come in any form. whether it is self aware, or aware of other self, is an issue for some.

that is the idea i'm conveying. something that can understand is not necessarily like that which can't but that doesn't mean there isn't something of intelligence/information there.

How is this relevant to the question at hand? Can you define God, or is that impossible?

 

[Gambit]

An argument (of any kind) that enlists God as a cause merely because of a claim that science is unable to explain something is actually the definition of a God of the Gaps argument. And, no one on earth currently knows the limits of science. That is merely a speculative assumption.

Wrong! Science confines itself to natural causes and explanations. The mystery of existence is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific issue. (For more details, see my thread entitled "Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments.")

 

[leibowde84]

Wrong! Science confines itself to natural causes and explanations. The mystery of existence is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific issue. (For more details, see my thread entitled "Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments.")

I saw your thread, and I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t agree with your conclusions. The idea that metaphysics and science are mutually exclusive and don’t overlap is a thing of the past. We now know that scientists study the nature of reality, just as metaphysicians do. For example, the idea of quantum mechanics in the past would have been thought of as being “beyond physics”, a way that many ancient philosophers described metaphysics. But, while this is accurate in a way, it in no way escapes the realm of science. Sure, it’s a young endeavor, but the scientific method is being used to learn more about the behavior of sub-atomic particles on the quantum level.


So, while the question “why do we have consciousness” or “why are we here” might be metaphysical questions, inquiries into how matter came from nothing (which is not exactly accurate or known to be the case) or whether any verifiable evidence for God might come about are certainly scientific questions.


Before we go on, can you explain why you think the following (fyi, I read your other posts, so I was hoping you could be a bit more clear with your answers to these)?

1. Why is the question “how is there something rather than nothing” a metaphysical one?

2. Why, if it is a metaphysical question, can it not also by a scientific question?

3. Apart from claims regarding the limitations of science, which are somewhat meaningless as there are no authorities in science, why do you assume to know that the scientific method won’t someday be able to provide us insight into metaphysical questions?

 

[Fool]

How is this relevant to the question at hand? Can you define God, or is that impossible?

as noted before and reiterated again, god, or love, is not something separate from self. the potential is there. love enlightens

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

https://www.wordnik.com/words/enlighten


spiritual = mental

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mental?s=t

even in the english the root of spiritual is spirit and pertains to a state of mind.

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

spirit in hebrew is ruach; which also means mind

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7307&t=KJV

 

[leibowde84]

as noted before and reiterated again, god, or love, is not something separate from self. the potential is there. love enlightens

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

https://www.wordnik.com/words/enlighten


spiritual = mental

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mental?s=t

even in the english the root of spiritual is spirit and pertains to a state of mind.

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

spirit in hebrew is ruach; which also means mind

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7307&t=KJV

So, God is not a conscious being?

 

[Fool]

So, God is not a conscious being?

no love is consciousness. self-awareness is consciousness of self. love doesn't differentiate between self and other self, because I AM that i am. all things come from one thing. empathy is the ability to feel what another feels. mirror neurons. god is the totality of all beingness. the ability to understand this otherness.


http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/do_mirror_neurons_give_empathy


reminds you of entanglement; which has been proven to be true. thus everything may be interconnected at the quantum level.


humans do not create more knowledge. they just grasp what is already there. the senses and brain are designed solely to capture, translate, assimilate, and redistribute information/intelligence.


http://www.cnet.com/news/physicists-prove-einsteins-spooky-quantum-entanglement/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/s...t-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html?_r=0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...oky-quantum-entanglement-phenomenon-real.html
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9...universe-is-spooky-proving-einstein-wrong.htm

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Maybe, if you completely ignore genetics.

Right, and whenever one points out that genetics, DNA, does not survive long enough to provide a historical record of evolution, evolutionists say ' maybe, if you completely ignore the fossil record'..

squeeze this balloon theory at both ends, it bursts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right, and whenever one points out that genetics, DNA, does not survive long enough to provide a historical record of evolution, evolutionists say ' maybe, if you completely ignore the fossil record'..

squeeze this balloon theory at both ends, it bursts.

Why are you looking at the evidence separately, as individual components, rather than as a whole? That sounds like the problem. (Plus the bad car analogy that doesn't really work because automobiles aren't biological organisms.)

