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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Then he fundamentally misunderstands what it means to use scientific inquiry in a retrospective fashion. In terms of retrospective inquiry we begin at the end - we are in the wonderful position of knowing how things turned out, we also have evidence on hand that suggests certain events occurring at certain time periods. A scientifically sound basis for examination of this in an attempt o 'wind back the clock' so to speak or determine a prior state is to attempt to discern the potential ways in which this could have occurred by recognising things like evidence of temporal frames, logically necessary sequences and more. This provides a very abstract model of understanding of prior events - it is also a model which facilitates inclusion of subsequently discovered evidence. This abstract model is wholly - entirely - absolutely - amenable to evolutionary theory, in addition, more specific evidence such as genetic sequencing not merely support this account but provide extraordinary insight above and beyond this initial abstract model - as DNA is basically a record of prior generations which survived long enough to reproduce.
Evolution isnt random. I dont think anyone believes the spectacular diversity of life originated randomly.
His quote is quite revealing - he is a religious fundamentalist who does not in any way use the scientific model in his discussion of the apparent division between religion and science on factual claims. Its sad because he is apparently quite the competent scientist; however his comments reveal a fundamental rejection of naturalism as a potentially valid enterprise (not that it is correct, but rather that it is valid) - it is therefore fundamentally unscientific. This shows just how intricate the mind's ability to compartmentalise; on one hand a beautiful capacity to modify and apply scientific models to new scenarios and on the other a dramatic unwillingness (or incompetence) in applying even scientific principles (let alone models) to already scribed ideological positions.
Indeed, ttechsan's OPs are quickly taking on the character of spam. Relentless threads decrying evolution with mined quotes, followed by a complete lack reasoned responses on his part. Spaming or just trolling, I've lost interest in anything he has to say, and decline to engage him in further discussions---a position I'm surprised more people here haven't taken up. But to each his own.
Science is naturalistic by definition - science is the study of the natural world.
A lot of out-of-sequence fossils would refute it (at least in terms of the "common ancestry" aspect).
George Costanza is right!
Very much so. Any kind of science that threatens a person's deep rooted beliefs are fought against. It's a psychological thing. Has to do with how we frame our existence and understanding of reality. We create an image of what we learn, and it gets stuck. Rational arguments only work if the person is willing to challenge his/her established beliefs.
Not Naturalistic Atheism, but Naturalism. Only Naturalism. People who subscribe to Theistic Evolution are not Atheists but still believe in Naturalism. Nature as God's tool.
I think he was talking about Astronomy in that quote and not Evolution.
Or you try to look at the context when and why it was said. I assume you'd like people to quote and reference Bible quotes in accordance with their contexts and not just quote-mined.
Right. The key here though is that Naturalism isn't atheistic.