Audie
Veteran Member
You won't have luck with that line though, it doesn't even convince me.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The God, Evolution, Darwin, Science debate - a different starting point
You won't have luck with that line though, it doesn't even convince me.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
God defined by science a thesis.
Thinking X greed in civilization states thoughts are patented. God therefore became that patent.
Adults as compared to non speaking innocence invented all science concepts via thinking.
Human design invention proven correct. As what is truthfully correct.
Humans did not design thoughts and did not design God. God is not science. God existed created. Planet from which scientific invention is abstracted.
Hence God by science definition is multi conditions per their thoughts.
A father is defined to own a portion of life continuance. Psyche confers as adult to be a creator by that status.
Hence stated no man is God.
If science is wrong asides from proving self right only via Inventive reactions. Then the father of science destroyed life by science of God. And God did not evolve into a human.
When science only studies what exists what never existed is not factual.
Such as claiming when a human never existed when a human is making the claim.
Evolving means to improve from a lower stated non formed body into a higher form via cooling conditions.
Such as energy became stone. Water became ice. Yet both conditions pre existed in other form.
Humans prove that we de evolve then heal and re evolve. Hence we own a choice in causing loss.
Invention reaction is the proven loss as energy in its highest forms is taken in science and removed.
A theory is only a belief in science until a designed invention works as designed.
The theory to abstract via a term God was invented. A baby to adult teacher quotes his father referencing God sacrificed his life. A scientific proven quote as prophecy being probable causes occurred.
Thinking X greed in civilization states thoughts are patented. God therefore became that patent.
Adults as compared to non speaking innocence invented all science concepts via thinking.
Human design invention proven correct. As what is truthfully correct.
Humans did not design thoughts and did not design God. God is not science. God existed created. Planet from which scientific invention is abstracted.
Hence God by science definition is multi conditions per their thoughts.
A father is defined to own a portion of life continuance. Psyche confers as adult to be a creator by that status.
Hence stated no man is God.
If science is wrong asides from proving self right only via Inventive reactions. Then the father of science destroyed life by science of God. And God did not evolve into a human.
When science only studies what exists what never existed is not factual.
Such as claiming when a human never existed when a human is making the claim.
Evolving means to improve from a lower stated non formed body into a higher form via cooling conditions.
Such as energy became stone. Water became ice. Yet both conditions pre existed in other form.
Humans prove that we de evolve then heal and re evolve. Hence we own a choice in causing loss.
Invention reaction is the proven loss as energy in its highest forms is taken in science and removed.
A theory is only a belief in science until a designed invention works as designed.
The theory to abstract via a term God was invented. A baby to adult teacher quotes his father referencing God sacrificed his life. A scientific proven quote as prophecy being probable causes occurred.
I appreciate the good faith effort of the list here. Several of the questions would be quite helpful, I agree.
I would say, though, that 1., 2., 5., and 12. are unnecessary. Gods are irrelevant to an assessment of whether evolution is true. Indeed, many theists believe in evolution, and have even been evolutionary scientists who have advanced our understanding of the topic. So while defining God is helpful in another debate, it's not needed here.
Next, whether Darwin was a highly qualified genius or a clueless idiot is irrelevant to whether evolution is true. The process has been verified countless times since the man died in the 19th century.
And last, I don't need to personally perform experiments to reasonably make a conclusion on the topic. I've never personally experimented with cancer treatments, but I'm scientifically literate enough to be able to read and understand the thrust of experiments that have been done on those treatments, and to understand how they're systematically vetted by my government for safety and effectiveness, etc.
Aside from that, I like the list.
Questions 1-3 are irrelevant for the discussion of evolution.
4. natural selection is the differential survival of organisms leading to differences in the genetic spread in future generations.
5. Irrelevant to the modern theory of evolution. But Darwin was a trained naturalist that did extensive observations of the distribution and differences in species.
6. In this context, evolution is the change of species over time, including the development of new species.
7. From what I can tell, it is the birth of significantly different organisms in a single or a few generations.
8. Macroevolution is simply what happens when there is microevolution over many generations. Look up the Archimedian principle.
9. A variety of ways: look at how genetics changes in a population over time. Look at the fossil record. Look at comparative anatomy or comparative biochemistry. A complete list would encompass much of modern biology.
10. As has been stated many times, a rabbit fossil in actual pre-cambrian rock would cause some radical re-thinking of our views of how species change over time.
