"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

[Polymath257]

So why should anyone think a mutation is random?

[EDIT] WOW, @Polymath257, we went to the same place at the same time! What does that tell you!?

...It tells me nothing is random.

Well, those mutations produced by the effects of radioactivity will be random because the radioactive decay is. Also, the specific location of the mutation in the genome will be random.

 

[blü 2]

What evidence is there that anything random exists?

Nothing absolute ─ there are no absolutes. But within science, the prevailing, though not uncontested, best opinion is that quantum randomness exists in such phenomena as the emission of any specific particle in the course of radioactive decay, or the spontaneous formation and instantaneous mutual annihilation of any particular particle-antiparticle pair (as evidenced by the Casimir effect). These are seen as authentically random and, in classical terms, uncaused, describable only in statistical terms.

 

[Audie]

Q

But until it's too late to wake up, it's never too late to wake up.

Or so I like to think.

Oh, I think that is correct.
Slim to none, but maybe it could happen.

It might take an enormous pressure to
crack open the resistence to epiphany, or,
it might be a simple single word that would
go on to unravel the rickety structure.

Little chance, though the more ridiculouly
silly and shallow the associated claims aree
(as in this case)- perhaps the more chance the
rethink has.

 

[blü 2]

Oh, I think that is correct.
Slim to none, but maybe it could happen.

It could, it could. If any of us, theist or skeptic, knew the key to opening the other's eyes, I guess we'd only need RF to advertise the fête.

 

[Windwalker]

A ball is square.

If you grew up in a village that called balls square, that would be how you believed it to be.

It may be the "truth" to me....but it's not really the truth.

Who defines the meaning of words? Nature? God?

I may be deluding myself, or I may be on medication, or may be suffering from an illness, or maybe, I'm just ignorant.
But we know that is wrong! The truth is, a ball is not square.

But to the village who calls balls square, you would seem equally as wrong to them in their eyes as you are seeing them through yours. That's what relativism points out, which is in fact what does happen and is in fact observed to occur. Hence why relativism is an explanation of why that is in fact the observed case.

What is true to you, may not be true to another. It has to do with the context through which they are seeing the world, what color the lens of the glasses they are looking through colorizes reality for them. In principle, it's all truth, even when flatly in contradiction to each other. Each sees their own view as objectively true.

Now to me, if you ask, I'd say the ball is round. That's how I see it. That's how my mind understands it. That's how I was conditioned to see it. That's what I was told it is. That's what culture trained me to see it as. That's what it has became to me in my lived experience of it. That's what I believe it is. The same is true to those who hold opposite truths about it.

 

[ChristineM]

He could have simply chosen to not mention God and it would not have put him at risk of the stake. You would think if evolution should be seen as disproving God, Darwin would have omitted that he saw God's handiwork through it. But he chose instead to see in as a positive about a God he clearly believed in. Unless you think he was just faking it?


Then you would be very wrong. You don't know how I was raised. And I highly doubt you have any idea what it is I believe. I heard a lot of assumptions and projections on your part. FYI, I was not raised in a religious home with a set of beliefs about God and creation. In fact, that was never really spoken about. So, out of the gate, you err.


Oh yes, make it personal about "massaging my ego" (which is a forum rules violation) when your argument gets deflated. Always a sign of a weak position. When I hear that card pulled out of the deck, I know the person is now operating in personal defensive mode, which is in fact completely about the ego defending itself, and not the argument.

That one finger pointing at others supposed ego, is pointing three back at yourself and your own, and that becomes obvious to the observer. You had no argument, and this is the dying gasps of that.

Like i said, i am not darwin. And why is it only christians who choose to try to discredit another persons religious belief?

I can only go on the tone of your posts, unless of course you are faking it!

You made it personal when you dictated what you thought i should have said. I replied in kind.

And then you go into a personal tirade .

No argument? The facts are the facts, nothing to argue over. It is not me trying to discredit facts, that is you

 

[tosca1]

But if, instead of What do I like? the question is, What's true in reality? then nothing can match the objective, impartial, skeptical view ─ and that brings us back to science and the other forms of reasoned enquiry.

Hey....science isn't the only way we can arrive at a truth and certain realities!
Science is quite limited! It can't handle something it can't observe and analyze.
Don't take my word for it.
Here - straight from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES!

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"Science is a particular way of knowing about the world.
In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists."

The National Academy of Sciences also says:


"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us.
Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience.

Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

WMAP Site FAQs

See? Religious experience, is cited.

 

[Audie]

Hey....science isn't the only way we can arrive at a truth and certain realities!
Science is quite limited! It can't handle something it can't observe and analyze.
Don't take my word for it.
Here - straight from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES!


WMAP Site FAQs

Science does not do "truth".

You will need to get a little more education
before you are ready start imparting wisdom
around here.

