Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

[Brian2]

Evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident. To be evidence is to be evident. What cannot be detected cannot be called evidence. It's an incoherent concept. Its parts don't cohere.

All arguments that claim that something exists but is beyond the realm of detection even in principle (as opposed to contingently inaccessible to empiricists while awaiting the next microscope or telescope to reveal previously undetected aspects of reality) are similarly incoherent. You just described a God as being undetectable but evidenced.

We can actually detect God but not by science. We detect God by what He has done.
This can be seen in nature and in events in the past. The Bible tells us of events and prophecy that has come true and it is evident that if those stories are true that God exists.

There is no known reason why nature couldn't have created DNA and life without intelligent oversight. Why would intelligence be needed to invent a language that intelligence wasn't needed to use? What you're describing is a mechanism, not a literal language or code. The solar system is a mechanism. So is a wristwatch, but only one needed intelligent oversight to arrange itself.
A language is a system of artificial symbols. The language of life is all natural. It inheres in the nature of the elements of material reality. The language is the pulling and pushing of particles passively responding to assorted forces, here holding a nucleus together in a phosphorus atom, there forming a covalent bond between amino acids in a nascent protein being oriented and aligned according to hydrogen bonds between nucleic acids being transcribed. It's an orchestra that needs no conductor.

It needs no conductor because it was designed to work without one.
There is no known reason why and there is no how for nature to design a system that does what you describe. Was it accidental that DNA became a data storage place where molecules access the data so to use to build a body?
So that is the sort of evidence for a God. It is evident to some and others can't see it.

Agreed. There are three ways to think about gods - yes, no, and I don't know - but only two ways live regarding theism and religion: in it or out of it. Most I-don't-knows choose the latter, but there are a few agnostic theists. The argument for being an agnostic theist has to be something practical like Pascal's Wager or some of the psychological or social arguments for theism promoting a sense of well-being or community or longevity, since it isn't belief in gods. I find no benefit there, and so do not drink from that cup.

There are probably a lot of agnostic theists who say they don't know but still believe. If people know God exists then it is no longer faith. Faith can lead to greater certainty or even to lesser certainty, but it remains faith.

Agreed. If man ever discovers a chain of chemical processes connecting atoms and small molecules to life, it will not disprove gods, nor prove that that was the path nature took. But this would be evidence against gods, just as the opposite is true, that the failure to do this makes the existence of gods a little more likely. Evidence for a deity would be any finding better explained supernaturalistically than naturalistically. Presently, we believe that it is very likely that life will be explainable naturalistically, but if in 10,000 years the puzzle still has not been solved, the argument for an intelligent designer improves, albeit not to the point of making the intelligent designer likely, just less unlikely.

The odds are made up by each .
It's the same with the odds for finding more life in the universe. We let people influence us in one direction or another for some reason. Atheists usually teach the atheist position and theists the theist position.

Regarding the comment that evidence for or against a god is any observation that makes the existence of a god more or less likely, the advent first of deism and then atheism and secular humanism followed the two waves of scientific progress characterizing modernity. The first wave of scientists revealed a clockwork universe requiring no intelligent oversight to run day to day, and the builder-ruler god became the builder god who then disappeared (deism). The second wave of scientists showed us how the universe could assemble itself without intelligent oversight, and atheism became a tenable position. Every time that what was previously attributed to an intelligence was shown to not need that, the god of the gaps became smaller and less likely.

The builder god did not disappear because of a clockwork universe. That may have been a perception by some however.
It is interesting that the belief in a reasonable God led to trying to understand the universe and instead of that increasing faith in that rational God who made the universe so that it could be understood, it was turned against God. It's sort of circular reasoning in a subtle way.
I find it interesting that the natural thing to do in the ignorant past was to attribute gaps in knowledge to God and it became clear that this was not a good argument to use after the gaps were being filled with knowledge. But for some it wasn't a case of "now we know so we don't need the god of the gaps idea because the god of rationality has idea has increased our faith", it was a case of, "science has shown us that we do not need god/s". But really finding mechanisms for how a rational universe works does not eliminate the need for god/s, unless we thought that the only reason for belief in god/s was the gaps. And of course if we thought that god/s do not hold all things together and keep them working smoothly.

 

[shunyadragon]

So science can never say that life is just chemistry and physics until it creates life from mixing chemicals in the right environment.
.

