A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

I choose, from personal experience, to believe the miracles I've witnessed have a reason, and aren't just some random serendipitous act of molecules combining.

That's a false dichotomy. It relies on the baseless assumption that events are random if there is no intelligence to guide them. In reality there is no such thing as randomness in the universe, and it's more accurate to say that events have causes and not reasons. Each event is preceded by a specific series of events, and if some of those preceding events were different then the outcome event would be different. Some events may simply appear to be random because our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events.

It's certainly possible that some intelligence may be causing events to happen in the universe for specific reasons. But that possibility is a scientific matter and not a philosophical one. The origins of life and the universe are questions for science and not for religion or philosophy. That is because the physical universe exists independent of human belief.

Criticisms of evolution sometimes claim to have a scientific basis, but they're really about scriptural beliefs or philosophical arguments such as life allegedly having no meaning. Neither of those has anything to do with whether evolution has any scientific accuracy. If new evidence surfaced that resulted in a different hypothesis about origin of species, creationism would still reject that hypothesis if it didn't fit the philosophical agenda. That's the real problem with creationism - attempting to explain natural phenomena according to what is philosophically or emotionally satisfying.

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tonio

That's a false dichotomy. It relies on the baseless assumption that events are random if there is no intelligence to guide them. In reality there is no such thing as randomness in the universe, and it's more accurate to say that events have causes and not reasons. Each event is preceded by a specific series of events, and if some of those preceding events were different then the outcome event would be different. Some events may simply appear to be random because our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events.

It's certainly possible that some intelligence may be causing events to happen in the universe for specific reasons. But that possibility is a scientific matter and not a philosophical one. The origins of life and the universe are questions for science and not for religion or philosophy. That is because the physical universe exists independent of human belief.

Criticisms of evolution sometimes claim to have a scientific basis, but they're really about scriptural beliefs or philosophical arguments such as life allegedly having no meaning. Neither of those has anything to do with whether evolution has any scientific accuracy. If new evidence surfaced that resulted in a different hypothesis about origin of species, creationism would still reject that hypothesis if it didn't fit the philosophical agenda. That's the real problem with creationism - attempting to explain natural phenomena according to what is philosophically or emotionally satisfying.

Very well said, Tonio.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

That's a false dichotomy. It relies on the baseless assumption that events are random if there is no intelligence to guide them. In reality there is no such thing as randomness in the universe, and it's more accurate to say that events have causes and not reasons. Each event is preceded by a specific series of events, and if some of those preceding events were different then the outcome event would be different. Some events may simply appear to be random because our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events.

By "random", I meant without reason. No intelligence causing it to happen. No meaning behind it.
Cars can be placed in gear and walked away from. The cause of the car's motion would be the random acts of unevenness in the road, the random misalignment of the tires, etc. If it hits a person, that's a random act that had a cause, but no meaning, no reason.

It's certainly possible that some intelligence may be causing events to happen in the universe for specific reasons. But that possibility is a scientific matter and not a philosophical one. The origins of life and the universe are questions for science and not for religion or philosophy. That is because the physical universe exists independent of human belief.

And, if there is an intelligence determining what's happening - that's independant of human belief also. I don't see your point, honestly. I guess I see science and religion as very similar - in search of truth. Religion and philosophy searches for reason, for meaning. Thus, religion is a compliment to both philosophy and science. Religions attempt to answer by whom, and why. Science attempts to answer the specific detail of how.

Criticisms of evolution sometimes claim to have a scientific basis, but they're really about scriptural beliefs or philosophical arguments such as life allegedly having no meaning. Neither of those has anything to do with whether evolution has any scientific accuracy. If new evidence surfaced that resulted in a different hypothesis about origin of species, creationism would still reject that hypothesis if it didn't fit the philosophical agenda.

But, evolution doesn't attempt to answer the origin of the life. Why we're as tall as we are, or why we're bipeds is a science question for determining the details of HOW. Where life comes from isn't addressed by evolution.

That's the real problem with creationism - attempting to explain natural phenomena according to what is philosophically or emotionally satisfying.

Actually, it's attempting to explain the source of "natural" phenomena.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Tonio

That's a false dichotomy. It relies on the baseless assumption that events are random if there is no intelligence to guide them. In reality there is no such thing as randomness in the universe, and it's more accurate to say that events have causes and not reasons. Each event is preceded by a specific series of events, and if some of those preceding events were different then the outcome event would be different. Some events may simply appear to be random because our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events.

