Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:58 pm

The data come from observations of nature and inferences from the data are, by definition, confined to the natural and observable. We're observing the natural world, and the supernatural does not fall within the scope of science. I understand what you're getting at, but you're blaming a monochromatic camera for not acknowledging color in the pictures it gives us.
What we consider to be supernatural is only that which we don't have a way to test scientifically. Magnetism was once considered supernatural before we understood it well enough to quantify it.
Once again, a bit of a semantic argument. I'm taking about the workings of God.
Also, people too often include things that have NOT been observed under the umbrella of Science, such as biogenesis and evolution, neither of which have ever been observed by anybody.
The classic "if I haven't seen it happen, it isn't possible" argument?
Like I said before, discussing the supernatural falls outside the scope of science... so why should they talk about God? At the end of the day, they present some evidence that X may cause Y because of Z data, and we are free to say "Ah, yes--as God created it to be."

For the benefit of our discussion: You say you aren't calling for religion and science to mix... but then you seem irritated that they aren't? Can you clarify your objections?
I can try and answer your question by asking this one: If God created the universe, should science be able to show that?
I suppose it depends on if you're a young earth creationist. I think we can use science to determine what happened, probably. (meaning, our understanding becomes fuller over time) Contradictions occur when you keep a closed mind.
Objectively, the existence of God isn't a matter of religion.
Okay?
He either exists or He doesn't. Religion makes claims about His divine nature, His will and morality, which are not matters of science and thus, shouldn't mix. The Bible isn't a source of scientific information and shouldn't be used in scientific discussion.
I didn't claim otherwise.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ArcticFox » Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:57 am

Once again, a bit of a semantic argument. I'm taking about the workings of God.
Then I'm not sure what you mean. Anytime we use a term like 'supernatural' we're making a semantic argument because the only difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural' is the extent to which we can observe something objectively. The workings of God are, by definition, natural. It's our own understanding (or lack thereof) that makes the difference.
The classic "if I haven't seen it happen, it isn't possible" argument?
No, that's a stupid argument that I would never make. The point is that people talk a good game about science being observable, repeatable and consistent... and yet there are fields of scientific research that are none of those things but to question them is to be labeled a "science denier." Many people have literally elevated science to a religion. I've actually been accused of being insane because I am a skeptic of Evolution, a phenomenon that not one single human being has ever actually observed. Is it science if you can't use the scientific method on it?
I can try and answer your question by asking this one: If God created the universe, should science be able to show that?
I suppose it depends on if you're a young earth creationist. I think we can use science to determine what happened, probably. (meaning, our understanding becomes fuller over time) Contradictions occur when you keep a closed mind.
I don't see what YEC has to do with it. Whatever God did to create the universe, or whatever, should (eventually) be able to tell us how, shouldn't it? Because if God DID create the universe, then for science to be a reliable tool it would have to have some way for us to know it, right? Otherwise what's the point?
Objectively, the existence of God isn't a matter of religion.
Okay?
Yet people who are so proud of themselves for using science exclusively agree that science can't prove His existence (or claim it proves things about God to be false.) So which is it?
I didn't claim otherwise.
I didn't say you did. You asked me to clarify my position on mixing religion and science. That was part of my response. :wink:
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ChickenSoup » Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:45 pm

Once again, a bit of a semantic argument. I'm taking about the workings of God.
Then I'm not sure what you mean. Anytime we use a term like 'supernatural' we're making a semantic argument because the only difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural' is the extent to which we can observe something objectively. The workings of God are, by definition, natural. It's our own understanding (or lack thereof) that makes the difference.
The workings of God are, by definition, supernatural.
The classic "if I haven't seen it happen, it isn't possible" argument?
No, that's a stupid argument that I would never make. The point is that people talk a good game about science being observable, repeatable and consistent... and yet there are fields of scientific research that are none of those things but to question them is to be labeled a "science denier."
Such as?
Many people have literally elevated science to a religion.
The only people I've seen elevate science to a religion are people like those in this thread who try to equate the two.
I've actually been accused of being insane because I am a skeptic of Evolution, a phenomenon that not one single human being has ever actually observed. Is it science if you can't use the scientific method on it?
So you would argue that adaptation of any kind has never been observed? Ever?
I don't see what YEC has to do with it. Whatever God did to create the universe, or whatever, should (eventually) be able to tell us how, shouldn't it? Because if God DID create the universe, then for science to be a reliable tool it would have to have some way for us to know it, right? Otherwise what's the point?

