RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 3:46:33 PM)

quote:

Contrary to your statement, Talk Origins does not claim that evolution is a 'proven' fact, just that it is a fact. i.e. "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
Oh, I get it. You and TalkOrigins not only change the definition of "evolution" but also the definition of "fact". It certainly makes for convenient argument points when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Well, it's been nice chatting with you, es. I prefer to spend my time discussing things that actually exist in reality and are true (oops, definition of "fact"!).



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 4:11:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Contrary to your statement, Talk Origins does not claim that evolution is a 'proven' fact, just that it is a fact. i.e. "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
Oh, I get it. You and TalkOrigins not only change the definition of "evolution" but also the definition of "fact".


I'm sorry you didn't bother to read the website you quoted, but if it will make you and Jhud feel better, I will acknowledge that both TO and I believe that evolution is a pprroovveenn fact.

pprroovveenn means "proven except for various semantic, scientific and philosophical nits".



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 4:53:35 PM)

Your nits hardly make me feel better, es, but they're your problem, not mine! I know what a "proven fact" is and evolution does not qualify.

Are there any oyher theistic evolutionists out there that would like to respond to the OP?



unclemonkey -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 9:06:11 PM)

ORIGINAL:iluvatar
quote:

quote:

quote:

Because it doesn't exclude God.

Yet it makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That’s a pretty good trick for something that doesn’t exclude God.

?

You are sharper than that Dan. It is a shame that you feel the need to feign ignorance to avoid the obvious.



iluvatar -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/18/2008 9:36:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:iluvatar
quote:

quote:

quote:

Because it doesn't exclude God.

Yet it makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That’s a pretty good trick for something that doesn’t exclude God.

?

You are sharper than that Dan. It is a shame that you feel the need to feign ignorance to avoid the obvious.


I'm not feigning anything. I don't know what you're talking about.

-Dan.



RCC -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/20/2008 6:09:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: futuredocter37

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCC

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand?

How does evolution differ from modern chemistry or physics in this respect? Can you find discussions of supernatural interventions in a modern chemistry textbook?


Well the problem here is the distinction between where science ends and where unproven suppositions begin. Modern chemistry and physics are based on for the most part our understanding of matter and its behavior. However when it comes to origins, this is where science is limited to its unproven suppositions. Origins of the species is not proven. All we have is what we have observed so far in nature.

"Origins of the species," by which I suppose you mean common descent, is "proven" in the same sense that the defendant in a criminal trial is supposed to be proven guilty, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of > 99.9% of the scientists in the relevant fields; that's why evolution is an accepted scientific theory. Evolution "excludes God" in exactly the same way that physics, chemistry, developmental biology, immunology, and all other scientific fields "exclude God": look in the textbooks of these fields and you won't find any mention of supernatural interventions. So it makes no sense to single out evolution for criticism on this account.



jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 11:21:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes


I'm sorry you didn't bother to read the website you quoted, but if it will make you and Jhud feel better, I will acknowledge that both TO and I believe that evolution is a pprroovveenn fact.

pprroovveenn means "proven except for various semantic, scientific and philosophical nits".


Just not by science.



jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 11:54:18 AM)

quote:

No, not necessarily, however, those events are much more likely to leave behind a body of evidence that we'd be able to examine today. A mile-deep global flood 4000 years ago would leave massive, fresh scars all over the earth that we don't see. A recently created universe would not leave behind the evidence that we do see.


What if there was evidence of this such as huge canyons or massive fossil beds where plants and animals were berried rapidly. How would atheistic geologist interpret this evidence? They have a good reason to lie to themselves about what caused these formations.

