Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Guy Threepwood]

Who concluded the Rosetta Stone has anything to do with ID?

who concluded it appeared spontaneously by natural causes?

And you further believe that Your God created that universe too.

No I believe my God created just the one. Point being that ID, intelligent agency whatever you prefer to call it, is not exclusive to God or 'supernatural'

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who concluded the Rosetta Stone has anything to do with ID?

He is using equivocation fallacies. It was made by intelligent people therefore it it "ID". Of course that is nowhere near the same ID as he uses for the diversity of life.

EDIT: No sooner said than done. In fact a bit earlier than that.

 

[ecco]

... a forensic scientist cannot conduct their science properly if they are eliminating intelligent agency from the get go

If a forensic scientist examines footprints around the scene of a crime should he consider the possibility that Satan made the footprints?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hubble's expanding universe theories were in direct contradiction to Hoyle's steady state universe theory. Hoyle, like any ego driven scientist, attacked vigorously, in any way he could including making comments like you quoted above. He also spouted utter nonsense like:

"The reason why scientists like the "big bang" is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis".​

So by Hoyle's own argument, presuming Genesis to be accurate proved the more scientifically fruitful line of investigation..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If a forensic scientist examines footprints around the scene of a crime should he consider the possibility that Satan made the footprints?

If the choice were between Satan and the flying spaghetti multiverse accidentally putting them there,- I'd say Satan was more probable yes!

 

[ecco]

....and, equally despicably, militant atheists who falsely claim to ridicule Christianity by ridiculing the bible's utility as a science textbook.

I don't falsely claim to ridicule Christianity by ridiculing the bible's utility as a science textbook. I put Christianity in the same box as all religions.

I ridicule people who read Genesis literally and demand we teach that view to children.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So by Hoyle's own argument, presuming Genesis to be accurate proved the more scientifically fruitful line of investigation..

No. That is only a reinterpretation of Genesis in light of today's knowledge. By the way, why did you not own up to your error?

 

[ecco]

He also spouted utter nonsense like:
"The reason why scientists like the "big bang" is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis".

So by Hoyle's own argument, presuming Genesis to be accurate proved the more scientifically fruitful line of investigation..

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wrong again.

Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

Darwin had a non-conformist Unitarian background, but attended a Church of Englandschool.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[2][3] On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5] By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion.[6]​

^ exactly my point. Voyage of the Beagle is a good read if you haven't already,

Dare you turn your skepticism onto your religious beliefs? Ya know, like Darwin eventually did.

I was raised atheist and remained so for several decades,, but you have to acknowledge a belief as such before you can turn skeptical towards it

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat' don't give up so easily!

 

[ecco]

a forensic scientist cannot conduct their science properly if they are eliminating intelligent agency from the get go.

If a forensic scientist examines footprints around the scene of a crime should he consider the possibility that Satan made the footprints?

If the choice were between Satan and the flying spaghetti multiverse accidentally putting them there,- I'd say Satan was more probable yes!

But that's not the choices offered. The choice is, should a forensic scientist eliminate "intelligent agency from the get go".

So, I ask again, If a forensic scientist examines footprints around the scene of a crime should he consider the possibility that Satan made the footprints?

 

[Subduction Zone]

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat' don't give up so easily!

He wasn't defeated. His post showed how you jumped from one side of an argument to another when you realized that you were wrong and worse yet you did not admit your error.

 

[ecco]

I was raised atheist and remained so for several decades,, but you have to acknowledge a belief as such before you can turn skeptical towards it

What does that mean you were raised atheist?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What does that mean you were raised atheist?

Raised and schooled by staunch atheists, I shared their beliefs passionately for a long time

 

[ecco]

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat' don't give up so easily!

Go back to post 1368 and tell me how your response makes any sense.

 

[exchemist]

and science looks to explain artifacts only in terms of artificial origins, right?

An archaeologist however might be faced with figuring out which is which. nature or artifact?... and likewise a forensic scientist cannot conduct their science properly if they are eliminating intelligent agency from the get go.. are these scientists all dabbling in the supernatural?

Likewise for cosmogony, we have no precedent, no reference for how universes are 'usually' created, that would allow us to eliminate either possibility from scientific investigation

An artifact is examined according to the same laws of nature as any other specimen. The chemical analysis, the ballistics, the DNA testing, etc.

An archaeologist may - very rarely - have to consider whether something was made by man or not. Can you give an actual example of this? I must admit I cannot think of one.

But if he has to, he will do it using techniques of natural science, and his decision about whether it is man-made or not will be guided by his knowledge of the limited range of what man (a natural creature, studied by science in the natural science of anthropology) is likely to have been able to do at the epoch in question - chip flints or whatever. So no, they are not "dabbling in the supernatural", any more than an engineer designing a bridge is dabbling in the supernatural, just because the bridge has been "designed". He or she works on the basis of the laws of nature as understood and used by engineers. Obviously.

Cosmogeny, consisting as it does of hypotheses and models as yet untestable by observation, is still a sort of proto-science* or speculative scientific metaphysics. Not to be confused with cosmology, which is excellent fully fledged science of course.



* I quote from Wiki: " Questions regarding why the universe behaves in such a way have been described by physicists and cosmologists as being extra-scientific (i.e., metaphysical), though speculations are made from a variety of perspectives that include extrapolation of scientific theories to untested regimes (i.e., at Planck scales), and philosophical or religious ideas."

 

[exchemist]

I don't falsely claim to ridicule Christianity by ridiculing the bible's utility as a science textbook. I put Christianity in the same box as all religions.

I ridicule people who read Genesis literally and demand we teach that view to children.

Who's talking about you, suddenly? What is this?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Go back to post 1368 and tell me how your response makes any sense.

Seems pretty cut and dry, but let me put it another way:

Hoyle accused people of liking the Big Bang because of their belief in Genesis, correct?
If so, that belief pointed them in the right direction as it turns out...

in other words; Hoyle's accusation kinda backfired on him

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But that's not the choices offered. The choice is, should a forensic scientist eliminate "intelligent agency from the get go".

So, I ask again, If a forensic scientist examines footprints around the scene of a crime should he consider the possibility that Satan made the footprints?

no, and the multiverse or string theory would make even less sense

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

That gets to the heart of the matter. It's seldom conceded so emphatically, but of course God MUST be presumed not to exist as a tenet of atheism, otherwise how is chance ever allowed to win by default?

We have positive evidence that processes like mutation are random. Chance is not considered a default position that you fall back on when you have no evidence for anything else. We can use statistics and experiments to positively determine if a process is random or governed by chance.