I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[exchemist]

Wow, good luck with that.


My degree is in mathematics but I have found I am far more inclined to philosophy. I wish I could go back to school for it. I also do not see any conflict between science and Christian theology. I use science more than any other field to make theological points. If there is an inherent conflict I have not found it.

Exactly, over 78% of Nobel laureates are Christians and most of the rest are Jews. Modern science was in fact founded on faith in a rational universe.

I have to go for now but I will check back next week. Have a good one.

My father converted to Catholicism from Methodism, actually. (His father was a Methodist minister, who became a prof. of church history). So we grew up in a household that understood quite clearly the differences in doctrine in these different strands of Christianity. What all of them had in common was a respect for the discoveries of science, a willingness to accept them and a recognition that the bible needs to be interpreted, just as has been done throughout the history of Christianity (starting as far back as Origen in 200AD, as I mentioned earlier), rather than read literally.

 

[Audie]

I only know of one wild camel species that can't breed with
domesticated camels or at least I think they can't and they are considered two separate species. Also this would be an example of genetic manipulation by humans and so would be irrelevant anyway. Why don't you just post your conclusion so I can consider what it is your driving at?

Never mind, after watching you in action,
no, its not worth the effort.

 

[1robin]

My father converted to Catholicism from Methodism, actually. (His father was a Methodist minister, who became a prof. of church history).

Your father is a PhD in NT history. That is cool.

So we grew up in a household that understood quite clearly the differences in doctrine in these different strands of Christianity.

I believe the bible is the final judge between any disagreements between denominations and schools of thought. Only if that is true can Christians even begin to determine who's views are correct.

What all of them had in common was a respect for the discoveries of science, a willingness to accept them and a recognition that the bible needs to be interpreted, just as has been done throughout the history of Christianity (starting as far back as Origen in 200AD, as I mentioned earlier), rather than read literally.

That is a wise world view, far too often these days the church fathers are forgotten in the light of modern discoveries. For some reason contemporary testimony is accepted for all of history except for theology.

 

[1robin]

Never mind, after watching you in action,
no, its not worth the effort.

You showed up at the end of more than a month's worth of discussions. My recent actions have been to try and reduce the number of people I am having a discussion with in order to provide more in depth responses to the few challenging and civil posters in this thread. So in or out, it is up to you.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I certainly do not know that another interpretation is correct and yours wrong. I simply believe Genesis is right even if I am unsure exactly how to interpret it.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to conclude that Genesis is wrong? Or will no evidence ever change your mind?

In general I believe a few things that Adam was the first primate that had a soul, that common descent is untrue (and has never been observed, and God (through some mechanism) created the archetype creatures of each "kind". This new debate would be intercollegiate in nature and in a different context but I am fine with having it.

So you reject common ancestry between Chihuahuas and Great Danes?

 

[exchemist]

What features would a fossil need in order for you to conclude that Genesis is wrong? Or will no evidence ever change your mind?



So you reject common ancestry between Chihuahuas and Great Danes?

Actually I thought he and I were making some progress towards a synthesis here, in which the teaching that God created the creatures is accepted from Genesis, but the means He used to do it could perfectly well have been through abiogenesis and evolution. I have been trying to explain that there does not seem to me to be anything in Genesis against that idea.

You will never browbeat 1robin into abandoning his faith, but you might - just - help him to see it in a new light that does not conflict with science.

 

[1robin]

What features would a fossil need in order for you to conclude that Genesis is wrong? Or will no evidence ever change your mind?

If I claim that no proof for macroevolution exists how can I tell you what would constitute that proof. I don't think it exists so how could I describe it to you? I already told you that finding a bone is not evidence for any kind of evolution. It isn't my burden to provide proof of anything. It is the people on the other side of the isle. It is your burden to provide a defeater for biblical biology. I am willing to be convinced by the evidence but that does not mean I know what the evidence could be. So I don't know how to answer your first question but I do think I answered the second.

So you reject common ancestry between Chihuahuas and Great Danes?

No I affirm that Chihuahuas and Great Danes, it was a dog. What I deny is (for an example) a shared ancestor for a K9 and a feline.

Tell you what call my attention to some of this evidence (just your best single example please). I will consider it in depth and tell you exactly why I find it compelling or insufficient. Having the time to do this specific thing is why I limited the number of people I debate in this thread. So have at it but lets go slower and more in depth.

 

[1robin]

Actually I thought he and I were making some progress towards a synthesis here, in which the teaching that God created the creatures is accepted from Genesis, but the means He used to do it could perfectly well have been through abiogenesis and evolution. I have been trying to explain that there does not seem to me to be anything in Genesis against that idea.