If we prove that the bible is right then it would give credence to other claims that it makes. This is unthinkable to all atheist, they would rather believe the unbelievable then believe in God.

quote:

"Origins of the species," by which I suppose you mean common descent, is "proven" in the same sense that the defendant in a criminal trial is supposed to be proven guilty, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of > 99.9% of the scientists in the relevant fields; that's why evolution is an accepted scientific theory. Evolution "excludes God" in exactly the same way that physics, chemistry, developmental biology, immunology, and all other scientific fields "exclude God": look in the textbooks of these fields and you won't find any mention of supernatural interventions. So it makes no sense to single out evolution for criticism on this account.


Most of these are atheists who have an inherent need to disprove that there is a God at all cost.

Another point is that if our origins were a supernatural event then 99.9% of the scientist would all be wrong since they dismiss supernatural explanations out of hand.

As for the other aspects of science I would say that they all cut corners when it comes to things like ort clouds and dark matter but that is another topic.

The question I was trying to get at is why would Christians take what atheistic evolutionist say at face value when they obviously can come only have one conclusion based on there world view, “there is no God”?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 12:08:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

How would atheistic geologist interpret this evidence? ...

... why would Christians take what atheistic evolutionist say at face value ...


Not all geologists are atheists. Not all evolutionists are atheists.

The vast majority of geologists and biologists, regardless of their religious beliefs, have been convinced by the evidence that the earth is old and that living creatures have evolved.

It's not about lying to oneself, or believing the unbelievable, or an inherent need to disprove the existence of gods.



futuredocter37 -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 1:06:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

How would atheistic geologist interpret this evidence? ...

... why would Christians take what atheistic evolutionist say at face value ...


Not all geologists are atheists. Not all evolutionists are atheists.

The vast majority of geologists and biologists, regardless of their religious beliefs, have been convinced by the evidence that the earth is old and that living creatures have evolved.It's not about lying to oneself, or believing the unbelievable, or an inherent need to disprove the existence of gods.



Actually the only people who say such things only care about being accepted by the evolutionist, anything contrary to the evolutionist is not accepted. Peer review is whats wrong, people can be greatly influenced by peers especially in science. Which is really what Mr. Stien's movie is all about. Not so much evolution creation debate, I read a recent article in Scientific America about whats wrong with peer review, namely the bias that it involves.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 2:14:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
Actually the only people who say such things only care about being accepted by the evolutionist


No, the geologists probably don't even care very much what the evolutionists (biologists) think about them. Nevertheless, they have determined that the earth is old.



futuredocter37 -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 3:28:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
Actually the only people who say such things only care about being accepted by the evolutionist


No, the geologists probably don't even care very much what the evolutionists (biologists) think about them. Nevertheless, they have determined that the earth is old.


Actually the two fields are related in evolutionary thought when it comes to the fossil record, you said in your previous post most biologist and geoligist, I never made a distinction. In reality most scientist regardless of their field of study, have to interpret the evidence with the assumption of the earth being millions or billions of years old in order to be accepted. Its the peer pressure to assume those ideas such as an exremely old age of the earth. Clearly the lines between an Assumption and acutal fact are blurred. The point of Ben Stien's movie seems to indicate that people are not allowed to follow the evidence of sceintific study becuase it contradicts the assumptions of evolution, regardless of the field of study.

I have a question, if the earth has an appearance of age, then what is a young earth suppose to look like. Have we observed what a younger earth does look like? I think you know you what the answer to this is.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 3:44:24 PM)

quote:

Nevertheless, they have determined that the earth is old.
No, they have determined that their interpretation of evidence can only result in a conclusion that the earth is old. Scientists have "determined" nothing, remember, es?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 5:25:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
I have a question, if the earth has an appearance of age, then what is a young earth suppose to look like. Have we observed what a younger earth does look like? I think you know you what the answer to this is.


A 6000 year old earth would have many telltale signs. Radiometric dating would not yield old dates. Features like the Hawaiian Islands could not exist. There would not be an extensive geologic column with distinctive strata. Fossils (assuming any existed at all) would not exist stratified in different layers, demonstrating change over time.

Of course, an omnipotent creator could have made the earth any way it wanted, leaving 'fake' evidence of age behind. Even if true, science can only use the evidence that actually exists. The evidence that does exist points to an old age.



