The creator did it.

[ecco]

The simplest explanation should be preferred to the more complex.

Yep, yep and yep. Let's take just one example - volcanoes.

The complex theory involves plate tectonics:

Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός"pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory describing the large-scale motion of seven large plates and the movements of a larger number of smaller plates of the Earth's lithosphere, since tectonic processes began on Earth between 3 and 3.5 billion years ago. The model builds on the concept of continental drift, an idea developed during the first decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory after seafloor spreading was validated in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

​

The simplest explanation is GodDidIt.

Now, tell me again about Occam's Razor.

 

[ecco]

Symbols are symbols, not the essence of their meanings.

Wow! That is really deep. I'll need months and months of quiet meditation to figure it all out.

 

[ecco]

I mean, really, what other alternative is there to Gods creative work that is more logical, rational and reasonable to contemplate?

There is nothing logical, rational or reasonable about pretending there is a magic man in the sky who, after almost all of eternity doing nothing, created the earth.

 

[ecco]

This is the whole point when God said he gave his only begotten Son that no one should perish meaning spending an eternity separated from him.

In what way did God give his only begotten son?

 

[exchemist]

Occam's Razor is a great starting point. The simplest explanation should be preferred to the more complex. So let us begin with the universe, according to our modern scientific understanding we have come to understand that it had a beginning. In science we have known that everything that begins to exist has a cause. It had to be a cause that preexisted before the universe and that had the power to bring it into existence as the Kalam cosmological argument states. The Christian God claims to be such a being, and proved it when He raised His Son from the dead nearly 2019 years ago.

You quote a popular misconception of Ockham's Razor. In its commonest from it says, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. They key point here is that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

As used in science, this takes the meaning that the simplest set of hypotheses should be used that accounts for all the observations. So the simplest is not the best, if it leaves unexplained things that a more complex hypothesis can additionally explain. But equally, you do not add hypotheses that don't contribute to what can be explained.

As it happens, "God did it" is a statement empty of explanatory power, apart from at the most trivial level. If the early scientists after the Renaissance had contented themselves with that "explanation" of what they saw in nature, science would never have arisen at all.

 

[Rapture Era]

Haha, I don't suppose either of us will, and I am relieved to discover you do not think I'll go to Hell just because I have a science degree. So there is no real peril then. Good.

However I do think a reading of the bible that seriously maintains there was no physical death in the world until Adam and Eve sinned, is extraordinarily naive. To think that, you have to throw out not only all of evolution but geology as well. Not even in the very early church was the Garden of Eden story seen as literal. I've quoted Origen (one of the fathers of the church, who lived in about 200AD) before on this. Suffice it to say I'm with Origen: the bible is a literary work and uses literary devices to communicate its message, including allegory. My views on this are in accord with most of the main Western denominations of Christendom.

Back to the science: Yes, natural selection is well described by your quote. Darwin got the idea by considering how humanity selectively breeds domestic animals: racehorses for speed, cattle for milk yield, or whatever. He observed in any population of creatures there is natural variation and that processes can select from this variation- either artificially or in nature - to boost the prevalence and extent of some characteristics and diminish others. So it's not rocket science or counterintuitive - just common sense. The key is variation and selection. This is not "random", please note!

Darwin knew nothing of DNA of course. But with DNA we see confirmation of his ideas of evolution. We can see how animals which he regarded as having a recent common ancestor have very similar DNA, while those with a more ancient common ancestor have DNA that differs to a greater extent. Just as one would expect.

No of course I don’t think you will go to hell because you have a science degree. Two out of my three sons have are in chemistry. My oldest just graduated last year with a Bio-Chem degree and wants to go to Med-school. My youngest is in this second year studying Chemistry and (at least for now) would like to get into police forensics. Science is a wonderful thing, and it should be obvious that there are things it can and cant do.

·Why would you think "no physical death in the world until Adam and Eve sinned, is extraordinarily naïve"?

·Do you belong to a church that teaches the Bible or something else?

Please explain this in a little more detail: “But with DNA we see confirmation of his ideas of evolution.” If you mean there is variation in species and that certain species adapt to their environment, I completely agree. However, they never change into another species as macro evolution. Micro yes, macro no.
“To think that, you have to throw out not only all of evolution but geology as well.”
This all depends on your presupposition. Again, depending what type of evolution you are talking about. As far as geology is concerned, because God created everything in a mature state, it would have the appearance of being aged but it’s not. You know the old saying what came first the chicken or the egg? Actually, Two mature chickens with the bodies fully capable to reproduce. This is how God created everything and why he said “Be fruitful and multiply.” This is what you would expect to see, and we do, repeatedly. I don’t know what the problem is. It is so obvious! He tells us in Romans 1:18-20 “18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.…
It's as plain as can be!
You mentioned in another post, "The mystery, if there is one, is why there are laws of nature in the first place."
This is not a mystery at all. It is described in Genesis.

 

[Rapture Era]

You do know plants are alive, right?

Yes, plants are alive. However, and this always seems the case, you take things out of context to try and trap which is dishonorable on your part. In context, and you should know this as well, it’s talking about conscious life. A dog will get out of the way of a car because it is conscious and aware of its environment. It doesn’t know why because it is not self-conscious. It doesn’t know that its alive. We humans however are self-conscious and can think abstractly of love and beauty and many other things because God created us that way. Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
And this is what separates us from the animals. Now I know you know this, so what is your purpose? What are you trying to do here?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, plants are alive. However, and this always seems the case, you take things out of context to try and trap which is dishonorable on your part. In context, and you should know this as well, it’s talking about conscious life. A dog will get out of the way of a car because it is conscious and aware of its environment. It doesn’t know why because it is not self-conscious. It doesn’t know that its alive. We humans however are self-conscious and can think abstractly of love and beauty and many other things because God created us that way. Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
And this is what separates us from the animals. Now I know you know this, so what is your purpose? What are you trying to do here?

I took the words you provided to me at face value. You said there was no death before the fall. Then I asked what Adam and Eve ate. You told me it was plants. To which I pointed out that plants are alive and so there was death before the fall.

Never did you stipulate that the "death" you were talking about was exclusive to animals. It seems you've only now just made that up now that you find yourself in a corner.

I know that humans are animals, so please don't assume you know what I know.

 

[ecco]

A dog will get out of the way of a car because it is conscious and aware of its environment.

A flower or a tree will bend toward the light because it is ( ? ) and aware of its environment.

 

[LuisDantas]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things

You are not the first one to say such things.

Is there some doctrinary body saying such things somewhere out there?

I would like to know more about what motivates them and how much of a honest mistake that claim may be.

 

[exchemist]

No of course I don’t think you will go to hell because you have a science degree. Two out of my three sons have are in chemistry. My oldest just graduated last year with a Bio-Chem degree and wants to go to Med-school. My youngest is in this second year studying Chemistry and (at least for now) would like to get into police forensics. Science is a wonderful thing, and it should be obvious that there are things it can and cant do.

·Why would you think "no physical death in the world until Adam and Eve sinned, is extraordinarily naïve"?

·Do you belong to a church that teaches the Bible or something else?

Please explain this in a little more detail: “But with DNA we see confirmation of his ideas of evolution.” If you mean there is variation in species and that certain species adapt to their environment, I completely agree. However, they never change into another species as macro evolution. Micro yes, macro no.
“To think that, you have to throw out not only all of evolution but geology as well.”
This all depends on your presupposition. Again, depending what type of evolution you are talking about. As far as geology is concerned, because God created everything in a mature state, it would have the appearance of being aged but it’s not. You know the old saying what came first the chicken or the egg? Actually, Two mature chickens with the bodies fully capable to reproduce. This is how God created everything and why he said “Be fruitful and multiply.” This is what you would expect to see, and we do, repeatedly. I don’t know what the problem is. It is so obvious! He tells us in Romans 1:18-20 “18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.…
It's as plain as can be!
You mentioned in another post, "The mystery, if there is one, is why there are laws of nature in the first place."
This is not a mystery at all. It is described in Genesis.

The implications of your form of YEC are quite far-reaching. Even if we leave the origin of life and evolution out of it, you are in effect requiring that God:
- put the fossils in the rocks to fool the scientists, giving the illusion of progressive development over millions of years,
- tinkered with the radioisotope ratios in the rocks to delude science into thinking they are older than they are,
- put magnetic stripes on the ocean floor to give the illusion that oceans have opened over millions of years,
- made the continental shelves match as if they had once fitted together, when really they never did.
- made the oceans spread at a measurable rate, to further the illusion.
- embedded seashells in the Himalayas, to give the illusion that the rocks were once under the ocean
etc, etc.

I suspect you would have the same difficulty as me in believing in a God that could be so deceitful. I imagine it is just that you have never realised that creationism necessarily implies a God that behaves in this way. But that is why, to the scientifically educated Christian, creationism is so unacceptable. It would mean we could not trust our senses at all when exploring nature, for fear of some further arbitrary trickery by God.

