Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would have trouble grasping why any theist or atheist would necessarily not be able to buy both theories. Even before I went way off mainstream Christianity and became my own religion, it seemed perfectly reasonable.
If you're an atheist, evolution without a concept of creation, doesn't really make sense (you're gotta have an original form like a protoplasm getting created, before you have something evolving from it).
If you're a theist, evolution just helps fill the holes left by creationism (like some of the strange time gaps or stuff being inexplicably fully developed).
While Nozz' post is excellent as always, I can sympathize with the unresolved question of who made Matter in the first place? Who arranged the Big bang? Who put DNA together?
I can be sympathetic, because none of them have much to do with the personal gods of the various Holy Books and religions.
The thing is that, it seems to me that leaving room for a possible intelligence arranging those things which cannot be explained in terms of unplanned natural occurrences (or 'Chance' as Creationists call it) is something of an intellectual position. It is not a faith position as faith would be saying 'I believe an intelligence did this'. and there is just not enough evidence to say that, let alone regard it as reliable fact upon which one could base a life -changing worldview.
Now of course, you may not be doing that. You may simply say 'I cannot call myself atheist, because I think it probable that a Mind is needed to have got all that started'. As I say, I can sympathize with that and really agree to differ. It is in fact irrelevant and the real debate is about personal gods and their religions, Holy Books and men in Funny Hats trying to tell us all how to live.
If you don't care for that, if you are an irreligious Theist, you are my Brother, so far as I am concerned.
As an atheist, I prefer to say 'While there is a case for a Mind having started it all off, it is not one I agree with'. And that's a Dawkins remark. I just think we don't know enough about cosmic origins to be able to say what does or does not seem possible. And thus I will not place 'belief' on either side until we know more. And logically, that is an agnostic position - and the logically mandatory response to that is to reserve investing belief. That is what atheism is.
About the beginnings of Life, I would say we do know a lot more and there are some credible mechanisms proposed for the beginnings of life, without the need for a god. Thus I would see the need to argue that a God mustha dunnit as more something required by the arguer than by the theory.
All of it. I don't doubt that, in a few centuries, we shall look back with a wry smile at some of the ideas we have now. The point is about science that it has not regressed. Research and discovery has always moved us forwards and never back.
While the last major revision was the Copernican theory, when you think of it, the Ptolemaic theory of the celestial bodies revolving around a central earth was itself a great stride forward from the idea of a flat earth with a dome over it.
Since then, relativity has just added to Newtonian physics, not proven it 'wrong' and quantum has added to that. There was also the sea -change of Darwinism, but the only thing proven 'wrong' by that was the book of genesis, not science.
So to answer your question, science after Copernicus, if one wants to have a cut -off point where 'modern' science began. Though that overlooks a lot of great work done by the ancients, so it is all of value, really.
I think you missed the point. I thought it was the point you were actually making. Did I miss something? Didn't you just write something to the effect of having to rewrite the bible to make it appear to fit with science?
Quote:
...rewriting what the Bible appears to say to make it fit what science says.
In a way, I was just reiterating what you said, with the caveat that there was one "science" that such gymnastics in meanings were not required to fit the bible.
The only 'science' that doesn't require any rewriting of the bible "to make it fit" is the ancient near east version. Any subsequent versions of science would require more and more straining of what was actually written to make it align. So it would not be all of them.
I think you missed the point. I thought it was the point you were actually making. Did I miss something? Didn't you just write something to the effect of having to rewrite the bible to make it appear to fit with science?
Ah, yes, I see your point. Let me say that the Bible is based on the 'science' of the time and is not a book of science, but of religion (to keep it short ) While me may smile at the flat earth with a dome on it and God's palace perched on top, that was the best of their knowledge at the time and when we look at the works of actual science, the quality of their observations can still amaze.
What is wrong is to try to make that science - knowledge (good for its day) as good and better than what we have now. The point being that it was written by a god who when everything, not by men who didn't. Thus, what God says about Cosmic origins and biological forms and the shape of the heavens must fit with modern science, not with the knowledge of the time.
That is why what it appears to say has to be rewritten to make it fit the current state of knowledge.
Quote:
In a way, I was just reiterating what you said, with the caveat that there was one "science" that such gymnastics in meanings were not required to fit the bible.
The only 'science' that doesn't require any rewriting of the bible "to make it fit" is the ancient near east version. Any subsequent versions of science would require more and more straining of what was actually written to make it align. So it would not be all of them.
Yes I see. Perhaps I did miss your point. Let's look back...
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Quote:
I don't get to your posts often enough, Don old chum. yes, the 'Days' being 7 of what in total would match the estimated age of the universe is a way of rewriting what the Bible appears to say to make it fit what science says.
Panterra
Quote:
Just depends on which version of science we are talking about.
21st Century science?
17th Century science?
Medieval science?