TMeeks -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 7:19:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

I have some simple questions for anyone who believes in theistic evolution. This is not to put any one down but to help me understand how you view certain things.


I am NOT an evolutionist. But, since the thread has devolved into a 'winner take all' slug-fest, I though maybe we could discuss these issues as issues in the spirit in which you state above.

quote:

Some of these questions follow the assumption that you interpret your Bible according to what science says.


From my dialogue with theistic evolutionists, I would have to say that this assumption is only partially true and that it only really covers the origins of species on the earth. It may or may not cover 'miracles' that we find in other parts of the Scriptures. It's unfair to put words into other people's mouths. It's better to ask and find out what they believe about individual items as you have done.

quote:

1. Do you believe in the Virgin birth when science says that this is impossible?


I assume that one's position in this regard, among those that call themselves Christians, have more to do with their relationship with a personal Christ rather than more liberal corporate view of Christ's advent. From the answers you got, it appears that at least some theistic evolutionists separate the issues of evolution/creation from other miracles of the Scriptures.

quote:

This is a big one.
2. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ without scientific proof.
(I’m really curious about this one as I have heard that some churches getting rid of this teaching.)


As far as Francis Collins goes, he squarely believes in the resurrection of Christ. Again, this is more of a liberal vs. traditional theology difference rather than an evolution vs. creationism difference.

quote:

3. Where does Adam and Eve fit into your theology? Were they real or stories made up to teach us lessons?


This is where the rubber hits the road as far as I'm concerned. Theistic evolution proponents, it seems to me, too easily allow this question to hang out there. But, unless Adam and Eve are real people, then a LOT of the Bible falls into disrepute. But, it goes farther than that. It extends to a real Noah and a real flood as well. I have not heard any serious discussions on the theological implications of dismissing the flood as a story or myth from theistic evolutionists. They may be there; but, I haven't come across them.

quote:

4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand?


In all due respect... from a person that believes in creationism as the best model to explain both the person and work of Christ... you are making an accusation rather than asking a question.

A better to way to ask this, to get a true dialog going would be.

"I can understand why those that believe there is no God would see evolution as the best answer for the origin of species and the rise of mankind. But, as a theistic evolutionist, where does God fit into the fabric of the evolution theory? It seems to me that, fundamentally, it excludes the intervention of God or any supernatural event. How do you reconcile that?"

I, too, would be interested in hearing the answer to that question. But, not so that I could jump down their throat; but, truly explore how they come to the positions they've come to. For that we must be willing to listen and ask MORE questions. [:)]



TMeeks -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/22/2008 7:28:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: futuredocter37

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

How would atheistic geologist interpret this evidence? ...

... why would Christians take what atheistic evolutionist say at face value ...


Not all geologists are atheists. Not all evolutionists are atheists.

The vast majority of geologists and biologists, regardless of their religious beliefs, have been convinced by the evidence that the earth is old and that living creatures have evolved.It's not about lying to oneself, or believing the unbelievable, or an inherent need to disprove the existence of gods.



Actually the only people who say such things only care about being accepted by the evolutionist, anything contrary to the evolutionist is not accepted. Peer review is whats wrong, people can be greatly influenced by peers especially in science. Which is really what Mr. Stien's movie is all about. Not so much evolution creation debate, I read a recent article in Scientific America about whats wrong with peer review, namely the bias that it involves.


Universal acceptance of evolution would be bad for science in that it would result in sloppiness. Science needs to be challenged to grow. Over and over we see that what was once accepted science has been overturned by those will to challenge the mainstream. One of the problems that institutions of higher learning now have is the inbreeding resulting from the absolute distain for those scientists that come up with alternative viewpoints concerning Darwinism.

