[_ Old Earth _] Does Christianity defy evolution?

[RND]

You seem to be very resentful of the things science has found. And you don't seem to know much about it.

I guess that's why they are called opinions.

Science can't try to disprove God; it's limited to the natural. It can neither affirm nor deny God.

Again, I guess that's why they are called opinions.

Sorry. Won't work. Light won't do that for you.

Sure it will and science is proving it/

Nope. If your faith isn't strong, science can't shore it up for you.

My faith is very strong and the fact that science confirms the wonder of God's creation makes it even stronger! I would say it takes much greater faith to believe in the creation account of the evolutionist than it does of the Bible. Evolution has no claims to origin other than to say, "it just happened" whereas the Bible believing creationist always has God that they can believe in and trust.

"It just happened" vs. the Creator of Heaven and earth.

 

[lordkalvan]

Er, no it isn't. It's about discussing the predictable consequences of the physical organization of the post-Big Bang Universe. I have already said that for the purposes of this discussion the cause of the Big Bang could be either natural or supernatural. The point following this is that the development of the Universe thereafter can proceed naturalistically without the need for divine (or any other) intervention.

In discussing the predictable consequences of the physical organization of the post-Big Bang Universe it would be helpful first of all to discuss how matter came into existence.

By the conversion of Big Bang energy into heavy and (later) light particles according to the natural laws of physics as they are understood to operate in the post-inflationary period.

It's good to see however that you are willing to give God some credit.

I only point out that we do not need to consider the cause of the Big Bang to acknowledge the naturalistic development of the Universe thereafter. This neither credits nor denies a god as the cause of the Big Bang: it remains neutral on the matter.

[quote:2g4c3j49]I have quite carefully done my best to avoid attributing either a natural or supernatural cause to the Big Bang. I have been concerned only with the development of the Universe by natural processes after the Big Bang.

In other words, you want to say that either natural or supernatural could be the cause but you only want to talk about the natural. Great. Where'd the matter come from....naturally of course?[/quote:2g4c3j49]
I have specifically said that I am not addressing the cause of the Big Bang, but only pointing out that the development of the Universe thereafter can be explained naturalistically. Matter came naturally from the conversion of Big Bang energy into heavy and (later) light particles according to the laws of physics as we understand them.

[quote:2g4c3j49]The development of matter is a consequence of the physics of the post-inflationary period Universe: matter and energy are interchangeable and the Big Bang released tremendous amounts of energy into the expanding Universe, energy which interacted to form heavy and (later) light particles.

Great, what did the energy interact with?[/quote:2g4c3j49]
Itself.

[quote:2g4c3j49]Whether or not this theory is correct, it remains the case that I don't know does not immediately allow for the presumption that the only resolution of that ignorance is to slip a god into the resulting gap in understanding and knowledge.

Why not?[/quote:2g4c3j49]
Speculation is not evidential. I would be equally entitled to speculate with as much validity that the Big Bang was the work of alien intelligences existing in a Universe occupying a different dimension from ours.

You already conceded that the supernatural could be part of creation.

I only included the possibility to explore the idea that the Universe as we observe and understand it could have developed entirely naturalistically thereafter.

Why not explore that possibility deeper instead of suggesting we can't slip God into the mix?

In order to explore the possibility it is necessary to adduce some evidence that might support it.

That seems highly disingenuous.

How do you come to conclusion that I am neither candid nor sincere, and that I am pretending to know less about something than I actually do? I am only suggesting that ignorance of how a phenomenon operates or might have come about does not immediately allow that the only possible explanation must be divine intervention. Experience teaches us that the more we come to understand previously unexplained phenomena that were attributed to divine action, the more it becomes evident that those phenomena have natural explanations. Therefore the most likely explanation for any phenomenon that is not yet understood is that it will have a natural explanation.

[quote:2g4c3j49]And this is a bad thing because?

Because it shows just how shallow your arguments really are.[/quote:2g4c3j49]
And how is that? Just because I don't agree with you does not make my arguments shallow.

[quote:2g4c3j49]To what purpose? The explanation relies on naturalistic processes subsequent to the Big Bang. My argument relates to those naturalistic processes, not to whether or not the Big Bang had a natural or supernatural cause.