11. I have from reading university level textbooks.
12. I have done multiple simulations. I am a mathematician and have done some basic modeling of this subject.
13. I have read extensively on all sides of this issue, from university textbooks, to essays by both sides, to books written by both sides. I have been interested in this subject for over 40 years.
Begin with the assumption that in 1 hour we could study and learn everything that there is to know about every science.
So, why listen to a person with a PhD in archaeology if you can become an expert in archaeology, physics, mechanical engineering, medicine, philosophy, theology, in just one hour?
We could demand that in a forum post, he summarizes all information about the complex topic of evolution. Why are there so many books written about evolution if one can summarize it in merely a few minutes?
I've seen grade school teachers, very proud of teaching science to first graders, take refresher courses in college, and come out believing that they have all knowledge of physics. So, why are there all those students studying physics for all those years? Why did that grade school teacher make such low grades on the exams that were simple to even beginning physic students?
Something, in the years of study, convinced scientists that they are correct. Unless you want to take the same courses, you can't really understand or argue with them.
However, the same could be said of Doctors of Theology. Surely they know bible information. If so, we should respect their high level of education. For example, when Reverend John Hagee said that we would win the war in Iraq if we were closer to Jesus, you would think that he was right. Yet, God said "thou shalt not kill." So, maybe Reverend Hagee knew better, but his human frailties (in this case, fear of terrorists) got the best of him. And, though Iraq ended up not having terrorists, and not having Weapons of Mass Destruction, Reverend Hagee's advice was flawed. I suppose that we should still listen to learned men. Why listen to someone who doesn't have a degree in theology if you want to learn about God?
I think that we are all better off researching for ourselves, and reading the bible for ourselves without being guided by misguided preachers.
I am certain that we can't learn all sides of complex debates, or even form intelligent conclusions without a great deal of effort and education.
So, why listen to a person with a PhD in archaeology if you can become an expert in archaeology, physics, mechanical engineering, medicine, philosophy, theology, in just one hour?
We could demand that in a forum post, he summarizes all information about the complex topic of evolution. Why are there so many books written about evolution if one can summarize it in merely a few minutes?
I've seen grade school teachers, very proud of teaching science to first graders, take refresher courses in college, and come out believing that they have all knowledge of physics. So, why are there all those students studying physics for all those years? Why did that grade school teacher make such low grades on the exams that were simple to even beginning physic students?
Something, in the years of study, convinced scientists that they are correct. Unless you want to take the same courses, you can't really understand or argue with them.
However, the same could be said of Doctors of Theology. Surely they know bible information. If so, we should respect their high level of education. For example, when Reverend John Hagee said that we would win the war in Iraq if we were closer to Jesus, you would think that he was right. Yet, God said "thou shalt not kill." So, maybe Reverend Hagee knew better, but his human frailties (in this case, fear of terrorists) got the best of him. And, though Iraq ended up not having terrorists, and not having Weapons of Mass Destruction, Reverend Hagee's advice was flawed. I suppose that we should still listen to learned men. Why listen to someone who doesn't have a degree in theology if you want to learn about God?
I think that we are all better off researching for ourselves, and reading the bible for ourselves without being guided by misguided preachers.
I am certain that we can't learn all sides of complex debates, or even form intelligent conclusions without a great deal of effort and education.
Audie
Veteran Member
I appreciate the good faith effort of the list here. Several of the questions would be quite helpful, I agree.
I would say, though, that 1., 2., 5., and 12. are unnecessary. Gods are irrelevant to an assessment of whether evolution is true. Indeed, many theists believe in evolution, and have even been evolutionary scientists who have advanced our understanding of the topic. So while defining God is helpful in another debate, it's not needed here.
Next, whether Darwin was a highly qualified genius or a clueless idiot is irrelevant to whether evolution is true. The process has been verified countless times since the man died in the 19th century.
And last, I don't need to personally perform experiments to reasonably make a conclusion on the topic. I've never personally experimented with cancer treatments, but I'm scientifically literate enough to be able to read and understand the thrust of experiments that have been done on those treatments, and to understand how they're systematically vetted by my government for safety and effectiveness, etc.
Aside from that, I like the list.
It certainly was a list of RF's persistent questions!
The questions are a bit one-sided. Where are all the detailed questions about one's understanding of mythology? Or the detailed questions about what creationism is? Or the nature of truth or truths?