Classical Greek science?
or
Ancient Near-East science?
Yes, of course, it doesn't need to be rewritten to fit the science - knowledge of the time, but it does increasingly need to be re-written (or re -interpreted so a 'day' becomes around 2 billion years years) so it doesn't seem to be refuted by current knowledge.
I suppose one might argue that the Bible has to to be revised as science has to be revised, but that doesn't work unless we accept that it was written by men with the best knowledge they had at the time, and with no (demonstrable) input from God.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-25-2013 at 08:56 AM..
I would have trouble grasping why any theist or atheist would necessarily not be able to buy both theories. Even before I went way off mainstream Christianity and became my own religion, it seemed perfectly reasonable.
If you're an atheist, evolution without a concept of creation, doesn't really make sense (you're gotta have an original form like a protoplasm getting created, before you have something evolving from it).
If you're a theist, evolution just helps fill the holes left by creationism (like some of the strange time gaps or stuff being inexplicably fully developed).
Honestly and politely, bulma, if you were to read a basic modern biology text, paying particular attention to the sections on basic biochemistry and genetics and DNA mutations, you'd no longer have that trouble in grasping why at least the abiogenesis and subsequent evolution can and in fact did happen. The reason is because there is now significant, reproducible and ample proof for the established, logical and documented processes of evolution through several processes of DNA mutation, gene insertion etc.
As well, current biochemical and biogenesis research, at the level of "newness" that has not even made it to publication yet, has indeed been dealing with the appearance of the predecessors of DNA. specifically, the Brits have observed the formation of the necessary amino acids in a lab setting, with mo Hand of god involved at all.
Next step is to duplicate, but in the lab, the conditions for the subsequent formation of DNA. Remember, bulma, it simply involves the inevitable laws of nature (as they apply to interactions of molecules that want to get together because of their shapes and available electrons to share...), plus the right energy input, temps and pHs of the operating solutions, etc. To dismiss that such conditions are unlikely in the unimaginable volumes of warm primordial oceanic water, coupled by huge extensions of time and conditions, viz.: billions of years times those quinta-zillions of molecules in mega-gahzillions of liters of ocean water? The bigger question might better be why did it take so long?
Meanwhile, and sadly for Creationist/Genesis fans, there are absolutely no verifiable nor properly documented observances of, or credible evidence for, Creationism, to wit: the "Insta-Poofy" version of anything ever showing up by some finger-waggling means, the product of an invisible and never-seen entity.
Instead, we are provided with faith-based "I believe in Creation and Genesis because I know its true, and because the bible says so!" or because the likes of The Faker Troupe; i.e.: such blatantly greedy frauds as Kent Hovind or Ray Comfort or Ken Hamm all make unsubstantiated claims, and won't answer reasonable questions about Creationism (for reasons that are obvious, plus it's the source of their income, donations from true beleivers" whose beliefs are based entirely on emotionalism and fear.).
Well oh good! The Harry Potter movies also make similar "absolute" claims, but of course they don't fit well into a fundy's demonstrably mythical beliefs. All real knowledge that is to be considered credible should be able to be independently and repeatedly verified.
However, fundamentalist Creationist types apparently have absolutely no concept of such verification or repeatability, much less the proper way to draw valid conclusions from any test procedure or data thus obtained. They simply want to verify that which they already believe in, with no acceptance of anything that flies in the way of their ancient beliefs. Why? Because they are very frightened of alternate but equally (or even better-suited...) conclusions, since such differences would necessarily lead to a disruption of their base beliefs.
One aspect of real science is exactly that: the ability to generate and then accept new or improved conclusions or meanings, even if it is perhaps personally challenging to an individual scientist, that an existing theory (perhaps one of his!) might provide an all-new, or even an improved implication.
However, in the stultified world of the fundy Christian mindset, there are no alternative explanations allowed, no matter how obvious some new piece of information might suggest or prove. Remember, The SM is simply a process by which simple questions re asked of mother nature, one at a time. What has changed significantly over the past few decades is that the always-improving o newly invented tools of such research has resulted in new discoveries, well supported, or of more accurate conclusions, or of far more precise results.
But of course and predictably this is vigorously resisted and resented by The Old School thinker. Too bad for them!
Ah, yes, I see your point. Let me say that the Bible is based on the 'science' of the time and is not a book of science, but of religion (to keep it short ) While me may smile at the flat earth with a dome on it and God's palace perched on top, that was the best of their knowledge at the time and when we look at the works of actual science, the quality of their observations can still amaze.
What is wrong is to try to make that science - knowledge (good for its day) as good and better than what we have now. The point being that it was written by a god who when everything, not by men who didn't. Thus, what God says about Cosmic origins and biological forms and the shape of the heavens must fit with modern science, not with the knowledge of the time.
That is why what it appears to say has to be rewritten to make it fit the current state of knowledge.
