Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

The things that come out in court.

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate

Author

Message

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Jesus said there would be people like Trinity and the

Trinity1 wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

FFT wrote:

Trinity1 believes that the current model for the Big Bang invokes the supernatural, if I recall correctly. I forget if he thinks the modern model for abiogenesis invokes the supernatural.

Creationists and ID'ers are so frustrated they cannot 'Wedge' their fantasy into our gradeschools. This is their latest tactic. Paint Evolution as religous so that if they cannot weasel their way into the schools at least they think they can get Evolution out.

Perhaps if ToE, pure materialism, et. al. met the minimum requirments for science (or classified as science) as you so aptly demand of ID'ers and Creationists... there wouldn't be such a big stink... Perhaps if a shred of evidence for these theories were provided demonstrating their veracity... you wouldn't be arguing this issue on a message board?

But no… you come here trying to goad people into embracing ID as an alternative scientific theory… hoping for a nibble… don’t get it… then get upset when forced to defend what is actually taught.

BTW... the Big Bang does invoke the Supernatural (violations of 1LoTD and 2LoTD)... and abiogenesis invokes the impossible. (violates principles of probability)

The standard for scientific theories is set down by the National Academy of Science. Michael Behe testified under oath that ID did not meet that standard. He also testified while under oath that The ToE DID meet the standard.

So don't go yelling at me claiming the ToE does not meet even meet the minimum requirement of science. Michael Behe says that it does. If it's good enough for Behe it's good enough for me. Besides I would guess, I could be wrong that the National Academy of Science knows just a wee bit more than you about what has "met the minimum requirments for science..." You disagree?

Quote:

Perhaps if a shred of evidence for these theories were provided demonstrating their veracity... you wouldn't be arguing this issue on a message board?

The issue would not be in question if either ID or Creationism met the accepted standard for being a theory. No one would question the veracity of their claims.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Trinity1
Emperor of the World

Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3123

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: Jesus said there would be people like Trinity and the

Bouncer wrote:

Really? So... when Behe talks about Irreducible Complexity... is that good enough for you too?

Quote:

Besides I would guess, I could be wrong that the National Academy of Science knows just a wee bit more than you about what has "met the minimum requirments for science..." You disagree?

The NAS told the Supreme Court they court demonstrate the origins of the universe using purely materialistic means... I'm still waiting for their evidence. Until then... yea... I would disagree with their hubris.

Quote:

Perhaps if a shred of evidence for these theories were provided demonstrating their veracity... you wouldn't be arguing this issue on a message board?

The issue would not be in question if either ID or Creationism met the accepted standard for being a theory. No one would question the veracity of their claims.

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: Jesus said there would be people like Trinity and the

Trinity1 wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

Really? So... when Behe talks about Irreducible Complexity... is that good enough for you too?

Which type? The truly Irreducible where no one part can be removed or the system will cease to function or the revised kinda Reducible where up to 75% of the parts can be removed and the system still functions? Behe has presented the Bacterial Flagellum as being both types. The former up until he could no longer ignore the articles and reports generated by scientists, not involved with ID. The reports and articles showing that 30 of the 40 parts of the flagellum could be removed and the system still function were too prolific to ignore.

Of course Behe also had to come up with his own definition of theory so ID theory could qualify.

Quote:

Besides I would guess, I could be wrong that the National Academy of Science knows just a wee bit more than you about what has "met the minimum requirments for science..." You disagree?

I am sure you can show us where we can read this interesting paper. I am also sure you can tell us why the NAS was telling the Supreme Court anything.

Quote:

Perhaps if a shred of evidence for these theories were provided demonstrating their veracity... you wouldn't be arguing this issue on a message board?

The issue would not be in question if either ID or Creationism met the accepted standard for being a theory. No one would question the veracity of their claims.

Fine... show me where abiogenesis meets the acceptable standard for being a theory. If not... don't you agree it should not be taught in public schools? If not.. why not? How are you differentiating between Creationism and abiogenesis? What evidence do you have to cite demonstrating this?[/quote]
Wow whiplash!! You changed that subject in a big hurry. Last I read above we were discussing Behe's testimony in the court case that soundly thrashed ID's ambitions.

That's what we were discussing. I am not differentiating between anything. I am pointing out ID's dishonesty. You want to show how abiogenesis is wrong and that it is taught in the schools in the manner you say, start yer own thread.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject: How much will you bid?

Schuckdaddy wrote:

The question seems to still be that if the domain of science is to explain natural causes, it will at some point be a deficient explanation, if the phenomena it explains has a supernatural cause.