Evidence for evolution is drawn from practically every field of science - it isn't just genetic evidence OR fossil evidence OR geological evidence, etc. When all the evidence from all the fields of science is combined, it all points to evolution being the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Hence why it is, and has been the prevailing theory for over a century.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wrong! Science confines itself to natural causes and explanations. The mystery of existence is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific issue. (For more details, see my thread entitled "Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments.")

No, science applies to ANY falsifiable explanation. If you come up with a "supernatural" explanation that's falsifiable, science can speak to it.

... and if your "supernatural" explanation isn't falsifiable, why should anyone accept it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why are you looking at the evidence separately, as individual components, rather than as a whole? That sounds like the problem. (Plus the bad car analogy that doesn't really work because automobiles aren't biological organisms.)

Evidence for evolution is drawn from practically every field of science - it isn't just genetic evidence OR fossil evidence OR geological evidence, etc. When all the evidence from all the fields of science is combined, it all points to evolution being the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Hence why it is, and has been the prevailing theory for over a century.

That's what I'm saying, take the whole balloon, two inconclusive sets of evidence do not multiply to make one conclusive one . .5 x .5 = .25. We have to compound the parts that are missing in each as problems, as well as the parts that are present as evidence

And I don't really want to get into classical physics again, but I only bring it up as often as evolution is put on the same pedestal- of enduring consensus across wide fields, 'undeniable evidence', comprehensive explanatory power.

All these things can and have been the result of erroneously extrapolating superficial observations for a very elegant, tempting, but overly simplistic explanation for something we desperately want to understand.

The main difference being- that classical physics was far more directly observable, measurable, repeatable in experiment, and hence prevailed 'immutable' for longer than evolution has been around as a theory.

 

[Theunis]

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

Human nature says if you lie about something then you are a liar which is something hard to live down. What I said merely emphasizes the foregoing.

 

[leibowde84]

Human nature says if you lie about something then you are a liar which is something hard to live down. What I said merely emphasizes the foregoing.

I agree, the frauds shouldn't be trusted. But, that has no bearing scientific discoveries made by other scientists who we have no reason to distrust.

 

[Theunis]

I agree, the frauds shouldn't be trusted. But, that has no bearing scientific discoveries made by other scientists who we have no reason to distrust.

I agree.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree.

Well then, there is tons of verifiable evidence that supports evolution that was not discovered by the "frauds" you mentioned. So, why doubt their conclusions?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's what I'm saying, take the whole balloon, two inconclusive sets of evidence do not multiply to make one conclusive one . .5 x .5 = .25. We have to compound the parts that are missing in each as problems, as well as the parts that are present as evidence

What inconclusive sets of data are you talking about? All the data points to the same explanation.

And I don't really want to get into classical physics again, but I only bring it up as often as evolution is put on the same pedestal- of enduring consensus across wide fields, 'undeniable evidence', comprehensive explanatory power.

All these things can and have been the result of erroneously extrapolating superficial observations for a very elegant, tempting, but overly simplistic explanation for something we desperately want to understand.

The main difference being- that classical physics was far more directly observable, measurable, repeatable in experiment, and hence prevailed 'immutable' for longer than evolution has been around as a theory.

I'm not interested in getting into classical physics with you.

Evolution is observable, measurable, repeatable and predictable which again, is why it is the prevailing scientific theory used to explain the diversity of life on earth. It is fairly easily falsifiable, and yet it still stands as the most comprehensive explanation. The amount of evidence from multiple independent researchers in multiple different fields of science that supports the theory is quite overwhelming.

 

[leibowde84]

What inconclusive sets of data are you talking about? All the data points to the same explanation.


I'm not interested in getting into classical physics with you.

Evolution is observable, measurable, repeatable and predictable which again, is why it is the prevailing scientific theory used to explain the diversity of life on earth. It is fairly easily falsifiable, and yet it still stands as the most comprehensive explanation. The amount of evidence from multiple independent researchers in multiple different fields of science that supports the theory is quite overwhelming.

Very well-put.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Human nature says if you lie about something then you are a liar which is something hard to live down. What I said merely emphasizes the foregoing.

Which is why people who commit fraud in the scientific community end up being exiled from that community and basically destroying their own career.
Kind of like when a doctor is found guilty of malpractice.