Yes I see. Perhaps I did miss your point. Let's look back...
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA Panterra Yes, of course, it doesn't need to be rewritten to fit the science - knowledge of the time, but it does increasingly need to be re-written (or re -interpreted so a 'day' becomes around 2 billion years years) so it doesn't seem to be refuted by current knowledge.
I suppose one might argue that the Bible has to to be revised as science has to be revised, but that doesn't work unless we accept that it was written by men with the best knowledge they had at the time, and with no (demonstrable) input from God.
Correct, that is all I was saying. Hugh Ross goes to extreme hermeneutical gymnastics to make it align with current science. I simply say why bother. They were just writing what they knew. At least Ken Ham and his crew don't have to do that, they obviously just make up there own "folk science."
Honestly and politely, bulma, if you were to read a basic modern biology text, paying particular attention to the sections on basic biochemistry and genetics and DNA mutations, you'd no longer have that trouble in grasping why at least the abiogenesis and subsequent evolution can and in fact did happen. The reason is because there is now significant, reproducible and ample proof for the established, logical and documented processes of evolution through several processes of DNA mutation, gene insertion etc.
As well, current biochemical and biogenesis research, at the level of "newness" that has not even made it to publication yet, has indeed been dealing with the appearance of the predecessors of DNA. specifically, the Brits have observed the formation of the necessary amino acids in a lab setting, with mo Hand of god involved at all.
Honestly and politely, rifle . . . You have to stop pretending that the science explains it ALL (or even has the potential to do so) . . . just because it describes the way God has set up reality to function. You call that set up "Nature or natural" AS IF that is an explanation . . . but it isn't . . . it only describes HOW God decided to do things. It will always be necessary to use what already exists to produce anything . . . so there is little point in pretending that producing "precursors in a lab" will ever amount to anything but a reproduction of God's work using God's materials and processes. Until you can account for what is "natural" (don't bother, it cannot be done) . . . you should stop being so damned arrogant and dismissive . . . AS IF you have already answered the inscrutable by science (or that science ever will be able to). Carry on with your very witty, informative and enjoyable posts explaining the extant science of evolution.
Honestly and politely, rifle . . . You have to stop pretending that the science explains it ALL (or even has the potential to do so) . . . just because it describes the way God has set up reality to function. You call that set up "Nature or natural" AS IF that is an explanation . . . but it isn't . . . it only describes HOW God decided to do things. It will always be necessary to use what already exists to produce anything . . . so there is little point in pretending that producing "precursors in a lab" will ever amount to anything but a reproduction of God's work using God's materials and processes. Until you can account for what is "natural" (don't bother, it cannot be done) . . . you should stop being so damned arrogant and dismissive . . . AS IF you have already answered the inscrutable by science (or that science ever will be able to). Carry on with your very witty, informative and enjoyable posts explaining the extant science of evolution.
Never said that science explained it all, Mystic, m'boy! Never ever said that. But at least we try to answer simple questions by applying very straightforward and unbiased logic and reason, centered within a good hypothesis and test procedure. One that anyone else, given the mandatory Method & Materials section in any proper scientific writeup, is free to repeat, re-conclude and argue within the credible journal venue.
Yet, oddly, not one single Christian seems to have EVER done this simple re-test procedure, and thus checked out the results they choose to venomously disagree with. So... exactly why is that, Mystic? Are they that afraid of having to face up?
Because here we are in a head-to-head competition for veracity, credibility and logical rational possibilities.
In such a comparison and competition for believability, I find the "evidence" for a Godly Creator to be exactly as strong and believable as is the "evidence" for unicorns and Easter bunnies. Where am I wrong here? I mean, aside from the "I believe it because I was told to me by very threatening adults when I went to Sunday School!", or the equally vacuous "I believe it because all the evidence points that way!"
Or, does that include such things as the literal writings of the bible {which, btw Mystic, as you know in your heart, are NOT proofs of anything, else-wise, by the same empty logic, my biology text is a whole lot better and more believable than a very contradictory and conflicted bible, and it's also "as written".}
Now then, as Exhibit One (and that's pretty much ll I'll need, your honor...) I can put together the primordial pre-life chemical ingredients or basic elements and they do, yup, then naturally interact in a now well-known and studied way that does not seem to involve strikes of Godly lightning, or a big ol' ominous Godly finger descending out of the clouds and waggling magical "life" per se into something. In other words, No Godly Magic Required, that's what I'm talking about here. No God Required. Ever. Never.
Also, by natural I mean such things as the chemical result of igniting hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, and gawh-lee Andy, water is produced as a product of the resulting "bang".
Or when metallic sodium and water combine to spontaneously ignite? you saying that your specific God has to be there for that too?
So.. do you want to assert that God has to prevail over each and every such interaction?