This of course presupposes that reality is divided into natural and supernatural causes.

If there are no supernatural causes then we have no deficiency in science.

Why will it be deficient? If something can't be explained we keep looking. What would be the purpose of stopping?

Quote:

but if there are supernatural causes for phenomena, then at some point science is going to be wrong about them, because science does not contain the right kind of explanatory power to make

At what point does the scientific method of inquiry breakdown?

Quote:

Is science accurate? Absolutely. As long as it is explaining phenomena that has a natural cause.

Seen any supernatural phenomena lately?

Quote:

The question then seems to be one of epistemology: given that there are supernatural causes, how do we know which phenomena is caused naturally and which supernaturally?

Good old Hume makes me doubt that we can know or have any certainty about the cause of any phenomena and so if the supernatural exists there is a serious problem for the scientist interpretation of phenomena, more than likely they have it right.

Better to just presuppose that there are no supernatural causes, right?

Better to quit before you discover something interesting.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Schuckdaddy
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 188

Location: Oregon

Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject:

Bouncer, do you believe that reality could have natural and supernatural causes? And if you believe it could do you believe that it does?

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:30 am Post subject:

Schuckdaddy wrote:

Bouncer, do you believe that reality could have natural and supernatural causes?

And if you believe it could do you believe that it does?

I believe I asked you a couple of questions above. Please be so kind as to give me your answers and then we can discuss your questions.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Schuckdaddy
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 188

Location: Oregon

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:02 am Post subject:

It would be fruitless for me to answer your questions if we disagree about the most basic premise of my argument. Better to define where we stand on that part of the issue before we continue to address the other questions.

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: Do we disagree?

Schuckdaddy wrote:

It would be fruitless for me to answer your questions if we disagree about the most basic premise of my argument. Better to define where we stand on that part of the issue before we continue to address the other questions.

I have no way of knowing where youre coming from. though I suspect it's another "There has to be a supernatural cause!" position.

I don't know about you but this old boy has a little more faith in the brains of mankind than you. The brain God gave us?

History is rife with events that were considered too complex to ever be understood at the time but we have eventually figured out the natural cause.

Had our ancestors agreed with that concialtory attitude, we might still be bleeding people to cure 'the vapors'.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Schuckdaddy
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 188

Location: Oregon

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:42 pm Post subject:

If you believe "God gave us the brains" then you believe in a supernatural cause to a material phenomena, unless you are speaking euphemistically. I believe reality is composed of natural and supernatural causes. For example, I believe that human beings are physical and spiritual beings, and as such their behavior is acted upon by biological and chemical causes, but also spiritual causes. I base both of those beliefs on faith accompanied with reason. Firstly, that I live in a mind independent external material world, and secondly, that my mind was created by a spiritual being that has revealed himself to me. What I meant by " science being a deficient explanation" was simply that I don't think, to use the example from above, that science can explain the spiritual causes of human behavior. But I do believe that science can explain chemical and biological behavioral causes. The problem I have with science is when it ascribes a natural cause to a supernatural phenomena, because it can't tell the difference, because both kinds of causes produce physical/material/observable results.

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject:

Schuckdaddy wrote:

If you believe "God gave us the brains" then you believe in a supernatural cause to a material phenomena, unless you are speaking euphemistically.

A Euphemism all the way. I used a term I thought you could relate to.

I find those who are fundamentalists tend to jump at the chance to give up and assign the blame so to speak to God like you have earlier.

I am not going to get into my personal views, but let's look at a philosophical question here. Why would God create natural law only to violate it? Why would God even need to violate His natural law?

Quote:

I believe reality is composed of natural and supernatural causes. For example, I believe that human beings are physical and spiritual beings, and as such their behavior is acted upon by biological and chemical causes, but also spiritual causes. I base both of those beliefs on faith accompanied with reason. Firstly, that I live in a mind independent external material world, and secondly, that my mind was created by a spiritual being that has revealed himself to me.

What I meant by " science being a deficient explanation" was simply that I don't think, to use the example from above, that science can explain the spiritual causes of human behavior. But I do believe that science can explain chemical and biological behavioral causes.

Science doesn't deal with the 'spiritual.' How would you fit the spiritual into an equation? How would you experiment on the 'spiritual?'

Quote:

The problem I have with science is when it ascribes a natural cause to a supernatural phenomena, because it can't tell the difference, because both kinds of causes produce physical/material/observable results.