No to all of the above, which is a distortion of my posts with a religious agenda.

Science-based Methodological Naturalism simply cannot falsify any theories and hypotheses without physical evidence regardless of any past and future discoveries and research. There is no such thing as just 'mixing chemicals.' Yes, the environment and changing environments suitable for abiogenesis and evolution is found necessary for the right conditions for life.

Science can never claim that Moses never existed and the Exodus never happened or that YHWH did not appear to Moses in a burning bush.

Of course, science cannot falsify any religious beliefs not based on objectively verifiable evidence regardless of the religion. This includes the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism Hinduism and any other religion where the beliefs lack verifiable evidence, Science does not or cannot make conclusions without evidence.

Science is neutral to any religious claims and beliefs that lack objective evidence,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We can actually detect God but not by science. We detect God by what He has done.

We don't detect anything except empirically, that is, through the evidence of the senses, whether aided by detectors or unaided. An intuition that there is a god out there is not detection. It's a speculation about the meaning of a feeling. It doesn't become detection until it impacts the senses.

The Bible tells us of events and prophecy that has come true and it is evident that if those stories are true that God exists.

Biblical prophecy isn't evidence for divine prescience. It's very human, and not even the best of human prophecy. For that, we turn to science, where specific and unlikely prophecies are often confirmed, such as Einstein's prophecy that gravity bends light, or the prophecies of the Big Bang theory regarding the cosmic microwave background and the ratio of the lightest elements in primordial nebulae, or the Higgs boson, which was found at the precise energy and with the precise charge and spin characteristics prophesied. And even this is not evidence for a deity.

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?" - Carl Sagan

There is no known reason why and there is no how for nature to design a system that does what you describe.

Correct if you mean more than following the laws of nature. There is no known reason why they are the way they are. We know how - symmetry breaking in the early universe, as one superforce fragmented into four and a zoo of particles appeared - but not why that happened or why it happened that way.

Was it accidental that DNA became a data storage place where molecules access the data so to use to build a body?

It was either naturalisitic, meaning unintended, or the design of an intelligent agent.

So that is the sort of evidence for a God. It is evident to some and others can't see it.

The evidence is there for all to see. That's what makes it evidence. If you are referring to something not evident, it shouldn't be called evidence.

And though individuals make these judgments about what evidence means to them, if they can't make a compelling supporting argument connecting that evidence to sound conclusions, then that judgment is rejected. Thus, we have a community of critical thinkers in agreement about the rules of reasoning applied to evidence, and a community of people unschooled in those methods and generally unaware that they exist coming to other conclusions. They will consider their judgments as valid as any other.

The odds are made up by each .

Once again, not all judgments are equal.

The builder god did not disappear because of a clockwork universe.

The ruler-builder god of the Abrahamic religions became the builder god of deism when it was shown that the day-to-day operations of the cosmos didn't require oversight - that the sun would get through the sky without being pulled by chariots of angels, for example.

The builder god of deism is not also a ruler god like the Abrahamic deity, which is why he was proposed. His building skills were no longer needed when it was shown that the universe could assemble itself blindly.

It is interesting that the belief in a reasonable God led to trying to understand the universe

In the West, rational skepticism was first introduced by the ancient Greek philosophers, whose skepticism about the claims that natural events were punishments from capricious gods led to free speculation about reality. Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) suggested that everything was a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover.

Christianity is antithetical to this kind of rogue speculation about nature:

• "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther

• "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." - St. Augustine

But really finding mechanisms for how a rational universe works does not eliminate the need for god/s, unless we thought that the only reason for belief in god/s was the gaps

I have no need for gods. Science has no need of gods. People who need them need them for psychological reasons. Perhaps they're uncomfortable with "We don't know" for an answer. Or perhaps they're looking for something else - a sense of security or immortality or purpose or community. They need a god belief.

 

[Brian2]

Skilled critical thinkers disagree that what theists offer as evidence for a god is actually that. The usual evidence offered is the existence of life, or of the world, and even the words of prophets and messengers. RF used to have an active creationist that posted photo arrays of the wonders of nature as evidence for God. Such things have naturalistic explanations. As long as it is possible to explain some phenomenon naturalistically, that explanation is always preferred per Occam's parsimony principle.

Remember, what is sufficient evidence to any given judge of it is not necessarily sufficient according to academic standards.

