Evolution and God

Originally posted by bbarr
How do you know that you understand the post to which you are responding?

How do you know that I don't understand it? 😉

Originally posted by bbarr
How do you know that you understand the post to which you are responding?

Well seeing that you understand everything and nobody else does, then why don't you explain it so that I can ask you the same question.

Originally posted by Coletti
No foundation??? What do you mean?

Do you ever read dj2's posts? This is the crux of his argument: even if macroevolution occurs, we must reject it because it does not explain where inorganic matter came from. Without this as a foundation, the theory is unfounded.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]We share common ancestors with others in the great apes.

Evolutionists, or everybody? Include yourself. Please leave me out of it.

Besides, how do you know that you share a common ancestor with any of the great apes?[/b]

Hmm . . . I guess you won't be using anymore arguments from Michael Behe (i.e. irreducible complexity) since he accepts common ancestry of all species (including humans and great apes).

Originally posted by telerion
Do you ever read dj2's posts? This is the crux of his argument: even if macroevolution occurs, we must reject it because it does not explain where inorganic matter came from. Without this as a foundation, the theory is unfounded.

OK. So abiogenesis would be a foundation of Macroevolution. I'd say it's a necessary prior assumption. It would seem that establishing the validity abiogenesis is a critical requirement to justifying the belief in evolution. So if you admit that this is lacking (that evolution lacks a foundation) then I can see no reason why anyone would consider it a scientific fact.

"If you can't accept evolution because it lacks a foundation, then you can't accept any other scientific theory for the same reason."

Are you saying that all scientific theories lack foundations? I think many scientist would disagree. But if you are saying they all lack foundation, then I agree, there is no reason to believe any scientific theories are true.

Originally posted by frogstomp
You confuse "falsifiable" with not being disproved. "Cannot disprove it" is not the same as not being falsifiable.
What you are showing is your woeful lack of understanding of the scientific method.
And the Naturalism as religion idea is simply ludicrious. ...

You've got that backwards. Falsifiable mean being able to disprove. A good scientific theory should have some testable criteria by which the theory can be disproved. By having that criteria, and showing that the tests fail, it gives strength to the theory, and avoids the adoption of false theories.

Naturalism is the belief that all phenomenon (past, present, and future) have non-supernatural explanations. It is a rejection of spiritual or super-natural effects in the empirical world. In essence - it rejects God a priori. And thus it is a philosophic and religious presupposition that most scientist assume but do not attempt to justify.