Yet people who are so proud of themselves for using science exclusively agree that science can't prove His existence (or claim it proves things about God to be false.) So which is it?
My point about YEC is important in this discussion for this reason:

If your manner of thinking is restricted to a model of the universe that only encompasses 6-10 thousand years, the arguments scientists make about the formation of the universe would fly in the face of your beliefs and, as such, science would not point to the workings of God (as you understand them) as a means for our beginnings. If your thinking does not preclude an older universe as a possibility, the arguments science makes do not rule out a Creator. That's a big pet peeve of mine when discussing this stuff with people... it's always all-or-nothing, like you can either believe in evolution as a godless heathen or you can be a bastion-of-light-in-the-darkness as a Creationist.

Science can show us the natural processes that occurred, but cannot comment on whether or not God was involved. Many would (and do) argue that a Creator is unnecessary (as shown by these observations), while others believe that these things occurred because of a Creator (and do not take offense to a less literal interpretation of Genesis).

You're asking me if science should point to God, and I guess I'm not sure as to what you're getting at. If what you're asking is literally should science point to the existence of God, I would ask how you think one would go about testing that.

My problem is that a lot of Christians make many, many statements about the nature of the universe, and our observations about the universe don't always line up with that. They disregard the observations based upon their beliefs and their interpretations of what the Bible says. I'm not arguing that you should immediately accept the results of every research paper that gets published. I would argue, though, that sometimes, it gets a bit stick-head-in-sand-y, or maybe plug-ears-while-singing-la-la-la-y.
I didn't claim otherwise.
I didn't say you did. You asked me to clarify my position on mixing religion and science. That was part of my response. :wink:
Gotcha.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ArcticFox » Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:38 pm

The workings of God are, by definition, supernatural.
Tell me why.
Such as?
I already listed two. Evolution and Spontaneous Biogenesis.
The only people I've seen elevate science to a religion are people like those in this thread who try to equate the two.
That's an odd thing to say. Who in this thread has treated science like religion?

Clearly you haven't seen the way people react to Neil deGrasse Tyson.
So you would argue that adaptation of any kind has never been observed? Ever?
That isn't what I said, is it? I'm assuming here that you know the difference between evolution theory and adaptation. Was I mistaken? :wink:
That's a big pet peeve of mine when discussing this stuff with people... it's always all-or-nothing, like you can either believe in evolution as a godless heathen or you can be a bastion-of-light-in-the-darkness as a Creationist.
It's a pet peeve of mine too. 99% of people I've debated Evolution with accuse me of arguing Creationism when I do nothing of the sort. People are polarized, and have a really hard time seeing other avenues of thinking.
You're asking me if science should point to God, and I guess I'm not sure as to what you're getting at. If what you're asking is literally should science point to the existence of God, I would ask how you think one would go about testing that.
What I'm getting at is this philosophical dilemma:

P1: God created the Universe
P2: Science is a reliable mechanism for telling us things like where the Universe originates from.

C: Science should (eventually) be able to tell us that God created the Universe.

Do you agree or disagree with that form?
My problem is that a lot of Christians make many, many statements about the nature of the universe, and our observations about the universe don't always line up with that. They disregard the observations based upon their beliefs and their interpretations of what the Bible says. I'm not arguing that you should immediately accept the results of every research paper that gets published. I would argue, though, that sometimes, it gets a bit stick-head-in-sand-y, or maybe plug-ears-while-singing-la-la-la-y.
It's true, many do. Closed mindedness serves no-one, and I'd argue that Christians who refuse to understand Science do so because their faith is weak and they're afraid of learning something that would shatter it. On the other hand, I see the very same stubbornness on the other side, when you get people who think they're superior because they've somehow managed to avoid religion. They don't want to understand religion because they're afraid of what it might make them see. Know how irritating it is to try and have a purely scientific discussion with someone who'd so closed minded that they can't get their head of the rut that the ONLY possible reason to be a skeptic of Evolution is religion?