It sounds like a lot of effort trying to think up (make an educated guess) on how something might have evolved, and then to call that science sounds dishonest when it cannot be tested.
I like the time lapse spider web making. This video has explanations added.
It's great for scientists to find out more about God's creation and what God has told His creatures to do.
I don't know how spider web making is thought to have evolved but whatever it is, I know it is just belief based on the naturalistic methodology and is not testable science.

You might be using the word faith in two different ways. I have no unjustified beliefs of which I am aware. If I discovered one, I would question why I believe it, and if I couldn't justify the belief, discard it. I don't take leaps of faith. I often act with incomplete information, but that is not like religious faith. I have faith that my car will probably start the next time I try to start it, but not that there probably or definitely is a god or an afterlife. The former is justified belief based in experience. My car usually - but not always - starts. The belief that it will start again but not necessarily is correct, and completely different from religious-type faith, even if both are at times called faith.

Possibly I am but using faith in 2 different ways. Religious faith is acting with incomplete information of course and the person may think that the incomplete information is complete enough to justify acting (religious faith ultimately being action and not just a head belief). Moving ahead in that path of faith usually requires enough positive reinforcement to continue stepping forward in the faith.

I had written, "Things that exist occupy space and time, and interact with other things that exist, the sum of all such objects and processes comprising reality and the set of real things. Thing that don't exist do none of those things."

Your depiction of this deity becomes incoherent whenever you have it thinking or acting outside of time, and when you describe it as changeless as its mental state evolves. Thinking requires time.

Ultimately I imagine it is a case of God, outside of time, knowing instead of God thinking.
But I would say that God can step into time if He wants to and operate like that and find out things as they come up in time instead of just knowing them. But God already knows what He will think and do about these things.

The word existence means existence in time. A flower that exists will have a time and place in which it can interact with the rest of reality, where it can be seen, smelled, and perhaps picked. When it ceases to exist, when it has been reduced to its components, all of that changes. The component may still exist and be experienced in various times and places, but the flower does not exist. If the species of flower goes extinct, nowhere in the world can one experience one. If it is cloned back into existence, then once again, there will be times and places when and where one can experience one.

These qualities of the existent are a package. Nothing that can be said to exist has only some of them, such as existing but existing nowhere, or existing, but at no time, or existing, but unable to be detected even in principle. Whatever exists has all of those qualities.

God reveals Himself to us. Detect is a bit clinical for God. God draws people to Him is what the Bible says. So our detecting God is actually God revealing Himself. That of course is a bit like science. The old fashioned was finding what God has done in a place of having a basic knowledge of the nature of reality and the new fashioned is finding how things work and trying to work out the nature of reality.
They are both based on an initial belief about the nature of reality however. The scientific method is naturalistic and so ends with a naturalistic universe.
And let's face it, most people want to be able to say they know, and leaving it at, we don't know yet does not happen in popular science.

Whatever can interact with any element of nature is another element of nature.

The concept of supernatural is also incoherent. What makes something not natural (using the meaning that is the opposite of supernatural rather than the one that is the opposite of artificial)? Supernaturalism is the verbal sleight-of-hand used when one wants to invoke a deity that detect and affect us but be undetectable. This is how one describes the nonexistent that he imagines affects nature. But that's incoherent. If it can affect us, we can detect that. If it can't be detected even in principle, it doesn't exist. There is no middle ground where one of these can occur but not the other.

Are you familiar with Sagan's dragon in the garage? Sagan claims to have one there, but it has no physical manifestations. It's invisible. The heat of its fire is undetectable. Throwing flour on it or on the floor reveals nothing. There is no way to detect it at any time or in any place even in principle, but he says it's there anyway. Then Sagan asks what the difference is between this situation and no dragon.

Would you believe him? Now imagine that Sagan can convince his neighbors that the dragon can harm them after they die, and that it has commands for them to obey that it gave him to relay. Would you believe that?

Suppose you told him that didn't believe him. He wants to know how you can prove that the dragon doesn't exist. You tell him you can't. Then, since you can't, he calls it a leap of faith to not believe, and chastises those who choose to live as adragonists for their arrogance and impiety, blaming the ills of the world on such unbelief and the dragon's displeasure with it.