It's certainly possible that some intelligence may be causing events to happen in the universe for specific reasons. But that possibility is a scientific matter and not a philosophical one. The origins of life and the universe are questions for science and not for religion or philosophy. That is because the physical universe exists independent of human belief.

Criticisms of evolution sometimes claim to have a scientific basis, but they're really about scriptural beliefs or philosophical arguments such as life allegedly having no meaning. Neither of those has anything to do with whether evolution has any scientific accuracy. If new evidence surfaced that resulted in a different hypothesis about origin of species, creationism would still reject that hypothesis if it didn't fit the philosophical agenda. That's the real problem with creationism - attempting to explain natural phenomena according to what is philosophically or emotionally satisfying.

And yours relies on what? Nothingness. Events having a “specific series of events” that preceded it, but it all occurred out of nothing. But then you go on to say there is a possible intelligence. Can intelligence exist in a vacuum? And how can you claim God has no scientific basis when you said yourself “our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events”? Doesn’t God fall within this “senses” problem? Because we can’t see, touch or smell Him or somehow prove His existence through science He can’t possibly exist; yet so much is not provable with science because “our senses aren't capable of perceiving all the preceding events”. Perhaps science is too far behind the curve (or just too disinterested) to come up with an explanation for a concept like God.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Perhaps science is too far behind the curve (or just too disinterested) to come up with an explanation for a concept like God.

Personally, I think it's ego. For some, imagining themselves as inferior to another being is too much for their ego to handle. They can handle being animated mud, but not if it's due to a supreme being - only if it's due to happenstance. They can feel superior to everything if there's no supreme being, thus they reject any semblence of a God.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

I'm not sure why you equate creation, ID, and evolution. While ID and creation discuss the origin of life, evolution merely talks about how it changes. Evolution does not try and figure out where life came from.

However, all of the theories are that - theories. They have the same amount of science backing them. And, the same amount of faith that they'll one day have proof they're correct.Now, are you talking proof of evolution, creation, or ID here? They're all equally supported by this information above.

There is a difference between a theory based on Science and one base on Faith.

The "Creation" Museum

When you base your "Theory" on faith you end up with ideas like :

• Dinosaurs and humans, living together in harmony (Garden of Eden and Eve?)
• All animals lived harmonously until Adam's sin. There were no venomous animals (far right placard)
• Dinosaurs were reasonably small, so they were able to fit on the Ark along with the other Animals

What isnt explained is how this "Theory" is based on a book that is a conglomeration of different religions to make assimiliation into this particular belief easier.

Or that other, older beliefs, do not have the same creation story. How do you jive that other beliefs dont have an Adam & Eve/Eden creation belief? They were around before your Prequel/Sequel, if your belief is correct, how do you explain those that were around before your religion was even a concept?

[Marie]

[What I meant was you may read it but you do not understand it... !

Your opinion, although I have studied Biblical Hermeneutics and I recommend you do the same, start with Milton S Terry’s (Biblical Hermeneutics)

By the way Hermeneutics is the study of words.

Then, Irving L Jensen has a book Independent Bible Study a much easier read. Or you could also just watch the Video Herman Who.

So I respectfully disagree with you, I understand it very well! I also refer to the Hebrew Greek and Aramaic texts as well for additional word clarification.

And you believe in Calvinism, a religion based on the Bible named after a man...I believe in the Bible Named after God hence God's Word..

Did not insult you just curious how much of the Bible do you actually understand?

If you are curious about evolution...read about it..
I don't believe in evolution!

Ok I thought I corrected you on this yesterday, Calvinism is a Theology not a religion. It's what all Baptist and Presbyterians believe and a lot of others as well.

I think you really need to talk to your dad about all this stuff and then get back to me, after he explains it to you. Or do some further reading on your own.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

Read the Westminster Confession of faith or spend some time on this site or Monergism which means:
http://www.monergism.com/

In its simplest form monergism states that salvation is all from God, as opposed to synergism, which, in its simplest form, insists that God performs some action(s) leaving salvation incomplete until man performs some action(s) to complete salvation. According to monergism, a sinner is given pardon for sin by the death of Jesus, acceptance with God by the imputed righteousness of Jesus, and faith in Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Sanctification then begins either instantaneously according to some, or as an ongoing progressive process according to others. But to remain consistent to monergism, justification must be entirely of God.