And that's the problem! On one hand you say and concede it could be natural or supernatural in origin but are only willing to debate one side without exploring the other.[/quote:2g4c3j49]
I have been exploring the argument that the post-Big Bang Universe can be explained naturally regardless of the original cause of the Big Bang. One consequence of this idea is that evolution and Christianity are entirely compatible.

I thought science looked at all angles not just the one's it wanted to.

Science is concerned with testable hypotheses about the natural world. As far as I am aware, there is no testable hypothesis that can be constructed that will falsify the existence of God because God is a priori non-natural.

[quote:2g4c3j49]The Bible only says that this is so;

Long before the birth of any scientists![/quote:2g4c3j49]
Vague statements about supernatural creation are not explanatory. The Egyptian creation myth also says things about creation long before the birth of any scientists. My immediate response would be, so what?

[quote:2g4c3j49] it offers no explanation of the process by which God undertook this act of creation so in that sense it offers us no insight at all.

Fortunately science, the more it tries to disprove God did it confirms He actually created all things.[/quote:2g4c3j49]
I do not understand how you come to this conclusion. I also do not understand how you suppose that the aim of science is to try to 'disprove' God rather than to explain the natural world. Of course, I can see why you would be hostile towards this process because the more the natural world is explained by science, the fewer become the nooks and crannies in which God can be concealed.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You seem to be very resentful of the things science has found. And you don't seem to know much about it.

I guess that's why they are called opinions.

Inferences. We have the evidence of your statements. As you have shown, you can have opinions in the absence of any evidence whatever.

Barbarian observes:
Science can't try to disprove God; it's limited to the natural. It can neither affirm nor deny God.

Again, I guess that's why they are called opinions.

It's a fact. Science is by its very methodology, limited to the physical universe.

Barbarian on the hope that light might act the way quarks exhibit symmetry:
Sorry. Won't work. Light won't do that for you.

Sure it will and science is proving it/

Sounds interesting. Show us.

Barbarian regarding the hope that science can help with faith:
Nope. If your faith isn't strong, science can't shore it up for you.

My faith is very strong and the fact that science confirms the wonder of God's creation makes it even stronger!

The problem is, you don't know very much about God's creation.

I would say it takes much greater faith to believe in the creation account of the evolutionist than it does of the Bible.

But you don't accept the Bible in all parts. So at least Genesis is harder for you to believe.

Evolution has no claims to origin other than to say, "it just happened"

Evolution makes no claim at all about the origin of life, just as chemistry makes no claims at all about the origin of atoms. That's how science works.

whereas the Bible believing creationist always has God that they can believe in and trust.

There are Bible-believing creationists, but there are no Bible-believing YE creationists, since they don't agree with Genesis.

Again, if your faith is not strong enough, science can't help you with it.

 

[RND]

Inferences. We have the evidence of your statements. As you have shown, you can have opinions in the absence of any evidence whatever.

Offer up one statement I have made critical of science? I have been critical of evolution, not science.

It's a fact. Science is by its very methodology, limited to the physical universe.

Who created the "physical universe"? God right? So by your logic you statement should say, "Science is by its very methodology, limited to God's creation."

Sounds interesting. Show us.

Read: 'The Quark and the Jaguar' by Murray Gell-Man.

The problem is, you don't know very much about God's creation.

Again, that's your opinion.

But you don't accept the Bible in all parts.

The Bible does speak of evolution. You "think" it does.

So at least Genesis is harder for you to believe.

Again, that's your opinion.

Evolution makes no claim at all about the origin of life,

Because it can't.

just as chemistry makes no claims at all about the origin of atoms. That's how science works.

That's because chemistry can't make claims about the origin of atoms. Biology can't either. Nor any other scientific discipline.

There are Bible-believing creationists,

Evolution is not creation. Read a dictionary for goodness sake!

but there are no Bible-believing YE creationists,

It is certainly a dying breed.

since they don't agree with Genesis.

Again, that's your opinion.

Again, if your faith is not strong enough, science can't help you with it.

You've said that. Science can't say where the first atom came from, yet the Bible can.

Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

An atom is "a thing". The Bible says "All things were made by him" which is Jesus Christ. Without Jesus "not any thing made that was made that was made." That means without Jesus nothing, including atoms, quarks, protons, electrons, etc., were made. Thus the Bible answers the question that science can't or won't - Jesus Christ made all things. Therefore my faith is actually strengthen because I know Jesus made all those "itzy-bitzy" things that the eye can't see but science discovered!