Honestly, though, one can just eschew all that and ask what someone's foundational assumptions about the world are. Granted, a lot of folks haven't really thought much about that. The issue with foundational assumptions is that they're so foundational folks often don't recognize that they have them. Folks think of them as "just the way things are" or "self-evident" or "matters of fact" or what have you.
Honestly, though, one can just eschew all that and ask what someone's foundational assumptions about the world are. Granted, a lot of folks haven't really thought much about that. The issue with foundational assumptions is that they're so foundational folks often don't recognize that they have them. Folks think of them as "just the way things are" or "self-evident" or "matters of fact" or what have you.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
When its comes to evolution/creation both science and religion make use their own versions of God acts, even if science denies there is a God. If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Science employs a god of dice and cards to fill in the blanks. For example, according to science theology, life appears on earth due to a random series of events. This was a type of miracle, that is beyond reason. It is not definitive how this miracle happened, but it is needed, before the rest of the theory becomes active and useful. I know a miracle when I see it.
Religion uses a more rational God to create the same things. Their God is more willful and definitive. Unlike the Science God, who goes to a casino, puts a few coins in a slot machine of life, and wins a jackpot; first life, the God of religion is more like an engineer who makes use of existing laws of physics, and creativity, to contrive something brand new, that was not part of the original existence; let there be light; Edison.
The two competing God approach are based on the whims of the gods, versus the engineering of the Gods. Human progress tends to copy the engineering god; in God's image. They make use of existing laws of nature, science and culture, and extend this foundation into new combinations. Progress does not default to waiting for a jackpot, for change. Although many people do wait for a miracle to change their lives.
As a scientist and engineer I tend to relate with the god who is more rational and can contrive new connections within nature. The whims of the gods approach makes no sense to me, even if this approach is older in terms of religions. It makes no sense that the gods of random only appear when you need them to fill in the blanks with miracles. Then they disappear and/or then have no definitive form, as though they do not exist.
I prefer the idea of a steady intellectual God, who likes to tinker in the lab, to satisfy future and current supply and demand side needs. Even things like prophesy is a blue print of present and future R&D, that is a work progress.
Religion uses a more rational God to create the same things. Their God is more willful and definitive. Unlike the Science God, who goes to a casino, puts a few coins in a slot machine of life, and wins a jackpot; first life, the God of religion is more like an engineer who makes use of existing laws of physics, and creativity, to contrive something brand new, that was not part of the original existence; let there be light; Edison.
The two competing God approach are based on the whims of the gods, versus the engineering of the Gods. Human progress tends to copy the engineering god; in God's image. They make use of existing laws of nature, science and culture, and extend this foundation into new combinations. Progress does not default to waiting for a jackpot, for change. Although many people do wait for a miracle to change their lives.
As a scientist and engineer I tend to relate with the god who is more rational and can contrive new connections within nature. The whims of the gods approach makes no sense to me, even if this approach is older in terms of religions. It makes no sense that the gods of random only appear when you need them to fill in the blanks with miracles. Then they disappear and/or then have no definitive form, as though they do not exist.
I prefer the idea of a steady intellectual God, who likes to tinker in the lab, to satisfy future and current supply and demand side needs. Even things like prophesy is a blue print of present and future R&D, that is a work progress.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
You write like an engineer, those often being creationists, but, you sure don't sound like a scientist, at-all.
I respectfully disagree. If you don't know what a gate is, you don't know what a not-a-gate is.
Of course, once you have a necessary and sufficient definition of a gate, you can use it to determine what is not a gate.
One of the problems with God is that God has no definition appropriate to a real being (one with objective existence). Thus I can't tell what's not-a-God ─ eg there's no objective test that can tell me whether my keyboard is God or not ─ a fact I continually bewail around here.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
An inability to understand something does not make it a miracle. And no, science does not employ a god at all. It neither confirms nor denies a god. God is a non-issue in the sciences. And whenever a creationist talks about the sometimes random nature of science they are all but guaranteed to misunderstand it. Yes, some reactions are random. But when one has millions of reactions there are statistical laws that govern them. They are hardly random any longer.
Nope, again you do not understand the statistics of random events. When it comes to evolution every time to organisms reproduce (or even one) there are mutations. Some of the changes will be negative. Some will be positive. Most will be neutral. Natural selection eliminates the negative and only the positive and neutral are passed on long term. That makes evolution all but guaranteed.