You will never browbeat 1robin into abandoning his faith, but you might - just - help him to see it in a new light that does not conflict with science.

It might be telling that your post was #666 because I can't really go along with it. Just kidding but I need to call out some of these issues.

I do not believe that abiogenesis ever occurred. Again that is exactly what science has proven. Even when scientists (which would mean intelligence was required) try and rig the experiment they couldn't create life. If that is what you were referring it I can't agree with you. The claim that it rained on the rocks until life was created is to underestimate the complexity of that original living cell.

 

[Jose Fly]

It isn't my burden to provide proof of anything. It is the people on the other side of the isle. It is your burden to provide a defeater for biblical biology.

I did. You ran away. That speaks for itself.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If I claim that no proof for macroevolution exists how can I tell you what would constitute that proof.

For fossil evidence, you could describe the criteria you used to determine that the fossils we do have are not proof for macroevolution.

Moving to a different subject, if I was accused of murder but I thought there was no proof against me I could still describe what proof could be. For example, I could say that if you found my bloody fingerprints at the crime scene that would be proof. It's not that hard of an exercise, at least in cases where you haven't taken a dogmatic position.

I already told you that finding a bone is not evidence for any kind of evolution.

So you will never accept any fossil evidence, correct? Even if we have many fossils showing a smooth transition from one group to another, that won't be evidence in your eyes?

What about genetic evidence?

It isn't my burden to provide proof of anything.

How do you prove anything to a person who is immune to proof? If you can't show that you are taking a reasonable position in the face of mountains of proof, then the burden has been met.

No I affirm that Chihuahuas and Great Danes, it was a dog.

Then you accept common ancestry, contrary to your claims.

Tell you what call my attention to some of this evidence (just your best single example please). I will consider it in depth and tell you exactly why I find it compelling or insufficient. Having the time to do this specific thing is why I limited the number of people I debate in this thread. So have at it but lets go slower and more in depth.

I have mentioned it before, but here is the link:

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

 

[exchemist]

It might be telling that your post was #666 because I can't really go along with it. Just kidding but I need to call out some of these issues.

I do not believe that abiogenesis ever occurred. Again that is exactly what science has proven. Even when scientists (which would mean intelligence was required) try and rig the experiment they couldn't create life. If that is what you were referring it I can't agree with you. The claim that it rained on the rocks until life was created is to underestimate the complexity of that original living cell.

Abiogenesis just means that there was no life and then there was life, i.e. there was a process by which life came from non-life. Nobody knows how it happened. It is the job of science, being short for natural science, to search for natural processes by which it could have occurred. The assertion that this is impossible is simply the Argument from Personal Incredulity, as it can't be demonstrated, and is just an opinion based on ignorance of the relevant science, just as an aeroplane or a computer would have seemed impossible 200 years ago. I know a lot more chemistry than you, so unsurprisingly the idea seems a lot less far fetched to me than to you. That is to be expected. But even for you it is worth bearing in mind that plenty of other phenomena we now know to be natural were once thought inexplicable and therefore the result of divine intervention, including thunderstorms and earthquakes. Which is in itself- I would argue - a good reason for science to look for a natural explanation in this case too.

As I said to you before, I see no reason why a creator could not have caused life to arise simply through the working out of the nature He had created, and I think this is perfectly consistent with the meaning of the Genesis story.

As for lab experiments not reproducing life, this is an old and rather silly creationist chestnut. Lab experiments can't reproduce plate tectonics or planetary motion or a glaciated landscape, but they are still scientific phenomena. Not all science has to be done by people in lab coats with test tubes.

 

[Audie]

It might be telling that your post was #666 because I can't really go along with it. Just kidding but I need to call out some of these issues.

I do not believe that abiogenesis ever occurred. Again that is exactly what science has proven. Even when scientists (which would mean intelligence was required) try and rig the experiment they couldn't create life. If that is what you were referring it I can't agree with you. The claim that it rained on the rocks until life was created is to underestimate the complexity of that original living cell.

It is up to you what you want to believe of course.

But backing it with a mistaken idea is questionable.

Again that is exactly what science has proven.

Not so!

First, of course we have to point out that science does
not prove things. Sometimes you can disprove thigns
with science.

A failure to produce life in a lab does not disprove
the possibility of doing it, still less the possibility that
it happened naturally under unknown conditions

What has been demonstrated is that nothing that has
been tried will work.

You might want to start a business. Edison might
want to make a light bulb.

After 5 tries that all failed, has it been proven that
you cannot run a business, nor Edison make a light
bulb?

Id say it means that nothing you or he
have tried will work.