 

[Barbarian]

Offer up one statement I have made critical of science? I have been critical of evolution, not science.

As you've done with the Bible, you've just redefined "science" to exclude what you don't like.

Barbarian explains why science can't prove or disprove God:
It's a fact. Science is by its very methodology, limited to the physical universe.

Who created the "physical universe"? God right?

Right. But science still can't prove or disprove God.

Barbarian on the claim that light acts as quarks do:
Sounds interesting. Show us.

Read: 'The Quark and the Jaguar' by Murray Gell-Man.

Don't remember that. Explain what he said about it, and the evidence supporting the claim.

Barbarian observes:
The problem is, you don't know very much about God's creation.

Again, that's your opinion.

Demonstrably true. For example, you don't accept what He says in Genesis.

The Bible does speak of evolution.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't speak of protons, either. There are many truths that are not in the Bible.

Barbarian observes:
So at least Genesis is harder for you to believe.

Again, that's your opinion.

Demonstrably true. Look at all the effort you've gone through, trying to show God was wrong about the way life began.

Evolution makes no claim at all about the origin of life, in the same way that chemistry makes no claims about the way atoms began. That's how science works.

Right. The theories that address how life began fall under the heading of "abiogenesis."

Barbarian observes:
There are Bible-believing creationists, but there are no Bible-believing YE creationists,

It is certainly a dying breed.

Nonexistent, actually. If you're a YE creationist, by definition you don't believe Genesis.

Again, that's your opinion.

Demonstrably true. God directly contradicts the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."

Barbarian advises:
Again, if your faith is not strong enough, science can't help you with it.

 

[RND]

As you've done with the Bible, you've just redefined "science" to exclude what you don't like.

You crack me up! I have neither redefined the definition of science nor said anything critical about science. I love science. It proves God exists.

[quote:27b97vgw]Who created the "physical universe"? God right?

Right. But science still can't prove or disprove God.[/quote:27b97vgw] Can science prove there is a physical universe? If so then it proves God created it.

Don't remember that. Explain what he said about it, and the evidence supporting the claim.

Buy the book.

Demonstrably true. For example, you don't accept what He says in Genesis.

I accept what He says in Genesis. What I don't accept is your interpretation of what He says in Genesis. Huge difference.

Barbarian observes:
So at least Genesis is harder for you to believe.

Genesis isn't a hard book at all to understand, lest of all the part of creation.

Demonstrably true. Look at all the effort you've gone through, trying to show God was wrong about the way life began.

Nope. I've gone through the effort of demonstrating how backwards your understanding of Genesis is.

Right. The theories that address how life began fall under the heading of "abiogenesis."

Which also can't pinpoint how life began.

Nonexistent, actually. If you're a YE creationist, by definition you don't believe Genesis.

Again, I believe in Genesis, just not your understanding (or lack thereof).

Demonstrably true. God directly contradicts the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."

God "made."

Barbarian advises:
Again, if your faith is not strong enough, science can't help you with it.

One might say the same thing about your lack of understanding simple English.

 

[lordkalvan]

As you've done with the Bible, you've just redefined "science" to exclude what you don't like.

You crack me up! I have neither redefined the definition of science nor said anything critical about science.

Well, you did because you said you had only been critical of evolution and not science, thereby redefining science so that it excludes evolution, i.e. as Barabrian said that which you don't like.

I love science. It proves God exists.

I have yet to understand how you reach this conclusion. What testable hypotheses does science provide that allow the falsification of God?

Can science prove there is a physical universe? If so then it proves God created it.

Assuming your conclusion, I think, unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible for 'a physical universe' to have had a natural origin.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding why YE creationists do not accept the Bible:
Demonstrably true. God directly contradicts the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo."

God "made."

Yes. Just not the way you would like Him to do it.

 

[Crying Rock]

As a Christian I have encountered very few Christians that think that God created his creation via naturalist means. Naturalist meaning that God had nothing to do with it. I understand that you are an atheist. But please don't project your beliefs upon the Christian community.

Don't you believe that the creator created nature with all its laws or is that outside his domain? Your views seem inconsistent to me...

Naturalist meaning that God had nothing to do with it.