That's a shame. Science should be about discovery no matter where that discovery takes us. When a group decides, out of hand, that a discovery is NOT science because it doesn't tow the popular line then it distorts the very nature of scientific discovery.



jfcbrian -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/26/2008 9:55:41 PM)

quote:

In all due respect... from a person that believes in creationism as the best model to explain both the person and work of Christ... you are making an accusation rather than asking a question.


The key point here is 'to explain both the person and work of Christ'. I was trying to point out that evolution is the best explanation for the evidence only if there is no God. In other words as weak as evolution is it is the only explanation that atheistic evolutionist have.
quote:

A 6000 year old earth would have many telltale signs. Radiometric dating would not yield old dates.
The problem is that you can take a rock from a know age and test it and get a extremely long age.
quote:

Features like the Hawaiian Islands could not exist.
Like the Hawaiian Islands.
quote:

There would not be an extensive geologic column with distinctive strata.
says you
quote:

Fossils (assuming any existed at all) would not exist stratified in different layers, demonstrating change over time.

From my understanding only about 50% of the fossil record follows your time line plus the problem of lack of transitional fossils. We should be able to follow the entire process of the leg to wing and other transitions through the fossil record, this doesn’t happen. Before you bring up the four fossils that are used as evidence of an extensive remember evolutions greatest champion had to come up other ways to explain the thin fossil record.
quote:

"I can understand why those that believe there is no God would see evolution as the best answer for the origin of species and the rise of mankind. But, as a theistic evolutionist, where does God fit into the fabric of the evolution theory? It seems to me that, fundamentally, it excludes the intervention of God or any supernatural event. How do you reconcile that?"

Okay this is better phrasing.



iluvatar -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/26/2008 10:29:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian
The problem is that you can take a rock from a know age and test it and get a extremely long age.


Do you have any examples of properly applied and conducted tests producing wildly inaccurate dates?

-Dan.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 12:52:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jfcbrian

I was trying to point out that evolution is the best explanation for the evidence only if there is no God.


No, it is the best scientific explanation, period.

quote:

quote:

Features like the Hawaiian Islands could not exist.
Like the Hawaiian Islands.


What? If the earth were 6000 years old, and if the Hawaiian islands grew as they appeared to have grown, then there isn't enough time for them to have grown. Either they are millions of years old, or they were magically created last Tuesday for all we know.

quote:

quote:

There would not be an extensive geologic column with distinctive strata.
says you


Your denial is forceful, yet lacks any persuasion. The walls of the Grand Canyon (favored by creationists, scientists, and tourists alike), show definite strata of different rocks. They are not ordered by density, otherwise you wouldn't find sandstone near the very top and near the very bottom, and some of the lowest levels are tipped at an angle. They embody the huge age of the feature, confirmed by measurements.

quote:

quote:

Fossils (assuming any existed at all) would not exist stratified in different layers, demonstrating change over time.

From my understanding only about 50% of the fossil record follows your time line...


Are there any human fossils mixed among trilobite fossils? No, there are none. Are there any cat fossils among the stromatolites? No, there are none. If (as you claim) half of the fossil record doesn't follow the scientific timeline, could you point out some of the discrepancies?

quote:

plus the problem of lack of transitional fossils. We should be able to follow the entire process of the leg to wing and other transitions through the fossil record, this doesn’t happen. Before you bring up the four fossils that are used as evidence of an extensive remember evolutions greatest champion had to come up other ways to explain the thin fossil record.


Yes, the fossil record is thin. Yes, it is a great shame. But transitional fossils are not nonexistent. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of transitional species known from the fossil record. They are tangible evidence for evolution.



davelinde -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 9:47:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

quote:

3. Where does Adam and Eve fit into your theology? Were they real or stories made up to teach us lessons?


This is where the rubber hits the road as far as I'm concerned. Theistic evolution proponents, it seems to me, too easily allow this question to hang out there. But, unless Adam and Eve are real people, then a LOT of the Bible falls into disrepute.