Again, only one "God approach" the other does not use a god just as one is not used in gravity. And there is one huge problem with your "God approach". There is no scientific evidence for your God.
How can it be "rational"? I think that you are creating your own version of God. It is clearly not the God of the Bible. That God was rather incompetent and dishonest to say the least.
But there is no need for such a God. What evidence do you have for him? Once again I need to remind people that the standard for a scientific discussion is scientific evidence.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Great comment. To answer your question, most of the debate (from a vs. perspective) seems to be about the concept of a god(s) and evolution. The questions I presented are questions for a starting point where detailed definitions are addressed, BEFORE the actual debate. I.e. it is possible that both sides are not even speaking the same language, but then again maybe they are.
There reason why "creationism" is not defined as specific question is because the term and the definition often used for it may not adequitely define one of the sides. Just like using the term "science" can be a very wide range and non-specific term which covers so many disciplines. Further, those two terms are very broad where this is a more specific topic. Lastly, there is the possibility that some "god(s)" beleivers may not self-define as "creationist" just like not everyone who speaks about evolution is a "scientist." Further, just because someone speaks about evolution doesn't mean that they are specifically speaking about "science" just like not everyone who speaks about a "god(s)" is speaking about "creationism". It all depends on what they mean by the word "god" and where they get their defition from.
The issue of the truth is often something that is not going to be settled on discussion forum. That would probabely require both sides to actually meet, study the topics together, travel and research together, and experiment together. I.e. I am addressing how people on the same page normally start off a debate or discussion.
Last edited:
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the good faith effort of the list here. Several of the questions would be quite helpful, I agree.
I would say, though, that 1., 2., 5., and 12. are unnecessary. Gods are irrelevant to an assessment of whether evolution is true.
Aside from that, I like the list.
I agree, with a caveat. If a discussion/debate is about to take place between the two sides mentioned in the OP then starting off with those questions may lead to what you mentioned or it may lead to the realization that both sides are not speaking the same language or they don't use the same tools to deal with reality. Otherwise, without understanding what is relevant to the conversation it may go into whacky land pretty quickly.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Hovind is a proven fraud brother. No disrespect intended, but his ministry is predominantly pseudo scholarship. His Phd came from a building, not a university. I dont think someone like you should be using someone like this guy for anything.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Nobody is useless. They can still serve as a bad example.
The Hovinds, Hams and Comforts are out there and they influence people. We have to be prepared for people using their arguments.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Teaching advice to self a human.
You claim consciousness self human the highest position in creation. Consciousness the status.
The theist for producing the word. Claim it satanic atmospheric intention. Where your bio life exists thinking against natural evolution of a form of biological thesis.
We all own one massed cell. Variables but in one place in one time and one equal status. Present as presence.
The one cell as one mass water with oxygen generation owned by the heavenly life your life and not owned by God...one...the stone...energy mass evolution from its beginnings into stone.
Quotes I am not God.
Then the satanist atmospheric human thinker. Why we quote our human brother Satan in consciousness the think theist. For he destroyed God mass and sacrificed the only support a baby male human owned for life continuance.
Ground water presence. Male son baby of a male father God theist satanic who sacrificed the life of his male baby self. Confessed. Wrote the documents, said as the father of God being theories design study machines reaction as a male as a father human that he did it.
The story sacrificed DNA was a baby story actually. Not an adult story.
And then claim today in science that you are not our destroyer?
When info says God O stone released its gases from stone. Not from any cosmic space beginning and a thinker wants to argue what is relative to human existence by ego group support?
We said only 2 forms of humans existed. A male and a female. Said all DNA were originally in human life a multiple human parent life. The same.
A mother female human a creator of human babies. Exact correct word usage.
Space as a word description is space.
Not a womb description.
Humans in science evaluation quote everything originally came from the same historic highest history. Just as a thinker. Says the exact same thinking quote that a spiritual thinker says.
Humans say I came into the atmosphere from the eternal.
Science thinking says once some form of higher state changed. Became a big bang blast. From a preceding not named higher condition.
We all think.
We all know in thinking that humans came into their owned life after God O existed stone and it's heavens owned its owned highest states.
Knowing we are not those states.
We say out brother thought about wanting to return to the highest state.
What scientific thinking admits.
The eternal. But quote we live and die as a spirit human due to the eternal portion converted into mass evolution.
Claiming it is gone.
Science on behalf science says it still exists.
Science is who argues claiming the highest origins for creation still exists.
Spiritual humans state..but not in creation.
Science wanted it returned.
Science then says because it is space.
Spirit self says space was emptied of form higher state that burnt cooled and evolved into new form.
Biologist says cells irradiated heated changed into lower cell. Separated evolved as lower cell by cooling. Scientist creationist thinker.
Biology would place a human life as less than an ape by this theory. To be irradiated by heated mutation. Proven wrong by consciousness. Apes also equal would have become less also in form as the highest form ape.
Human says recording shows life after ice age coming across In a new eternal form. Spirit body that converted. Re owned human life again.
Quote we got released from spirit.
Said memory owns proof we were released out of spirit due to heavenly evolution. That had only supported a beast life with the earth garden.
Spirit heavens changed. Spirit form changed in eternal as proof God heavens caused it. New release.
Living dinosaurs own the exact same cloud image gain as any other body does.
So we did not begin in clouds with an image.
Clouds began as clouds formed as clouds.
Psyche. I go to sleep as consciousness. It is not death.
Death witnessed by the living self sees changes to the body. Gas and cell changes into decay. Recorded evil human idea seen witnessed after death. Zombie thinking status. All in our heads. Image communicated back by vision not natural.
Humans losing water ground life harmed visited by heavenly human spirit. A human mother or father. Water returned. Life saved.
Image just a spirit. Proof heaven clouds did not create bio existence. We did come from eternal spirit. We die we still own that spirit self. Not describable.
Evil spirit manifestation. Science conjured proved creation came from a place of spirit. As origins and known conscious thesis. Where did we come from.
Would not be asked if we were not aware.
Why a living self conscious said I do not die.
It is reasoned. Thought and theoried.
Gases heat expand in space. Our owned conscious living awareness inside an expanding gas space. Living by that status...to be aware.
We do not own cosmic spatial consciousness. False theism.
We taught ourselves a human is Satan via conscious thinking human conditions only. To contemplate destruction of highest identification.
You claim consciousness self human the highest position in creation. Consciousness the status.
The theist for producing the word. Claim it satanic atmospheric intention. Where your bio life exists thinking against natural evolution of a form of biological thesis.
We all own one massed cell. Variables but in one place in one time and one equal status. Present as presence.
The one cell as one mass water with oxygen generation owned by the heavenly life your life and not owned by God...one...the stone...energy mass evolution from its beginnings into stone.
Quotes I am not God.
Then the satanist atmospheric human thinker. Why we quote our human brother Satan in consciousness the think theist. For he destroyed God mass and sacrificed the only support a baby male human owned for life continuance.
Ground water presence. Male son baby of a male father God theist satanic who sacrificed the life of his male baby self. Confessed. Wrote the documents, said as the father of God being theories design study machines reaction as a male as a father human that he did it.
The story sacrificed DNA was a baby story actually. Not an adult story.
And then claim today in science that you are not our destroyer?
When info says God O stone released its gases from stone. Not from any cosmic space beginning and a thinker wants to argue what is relative to human existence by ego group support?
We said only 2 forms of humans existed. A male and a female. Said all DNA were originally in human life a multiple human parent life. The same.
A mother female human a creator of human babies. Exact correct word usage.
Space as a word description is space.
Not a womb description.
Humans in science evaluation quote everything originally came from the same historic highest history. Just as a thinker. Says the exact same thinking quote that a spiritual thinker says.
Humans say I came into the atmosphere from the eternal.
Science thinking says once some form of higher state changed. Became a big bang blast. From a preceding not named higher condition.
We all think.
We all know in thinking that humans came into their owned life after God O existed stone and it's heavens owned its owned highest states.
Knowing we are not those states.
We say out brother thought about wanting to return to the highest state.
What scientific thinking admits.
The eternal. But quote we live and die as a spirit human due to the eternal portion converted into mass evolution.
Claiming it is gone.
Science on behalf science says it still exists.
Science is who argues claiming the highest origins for creation still exists.
Spiritual humans state..but not in creation.
Science wanted it returned.
Science then says because it is space.
Spirit self says space was emptied of form higher state that burnt cooled and evolved into new form.
Biologist says cells irradiated heated changed into lower cell. Separated evolved as lower cell by cooling. Scientist creationist thinker.