I have a friend who is a high school Biology teacher, and he and I have debated Evolution. His lack of understanding of how Evolution Theory actually works is pretty shocking, and in one debate a mutual friend who is an actual scientist had to call this guy on some of his more inaccurate and illogical statements. I literally have a more solid understanding of Evolution Theory than this fellow, but still he calls me crazy (literally) for being skeptical of it. This has actually damaged a 25 year friendship, because he absolutely refuses to admit the gaps in his own knowledge. You'd think that if he's on the right side of the truth, he'd seek to fill those gaps, even if only to be a better teacher and do a better job debating the topic. But... nope.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ChickenSoup » Sat Jul 09, 2016 3:29 pm

The workings of God are, by definition, supernatural.
Tell me why.
I'm not breaking down semantics. This is pointless.
Such as?
I already listed two. Evolution and Spontaneous Biogenesis.
We'll discuss this further later.
The only people I've seen elevate science to a religion are people like those in this thread who try to equate the two.
That's an odd thing to say. Who in this thread has treated science like religion?
Well, for one,
Based on the above criteria, it would seem that evolution is a religion which requires more faith when looked at scientifically than belief in God.
So you would argue that adaptation of any kind has never been observed? Ever?
That isn't what I said, is it? I'm assuming here that you know the difference between evolution theory and adaptation. Was I mistaken? :wink:
You may be mistaken indeed, even in terms of genetic adaptations that have been observed. What do you think evolution is? It's certainly broader than "well you see, we've never seen one species become another"
That's a big pet peeve of mine when discussing this stuff with people... it's always all-or-nothing, like you can either believe in evolution as a godless heathen or you can be a bastion-of-light-in-the-darkness as a Creationist.
It's a pet peeve of mine too. 99% of people I've debated Evolution with accuse me of arguing Creationism when I do nothing of the sort. People are polarized, and have a really hard time seeing other avenues of thinking.
Your bias is pretty telling, though. I see why they say that.
You're asking me if science should point to God, and I guess I'm not sure as to what you're getting at. If what you're asking is literally should science point to the existence of God, I would ask how you think one would go about testing that.
What I'm getting at is this philosophical dilemma:

P1: God created the Universe
P2: Science is a reliable mechanism for telling us things like where the Universe originates from.

C: Science should (eventually) be able to tell us that God created the Universe.

Do you agree or disagree with that form?[/quote]

*shrug* I don't konw. I would say that science should (eventually) be able to tell us the means/timescale in which God made the universe. If you're asking if we'll eventually get to the point where scientists will say "Oh shoot, this wouldn't be possible without a creator!" ...maybe? I don't know.
My problem is that a lot of Christians make many, many statements about the nature of the universe, and our observations about the universe don't always line up with that. They disregard the observations based upon their beliefs and their interpretations of what the Bible says. I'm not arguing that you should immediately accept the results of every research paper that gets published. I would argue, though, that sometimes, it gets a bit stick-head-in-sand-y, or maybe plug-ears-while-singing-la-la-la-y.
It's true, many do. Closed mindedness serves no-one, and I'd argue that Christians who refuse to understand Science do so because their faith is weak and they're afraid of learning something that would shatter it. On the other hand, I see the very same stubbornness on the other side, when you get people who think they're superior because they've somehow managed to avoid religion. They don't want to understand religion because they're afraid of what it might make them see. Know how irritating it is to try and have a purely scientific discussion with someone who'd so closed minded that they can't get their head of the rut that the ONLY possible reason to be a skeptic of Evolution is religion?
In America, religion is almost entirely the source of evolution's criticism.
I have a friend who is a high school Biology teacher, and he and I have debated Evolution. His lack of understanding of how Evolution Theory actually works is pretty shocking, and in one debate a mutual friend who is an actual scientist had to call this guy on some of his more inaccurate and illogical statements. I literally have a more solid understanding of Evolution Theory than this fellow, but still he calls me crazy (literally) for being skeptical of it. This has actually damaged a 25 year friendship, because he absolutely refuses to admit the gaps in his own knowledge. You'd think that if he's on the right side of the truth, he'd seek to fill those gaps, even if only to be a better teacher and do a better job debating the topic. But... nope.
This speaks nothing to the validity of evolution.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ChickenSoup » Sat Jul 09, 2016 3:47 pm

Yikes, don't mind my formatting issues XD did a lot of typing on mobile
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ArcticFox » Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:19 pm

I'm not breaking down semantics. This is pointless.
Your choice, but it was you that brought up supernatural vs. natural.
Well, for one,
Based on the above criteria, it would seem that evolution is a religion which requires more faith when looked at scientifically than belief in God.
I think you misunderstood what Angrus was getting at. He's saying that there are certain axioms used in Science hat require greater faith to believe than it takes to believe in God. He's right about that.
You may be mistaken indeed, even in terms of genetic adaptations that have been observed. What do you think evolution is? It's certainly broader than "well you see, we've never seen one species become another"
Adaptation and Evolution are different things. An adaptation is what happens when a trait in a species changes to improve its survivability in its environment. Evolution is the theory that says that a long enough series of adaptations leads to new species. You claimed that I has said there was no adaptation, ever. This is false.