I Dohn-Theen-So Zorro! It's called a natural atomic/molecular interaction, and it will do that reliably each and every time, even if God has left the building for the evening.
But in the meantime, the evidence for Evolution (which btw, you also agree with, do you not, big M?) etc. etc. is now readily available for any and all to review and contemplate, and to actively compare with the total lack of the same quality of results for Creation/Genesis, not to mention the continuing growth of very credible facts revealed within the last 5 years alone and by such ultra-new techniques as DNA lineage and genome tracking, leaving a pretty obvious winnah in this competition for reality.
Never said that science explained it all, Mystic, m'boy! Never ever said that. But at least we try to answer simple questions by applying very straightforward and unbiased logic and reason, centered within a good hypothesis and test procedure. One that anyone else, given the mandatory Method & Materials section in any proper scientific writeup, is free to repeat, re-conclude and argue within the credible journal venue.
Yet, oddly, not one single Christian seems to have EVER done this simple re-test procedure, and thus checked out the results they choose to venomously disagree with. So... exactly why is that, Mystic? Are they that afraid of having to face up?
Because here we are in a head-to-head competition for veracity, credibility and logical rational possibilities.
In such a comparison and competition for believability, I find the "evidence" for a Godly Creator to be exactly as strong and believable as is the "evidence" for unicorns and Easter bunnies. Where am I wrong here? I mean, aside from the "I believe it because I was told to me by very threatening adults when I went to Sunday School!", or the equally vacuous "I believe it because all the evidence points that way!"
This last paragraph is where you go off the rails, rifle. ALL the evidence of how "Nature" works and the "natural" processes are evidence FOR God. Nature could just as easily be called God with no change in meaning. Natural processes could just as easily be called Godly processes with no change in meaning or effect.
Quote:
Now then, as Exhibit One (and that's pretty much ll I'll need, your honor...) I can put together the primordial pre-life chemical ingredients or basic elements and they do, yup, then naturally interact in a now well-known and studied way that does not seem to involve strikes of Godly lightning, or a big ol' ominous Godly finger descending out of the clouds and waggling magical "life" per se into something. In other words, No Godly Magic Required, that's what I'm talking about here. No God Required. Ever. Never.
Also, by natural I mean such things as the chemical result of igniting hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, and gawh-lee Andy, water is produced as a product of the resulting "bang".
Or when metallic sodium and water combine to spontaneously ignite? you saying that your specific God has to be there for that too?
So.. do you want to assert that God has to prevail over each and every such interaction?
I Dohn-Theen-So Zorro! It's called a natural atomic/molecular interaction, and it will do that reliably each and every time, even if God has left the building for the evening.
The idea that God has to be making ongoing micro decisions for every process He has established is absurd and quite frankly unbecoming of your intellect, rifle. The reality is you have no more idea what "Nature" actually is than we do about God . . . and you have no more idea why natural processes are the way they are than we do why God made them that way. The pretense that you are talking about something different than God is unconvincing. It has all the inscrutability and lack of understanding that God has.
Quote:
Or, does that include such things as the literal writings of the bible {which, btw Mystic, as you know in your heart, are NOT proofs of anything, else-wise, by the same empty logic, my biology text is a whole lot better and more believable than a very contradictory and conflicted bible, and it's also "as written".}
You know my views well enough not to ask silly questions of me, rifle my friend. I only responded to this post because your rationale went off the rails yet again.
Quote:
But in the meantime, the evidence for Evolution (which btw, you also agree with, do you not, big M?) etc. etc. is now readily available for any and all to review and contemplate, and to actively compare with the total lack of the same quality of results for Creation/Genesis, not to mention the continuing growth of very credible facts revealed within the last 5 years alone and by such ultra-new techniques as DNA lineage and genome tracking, leaving a pretty obvious winnah in this competition for reality.
No Contest.
You know that I have no issue with evolution, rifle. It is your over-the-top extrapolations beyond the extant data into the inscrutable AS IF you have some actual scientific basis for doing so that rankles, old friend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) While me may smile at the flat earth with a dome on it and God's palace perched on top, that was the best of their knowledge at the time and when we look at the works of actual science, the quality of their observations can still amaze. 
Grasping the truth...
. . . You have to stop pretending that the science explains it ALL (or even has the potential to do so) . . . just because it describes the way God has set up reality to function. You call that set up "Nature or natural" AS IF that is an explanation . . . but it isn't . . . it only describes HOW God decided to do things. It will always be necessary to use what already exists to produce anything . . . so there is little point in pretending that producing "precursors in a lab" will ever amount to anything but a reproduction of God's work using God's materials and processes. Until you can account for what is "natural" (don't bother, it cannot be done) . . . you should stop being so damned arrogant and dismissive . . . AS IF you have already answered the inscrutable by science (or that science ever will be able to). Carry on with your very witty, informative and enjoyable posts explaining the extant science of evolution.