 

[tosca1]

In the context of the original authors and their limited understandings of the natural world, they would not have been imagining it in the way you would reading it literally.
Reading that as though somehow they had magical knowledge of the world without the aid of modern tools, such as telescopes and radio spectrometers, is simply a reading back your understanding of today and superimposing it on them back then.

That's it! They themselves, must've been wondering what they've written down meant! Some of them weren't educated, either!
Those few authors who wrote down the "stretching heavens....." must've never had an inkling that thousands of years hence, modern science would discover that indeed, the heavens is stretching!


So many things written in Genesis alone, that are confirmed by or compatible with science. No wonder many scientists have their day-age theories!

I agree. So why so many deny evolution then?

I can only speak for myself why - for the simple fact that there is no evidence to support it.

 

[Windwalker]

Like i said, i am not darwin. And why is it only christians who choose to try to discredit another persons religious belief?

Christians are not the only ones who do that. The atheists I've encountered take great joy in doing that with theists. They write entire books to that end, with such titles as "The God Delusion". You've heard of it, I assume?

I can only go on the tone of your posts, unless of course you are faking it!

There is no "tone" to my posts, except when you make it necessary for me to get you off of personal attacks, which is what you repeatedly devolve into in this and other posts whenever your arguments fall flat, which happen rather quickly. I'm actually quite generous in not reporting you each time you violate the forum rules when you do this.

You made it personal when you dictated what you thought i should have said. I replied in kind.

Please point to any personal attack I made upon you. That I disagreed with your thoughts and pointed those out, is not a personal attack. I didn't say you are only saying what you say because your mindlessness follow what you were trained to believe, and that you were massaging your ego. That's what you introduced. That is what you said about me.

That is all a projection on your part, accusing the other of doing what it is in fact you are doing in order to make it about them and take the focus of yourself. Again, point to where I made it a personal attack. Quote the words. I only started focusing on that following you attacking me personally as "massaging my ego".

And then you go into a personal tirade .

There is no personal tirade. I am trying to point this out to you in discussion that you turned this into a personal attack, and it is irrational, uncalled for, unfounded, insulting, and a forum rules violation.

Perhaps I believe if I reasoned with you, reason would prevail, and I could avoid the heavy hand of hitting the report button. I hope reason will prevail. Perhaps, that's is my error. I'll just report you, and encourage others to do the same until you understand.

 

[tosca1]

Science does not do "truth".

You will need to get a little more education
before you are ready start imparting wisdom
around here.

So....if science does not deal with truth - why do we even give it the credibility? Why do you believe in it?

I think you should hone your comprehension skills.

Anyway, what do you mean by science does not do "truth?" Lol. Wanna run that by me again? Look around you. Look at the sun.....the moon....the tide......the night.....the rain......


Speaking of education - do you know where rain comes from?



Of course science does truth - although truth with science, can change.
Here, according to the NAS. The National Academy of Sciences:

"Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare."
WMAP Site FAQs

 

[ecco]

Even science can be wrong!

Nothing can match personal experience. Thus, the ultimate evidence for the supernatural (GOD) are in the billions of testimonies from those who've had experience(s) with Him!

Billions of testimonies? I seriously doubt that 1 in 7 of all people on earth have had experiences with Him. Considering that there are 1 billion Hindus and 1.8 Billion Muslims, it becomes clear that you exaggerated greatly.
Of course, you can make the claim that you were including multiple personal experiences per person. Some people who experience speaking in tongues could claim they have personal experiences with Him daily or at least weekly. But that would apply equally to Hindus and Muslims. So, according to your logic, Shiva and Allah are true Gods.




If we go by that standard of personal experiences, we must also accept:

• People have seen alien spacecraft.
• People have been pulled aboard alien spacecraft, probed, and returned to earth.
• Bigfoot exists.
• The "face " on Mars is that of a human.
• Faries exist.
• The Loch Ness Monster is real.
• Shiva is a real God.
• Allah is the real God.
• Armageddon will occur in 1851.
• Armageddon will happen any day now - real soon.
• Ghosts are real.
• Teleportation is real.
• Mediums can converse with the dead.

 

[tosca1]

Science does not do "truth".

You will need to get a little more education
before you are ready start imparting wisdom
around here.

So, what's wrong with what you quoted?

Is there something inaccurate with what I said, about science being limited only to what it can observe and analyze?

Explain - and prove that you know what you're on about.
C'mon. Let's hear thy wisdom. Put your money where your mouth is.


I've just thrown the gauntlet smack at you - that means, you're being squarely challenged by moi!

And, you and I won't move past this until you explain yourself.....

 

[Windwalker]

That's it! They themselves, must've been wondering what they've written down meant!

No. I think they expressed their thoughts using metaphors. "Stretching out the heavens", is a metaphor. Do you believe the heavens are literally elastic? That you can grab a corner of it and pull it out like a stretchy cloth? If they believed it literally, then that must be true since they used the word "stretch". Right?