 

[RND]

Well, you did because you said you had only been critical of evolution and not science, thereby redefining science so that it excludes evolution, i.e. as Barabrian said that which you don't like.

Evolution isn't science because it can't prove the theories it expounds.

I have yet to understand how you reach this conclusion. What testable hypotheses does science provide that allow the falsification of God?

God states that He created all things. Science has discovered minute particles called atoms, molecules, quarks, etc. but can't prove where those particule came from. Therefore science proves the claim of God.

Assuming your conclusion, I think, unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible for 'a physical universe' to have had a natural origin.

Isn't that the exact same assumption science makes? The Bible says, clearly, God made all things. Science says "it just happened." Science assumes things just magically formed and came together.

 

[RND]

Yes. Just not the way you would like Him to do it.

I have no preference as to how God Himself chooses to do something. When He says He "made" all things I don't believe that means He put the earth on His finger like a basketball and spun it into creating life. I believe the Bible when it says He "made" it means just that.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, you did because you said you had only been critical of evolution and not science, thereby redefining science so that it excludes evolution, i.e. as Barabrian said that which you don't like.

Evolution isn't science because it can't prove the theories it expounds.

There is more than ample evidence from a range of research and investigation that supports evolution. This research and investigation is based on the development and testing of hypotheses that conform explicitly to the scientific method. Your assertion is absurd, is contrary to experience, amounts to a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and serves only to demonstrate Barbarian's point that you define science to exclude things you don't like. This might please you, but it does not amount to a reasoned argument.

[quote:1ud44db9]I have yet to understand how you reach this conclusion. What testable hypotheses does science provide that allow the falsification of God?

God states that He created all things.[/quote:1ud44db9]
The Bible makes statements that can be interpreted to this effect by those who so wish. However, the Bible was written down by fallible men and, even if inspired by God, is quite clearly not a transliteration of God's thoughts and ideas. Your statement alone is not a testable hypothesis and provides no evidence to support your earlier conclusion.

Science has discovered minute particles called atoms, molecules, quarks, etc. but can't prove where those particule came from. Therefore science proves the claim of God.

This is a bizarre argument. Even granting your initial assertion, I don't know is not equivalent to either a proof or even evidence of God's existence. At one time, lightning and earthquakes were considered to be God's work because knowledge at the time could not otherwise explain these phenomena. Does this mean that arguments about their divine origin were soundly based?

[quote:1ud44db9]Assuming your conclusion, I think, unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible for 'a physical universe' to have had a natural origin.

Isn't that the exact same assumption science makes?[/quote:1ud44db9]
Again, I don't know is not a statement that reasonably allows the insertion of divinity into the corresponding gap in understanding

The Bible says, clearly, God made all things.

As far as I am aware it does not explain the 'how' of this creation.

Science says "it just happened." Science assumes things just magically formed and came together.

Science assumes no such thing. It says I don't know X and develops testable hypotheses to explore explanations for the gap in understanding of what X is and how it came about. This is not 'magic'. Your argument is woefully wide of the mark.

 

[RND]

There is more than ample evidence from a range of research and investigation that supports evolution. This research and investigation is based on the development and testing of hypotheses that conform explicitly to the scientific method. Your assertion is absurd, is contrary to experience, amounts to a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and serves only to demonstrate Barbarian's point that you define science to exclude things you don't like. This might please you, but it does not amount to a reasoned argument.

Science cannot, nor will it ever, be able to duplicate the evolution of anything! It never has. Science can't tells us, nor will it ever be able to tell us the origin of the first minute particle responsible for eventually becoming a fish and walking out of the water to eventually say, "You want to suoersixe that order?"

The Bible makes statements that can be interpreted to this effect by those who so wish. However, the Bible was written down by fallible men and, even if inspired by God, is quite clearly not a transliteration of God's thoughts and ideas. Your statement alone is not a testable hypothesis and provides no evidence to support your earlier conclusion.

The fact that the men of the Bible were able to state that the world is made of invisible things long before there was even a way to prove such a statement should be evidence enough. But, it isn't for some. That is why God also declared:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This is a bizarre argument. Even granting your initial assertion, I don't know is not equivalent to either a proof or even evidence of God's existence. At one time, lightning and earthquakes were considered to be God's work because knowledge at the time could not otherwise explain these phenomena. Does this mean that arguments about their divine origin were soundly based?