If anyone wants to talk about theistic evolution (as implied by the title of this thread) this is my question too. How do you reconcile the concept that people came into being over multiple generations of changing beings with the idea that sin came into the world by Adam and Eve and was then passed along to every person after them.



TMeeks -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 11:05:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: davelinde

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

quote:

3. Where does Adam and Eve fit into your theology? Were they real or stories made up to teach us lessons?


This is where the rubber hits the road as far as I'm concerned. Theistic evolution proponents, it seems to me, too easily allow this question to hang out there. But, unless Adam and Eve are real people, then a LOT of the Bible falls into disrepute.


If anyone wants to talk about theistic evolution (as implied by the title of this thread) this is my question too. How do you reconcile the concept that people came into being over multiple generations of changing beings with the idea that sin came into the world by Adam and Eve and was then passed along to every person after them.

The problem, of course, is that it calls universal sin into question. It's almost impossible to account for universal sin with gradual human evolution unless there was an event that killed off all but two individuals and these two individuals somehow starting 'walking with God' and then broke the fellowship.

It's simply not theologically possible.

How could God hold all mankind accountable for behaviors that simply evolved over time as part of DNA progressions. Unless free will and rebellion are involved, the very concept of sin loses its meaning.

At the very least, it seems to me, that there must have been a specific creation of man to be anywhere close to maintaining theological integrity with the need for Christ's atonement.

While I found Collin's book an excellent resource for withnessing to those who would otherwise not listen, there was no way for either of us to resolve this basic difference. It's interesting that he argues for the need for forgiveness in his own life, without really having a good explanation for his sin nature's existence.

However, a potential explanation that might resolve the theological issues is one that should be seriously studied by serious theologians just in case we have missed something by its very familiarity. I don't think so. But, if one is serious about searching for truth then probing old assumptions is always worth pursuing. Again, the Bible is not wrong. But, we must always be aware that WE can be wrong.

The description of the creation of mankind is so stark and so detailed that I certainly have difficulty seeing it other than a miraculous one-time event. And, the description that Adam and Eve walked with God certainly calls for a very special pair. These are very literal descriptions and the only way around a literal interpretation of them as real people is to allegorize them or turn them into completely mythical beings... neutering the very foundations of Christian theology.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 12:36:08 PM)

quote:

Either they are millions of years old, or they were magically created last Tuesday for all we know.
What total bunk, es! Your credibility is down to about 0.2% now. I have relatives that were in Hawaii on Feb 18, 2008 so we know beyond any doubt that the islands were there last Tuesday. But the fact is that we know nothing about their existence "millions of years ago" because there are ZERO eyewitness reports to scientifically prove their age of formation. Are you that disingenuous with the religion of radiometric dating to be forced to compare 6000 years with eight days?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 1:14:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Either they are millions of years old, or they were magically created last Tuesday for all we know.
What total bunk, es! Your credibility is down to about 0.2% now. I have relatives that were in Hawaii on Feb 18, 2008 so we know beyond any doubt that the islands were there last Tuesday.


It's entirely possible that the universe was created last Tuesday, with only the appearance of age, including the creation of the memories in your relatives (and us) that we all even existed before last Tuesday.

I don't positively assert that this is actually the case, but it is materially indistinguishable from the claim that the universe was created 6000 years ago, with the Hawaiian Islands created in 'as is' condition. Neither claim is a scientific proposition.

No possible evidence could show that the earth wasn't created x years ago with only the 'faked' appearance of great age. Science only has access to the physical evidence that actually exists, and this physical evidence indicates that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 2:08:37 PM)

quote:

and this physical evidence indicates that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Nope, your interpretation of some of this evidence leads you to that conclusion. Someday you may figure this out!



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (2/27/2008 2:43:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

and this physical evidence indicates that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Nope, your interpretation of some of this evidence leads you to that conclusion. Someday you may figure this out!


At least my interpretation is in good company, since it represents the scientific consensus on the issue, based on all the evidence and multiple lines of inquiry.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI