@sonship said“ There is no reason to do that. If it kills our pride to know an intelligence, could be, that is so far greater to us than we like, we just learn to accept that that could be the case.”
@kevcvs57Stop using the term intelligent design when you mean the will of a magical creature.
There is no reason to do that. If it kills our pride to know an intelligence, could be, that is so far greater to us than we like, we just learn to accept that that could be the case.
This may make modern sense of know-it-all arrogance squirm and lash ou ...[text shortened]... eins and we cannot, YET at least, we'll just have to live with knowing we're limited compared to it.
I don’t have an issue with intelligence way beyond my own, there are plenty of those in the real world. Of course it could be the case but you still have to provide a theory backed by evidence of its origins, just the same as you demand for the origins of evolution. It must be nice to think you can have your cake and eat it but you actually cannot.
“quote]
The existence of the universe I believe came about by a power and intelligence outside of it. I believe that no matter how you splice, slice, sub-divide that material universe to its most quantum level, the source of it came totally from outside of it rather than inside. But this is another issue I think.”
Why do you think that what evidence leads you to that conclusion?
“ If it kills you learn that an intelligence could be so capable to design something like the DNA molecule information conveying apparatus for the production of proteins and we cannot, YET at least, we'll just have to live with knowing we're limited compared to it.”
Same question why do you think that, what are basing your proposition on?
I’ve said enough times that I have no interest and certainly no theories regarding the ultimate nature of reality. Yet you accuse me of arrogance whilst claiming to know the mind of god, it is you that needs to work on your humility in the face of realities great mystery not I. Please try to resist the urge to respond with a plethora of platitudes written by men thousands of years before we learnt that the Earth went around the sun.
@sonship saidYou posted a picture of a poster from Amazon that could've been drawn by anyone. Why not just get a diagram from an actual science website? Perhaps it's because none exists that support your bias?
Check this Darwinian tree of life diagram and see that there is some shared relationship of descent from amphibians to humans.
Anyway, your video about "randomness" being "unlikely" was proved wrong with that plastic-eating bacteria, which randomly evolved the ability to do so.
I don’t have an issue with intelligence way beyond my own, there are plenty of those in the real world. Of course it could be the case but you still have to provide a theory backed by evidence of its origins, just the same as you demand for the origins of evolution. It must be nice to think you can have your cake and eat it but you actually cannot.
Could you quote me in this thread exactly where I promised to provide "a theory backed by evidence of its origins?"
Refresh my recollection with a quotation if I said I was going to promise to do precisely this.
As for questions? I think I asked some things for people to think about.
"Demand" is a strong word. Can you quote me where I "demanded" some
reply?
If not on this thread, I recall asking something and saying I would take "I don't know or don't know yet" as a legitimate reply.
Show me "demanding" from you something.
Thanks
The existence of the universe I believe came about by a power and intelligence outside of it. I believe that no matter how you splice, slice, sub-divide that material universe to its most quantum level, the source of it came totally from outside of it rather than inside. But this is another issue I think.”
Why do you think that what evidence leads you to that conclusion?
I don't believe that the universe could create itself.
That would mean it would have to exist before it existed.
I believe that if ANYTHING exists then SOMETHING as an ultimate source must have eternal existence.
Take the analogy of a borrowed PC.
I come to you to ask to borrow your computer.
You say you have none. But you know someone who does and will borrow his.
He in turn says he has none of his own. But he will borrow from someone else he knows who has one.
And then THAT person says the same. He owns none. But he will borrow from someone he knows to have one.
This perpetual borrowed item has to terminate somewhere.
This infinite regress must terminate somewhere or I'll never get the computer.
Eventually you everyone has to arrive at one who OWNS a computer.
I think all of the material in the universe is derived from another source.
I do not believe this regress goes on infinitely.
I think it terminates in a source which does not itself have a previous source.
That is a non-borrowing but owning dispenser of existence.
The long line of things which derive their existence eventually traces back to a ultimate source which is the very ground of existence.
Genesis 1:1 informs us by revelation - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . . "
Helpful also is Romans 4:17b - " . . . God, who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being."
William Lane Craig puts it - "There are several qualities we can identify . . . A cause of space and time must be uncaused, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power . . . And that is the core concept of God."
And if you prefer an agnostic's non-theist viewpoint Robert Jastrow a NASA scientist put it:
"Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion."
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
@sonship saidYou are constantly demanding explanations and evidence concerning the origins of evolution as if that gap in our knowledge lends weight to the intelligent design model which in your case is code for your personal God model. To claim that your whole purpose in this and every other thread is not the promotion of your personal God model is disingenuous to say the least. I am simply pointing out that evolution is an integral part of reality, what or who began that process is open to debate. You are claiming that evolution could not have started by random chance whilst claiming that a supernatural being poofing everything into existence is a more tenable theory. That is the ridiculous nature of your stance. People win the lottery everyday and evolution is the most / only rational option for the reality we inhabit.
@kevcvs57
[quote] I don’t have an issue with intelligence way beyond my own, there are plenty of those in the real world. Of course it could be the case but you still have to provide a theory backed by evidence of its origins, just the same as you demand for the origins of evolution. It must be nice to think you can have your cake and eat it but you actually cannot. [/quot ...[text shortened]... don't know yet" as a legitimate reply.
Show me "demanding" from you something.
Thanks
@kevcvs57
I am a evangelist for the Christian faith. True.
That's why I usually stay here with Spirituality Forum where such talk can be expected.
But I am also here in the public square responding to the kind of New Atheist attitude of announcing to all us commoners that their science has proved God does not exist. And it is a "delusion" to think God exists.
Also biologist Richard Dawkins announces with assumed authority many such things which not only people of faith respond to but philosophers and scientists do as well.
Simply go check out quotes of Richard Dawkins.
I know some may say "Yea, but you religious folks started it."
Well, whoever in history started it, in a Forum like this I come not to bludgeon you over the head with "demands" But I simply ask you to think about some things. And I'm here taking opportunity to explain why something causing doubt of Christian belief, which is a problem for biologist Dawkins, may not be a problem for me.
The division of a eukaryotic cell, I don't think, is the result of a long time mutations of which, fortunately, constructive ones were "selected" out. I'm not intimidated by someone's doctorate in biology.
Some black balled researchers of equivalent training to Richard Dawkins along a number of qualitative professions (Christians and non) would agree that for this and other aspects of microbiology, Darwinian gradualism is not the best explanation.
@sonship saidBy this statement, aren't we right to assume that no matter what evidence is presented to you, no matter how logical an argument or no matter how much something has been proven, that you will always refuse to believe in evolution, no matter what?
I am a evangelist for the Christian faith. True.
That's why I usually stay here with Spirituality Forum where such talk can be expected.
If yes, then isn't it a waste of time for you to be engaging in these debates? Your faith will not let you believe, regardless of what evidence is presented, correct?
@sonship saidI’m not questioning your right to debate the subject, I’m questioning your proposition that God or Gods are a more reasonable theory than evolution based on a book purporting to be written by a God and the faith of those who believe that to true. I’m kind of getting sick of saying it but I do not claim that god or gods do not exist because there is no evidence to support that position, neither is there any evidence to suggest that they do. Our lack of data regarding the origin process for evolution cannot be dragooned by theists as evidence that God or Gods do exist and I think the weight of evidence is firmly in support evolution as first outlined by Charles Darwin albeit only a rough outline of the process garnered from the observation of phenotypes.
@kevcvs57
I am a evangelist for the Christian faith. True.
That's why I usually stay here with Spirituality Forum where such talk can be expected.
But I am also here in the public square responding to the kind of New Atheist attitude of announcing to all us commoners that their science has proved God does not exist. And it is a "delusion" to think Go ...[text shortened]... e that for this and other aspects of microbiology, Darwinian gradualism is not the best explanation.
By this statement, aren't we right to assume that no matter what evidence is presented to you, no matter how logical an argument or no matter how much something has been proven, that you will always refuse to believe in evolution, no matter what?
I believe in some form of evolution.
Finch becks on finches change.
Generations of dogs cause variations in their shape, size and feature.
That is an undisputable fact if you wish I would recognize that as evolution.
Please do not act as if you as so very close to extrapolating this evolution to
include how the processes of transcription or mitosis came about with no plan,
no purpose, no goal directed evolution. And I don't think you should wink at
me that you're right close around the corner to showing how obviously
evolution resulted in these.
Microbiology especially does not convince me that I'm stubborn and you're
inches away from convincing me in this kind of evolution.
While you ask me to contemplate that, I would ask you to contemplate, "What
if you're wrong?" If you want to talk about vested interest to cling to a
belief, think some about your own vested interest a little.
If yes, then isn't it a waste of time for you to be engaging in these debates?
What if it is not yes?
No. It is not a total waste of time to engage in such debates.
Your faith will not let you believe, regardless of what evidence is presented, correct?
It is said that evidence is not persuasion.
And that works for both of us.
If either of us has really powerful evidence for our view each of us should be willing to admit that "Now this is effective evidence for your belief."
Let's take the fossil record. For me it is powerful evidence that there are some
animals that use to live which are no longer living.
Even given imaginative artistic license on a limited amount of physical material
to reconstruct what some beast looked like. Still it seems right that extinction
has made many organisms disappear.
If there were not many missing links of transitions then there would be no need
to come up with something like "punctuated equilibria" as a rationale why
they're missing. Forgeries didn't help. But we'll forgive them. Fame and money is to be made anywhere someone knows something is DESIRED to be found very badly.
And that goes for some religious people also in spades.
But aside from these, science of the 21rst century has advanced in the area of the microscopic. And it would be naïve to expect new challenges to old concepts don't call for some re-thinking.
If your question is a prelude to you wanting to take a break or suspend further talking to me about it, that's ok. You have better things to do? Okay. Thanks for your thoughts if that's the case.
kevcvs57,
I have only lived 71 years. I know some changes in one's really core beliefs take time. Over the course of a few discussion forum posts some concepts are not relinquished quickly or adopted quickly.
I've told this funny story before. When I first got my PC and began to talk to people on the Internet (early 90s), my introduction to discussion groups was kind of funny. The first discussion board I attended had the moderator quitting after two years of hosting the talks there. He had had enough. I was fresh coming in and he was weary going out.
He said after two years of being in that group he had yet to see one person change their mind about anything.
I think Internet forums attract people who want to have entrenched ideas torture tested by those who disagree. In that regard I am probably like most people who easily burn up an hour on a Internet discussion forum.
@sonship saidI don't think you get what I'm asking you.
If yes, then isn't it a waste of time for you to be engaging in these debates?
What if it is not yes?
No. It is not a total waste of time to engage in such debates.
Your faith will not let you believe, regardless of what evidence is presented, correct?
It is said that evidence is not persuasion.
And that works f ...[text shortened]... t it, that's ok. You have better things to do? Okay. Thanks for your thoughts if that's the case.
Your faith requires that you doubt evolution, correct? Or are you actually open to the possibility that your faith is actually wrong? I'm open to the fact that evolution could be wrong, depending on what evidence is presented. Are you just as open the possibility that the Bible is wrong?
Please answer that question directly.
@sonship saidOkay.
If either of us has really powerful evidence for our view each of us should be willing to admit that "Now this is effective evidence for your belief."
Regarding the post made earlier regarding bacteria that evolved an ability that was clearly not designed (the ability to eat and metabolize plastic), do you at least admit a valid point was made?
I'm not asking if this is enough to prove evolution in your mind; I'm simply asking if you at least believe a salient point was given.