God is a dragon who has revealed Himself in time and by His deeds and those to whom God has revealed Himself should not be too harsh on anyone else.
The supernatural is part of us. We have a spirit and God communicates with us through our spirit. It is interesting for me that in NDEs people have reported seeing and hearing verifiable incidents in the room where they are or even in adjoining rooms, while they were classified as unconscious and brain dead, but the bias against saying that this shows a human spirit is such that it takes courage for people who have studied such things to claim what is "evident".

If the FSM existed, then yes, it would be physical, real, a part of nature, capable of affecting other parts of reality and being affected by some of them, and (contingently) detectable.

As I said God is detectable in what He has done and God can be discerned as having had huge impact on people over the years and on nations and the whole world. But that is detected by belief or it is nothing but ideas having their impact. It seems to be as some atheists would say, "In order to believe in God you first have to believe in God". But I think it should be "In order to detect God you first have to believe in God". ........... otherwise it is just something that requires a natural explanation.
God is not amenable to empirical research but to sincere seeking to the extent that you are willing to believe without full information.

 

[Brian2]

Once again. no one is saying that God much pass tests. The claims about God must pass tests. You are making a terrible error, you are conflating the Bible with God. That is actually breaeking one of the first 2 Commandments. You are making a false idol of the Bible..

Let's not "test God" Let's test your beliefs.

What claims about God do you want to test?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What claims about God do you want to test?

As I told you, the myths in Genesis. Testing ideas is how one gets evidence for them or against them. These are your beliefs how would you test them?

 

[Brian2]

That is not the way that it works. There is plenty of evidence that life is just chemical. AS usual the person with no evidence is desperate to shift the burden of proof. You do not even get to claim a possibility until you find some evidence for your beliefs. Claims of the Bible do not count as evidence.

We can say that life comes from other life through scientific observation. Nothing shows life coming from non life. A naturalistic explanation of course requires life coming from non life. So that is a hypothesis that goes against the observations of science but not the philosophy of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can say that life comes from other life through scientific observation. Nothing shows life coming from non life. A naturalistic explanation of course requires life coming from non life. So that is a hypothesis that goes against the observations of science but not the philosophy of science.

Then that only tells us that life always existed by that poor logic. God is not an organism so his existence does not count for that argument.

That is a poor test since scientists have a almost 70 year jump on you in that matter. That is when they began to seriously test abiogenesis. Though they do not have all of the answers quite yet they are very close to figuring out how life started. And no, they do not need to replicate that event. That is not how the scientific method works.

 

[Jose Fly]

You don't think a gap of genetic material between chimpanzees and humans or gorillas and humans is significant?

You ignored everything I asked you. Again...

You said yourself that you don't know much about genetics. Were you lying?

Do you think "a gap of DNA between gorillas and humans" is significant? If so, why?

What have I distorted?

 

[shunyadragon]

We can say that life comes from other life through scientific observation. Nothing shows life coming from non life. A naturalistic explanation of course requires life coming from non life. So that is a hypothesis that goes against the observations of science but not the philosophy of science.

The above is not true and is based on a subjective religious agenda.

You have no knowledge of the sciences involved with abiogenesis.

References please, and ah . . . what are your qualifications to dray such outrageous conclusions,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nothing shows life coming from non life.

This is a frequent meme from the creationist toolbox, but it's flawed. Creationists believe that the first life came from nonlife, although they might not realize it. They believe that God exists uncreated, and is the source of life on Earth. Does he consider a disembodied mind like God alive? I wouldn't use that word for pure mind, but I don't mind if others do. Either way, he believes that the first life, whether that was God or the life He created on Earth, didn't come from life.

It sounds like a lot of effort trying to think up (make an educated guess) on how something might have evolved, and then to call that science sounds dishonest when it cannot be tested.

It is science, and it is not dishonest. Consider the evolution of man from ancient primates. We'd like to know what the last common ancestor of man and chimp looked like, but even if found, how will we know that there wasn't a later common ancestor. What would be dishonest would be to claim that we know what we don't know.

We'd like to know which of the hominid fossils we find are our ancestors and which are cousins whose lineages have gone extinct, but we man not find them all, and we may have trouble deciding which are ancestral to modern man. This is all honest science unless there is fraud as with the Piltdown man, which is corrected by the honest remnant.

Religious faith is acting with incomplete information of course and the person may think that the incomplete information is complete enough to justify acting (religious faith ultimately being action and not just a head belief). Moving ahead in that path of faith usually requires enough positive reinforcement to continue stepping forward in the faith.

Faith is belief, not action. It is unjustified belief. It may inform action or not. We all act with incomplete information constantly, but that is not faith. Faith is unjustified belief. I gave you an example of starting a car and expecting it to start based on hundreds of prior tests, which also reveal that occasionally, the battery is dead. I start my car believing that it will probably turn over, but not necessarily. That belief is justified, not religious-type faith (unjustified belief). What would make the act of turning the key one of faith would be if one assumed that the car will start rather than that it very likely would. The incomplete knowledge is not knowing in advance what the car will actually do. None of that makes trying to start the car an act of faith.

Ultimately I imagine it is a case of God, outside of time, knowing instead of God thinking.

This doesn't sound like intelligence anymore. Intelligence requires thinking. We might as well say that Jupiter "knows" to pull on its moons without thinking.

I would say that God can step into time

Again, the internal contradiction there renders the statement incoherent, like the phrase married bachelor is incoherent. It's two parts don't cohere. They contradict one another. How does one step into time? That's an action. One must already be in time to conceive of stepping into time and then doing it. You keep going back to that idea that one can exist and act outside of time without every addressing the argument for why that concept is incoherent. It's no good to keep asserting the impossible. You'd need to explain why you think I am wrong. It's not enough just to assert or imply it.

But God already knows what He will think and do about these things.

Once again, why call that a god? Unconscious software would work just as well. Intelligence implies consciousness.

let's face it, most people want to be able to say they know, and leaving it at, we don't know yet does not happen in popular science.

Empiricists and experienced critical thinkers have no difficulty saying they don't know. But they had to learn to do that. The natural human inclination is to guess. Isn't that what creation stories are - people who didn't know but wanted to take a guess anyway and call it history?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The supernatural is part of us.

Everything in nature is natural, with nature (reality) being the collection of objects and processes existing in time and space and interacting with one another. Anything that does that is a part of nature. Everything that cannot can be considered nonexistent, like Sagan's dragon.

It is interesting for me that in NDEs people have reported seeing and hearing verifiable incidents in the room where they are or even in adjoining rooms, while they were classified as unconscious and brain dead, but the bias against saying that this shows a human spirit is such that it takes courage for people who have studied such things to claim what is "evident".

These reports aren't reliable. Also, the experiences have been reproduced with cortical stimulation:

Out‐of‐body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin | Brain | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
Out-of-Body Experiences Tested in Lab (webmd.com)

"In order to detect God you first have to believe in God". ........... otherwise it is just something that requires a natural explanation.

You probably see wisdom there. I see a problem. I'm a seeing-is-believing guy, an empiricist. What you wrote is believing-is-seeing, and it's not a good way to determine what is true about the world. If one can somehow convince himself that a god exists, that's what he'll see.

It's called a faith-based confirmation bias. It acts like a demon at the portal of consciousness prescreening what will get through and be visible, and what will be rejected as wrong or impossible based on the faith-based presupposition. This is observer bias. Researchers go to great lengths to neutralize it in therapeutic trials by blinding both the clinician and the patient as to whether the treatment being evaluated or placebo was given.

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 (talkorigins.org) is a link to a description of this phenomenon by a YEC who became a geologist, which converted him to OEC. He reports how he experienced this phenomenon and how he tunneled out of his faith-based confirmation bias, which he describes using the literary device of a demon controlling what he could see.

Critical thinking (reasoning) is designed to prevent this and is in fact the opposite of it. One is trained to evaluate evidence dispassionately and go where the application of reason to that evidence takes one.

Think about what you're asking. If the only way to believe something is to convince oneself it's true before seeking evidence, then it isn't true. Correct ideas do not require that you believe them first to see that.

Also, it should be self-evident that faith is not a path to truth. A path to truth limits one to correct ideas only and weeds out incorrect ones. Empiricism is the only method that accomplishes this. Faith has no mechanism for separating wrong ideas from correct ones, and there are many more untrue things than true. For example, whatever your age is, there is only one number that is correct and dozens that aren't.

God is not amenable to empirical research but to sincere seeking to the extent that you are willing to believe without full information.

Yes, I know. I am not willing to believe more than what the quantity and quality of available evidence supports. It's the only method I have to prevent accumulating wrong beliefs. My sincere seeking is for sound conclusions, and that requires critical analysis. If gods can be determined to exist empirically, then we can know they exist. If not, we must remain agnostic.

 

[We Never Know]

Everything in nature is natural, with nature (reality) being the collection of objects and processes existing in time and space and interacting with one another. Anything that does that is a part of nature. Everything that cannot can be considered nonexistent, like Sagan's dragon.



These reports aren't reliable. Also, the experiences have been reproduced with cortical stimulation:

Out‐of‐body experience and autoscopy of neurological origin | Brain | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
Out-of-Body Experiences Tested in Lab (webmd.com)



You probably see wisdom there. I see a problem. I'm a seeing-is-believing guy, an empiricist. What you wrote is believing-is-seeing, and it's not a good way to determine what is true about the world. If one can somehow convince himself that a god exists, that's what he'll see.

It's called a faith-based confirmation bias. It acts like a demon at the portal of consciousness prescreening what will get through and be visible, and what will be rejected as wrong or impossible based on the faith-based presupposition. This is observer bias. Researchers go to great lengths to neutralize it in therapeutic trials by blinding both the clinician and the patient as to whether the treatment being evaluated or placebo was given.

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002 (talkorigins.org) is a link to a description of this phenomenon by a YEC who became a geologist, which converted him to OEC. He reports how he experienced this phenomenon and how he tunneled out of his faith-based confirmation bias, which he describes using the literary device of a demon controlling what he could see.

Critical thinking (reasoning) is designed to prevent this and is in fact the opposite of it. One is trained to evaluate evidence dispassionately and go where the application of reason to that evidence takes one.

Think about what you're asking. If the only way to believe something is to convince oneself it's true before seeking evidence, then it isn't true. Correct ideas do not require that you believe them first to see that.

Also, it should be self-evident that faith is not a path to truth. A path to truth limits one to correct ideas only and weeds out incorrect ones. Empiricism is the only method that accomplishes this. Faith has no mechanism for separating wrong ideas from correct ones, and there are many more untrue things than true. For example, whatever your age is, there is only one number that is correct and dozens that aren't.



Yes, I know. I am not willing to believe more than what the quantity and quality of available evidence supports. It's the only method I have to prevent accumulating wrong beliefs. My sincere seeking is for sound conclusions, and that requires critical analysis. If gods can be determined to exist empirically, then we can know they exist. If not, we must remain agnostic.

Just courious.

Do you prepare your replies elsewhere on your computer then paste them in?
The reason I ask is because with your last two posts it gives the illusion that you read, broke down and replied(with a lengthy reply) and even put in links to those two posts in one minute.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just curious. Do you prepare your replies elsewhere on your computer then paste them in? The reason I ask is because with your last two posts it gives the illusion that you read, broke down and replied(with a lengthy reply) and even put in links to those two posts in one minute.

I go through the thread collecting quotes to respond to and then write my responses. If the resulting text is too long for one post, I break it in half and then post both halves.

 

[We Never Know]

I go through the thread collecting quotes to respond to and then write my responses. If the resulting text is too long for one post, I break it in half and then post both halves.

Thanks for your reply

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Where?

I can't give you actual post numbers, but trust me, I won't like to you. They are there.

That's weird, because creationist organizations tend to say the opposite, e.g., "Answers in Genesis" and their statement of faith: "No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture".

That's not following the evidence wherever it leads, is it?

It is...because basically what it is saying is; if it contradicts Scripture, then it is invalid evidence.

So to sum it up, Answers in Genesis doesn't follow invalid evidence.

Also, your latest posts today relate to an issue I've been discussing in another forum, so maybe you can help. Your posts today contain several rather bold statements about fossils and what we can learn from them. That makes me wonder....are you a paleontologist? If not, have you ever taken a course in paleontology? Have you ever held a job in paleontology?

If the answer to those is "no", then (and this is my main question), do you feel you're more of an authority on fossils than actual paleontologists? If so, why? If not, why then are you making such strong statements about a field of science that you don't have any expertise or experience in? Why don't you simply defer to the experts?

My answer is indeed "no" to those questions. However, those paleontologists are human beings, last I checked.

And human beings have biases and presuppositions...and most of them are either naturalists, agnostics, and atheists.

Therefore, how they interpret the evidence will not be without bias. For them, evolution MUST be true, because that is the only naturalistic way to explain the origins of species.

So, every thing they they find as it relates to their field, they will automatically assume evolution.