I'd be interested if you see what I am saying.

 

[1robin]

I did. You ran away. That speaks for itself.

What you responded to was a post to someone else and you lifted it out of context. I specifically told you that I was bringing our discussion to a close because you don't post anything unique. See post #542, I won't respond to you in this thread beyond this, for now.

 

[1robin]

For fossil evidence, you could describe the criteria you used to determine that the fossils we do have are not proof for macroevolution.

Let me put it another way. I regard fossils as the best evidence there is for macroevolution but I have so many other reasons to believe macroevolution has not occurred that the fossil evidence alone is not enough to sway my opinion.

Moving to a different subject, if I was accused of murder but I thought there was no proof against me I could still describe what proof could be. For example, I could say that if you found my bloody fingerprints at the crime scene that would be proof. It's not that hard of an exercise, at least in cases where you haven't taken a dogmatic position.

In this context the evidence for a murder is radically different from evidence that a fish evolved into a lizard. I could tell you what evidence you need to prove someone murdered someone but I can't think of what evidence a fossil has to have to demonstrate macroevolution. If I don't think there is evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record I can't tell you what to look for. Its like asking me what evidence on the dark side of the moon do I think would prove who murdered JFK.

So you will never accept any fossil evidence, correct? Even if we have many fossils showing a smooth transition from one group to another, that won't be evidence in your eyes?

No, I would except it but I can't tell you where to find it or what it looks like. It is your job to find this smoking gun not mine.

What about genetic evidence?

Any biological evidence.

I just thought of something you could provide. Provide strong evidence for abiogenesis. There, now you have a specific thing to provide.

How do you prove anything to a person who is immune to proof? If you can't show that you are taking a reasonable position in the face of mountains of proof, then the burden has been met.

Not doing your job for you is not evidence I wouldn't accept a job that is well done.

Then you accept common ancestry, contrary to your claims.

Your not listening to me are you. For the last time I will lay out my position.

1. The bible affirms evolution within "kinds". In this case everything was a type of dog and so it is evidence for microevolution.
2. The bible suggests that macroevolution has not occurred. That means the your example does not fall into this category nor in the category of common descent.

At this point I do not expect you agree but I do think you should understand my position by now.

I have mentioned it before, but here is the link:

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

Yes you have but you still have not done as requested. I want you to find the best point made at the site you provided the link to. If what you copy and paste from that site appears to be challenging and relevant I will go to the site and read more of it, then I will respond. I am not going to waste the entire day blindly following every link I am given, that can't be done nor should it. I am willing to follow a link if those conditions are met. Heck I would be happy if you simply acknowledged that you understand my request.

I am getting discouraged having to restate my same positions over and over and over again.

 

[Jose Fly]

What you responded to was a post to someone else and you lifted it out of context.

Now you're simply not telling the truth.

HERE is what you wrote:

The bible claims evolution only occurs within breeding populations. I affirm that and claim no one has observed one breeding population evolve into another.

So to counter my position you must show that in fact one breeding population is known to have evolved into another.​

I responded by doing exactly what you stated would counter your position, i.e., I posted multiple documented examples of breeding populations giving rise to new, separate breeding populations. I even did so in various formats (a link, personal description, and copy and paste) because you refused to do a simple mouse click.

I specifically told you that I was bringing our discussion to a close because you don't post anything unique. See post #542, I won't respond to you in this thread beyond this, for now.

That's the thing about holding debates in written format.....everyone can see exactly what took place and who said what. In this case, it's simply a matter of written record that you posted the above challenge, and once I met that challenge by providing scientific information, you have done everything except address that information.

Your behavior speaks for itself and is there for all to see.

 

[1robin]

Abiogenesis just means that there was no life and then there was life, i.e. there was a process by which life came from non-life. Nobody knows how it happened.

But abiogenesis claims that this happen as the result of completely natural means. That is what I am denying.

It is the job of science, being short for natural science, to search for natural processes by which it could have occurred.

They have been trying to do this for decades and have failed every single time.

The assertion that this is impossible is simply the Argument from Personal Incredulity, as it can't be demonstrated, and is just an opinion based on ignorance of the relevant science, just as an aeroplane or a computer would have seemed impossible 200 years ago. I know a lot more chemistry than you, so unsurprisingly the idea seems a lot less far fetched to me than to you. That is to be expected. But even for you it is worth bearing in mind that plenty of other phenomena we now know to be natural were once thought inexplicable and therefore the result of divine intervention, including thunderstorms and earthquakes. Which is in itself- I would argue - a good reason for science to look for a natural explanation in this case too.