Bizarre? Not at all. The word of God declared things that science would, much later, discover were true. The fact of the matter is this: God made versus "it just happened".

[quote:3lx5hvu5][quote:3lx5hvu5]Assuming your conclusion, I think, unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible for 'a physical universe' to have had a natural origin.

Isn't that the exact same assumption science makes?[/quote:3lx5hvu5]
Again, I don't know is not a statement that reasonably allows the insertion of divinity into the corresponding gap in understanding[/quote:3lx5hvu5] "I don't know" doesn't help the understanding of the evolutionist/scientific argument.

As far as I am aware it does not explain the 'how' of this creation.

Neither does science! And that's the point. Scripture declare who the Creator is. Science? "I don't know....it just happened."

[quote:3lx5hvu5]Science says "it just happened." Science assumes things just magically formed and came together.

Science assumes no such thing. [/quote:3lx5hvu5] Yes it does! It guesses as to the origin of any and everything!

It says I don't know X and develops testable hypotheses to explore explanations for the gap in understanding of what X is and how it came about. This is not 'magic'. Your argument is woefully wide of the mark.

Go all the way. Be honest. Science unfortunately uses 'magic' (it just happened) as the conclusion of it's hypothesis.

Fish climbed out of the primordial ooze and that's how man was formed. How? "I don't know...it just happened." :o Fairy tales.

 

[ChattyMute]

The fact that the men of the Bible were able to state that the world is made of invisible things long before there was even a way to prove such a statement should be evidence enough. But, it isn't for some.

You make enough guesses, some are bound to be right. Also it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you can't see everything with the naked eye. Air for example.

Bizarre? Not at all. The word of God declared things that science would, much later, discover were true. The fact of the matter is this: God made versus "it just happened".

You mean like how a bat is a bird?

Isn't that the exact same assumption science makes?

No. The only assumption science makes is that everything can be explained naturally.

Neither does science! And that's the point. Scripture declare who the Creator is. Science? "I don't know....it just happened."

Science doesn't claim to know things that can't be given evidence towards, which is where you are getting that. Instead of falsely assuming your answer is true without evidence, it tries to fins evidence and based on that evidence comes to a logical conclusion.

Yes it does! It guesses as to the origin of any and everything!

No. It uses facts to create a hypothesis (a guess) and then tests that hypothesis and others and uses more facts to create a theory. A theory in science is much, much, higher than a "guess".

Go all the way. Be honest. Science unfortunately uses 'magic' (it just happened) as the conclusion of it's hypothesis.

It uses "it just happened" for things we know happened that we don't yet have a way to test or enough evidence to create a valid theory.

Fish climbed out of the primordial ooze and that's how man was formed. How? "I don't know...it just happened." :o Fairy tales.

No scientist has ever claimed what you just said. And when asked how, they explain it to you. There are some rough spots in the evolutionary theory that are being worked out though.

 

[Free]

Fish climbed out of the primordial ooze and that's how man was formed. How? "I don't know...it just happened." :o Fairy tales.

Please don't use Strawmen arguments.

 

[RND]

You make enough guesses, some are bound to be right. Also it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you can't see everything with the naked eye. Air for example.

Are you describing what science does?

You mean like how a bat is a bird?

A bat isn't a bird.

No. The only assumption science makes is that everything can be explained naturally.

Except how things began. Science guesses at that point.

Science doesn't claim to know things that can't be given evidence towards, which is where you are getting that. Instead of falsely assuming your answer is true without evidence, it tries to fins evidence and based on that evidence comes to a logical conclusion.

Like the evidence that man came from monkeys!

[quote:2j8lq41b] Yes it does! It guesses as to the origin of any and everything!

No. It uses facts to create a hypothesis (a guess) and then tests that hypothesis and others and uses more facts to create a theory. A theory in science is much, much, higher than a "guess". [/quote:2j8lq41b] A theory is an "unproven" guess!

[quote:2j8lq41b]Go all the way. Be honest. Science unfortunately uses 'magic' (it just happened) as the conclusion of it's hypothesis.

It uses "it just happened" for things we know happened that we don't yet have a way to test or enough evidence to create a valid theory. [/quote:2j8lq41b] It uses "it just happened" as the basis of so many of it's false theories!

[quote:2j8lq41b]
Fish climbed out of the primordial ooze and that's how man was formed. How? "I don't know...it just happened." :o Fairy tales.

No scientist has ever claimed what you just said.[/quote:2j8lq41b] Sure they have. Many times.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-did- ... 5424.shtml

And when asked how, they explain it to you. There are some rough spots in the evolutionary theory that are being worked out though.

Through guessing!

 

[RND]

Fish climbed out of the primordial ooze and that's how man was formed. How? "I don't know...it just happened." :o Fairy tales.

Please don't use Strawmen arguments.

That's not a strawman argument! Science for years has peddled the idea that life evolved from the primordial ooze and that fish later grew legs and began to walk on land. Man thus evolved from that. Fish with legs.

 

[lordkalvan]

There is more than ample evidence from a range of research and investigation that supports evolution. This research and investigation is based on the development and testing of hypotheses that conform explicitly to the scientific method. Your assertion is absurd, is contrary to experience, amounts to a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and serves only to demonstrate Barbarian's point that you define science to exclude things you don't like. This might please you, but it does not amount to a reasoned argument.

Science cannot, nor will it ever, be able to duplicate the evolution of anything!

Apart from the obvious question - How do you know? - this assertion serves not at all to answer the points I made concerning the evidence that supports our understanding of evolution. It is, in fact, wholly irrelevant to the comments it is supposedly replying to.

It never has.

Again this is quite irrelevant to a consideration of the evidence that supports evolution and that demonstrates that the understanding and testing of evolutionary theory is a scientific endeavour.

Science can't tells us, nor will it ever be able to tell us the origin of the first minute particle responsible for eventually becoming a fish and walking out of the water to eventually say, "You want to suoersixe that order?"

This is a caricature of evolutionary theory and understanding that seems to be founded on ignorance.

[quote:mfc9ykvk]The Bible makes statements that can be interpreted to this effect by those who so wish. However, the Bible was written down by fallible men and, even if inspired by God, is quite clearly not a transliteration of God's thoughts and ideas. Your statement alone is not a testable hypothesis and provides no evidence to support your earlier conclusion.

The fact that the men of the Bible were able to state that the world is made of invisible things long before there was even a way to prove such a statement should be evidence enough. But, it isn't for some.[/quote:mfc9ykvk]
Evidence of what? That the writers of the Bible believed in 'invisible' things. So did the writers of most holy books. If you believe the words of the Bible to be some hidden reference to molecular theory, you will have to find evidence far more persuasive than this vague nonsense.

That is why God also declared:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Your confirmation bias is showing rather self-evidently.

[quote:mfc9ykvk]This is a bizarre argument. Even granting your initial assertion, I don't know is not equivalent to either a proof or even evidence of God's existence. At one time, lightning and earthquakes were considered to be God's work because knowledge at the time could not otherwise explain these phenomena. Does this mean that arguments about their divine origin were soundly based?

Bizarre? Not at all. The word of God declared things that science would, much later, discover were true. The fact of the matter is this: God made versus "it just happened".[/quote:mfc9ykvk]
Your argument is wholly irrelevant to the point it is ostensibly replying to and stands as yet another unsupported assertion.

[quote:mfc9ykvk]Again, I don't know is not a statement that reasonably allows the insertion of divinity into the corresponding gap in understanding

"I don't know" doesn't help the understanding of the evolutionist/scientific argument.[/quote:mfc9ykvk]
It's the weaknesses in your argument that are being pointed up here. I don't know doesn't mean that It must have been God that did it is the only possible alternative.

[quote:mfc9ykvk]As far as I am aware it does not explain the 'how' of this creation.

Neither does science! And that's the point. Scripture declare who the Creator is. Science? "I don't know....it just happened."[/quote:mfc9ykvk]
Again, you confuse an admission of current ignorance with the idea that that ignorance must remain forever unfilled by anything other than shoehorning God into the gap. Scripture is not evidential, nor is the 'explanation' it offers any more persuasive than the extravagant tales in other creation myths that are as equally devoid of evidential support for their imaginings. Science does not say what you assert it says: rather it develops testable hypotheses that may lead to further understanding - something religion is quite unable and unwilling to do for obvious reasons.

[quote:mfc9ykvk]Science assumes no such thing [that things just magically formed and came together.

Yes it does! It guesses as to the origin of any and everything![/quote:mfc9ykvk]
Your unsupported assertions to this effect are not persuasive, not even when they are punctuated with exclamation marks.

