Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

On 11/24/2020 at 5:45 PM, The Barbarian said:

Speciation happens most often in small, isolated populations.   Mayr - confirmed

This is not evidence of evolution from one kind into another.

That's what it is. Speciation produces a new kind of organism with it's own, reproductively isolated population.

 

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

On 11/24/2020 at 5:52 PM, The Barbarian said:

Lactase genes evolved in human populations that consume milk

Hmm. Well there you go. Not adaption but evolution into another being.

You've confused microevolution (evolution within a species) with macroevolution (evolution of new species).

 

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

On 11/24/2020 at 5:52 PM, The Barbarian said:

Tibetans evolved a special allele for living at very high altitudes.

Hmm. Proof if proof was needed..

"Tibetans Underwent Fastest Evolution Seen in Humans

Life at high altitudes forced ancient Tibetans to undergo the fastest evolution ever seen in humans, according to a new study.

 

The most rapid genetic change showed up in the EPAS1 gene, which helps regulate the body's response to a low-oxygen environment. One version, called an allele, of the EPAS1 gene changed in frequency from showing up in 9 percent of the Han Chinese to 87 percent of Tibetans.

Such genetic changes suggest Tibetan ancestors split off from the Han Chinese population about 2,750 years ago, researchers say. But only those most evolutionarily suited for life at high altitudes survived when they moved to the Tibetan Plateau."

https://www.livescience.com/6663-tibetans-underwent-fastest-evolution-humans.html

[Tzephanyahu]

@The Barbarian so what I'm seeing is a lot of regurgitation (no offense intended), wikipedia links and an image of an amphibian. It feels like you are ultimately just relaying what you've heard from people you respect, which is okay.

It seems your natural inclination is that towards the theories and conclusions of evolution.  Which is fine, this is your choice of course.  However, to start implying it's factual and irrefutable is just overconfidence in the manmade interpretations of the actual facts as they stand themselves.

I used to be an evolutionist as well.  I believed the scientists and universities as if they were prophets. It was only when I skipped the middlemen and investigated for myself, personally, that it all fell apart like a house of cards.

But look, you seem passionate in your stance and so I don't expect to convince you of Creation, as it is in the Bible and without the baseless gap-theory.  But when one can understand the difference between "fact" and "interpretation", the Bible and Science work together in harmony.

[teddyv]

3 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

@The Barbarian so what I'm seeing is a lot of regurgitation (no offense intended), wikipedia links and an image of an amphibian. It feels like you are ultimately just relaying what you've heard from people you respect, which is okay.

Not speaking for the Barbarian of course, but as one who has been in these discussions for years, it's exactly what most YEC adherents do as well. Most people simply do not have the knowledge or experience (and I have no idea what Barbarian may have knowledge in). 

But in a medium such as this, I'm not really sure how one can get away without doing this. I can talk to you about geology but I'll usually include a link supporting my statements just so the reader knows I'm not completely making stuff up.

 

Quote

It seems your natural inclination is that towards the theories and conclusions of evolution.  Which is fine, this is your choice of course.  However, to start implying it's factual and irrefutable is just overconfidence in the manmade interpretations of the actual facts as they stand themselves.

"Man-made interpretations" seems to be such a lazy cop-out employed to shut down discussion. YEC is a man-made interpretation of the Biblical text. It may be a plain reading, but since the world around seems to reveal something different, then we need to re-evaluate our interpretation. Certainly the YEC organizations are actually doing that, but they've painted themselves into a corner because of their inflexible timeline, also based on a man-made rendering.

 

Quote

I used to be an evolutionist as well.  I believed the scientists and universities as if they were prophets. It was only when I skipped the middlemen and investigated for myself, personally, that it all fell apart like a house of cards.

Well, if you believed that scientists and universities were prophets, then that is definitely your problem and not the problem of the scientists, or the theory of evolution or chemistry or physics.

How did you investigate these matters independently? Who did you rely on? Did you take some courses on these issues - from both sides? Or was it a purely theological argument that ultimately drove you to your current position?

Quote

But look, you seem passionate in your stance and so I don't expect to convince you of Creation, as it is in the Bible and without the baseless gap-theory.  But when one can understand the difference between "fact" and "interpretation", the Bible and Science work together in harmony.

Creation is most certainly in the Bible. It most certainly tells us the who and why, but it is not relaying the how. We've been given the honour of discovering that for ourselves. I don't disagree that there are certain elements that are not easy to reconcile (yet) and I won't pretend that I have all those answers.

I do know that, based on my education, training and 25 years of experience in geology that the world is far older than what the YEC'ers claim. As for evolution, I'm not so well versed in it personally, but I have some understanding of the process of discovery that has led to the development of the theory. It is still the leading theory on diversity of life. 

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

 so what I'm seeing is a lot of regurgitation (no offense intended), wikipedia links and an image of an amphibian. It feels like you are ultimately just relaying what you've heard from people you respect, which is okay.

I'm just showing you the evidence.   With links to other sources of evidence.   I get that evidence isn't the way creationism works, but it is the way science works.  So if you want to talk about evolution, you'll have to work with the evidence.  