How do you determine with a reasonable certainty phenomena is actual supernatural? How will you know if your hypothesis is correct? How would your peers repeat your experiment?
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Schuckdaddy
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 188

Location: Oregon

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject:

Bouncer wrote:

I am not going to get into my personal views, but let's look at a philosophical question here. Why would God create natural law only to violate it? Why would God even need to violate His natural law?

What is considered a violation of a natural law? When a miracle is performed is that a physical law being violated? Or could it be merely the introduction of a spiritual entity into a physical situation? There is still a cause an effect relationship, either way.

Bouncer wrote:

Science doesn't deal with the 'spiritual.' How would you fit the spiritual into an equation? How would you experiment on the 'spiritual?'

That was exactly my point. If forces exist beyond our ability to observe them, then it is possible that science has incorrectly diagnosed the cause of the phenomena that results from those forces.

Bouncer wrote:

How do you determine with a reasonable certainty phenomena is actual supernatural? How will you know if your hypothesis is correct? How would your peers repeat your experiment?

Scientific method can't do any of those things. My point is that if the supernatural exists, then science is operating from a fallacious presupposition (that is naturalism).

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject:

Schuckdaddy wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

I am not going to get into my personal views, but let's look at a philosophical question here. Why would God create natural law only to violate it? Why would God even need to violate His natural law?

One miracle that springs to mind immediately is when the sun stood still for Joshua. Unless a natural law, momentum in this case is violated, everything on the Earth both animate and inanimate gets destroyed.

Shuckdaddy wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

Science doesn't deal with the 'spiritual.' How would you fit the spiritual into an equation? How would you experiment on the 'spiritual?'

That was exactly my point. If forces exist beyond our ability to observe them, then it is possible that science has incorrectly diagnosed the cause of the phenomena that results from those forces.

If they can't be observed, cannot be measured in any meaningful way, what use are they? One can speculate the supernatural as a cause, but then what? Do you quit trying to figure the thing out?

Bouncer wrote:

How do you determine with a reasonable certainty phenomena is actual supernatural? How will you know if your hypothesis is correct? How would your peers repeat your experiment?

Scientific method can't do any of those things. My point is that if the supernatural exists, then science is operating from a fallacious presupposition (that is naturalism).[/quote]
If the supernatural exists, then it would still be folly to attribute unknown phenomena to supernatural cause.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Schuckdaddy
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 188

Location: Oregon

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:25 am Post subject:

Bouncer wrote:

That explanation assumes that the only way for the sun to stand still was for the earth to cease rotating. Why couldn't the light be bent of reflect off something, or some spiritual entity could have interacted with the sun light to affect this result.

Bouncer wrote:

If they can't be observed, cannot be measured in any meaningful way, what use are they? One can speculate the supernatural as a cause, but then what? Do you quit trying to figure the thing out?

It is possible that "God" could have set the laws and let nature run its course, but if he interacts with nature at any point then the phenomena that ensues would be supernatural. If you are operating using only naturalistic presuppositions sure you can explain all phenomena, but are those explanations correct?

Bouncer wrote:

If the supernatural exists, then it would still be folly to attribute unknown phenomena to supernatural cause.

Absolutely. I think it would be better for naturalistic scientists to merely recognize that their explanations are driven by naturalism and may not actually reflect reality and by the same logic those who wish to pursue a supernatural/natural presupposition should also recognize that their explanations may not actually reflect reality. Why should any scientist care if another group wants to approach the data using a different set of presuppositions. Unless they can prove that their method is the only one that truly reflects reality (which both sides seem to be trying to do), both methods should be allowed equal liberty in pursuing the data from their differing positions.

(I'm going to be away this week so it might take me a while to get back to you)

PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull

Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392

Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:08 am Post subject:

Why would God make natural law if He would violate it? ECC:3:14"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him" ::::::::::::: Prys die Heer!

Bouncer
Alley Cat

Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: Four months later

Schuckdaddy wrote:

Bouncer wrote:

The Bible says (Joshua 10:12) God made the sun and the moon stand still. "On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

I welcome an viable alternative explanation.

Quote:

Bouncer wrote:

If they can't be observed, cannot be measured in any meaningful way, what use are they? One can speculate the supernatural as a cause, but then what? Do you quit trying to figure the thing out?

There are other ways God could have accomplished the same goal without massive violation of the laws of motion.

Quote:

Bouncer wrote:

If the supernatural exists, then it would still be folly to attribute unknown phenomena to supernatural cause.

God making the sun and moon stand still reflects reality?

Quote:

(I'm going to be away this week so it might take me a while to get back to you)

Looks like it was I who was remiss
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1

Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer

"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 2 of 6