Why are there still Monkeys?

[FearGod]

I explained in the post where you cut out just the first sentence. And the post before that. I bolded the important parts. Experiments make it appear as though the building blocks themselves have knowledge potential beyond what just basic cause and effect allows. I believe intelligence is an emergent property and evolution shows it, intelligence increases with complexity.

Do you think stones have some intelligence ?

 

[metis]

I taught my pet rock to let me know if it rains (it's wet) or snows (got white stuff on it) or very windy (blows off da table).

 

[idav]

Do you think stones have some intelligence ?

Not as far as I can tell but computers have some intelligence.

 

[Man of Faith]

One of the problems we often see here is that some cannot or do not realize that their religious beliefs are not necessarily facts, therefore their religious beliefs are also not science unless it just works out that way by coincidence. Science is based on obtaining objectively-derived evidence, but religious beliefs are not based on that technique at all, instead relying on hear-say that simply cannot in most cases be confirmed. Let me demonstrate my point.

Let's say I post this: Our universe and all that's in it was created by a group of 1000 deities, all working together in harmony while singing "Kumbaya". Prove me wrong.

Now notice that I didn't say "I believe..." with the above, which would have been a far better way for me to say it. Even though you may disagree with my belief, you simply cannot prove me wrong no matter how hard you may try.

This is the nature of religious beliefs in general, namely that they are mostly unfalsifiable-- iow, you simply cannot prove them wrong. However, neither can I prove what I wrote right.

My point is that the minute one posts "God created...", they are making a mistake because it's virtually impossible to confirm that. But the minute one writes "I believe God created...", they are stating it in a more proper manner even though they still cannot confirm that they're correct.

For those of us the scientific field, we have to wear different "hats", because we simply can't confuse our objective approach that we use with science with the subjective and unfalsifiable approach with what we may believe religiously. Some don't seem to understand that we have to operate this way because we simply cannot impose our religious beliefs when it comes to science without compromising our objectivity.

When it comes to origins science, science has been wrong before, which tells us that science isn't always right. Scientists can't duplicate the beginning of the universe and all that has happened in the past. Scientists used to accept that the universe had no beginning. Well guess what, it was found out that it did which ended up supporting religion, religion won over science.

 

[Man of Faith]

There are just two possibilities. Either a thing happens by magic or it happens by mechanism; magic 'poofing' vs cause and effect.

There are physical laws which explain the mechanisms by which things happen. 'Goddidit' implies God magically overrode the very laws He, Himself put into place.
Why would He have to do that, unless His design were defective?

Natural selection/evolution implies a well-designed Universe, but makes God invisible, in fact, unnecessary.
Magic provides evidence of intervention but implies a defectively designed universe.

Just because scientists can't or haven't yet discovered what God did, doesn't mean that he didn't use a mechanism to create the universe.

 

[Man of Faith]

False. What you're ignoring are the millions of theistic evolutionists. Matter of fact, it mostly is just Muslems and fundamentalist Protestants that don't accept evolution on religious grounds.

Please show me where science accepts anything other than naturalism in the ToE.

 

[McBell]

When it comes to origins science, science has been wrong before, which tells us that science isn't always right. Scientists can't duplicate the beginning of the universe and all that has happened in the past. Scientists used to accept that the universe had no beginning. Well guess what, it was found out that it did which ended up supporting religion, religion won over science.

Now the question is why you do not hold religion to the same standards as you hold science?

You do realize that you are in violation of Mathew 7, right?

 

[McBell]

Just because scientists can't or haven't yet discovered what God did, doesn't mean that he didn't use a mechanism to create the universe.

Just because there is no evidence to suggest a god is needed for the universe to exist does not mean god does not exist.

It does make those outside your choir wonder why your god has gone to such great lengths to hide.

 

[Thief]

They're made out of the same basic building-blocks. It's all stellar matter. Everything is all stellar matter.

So God is a product of stellar matter?

Not buying that.

 

[Man of Faith]

The germ theory of disease is also a naturalistic theory, since it only relies on physical phenomena to explain it. Yet plenty of people, theists and atheists alike, accept it. Same thing with evolutionary theory. It is accepted by both theists and atheists. I believe in God while accepting evolution to be true. Do you think I'm some kind of figment of your imagination?

Belief in God isn’t the question. The question is, did god have a hand in creation? Science pre-supposes that everything that happened in the past happened naturally. There is no question about that. If God used evolution to create man, then atheists couldn’t and wouldn’t accept the theory.