As to what church I belong to, I am astonished that you do not seem to realise that most major denominations of Western Christianity see Genesis as allegorical, as Origen already did in 200AD.
More here on the credentials of the allegorical interpretation: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia

 

[Bear Wild]

Would you agree that we all have the same evidence? You ask for evidence and it’s all around you! Human beings are the greatest evidence
What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Human beings are great evidence for evolution but not greater than any other living thing on our planet. Since all of the evidence is related to evolution this may indicate you are starting to accept evolution that is great.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you mean there is variation in species and that certain species adapt to their environment, I completely agree. However, they never change into another species as macro evolution.

I'm curious....if it turned out that new species have been repeatedly observed to evolve, what implications would there be to your religious beliefs?

And if no new species have ever evolved, does that mean Noah took two of every single species aboard the ark?

 

[Rapture Era]

I took the words you provided to me at face value. You said there was no death before the fall. Then I asked what Adam and Eve ate. You told me it was plants. To which I pointed out that plants are alive and so there was death before the fall.
Never did you stipulate that the "death" you were talking about was exclusive to animals. It seems you've only now just made that up now that you find yourself in a corner.
I know that humans are animals, so please don't assume you know what I know.

No, actually I didn't realize you needed detailed explanations of every word Lets see, 7,526 posts, this isn't your first time around the block and I really thought you were better than this, my mistake. It wont happen again!

 

[Rapture Era]

Human beings are great evidence for evolution but not greater than any other living thing on our planet. Since all of the evidence is related to evolution this may indicate you are starting to accept evolution that is great.

You are completely disconnected! And, you have no reasonable, intelligent or logical answers to the abiogenesis problem that fuels your Darwinian evolution process. Maybe you should take an anatomy class. The results will educate you on the impossibility and utter ridiculousness of the evolution hypothesis. Then again, maybe not.

 

[Rapture Era]

The implications of your form of YEC are quite far-reaching. Even if we leave the origin of life and evolution out of it, you are in effect requiring that God:
- put the fossils in the rocks to fool the scientists, giving the illusion of progressive development over millions of years,
- tinkered with the radioisotope ratios in the rocks to delude science into thinking they are older than they are,
- put magnetic stripes on the ocean floor to give the illusion that oceans have opened over millions of years,
- made the continental shelves match as if they had once fitted together, when really they never did.
- made the oceans spread at a measurable rate, to further the illusion.
- embedded seashells in the Himalayas, to give the illusion that the rocks were once under the ocean
etc, etc.

I suspect you would have the same difficulty as me in believing in a God that could be so deceitful. I imagine it is just that you have never realised that creationism necessarily implies a God that behaves in this way. But that is why, to the scientifically educated Christian, creationism is so unacceptable. It would mean we could not trust our senses at all when exploring nature, for fear of some further arbitrary trickery by God.

As to what church I belong to, I am astonished that you do not seem to realise that most major denominations of Western Christianity see Genesis as allegorical, as Origen already did in 200AD.
More here on the credentials of the allegorical interpretation: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia

I have to leave out of town for a few days. I want to reply to your post but don't have the time now. I will respond when I get back.

 

[exchemist]

I have to leave out of town for a few days. I want to reply to your post but don't have the time now. I will respond when I get back.

OK. Have a think about it, though. I reckon most creationists have not realised the huge and problematic implications of their stance. Nor are many of them aware of the ancient and honourable Christian tradition of bible scholarship.

 

[exchemist]

You are completely disconnected! And, you have no reasonable, intelligent or logical answers to the abiogenesis problem that fuels your Darwinian evolution process. Maybe you should take an anatomy class. The results will educate you on the impossibility and utter ridiculousness of the evolution hypothesis. Then again, maybe not.

You realise that If anatomy classes reveal that evolution is impossible, then biologists must be deliberately promoting a theory they know to be false? There would have to be a conspiracy in science, then, to deceive the world.

Is that what you really think? Surely not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, actually I didn't realize you needed detailed explanations of every word Lets see, 7,526 posts, this isn't your first time around the block and I really thought you were better than this, my mistake. It wont happen again!

There was death before the supposed fall. Thanks for demonstrating that for us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are completely disconnected! And, you have no reasonable, intelligent or logical answers to the abiogenesis problem that fuels your Darwinian evolution process. Maybe you should take an anatomy class. The results will educate you on the impossibility and utter ridiculousness of the evolution hypothesis. Then again, maybe not.

Comparative anatomy and comparative genomics, along with the fossil record and evidence from most other fields of science all point to the conclusion that evolution is a fact. Or better yet, take a biology class, since evolution is the backbone of biology.
Thanks for helping to point that out!