I think we believe a lot of the same things I am just throwing to much new information at you at one time and it’s too much to process.

By the way if you looked at the Sola's
You would have seen Sola Scriptura translated Scripture alone.
Which means Scriupture is the authoritive word of God! Not man!
I appall man centered religion, relativism, and post modernism!

Where I assume we differ is whether the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in ACTS and those gifts are still obtainable today or if they were just for that time as to build the faith and the church.

I don’t believe in Evolution either, it’s absurd which was my whole point! It’s a theory that has been proven false, time and time again so it just evolves into a modified version, each time science shows how wrong it is.

One scientist said he knows its false, but for him to espouse that, it only leaves him with one other option a creator and its easier for him to embrace a falsehood than to except that.

So I havent a clue, as to why you think I cant understand the Bible, and seriuosly though, not to be snarky, but sit down with Dad or someone with some eduction that can explain this stuff to you, or spend a lot of time reading yourself. Listen to what 2A, Italionscallion, or starman have to say. I believe two of them are pentecostal like yourself, but our escential doctrine is always in agreement!

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by This_person

Personally, I think it's ego. For some, imagining themselves as inferior to another being is too much for their ego to handle. They can handle being animated mud, but not if it's due to a supreme being - only if it's due to happenstance. They can feel superior to everything if there's no supreme being, thus they reject any semblence of a God.

I do think it has to do with rules. When you talk about God the first response for many is "that means I have to follow a set of rules and morals" and "I have to admit I'm a sinner". This becomes an especially uncomfortable position when you have some that take their Christianity to an extreme that their way IS the way or you're going to hell. People don't want to be told they are going to hell. But I think a bigger part of this is the physical vs. spiritual aspect of things. If you can't explain it through a physical description (touch, smell, math,etc...) then it can't possible exist.

The part I find odd about this discussion is so many evolutionists will admit there is an intelligence involved in evolution without admitting their is an intelligent being that created it. It's easier to believe intelligence can exist out of nothing than to admit it could possibly be a being such as God.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

There is a difference between a theory based on Science and one base on Faith.

The "Creation" Museum

When you base your "Theory" on faith you end up with ideas like :

• Dinosaurs and humans, living together in harmony (Garden of Eden and Eve?)
• All animals lived harmonously until Adam's sin. There were no venomous animals (far right placard)
• Dinosaurs were reasonably small, so they were able to fit on the Ark along with the other Animals

What isnt explained is how this "Theory" is based on a book that is a conglomeration of different religions to make assimiliation into this particular belief easier.

Or that other, older beliefs, do not have the same creation story. How do you jive that other beliefs dont have an Adam & Eve/Eden creation belief? They were around before your Prequel/Sequel, if your belief is correct, how do you explain those that were around before your religion was even a concept?

Actually, that claim is neither true, nor consistent with what you're saying You're saying the Bible is a conglomoration of other religions, then saying that the other religions don't have the same stories. Which is it?

The fact is, there are many religions that pre-date the Bible. Those religions have ALL of the stories (among them) that the Bible has. Moses, having been raised as Egyptian royalty, would surely have been educated in these stories. If you're going to imply, imply strongly with the truth! But, that the stories pre-dated the Bible with several other Mesopotanian and Samarian religions only tends to further the idea that the stories are true, if the unimportant details are not.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I do think it has to do with rules. When you talk about God the first response for many is "that means I have to follow a set of rules and morals" and "I have to admit I'm a sinner". This becomes an especially uncomfortable position when you have some that take their Christianity to an extreme that their way IS the way or you're going to hell. People don't want to be told they are going to hell. But I think a bigger part of this is the physical vs. spiritual aspect of things. If you can't explain it through a physical description (touch, smell, math,etc...) then it can't possible exist.

The part I find odd about this discussion is so many evolutionists will admit there is an intelligence involved in evolution without admitting their is an intelligent being that created it. It's easier to believe intelligence can exist out of nothing than to admit it could possibly be a being such as God.

I agree with what you're saying about the rules. And, additional to following certain "morals", they want to believe that those morals are not the result of anything other than themselves - they can decide for themselves what morals are! They do not need some fairy tale to provide them! Dammit!!

Other than Tonio above, I've not personally heard them explain intelligence invovled in the design, other than their own intelligence in figuring out the happenstance of it.