[quote:mfc9ykvk]It says I don't know X and develops testable hypotheses to explore explanations for the gap in understanding of what X is and how it came about. This is not 'magic'. Your argument is woefully wide of the mark.

Go all the way. Be honest. Science unfortunately uses 'magic' (it just happened) as the conclusion of it's hypothesis.[/quote:mfc9ykvk]
More ignorance, I am afraid. If you can show me any scientific hypothesis that is supported by the claim that It just happened and seeks no further explanation of or evidence for the phenomenon under question, I would be happy to consider it. As it stands, however, I suspect you are just waving your hands around and are unable to support your argument with anything of substance.

Fish climbed out of the primordial ooze and that's how man was formed. How? "I don't know...it just happened." :o Fairy tales.

Quite demonstrably no. Your ignorance of evolutionary theory and understanding is astoundingly mistaken and your 'argument' is a childish caricature of that theory and understanding.

 

[ChattyMute]

You make enough guesses, some are bound to be right. Also it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you can't see everything with the naked eye. Air for example.

Are you describing what science does?

Except the difference between science and the bible is that science actually tests what it guesses. That's the whole point. You make an educated guess based on what you know and then test it to see if it's rights. If it's not right, you reconstruct your hypothesis and test it again.

[quote:38lil5bi]You mean like how a bat is a bird?

A bat isn't a bird. [/quote:38lil5bi]
Exactly...

[quote:38lil5bi]
No. The only assumption science makes is that everything can be explained naturally.

Except how things began. Science guesses at that point. [/quote:38lil5bi]
You still don't understand what a theory is...
By that logic, we also guess how electricity works. We can never see it. We know it happened. But the theory of electricity is still /just/ a theory because we can't "prove" it.

[quote:38lil5bi]Science doesn't claim to know things that can't be given evidence towards, which is where you are getting that. Instead of falsely assuming your answer is true without evidence, it tries to fins evidence and based on that evidence comes to a logical conclusion.

Like the evidence that man came from monkeys! [/quote:38lil5bi]
The only people who say man came from monkeys are ignorant theists who know nothing about evolution. We had a common ancestor, we did not come from monkeys. Also, humans are apes.

[quote:38lil5bi][quote:38lil5bi] Yes it does! It guesses as to the origin of any and everything!

No. It uses facts to create a hypothesis (a guess) and then tests that hypothesis and others and uses more facts to create a theory. A theory in science is much, much, higher than a "guess". [/quote:38lil5bi] A theory is an "unproven" guess! [/quote:38lil5bi]
Okay. Now I really know you don't know a thing about science.
Theory in science means: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

[quote:38lil5bi][quote:38lil5bi]Go all the way. Be honest. Science unfortunately uses 'magic' (it just happened) as the conclusion of it's hypothesis.

It uses "it just happened" for things we know happened that we don't yet have a way to test or enough evidence to create a valid theory. [/quote:38lil5bi] It uses "it just happened" as the basis of so many of it's false theories! [/quote:38lil5bi]
You need to go back to school.

[quote:38lil5bi][quote:38lil5bi]
Fish climbed out of the primordial ooze and that's how man was formed. How? "I don't know...it just happened." :o Fairy tales.

No scientist has ever claimed what you just said.[/quote:38lil5bi] Sure they have. Many times.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-did- ... 5424.shtml [/quote:38lil5bi]
That's not what they are claiming in that article. Fish evolved from less complex organisms over MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years. Fish and man do share a common ancestor, but it took MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years for us to get where we are now. It did not just happen in so simplistic a version like you are claiming.

[quote:38lil5bi]And when asked how, they explain it to you. There are some rough spots in the evolutionary theory that are being worked out though.

Through guessing![/quote:38lil5bi]
*smacks forehead*

 

[jasoncran]

chattymute which theory of electricity are you refering to, hole theory, or the one that ben franklin started but is found to be inaccurate and is still used to understand polarity in dc batteries.there's one more.

electrons move protons dont, all cars are positive ground and you can reverse dc currrent,ie dcen,dcep. welding terms.

the polarity reverses itself in in ac current and ac current is more easily produced then dc, dc occurs in batteries and has to made by ac generators and forced by rectifiers.(diodes)

now back to topic for me. i love electricity and basics.