Some of them weren't educated, either!

Obviously whoever wrote the words were educated in the use of language amongst other things. This doesn't mean they believed the same things about the world that we do today through the use of modern science.

Those few authors who wrote down the "stretching heavens....." must've never had an inkling that thousands of years hence, modern science would discover that indeed, the heavens is stretching!

Talk about a "stretch" of imagination that that's what they would been imagining! You think they were imagining an expanding universe model versus the collapsing universe model? Perhaps they were knowledgeable about quantum mechanics and string theory too?

So many things written in Genesis alone, that are confirmed by or compatible with science. No wonder many scientists have their day-age theories!

No they are not confirmed by science. They are poetry, allegory, and metaphor. Genesis is not a book of hidden, magical scientific knowledge. That's a trick of reading into the texts something which does not, did not, could not exist from the time it was written.

I can only speak for myself why - for the simple fact that there is no evidence to support it.

Dear Lord in Heaven. There are countless volumes of countless works which all support it to the satisfaction of a diverse community of scientists from all the varied and sundry different fields of the sciences. You are just simply wrong there is not. That is a false claim on your part. That is not being truthful, and truthfulness if the first prerequisite of faith.

 

[tosca1]

Billions of testimonies? I seriously doubt that 1 in 7 of all people on earth have had experiences with Him.

What? You think testimonies are just modern-day fad?
You think testimonies weren't being given all the way back in history? By people, now dead and gone?

You think a testimony has to be written? A testimony has to be recited in front of a group of people?
A testimony has to be made into a book, for it to count?

If I tell you privately, how I found God or what God had done to make me the way I am today - that is a testimony!

 

[ecco]

I struggle deeply with coming to terms with the randomness of evolution.

Deep down, I ultimately just cannot accept it.

What is your problem with randomness?

It was probably a chance random occurrence for your father to meet your mother. Your father injected about 200 million sperm into your mother. One of those sperm got into your mother's egg and the result is you.

You are the product of randomness.

66 million years ago a big meteor struck in the Yucatan. The result was the extinction of 75% of plant and animal species. The meteor hitting earth was a pretty random event.

What is your problem with randomness?

 

[blü 2]

Hey....science isn't the only way we can arrive at a truth and certain realities!
Science is quite limited! It can't handle something it can't observe and analyze.

That's on the one hand. On the other, no one can tell science ─ or anyone else ─ what a real god is, such that if we found a real suspect, we could tell whether it were a god or not.

There isn't even a defined concept of 'godness', the real quality that a real god has and eg this keyboard I'm typing on does not.

 

[tosca1]

If you grew up in a village that called balls square, that would be how you believed it to be.

........until someone comes to the village, bringing the good news...... and patiently explains what a square is. Some or maybe everyone, will eventually learn that a ball is definitely not square.

Then, some would go to the neighboring village, and impart what they've just learned. Before you know it, they'll all know what a square is.

Boy, it's like long-lost tribes and missionaries, isn't it?

 

[tosca1]

That's on the one hand. On the other, no one can tell science ─ or anyone else ─ what a real god is, such that if we found a real suspect, we could tell whether it were a god or not.

There isn't even a defined concept of 'godness', the real quality that a real god has and eg this keyboard I'm typing on does not.

FYI, the God that is actually referred to in Theistic Evolution, is the Abrahamic God.
Many scientists who believe in theistic evolution, are Christians.

Many scientists also have their day-age theories (and guess what - they're using The Book of Genesis!)

Essentially, it is an attempt to harmonize Scripture with theistic evolution, or at least with the concept of an “old” earth.

What is the Day-Age Theory?

 

[ecco]

Billions of testimonies? I seriously doubt that 1 in 7 of all people on earth have had experiences with Him. Considering that there are 1 billion Hindus and 1.8 Billion Muslims, it becomes clear that you exaggerated greatly.

But that would apply equally to Hindus and Muslims. So, according to your logic, Shiva and Allah are true Gods.

What? You think testimonies are just modern-day fad?
You think testimonies weren't being given all the way back in history? By people, now dead and gone?

You think a testimony has to be written? A testimony has to be recited in front of a group of people?
A testimony has to be made into a book, for it to count?

How do you know it was a testimony if it was recited 100 years ago by a person who is long dead and gone? Have you gotten this information by communicating with the dead?

Have the people who gave testimony about their personal experience with Allah convinced you that Islam is the True religion?

If I tell you privately, how I found God or what God had done to make me the way I am today - that is a testimony!

Let's not drift too far.

Nothing can match personal experience. Thus, the ultimate evidence for the supernatural (GOD) are in the billions of testimonies from those who've had experience(s) with Him!

You stated that personal experiences are the ultimate evidence for GOD. So, I'll ask again, are the personal experiences people had with Allah or Shiva evidence that Allah and Shiva are true Gods?