Biology would place a human life as less than an ape by this theory. To be irradiated by heated mutation. Proven wrong by consciousness. Apes also equal would have become less also in form as the highest form ape.
Human says recording shows life after ice age coming across In a new eternal form. Spirit body that converted. Re owned human life again.
Quote we got released from spirit.
Said memory owns proof we were released out of spirit due to heavenly evolution. That had only supported a beast life with the earth garden.
Spirit heavens changed. Spirit form changed in eternal as proof God heavens caused it. New release.
Living dinosaurs own the exact same cloud image gain as any other body does.
So we did not begin in clouds with an image.
Clouds began as clouds formed as clouds.
Psyche. I go to sleep as consciousness. It is not death.
Death witnessed by the living self sees changes to the body. Gas and cell changes into decay. Recorded evil human idea seen witnessed after death. Zombie thinking status. All in our heads. Image communicated back by vision not natural.
Humans losing water ground life harmed visited by heavenly human spirit. A human mother or father. Water returned. Life saved.
Image just a spirit. Proof heaven clouds did not create bio existence. We did come from eternal spirit. We die we still own that spirit self. Not describable.
Evil spirit manifestation. Science conjured proved creation came from a place of spirit. As origins and known conscious thesis. Where did we come from.
Would not be asked if we were not aware.
Why a living self conscious said I do not die.
It is reasoned. Thought and theoried.
Gases heat expand in space. Our owned conscious living awareness inside an expanding gas space. Living by that status...to be aware.
We do not own cosmic spatial consciousness. False theism.
We taught ourselves a human is Satan via conscious thinking human conditions only. To contemplate destruction of highest identification.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
1. So what a god to you. Hard to say anything unless you provide what you believe is a god. The second part depends on the definition of a god. Give us what you believe.
2. Evolution is a continuingly changing theory as new evidence gives new insight. It is a collective definition continuing to "evolve".
3. ?
4. Natural selection is simply the fact that some survive and others do not. How it actually works in reality is much more complex on the genetic level but the basic definition is self evident.
5. Read his books and the books that new him. Your questions will be answered.
6. The definition of evolution is basically the fact the natural forces causes changes in the phenotypic expression of organisms over time. What is included is a constantly growing and expanding theory.
7. Whatever makes it sound untrue
8. macro and micro are just descriptors of small vs larger changes of the same process.
9. Science does not prove things. It provides evidence.
10. You would have to show that there are changes in phenotype that cannot be explained what genetic and epigenetic processes explain now.
11. Yes. Using evolutionally theory currently in what I do. There are active medical therapies based and influenced on evolution.
12. I am not currently active in basic research, primarily using the concepts in medical thearapy.
13, Genetic, ecological, evolution, neuroscience, medical, physiology, basic science journals.
14. Any other questions?
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
This is an important point. In western society the term god has often a specific Judeo-Christian-Islamic image (although this has significant variation) compared to pagans in the west with a completely different view which includes the goddess, compared to aboriginal of so many cultures, vs the views of eastern societies and everything in between. I would challenge anyone to really say what a god is and the difference between a god and a goddess. I am not expecting an answer anytime soon.
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
Greetings. Great comments.
Just FYI. According to the OP I am playing the role of the "referee's advocate" meaning that I am not involved in the action for either side. So, as the referee the concept of a "god" has no meaning for me. The list of questions are starting points for both sides to address before they debate their issues/topics in a way that gets past some of the silly business that often, but not always, happens in this kind of debate and drags it out, potentially unecessarily.
Concerning, science proving things. That was not the question that both sides would have to address. The question was "how would one factually prove any concept of evolution?" I.e. there are various ways to prove out a concept such as with mathematical models, statistics, experimentation, etc.
Just as you said one can acquire evidence. If the evidence keeps pointing over and over again to the same result, no matter who performs the research/experiment, and unless/or until something proves all of the collective results wrong, which would also need explaination and repeatability, one can say that is proven enough for human consumption "so to speak."
Ehav4Ever
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for the western society or Christians and Islam concept but the word in Hebrew that some translators translate into English as "god" doesn't mean what god means in English. That is why one of the reasons for question #2 and as you pointed out if one wants to use a particular groups definition of the English word "god" one has to be able to compare it to what other societies held by and explain why one definition is authoratative and the other is not.