I am not saying it can't happen, I am claiming that there is no evidence it did happen. Or at least no compelling evidence. The faith that it did happen is usually presumed based on whether the scientists happens to be a materialism. This is called scientism.

As I said to you before, I see no reason why a creator could not have caused life to arise simply through the working out of the nature He had created, and I think this is perfectly consistent with the meaning of the Genesis story.

Well then this admission assumes a God exists which validates my own position.

As for lab experiments not reproducing life, this is an old and rather silly creationist chestnut. Lab experiments can't reproduce plate tectonics or planetary motion or a glaciated landscape, but they are still scientific phenomena. Not all science has to be done by people in lab coats with test tubes.

Well, in addition to it being a creationist chestnut it is also a statement of fact. Things that can't be produced in the lab are not some monolithic block which must stand or fall together. No one should be able to reproduce plate tectonics in a lab but if it is so easy to produce life that randomness could do it then it should be easy to do so in a lab. That is why they have tried to do it so many times.

 

[1robin]

It is up to you what you want to believe of course.

But backing it with a mistaken idea is questionable.

Again that is exactly what science has proven.

Not so!

First, of course we have to point out that science does
not prove things. Sometimes you can disprove thigns
with science.

A failure to produce life in a lab does not disprove
the possibility of doing it, still less the possibility that
it happened naturally under unknown conditions

What has been demonstrated is that nothing that has
been tried will work.

You might want to start a business. Edison might
want to make a light bulb.

After 5 tries that all failed, has it been proven that
you cannot run a business, nor Edison make a light
bulb?

Id say it means that nothing you or he
have tried will work.

I'd be interested if you see what I am saying.

Before I invest significant time in replying to you I want to make sure you want to have this discussion. You recently led me to believe you didn't, have you changed your mind?

 

[Audie]

Before I invest significant time in replying to you I want to make sure you want to have this discussion. You recently led me to believe you didn't, have you changed your mind?

I am always up for a reasoned sensible discussion.

It should not take much time, the concepts I expressed
are simple.

If it is your take that anyone has proved that abio
is impossible, that is not a biggie to see how that
is not at all what has happened.

All that has been shown is that it has so far
not been done.

If you agree, then there is not much more to say
on that.

 

[exchemist]

But abiogenesis claims that this happen as the result of completely natural means. That is what I am denying.

They have been trying to do this for decades and have failed every single time.

I am not saying it can't happen, I am claiming that there is no evidence it did happen. Or at least no compelling evidence. The faith that it did happen is usually presumed based on whether the scientists happens to be a materialism. This is called scientism.

Well then this admission assumes a God exists which validates my own position.

Well, in addition to it being a creationist chestnut it is also a statement of fact. Things that can't be produced in the lab are not some monolithic block which must stand or fall together. No one should be able to reproduce plate tectonics in a lab but if it is so easy to produce life that randomness could do it then it should be easy to do so in a lab. That is why they have tried to do it so many times.

Actually they haven't. Where do you get this idea from? Nobody so far as I know, has ever been so stupid as to try to recreate life in the lab from inorganic starting materials. Any biochemist knows that is far too complex a task to be feasible. All people have done is to model certain elements of what could have been the process.

Your comment about abiogenesis seems to be a bit garbled: " based on whether the scientists happens to be a materialism" ??. Finger trouble?. But I think I know what you are saying and it is wrong. I have already gone to the trouble of explaining to you how it is possible to reconcile the biblical idea of creation with a world that operates according to natural processes. I had thought from your reaction that you had understood that. Thousands of scientists are religious believers, after all. What you are doing is to confuse methodological naturalism, which is part of the way science is done, with philosophical materialism or physicalism, which is the worldview that the tangible physical world is all there is.

Understand this: science is the search for explanations of nature in terms of nature. You can perfectly well study nature in this way and still believe there is more to the world and our existence than mere molecules.

 

[1robin]

Now you're simply not telling the truth.

HERE is what you wrote:

The bible claims evolution only occurs within breeding populations. I affirm that and claim no one has observed one breeding population evolve into another.

So to counter my position you must show that in fact one breeding population is known to have evolved into another.​

I responded by doing exactly what you stated would counter your position, i.e., I posted multiple documented examples of breeding populations giving rise to new, separate breeding populations. I even did so in various formats (a link, personal description, and copy and paste) because you refused to do a simple mouse click.


That's the thing about holding debates in written format.....everyone can see exactly what took place and who said what. In this case, it's simply a matter of written record that you posted the above challenge, and once I met that challenge by providing scientific information, you have done everything except address that information.

Your behavior speaks for itself and is there for all to see.

Sorry but as I stated in post #542 we are done for now in this thread.