 

[idav]

When it comes to origins science, science has been wrong before, which tells us that science isn't always right. Scientists can't duplicate the beginning of the universe and all that has happened in the past. Scientists used to accept that the universe had no beginning. Well guess what, it was found out that it did which ended up supporting religion, religion won over science.

What are you talking about? Science has no agenda, they dont care but the facts. Theists are scientists even.

Other than that science has not shown what a beginning of existence is. Time is so much more than the beginning of expansion. We dont know what time would be in an infinitely dense state, probably timeless in a creative state for all we know.

 

[Thief]

Belief in God isn’t the question. The question is, did god have a hand in creation? Science pre-supposes that everything that happened in the past happened naturally. There is no question about that. If God used evolution to create man, then atheists couldn’t and wouldn’t accept the theory.

And God cannot use evolution?
God created the chemistry.....and He can't manipulate it?

Science can only discover what God can do.
Science cannot remove God.

(do we agree?)

 

[Man of Faith]

You have told us many times that what you call the tree model of evolution is discredited, and that "naturalists" are heatedly debating the emerging web model. I have asked you almost as many times to link us to where this furious debate is taking place (and also to explain to us your own understanding of what the web model entails). Any chance of your doing so this time?

And I want you to debate other naturalists on this. I have no dog in the hunt so to speak. Both models are born of philosophy and built with imagination which means there will be more models in the future, as there have been in the past. I know what they answer will be, "they're all right". Everything is right as long as it is natural.

 

[Man of Faith]

And God cannot use evolution?
God created the chemistry.....and He can't manipulate it?

Science can only discover what God can do.
Science cannot remove God.

(do we agree?)

Yes, I agree that God could have used evolution if he wanted to and that science is the study of the physical which God could have created. However if we remove the philosophical pre-adherence to naturalism from science then it would have to accept that creation is a valid competing theory to evolution because the data supports the creation model as much as it does the evolution models. I also believe that God told us how he did it and I prefer to pitch my tent with him.

 

[MD]

One thing about evolution that always fascinated me was that the whole idea of abiogenesis revolves around this idea that self replicating RNA molecules somehow came into being, which led to the first forms of primordial life.

That is fascinating, because it suggests that nature somehow spontaneously created purpose, the purpose to transfer information from one generation to the next.

Wondering if anyone can provide a naturalistic explanation for that?

 

[Thief]

Yes, I agree that God could have used evolution if he wanted to and that science is the study of the physical which God could have created. However if we remove the philosophical pre-adherence to naturalism from science then it would have to accept that creation is a valid competing theory to evolution because the data supports the creation model as much as it does the evolution models. I also believe that God told us how he did it and I prefer to pitch my tent with him.

And I see Chapter One as evolution....
with Chapter Two as manipulation.

 

[Man of Faith]

What are you talking about? Science has no agenda, they dont care but the facts. Theists are scientists even.

Other than that science has not shown what a beginning of existence is. Time is so much more than the beginning of expansion. We dont know what time would be in an infinitely dense state, probably timeless in a creative state for all we know.

Science has no agenda which is why they had to let the web model of evolution out of the bag, but scientists do at times, global warming anybody?

 

[McBell]

The question is, did god have a hand in creation?

Actually, before we can even get to that question you will need to show that "creation" even happened.

Science pre-supposes that everything that happened in the past happened naturally. There is no question about that.

This is because there is not even a teeny tiny shred of objective empirical evidence that anything other than the natural has ever done anything.

If God used evolution to create man, then atheists couldn’t and wouldn’t accept the theory. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Mostly because it wouldn't be a scientific theory.
It would be nothing more than a bold empty statement.

 

[McBell]

And I want you to debate other naturalists on this. I have no dog in the hunt so to speak. Both models are born of philosophy and built with imagination which means there will be more models in the future, as there have been in the past. I know what they answer will be, "they're all right". Everything is right as long as it is natural.

So you are telling bold faced lies when you claim there is some dispute?

If not, then prove you are telling the truth by revealing this alleged dispute with something other then you making a bold empty claim.

 

[McBell]

Yes, I agree that God could have used evolution if he wanted to and that science is the study of the physical which God could have created. However if we remove the philosophical pre-adherence to naturalism from science then it would have to accept that creation is a valid competing theory to evolution because the data supports the creation model as much as it does the evolution models. I also believe that God told us how he did it and I prefer to pitch my tent with him.

The problem is that creation is not a scientific theory.
Hells bells, creation is not even a hypothesis.

Creation is nothing more than a series of bold empty claims based upon the faith of wishful thinking.