But that aside, lets just look at the presented evidence...fossils...fossils absolutely cannot be used as evidence for evolution.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

It is science whether you understand it or not

No, it isn't.

Science is based on observation, experiment, and prediction.

Which of those three things correlates with macroevolution?

Neither.

It isn't science.

, and school curricula are not dependent on what you believe. The consumer of public education is society, the Constitution determines what can be taught in public schools, and school boards decide what it is in the best interests of the community to teach.

Ohhh, right. It is based on what I believe, it is based on what they believe.

That is why Christian children should attend private schools and learn about the Bible...while also learning the sciences, minus the voodoo.

Sure, we do. It shows us a progression from older, deeper, less modern forms to more superficial and modern forms.

Well, that is what it shows YOU. That isn't what it shows ME.

You seem to think that by refusing to see these things as evidence for evolution that they aren't. That just means that for religious reasons of no interest or value to the scientific community, you won't accept sound, logical conclusions that fallacy-free reason applied to that evidence reveals to others unencumbered by a faith-based confirmation bias who are willing and able to understand it. You don't need to be on board.

That is where you are WRONG. There are plenty of theistic-evolutionists out there.

I am just not one of them.

I thought you disparaged speculation. I guess that's only scientific speculation. You have less evidence for your beliefs than the scientists do.

All of my beliefs are based on FACTS, amigo.

In fact, the evidence that supports the theory of evolution rules out the kind of deity described in the Christian Bible.

Well, from where I'm sitting...the kind of Deity described in the Christian Bible (and the creation account), rules out the theory of evolution.

So, I guess it depends on which lens you are looking through, doesn't it?

It will never prove that naturalistic evolution occurred, but it has already disproven that an honest intelligent designer was involved.

Opinions.

If the theory is ever falsified, there is no alternative but to invoke an unknown, deceptive intelligent designer. Does that describe the biblical god?

Who is the intelligent designer deceiving? He said let the animals bring forth after their kinds....and that is what we see, animals bringing forth after their kinds.

If anything, the IDer is being truthful, because you've never observed anything contrary in nature, have you?

You're projecting. You assume by faith that this god exists, and evaluate the scientific theory based on that presupposition. You reject whichever parts of it conflict with your religious dogma.

Nonsense. Even if evolution was proven to be true, that still doesn't undermine the necessity of an Intelligent Designer.

So I can remain strong in my Christianity while at the same time believing in evolution...so I can accept evolution while maintaining my faith.

The problem is; I see no evidence that evolution is true...PERIOD.

The scientific theory is not a presupposition, but rather, a sound conclusion derived from the proper interpretation of the available evidence, which is now so robust that only a deceptive intelligent designer is even possible were the theory upended.

Opinions.

 

[YoursTrue]

You ignored everything I asked you. Again...

You said yourself that you don't know much about genetics. Were you lying?

Why would I be? Do you know a lot about genetics?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it isn't.

Science is based on observation, experiment, and prediction.

Which of those three things correlates with macroevolution?

Neither.

It isn't science.



Ohhh, right. It is based on what I believe, it is based on what they believe.

That is why Christian children should attend private schools and learn about the Bible...while also learning the sciences, minus the voodoo.



Well, that is what it shows YOU. That isn't what it shows ME.



That is where you are WRONG. There are plenty of theistic-evolutionists out there.

I am just not one of them.



All of my beliefs are based on FACTS, amigo.



Well, from where I'm sitting...the kind of Deity described in the Christian Bible (and the creation account), rules out the theory of evolution.

So, I guess it depends on which lens you are looking through, doesn't it?



Opinions.



Who is the intelligent designer deceiving? He said let the animals bring forth after their kinds....and that is what we see, animals bringing forth after their kinds.

If anything, the IDer is being truthful, because you've never observed anything contrary in nature, have you?



Nonsense. Even if evolution was proven to be true, that still doesn't undermine the necessity of an Intelligent Designer.

So I can remain strong in my Christianity while at the same time believing in evolution...so I can accept evolution while maintaining my faith.

The problem is; I see no evidence that evolution is true...PERIOD.



Opinions.

The more I learn about the theories of evolution the less believable it becomes.

 

[Yerda]

Science is based on observation, experiment, and prediction.

Which of those three things correlates with macroevolution?

Neither.

It isn't science.

All three.

The more I learn about the theories of evolution the less believable it becomes.

What have you learned that led you to consider evolution less believable?