9 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

It seems your natural inclination is that towards the theories and conclusions of evolution.  

As you learned, my inclination is to go with the evidence.   You're not comfortable with that.  I get it.   But again, if you want to talk about evolution, you'll need to deal with evidence.

9 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

I used to be an evolutionist as well.  I believed the scientists and universities as if they were prophets.

That's where you messed up.  You should have been looking at the evidence they were showing you.    By making science into a religious belief, you missed it.   But look, you seem passionate in your stance and so I don't expect to convince you of the evidence.    It's fortunate that God doesn't care what you think of evolution, so unless you make an idol of you new doctrines, you're just as Christian as the rest of us. 

You don't have to digest all those facts at once.   Take a little time, read up on them, do some checking in journals and just think about it.   Could be a way to get a closer relationship with God.

Worth a try?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Josheb said:

When secularism explains the existence of inherently existing information and the simultaneously occurring existence of both order and chaos I'll give it some reconsideration.

I don't know what you mean by "secularism", but information forms spontaneously in this world.   God made it that way.  

Would you like me to give you some examples?

 

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

Science is nothing but a mode by which truths are gathered, ideas are tested, and where the limits of human knowledge expand beyond its limits.   Even if we have Theories that are hundreds and thousands of years old, they are still our own creative presumptions.   All our data is still nothing more than black ink on white paper comparing that to the unknown.   Every preconceived idea from Science is nothing more than a guess at best.   We have never been to another Galaxy, we have never visited constellations outside of our own, we are only assuming based upon what we claim to be the "Laws of Physics."   And we don't even know if the closest Galaxy to us is governed by these same Laws.

 

We have a set of rules from Science here on Earth that we assume applies to us and possibly to everything beyond us.   But we factually do not know.   It's like our Alphabet System.   It's our Alphabet System, but that does not mean if there is life elsewhere they use the very same Alphabet System.

 

No matter the "Field of Science" we discuss here, it only applies to us human beings from the Planet Earth.   It does not necessarily apply to any other Solar System, Galaxy, Constellation Series, or beings.

 

Darwin's idealism surrounding "Evolution" was only based upon a series of coincidences within his lifetime.   That does not mean that within my lifetime had I observed similar subjects I would find the same conclusion.   Evolution was his best guess.   But the Bible does not clarify the same process as Evolution in how Adam/Eve was created.   That is a Scientific viewpoint solely infringing itself upon the Holy Word of God!

 

Now, we can derail and claim Genesis 1:1 meant a completed version of Earth filled with all sorts of life forms that was destroyed (Jeremiah 4) and then Geneses 1:2 became a specific viewpoint that led directly from the Creation of Adam to our Messiah.   And we can even toss in the "Ice Age" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (being the "Fall of Satan").   And we can argue till we are blue in the face the people of Genesis 1:1 were evolved.   But it still bares the "Mark" of "Science" being forced into God's Word.

 

But our current methods we use today are factual and truthful.   Our very lives are surrounded by Scientific Method.  Those are facts and truths we find in everything we do from being online, driving, flying, Mathematics, Medical, watching television, brushing our teeth, etc.  With having everything to observe per half lifetimes, we are able to even guesstimate ages.   And that is simply taking the radio spectrum from the "Bang" and calculating accordingly to.   But, once again, this is our human Mathematics and our understanding.   Does not mean we factually know the Universe is literally 13.8 Billion years old, or that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.   It's still our Methods [compared] to nothing else (no other Mathematics System, no other Galaxy System, no other Beings intelligence).   We are only [assuming] we are calculating correctly.   Because we really don't have nothing else to compare it to.

 

And that is what frightens me most when I see Science forcing itself into the Word of God!

Edited November 29, 2020 by kingdombrat

[The Barbarian]

21 hours ago, Josheb said:

Theists and non-theists look at exactly the same information. They look at exactly the same information and draw different conclusions. [/quote]

See above.   In science,theists and non-theists look at the same information and draw the same conclusions.   Some (not all) creationists merely deny information that threatens their new doctrines.   This is what just happened here.

 

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Science is nothing but a mode by which truths are gathered, ideas are tested, and where the limits of human knowledge expand beyond its limits.   

This is true.   All theories in science are provisional on new information.    Because God didn't hand us a manual with all the answers about the physical universe, we have to find out for ourselves.  This is what we have intelligence for.

6 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

And we don't even know if the closest Galaxy to us is governed by these same Laws.

Turns out that it is.   There are many ways to test that idea, all of which have been confirmed.   Would you like to talk about that?

6 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

We have a set of rules from Science here on Earth that we assume applies to us and possibly to everything beyond us. 

Evidence indicates it does for everything we observe out there.   But there are some things, like dark matter (whatever that is) for which there are other rules.  We're just beginning to learn about that.   And of course, science is limited to the natural world, but does not deny that there are things beyond the natural.

6 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

And that is what frightens me most when I see Science forcing itself into the Word of God!

That is what creationists often do, when they try to use science to support their new doctrines.   Science is methodologically naturalistic, so no competent scientist would try to apply science to the supernatural.   Even professed atheistic scientists like Richard Dawkins agrees that science cannot rule out God.