DescentBB

Jeff250 wrote:I don't think that science and naturalism are the same thing either. But how is that a problem for the theory of evolution?

Jeff250 wrote:Don't you deny parts of evolution though? For instance, don't you deny that variation occurred through random mutation and recombination?

Jeff250 wrote:The idea that we are the product of random mutations is a part of the theory of evolution though. So you don't really believe in *all* of the theory of evolution.

sigma wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:The idea that we are the product of random mutations is a part of the theory of evolution though. So you don't really believe in *all* of the theory of evolution.

In my opinion I have made ​​myself clear. Random mutations species - is ugly abnormalities doomed to extinction. While new types created by our Creator, are surprisingly harmonious, beautiful and perfect creatures.

flip wrote:There is much evidence of at least a higher intelligence, even all your hero's of science, who without you would know nothing, assent to that much.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e] just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”[f]

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

vision wrote:Maybe I'll rephrase it since you didn't understand. Show me one successful, peer reviewed experiment designed to prove the existence of divine intelligence. If you can, I'll be a beleiver for life. Think about how proud your God will be if you can convert me! Really, all I need is evidence that meets scientific criteria. If you can't come up with that, I'm sorry, you have no firmer argument than one claiming fairies and unicorns are real.

vision wrote:

flip wrote:There is much evidence of at least a higher intelligence, even all your hero's of science, who without you would know nothing, assent to that much.

No evidence as of yet, and most scientists are atheists (at least all my science heroes are).

Show me one proven experiment that shows higher intelligence.

Spidey wrote:Evidence in this case is subjective, there is just no proof.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Evidence in this case is subjective, there is just no proof.

Exactly. And that is one of the reasons we focus on objectivity. I can subjectively say the reason it rained today is because of dragons.

Krom wrote:So how many of you people denouncing science with your God believe you are scientists?

Heretic wrote:I for one am no scientist. I do how ever do not dismiss the idea that a higher level being might have seeded life on this planet especially since it has been agreed by others here that man will be able to do it in the future.

Spidey wrote:From what I can gather religion has made far more room for science then science has made for religion. (not that it’s obligated, or anything, except for the sake of civility)

And I must wonder why someone who gave a multi page lecture on how words can harm people can deliberately use hurtful terms like “fairy tale” and “work of fiction”?

Spidey wrote:Feeling guilty?

I was referring to vision.

callmeslick wrote:what you are missing is, once again, the matter of sheer numbers of occurances. Yes, you are somewhat correct: on average, MOST random mutations are not good for one's chance of survival, BUT, once in a great while, a mutation confers an advantage. And that is the crux of evolutionary progress: the strong mutations go forward, the rest die off. Over time, the stronger mutations take hold and become the dominant strain. Radical mutations result in whole new species.

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:what you are missing is, once again, the matter of sheer numbers of occurances. Yes, you are somewhat correct: on average, MOST random mutations are not good for one's chance of survival, BUT, once in a great while, a mutation confers an advantage. And that is the crux of evolutionary progress: the strong mutations go forward, the rest die off. Over time, the stronger mutations take hold and become the dominant strain. Radical mutations result in whole new species.

Borrowing from the whole intelligent design argument: the question is: if you're bounded by the size/age of the universe that we can scientifically measure (I.E. exclude faith-based assertions that something extends to infinity) do you really have enough mutation occurrences to statistically justify the diversity and complexity of the species that we find? ID proponents would say no, not even close. The best counter-arguments I've seen (and mind you I may be wrong) amount to either hand waving, or extending some variable beyond what we can scientifically measure with a "trust us, we'll verify that later."

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Feeling guilty?

nope, I am on solid intellectual ground here.

I was referring to vision.

I just wanted credit for the Fairy Tale reference.

vision wrote:... universe originated but it does absolutely nothing to stop me from living a full life of purpose, helping other lead better lives. If believing in fairy tales helps you get through life then fine, but don't expect others to believe it is necessary. Scientists are machines of exploration fueled ...