Your bias is pretty telling, though. I see why they say that.
No you don't, because you don't see those debates. I never invoke God in an Evolution debate. It's only relevant here because the discussion is about intellectualism vs. religion.
*shrug* I don't konw. I would say that science should (eventually) be able to tell us the means/timescale in which God made the universe. If you're asking if we'll eventually get to the point where scientists will say "Oh shoot, this wouldn't be possible without a creator!" ...maybe? I don't know.
Good answer. I agree with it. That said, there are people who pretty firmly insist that it never will.

In America, religion is almost entirely the source of evolution's criticism.
So what? It doesn't mean criticism of Evolution Theory MUST come from religion.

This speaks nothing to the validity of evolution.
Never said it did. The point is that even people who think they know something about Evolution are generally far less well informed than they think they are, which means they believe in it from faith, not reason or full understanding.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

skeer
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:55 pm

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby skeer » Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:23 pm

The workings of God are, by definition, supernatural.
For clarification purposes, are you saying anything God does is supernatural, or God is unable to effect the natural if he exists? The main difference is between the two are very different and incompatible beliefs. The former acknowledges that if God exists, he can influence and change the natural world at a whim. The latter is deism, which is incompatible with Christianity if I understand. Thomas Jefferson was a deist, and disagreed that miracles were possible, to such a degree that he took a pair of scissors to his Bible.
Science can show us the natural processes that occurred, but cannot comment on whether or not God was involved.
This is true if you believe God can't influence the real world. But if God can influence the real world, science has no way of telling the difference between natural and supernatural. I have no problem with trying to understand the way the world works. Saying everything that happens in real life is natural and everything that God does is supernatural, then the only conclusion anyone can come to is that a God like that is either useless or not real.

Regardless, you admit that science cannot comment on whether God is real or not, right? Perhaps we should be using something else to prove or disprove God? I can't speak for everyone, but perhaps history is more fit for this topic?

I prefer not to take sides on young earth creationists, old earth creationists, intelligent design, or evolutionists, because I don't know enough on the topic to pick sides. Besides, the topic of literal, figurative, and allegorical is important when reading the Bible. Context matters too. What I get from Genesis 1 is God created the universe and all within it. He didn't build it all at once either, but built it up over time, and as far as I can tell, in a certain order. As for how long a day took? Maybe it's 24 hours, maybe not. The Earth wasn't created until day 3, so what are we using to measure a day?

I'd rather wait and see how the debate ends up in a few years or decades. Sometimes time is the best thing at answering questions.

Wishing for God's love and wisdom for everyone in this conversation :)

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ChickenSoup » Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:49 pm

Your choice, but it was you that brought up supernatural vs. natural.
I did, but without the intention of trying to nail the difference between the two. I was speaking generally.
I think you misunderstood what Angrus was getting at. He's saying that there are certain axioms used in Science hat require greater faith to believe than it takes to believe in God. He's right about that.
That's gonna be one of those opinions we'll agree to disagree about.
Adaptation and Evolution are different things. An adaptation is what happens when a trait in a species changes to improve its survivability in its environment. Evolution is the theory that says that a long enough series of adaptations leads to new species. You claimed that I has said there was no adaptation, ever. This is false.
Adaptation is a fundamental part of evolution. You're basically arguing that evolution is false, but all the steps to get there are true.

It's also worth noting that our observation of adaptation is a tiny blip on the time scale of life on earth, and our understanding continues to deepen and grow. The most we've seen so far (well, to my knowledge--I'm not a biologist) are dramatic changes in bacteria and viruses to the extent that they (and sometimes the associated diseases) dramatically change. Whether or not you can chalk that up as a species change is questionable.

No you don't, because you don't see those debates. I never invoke God in an Evolution debate. It's only relevant here because the discussion is about intellectualism vs. religion.
*shrug*
Good answer. I agree with it. That said, there are people who pretty firmly insist that it never will.
Fair enough.
So what? It doesn't mean criticism of Evolution Theory MUST come from religion.
What plausible alternatives are there?
Never said it did. The point is that even people who think they know something about Evolution are generally far less well informed than they think they are, which means they believe in it from faith, not reason or full understanding.
Let me fix that for you:
even people who think they know something about anything are generally far less well informed than they think they are, which means they believe in it from faith, not reason or full understanding.
...crap, let me fix that for myself:
most everyone on the internet is generally far less well informed than they think they are, which means they believe in it from faith, not reason or full understanding.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ArcticFox » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:23 pm

I did, but without the intention of trying to nail the difference between the two. I was speaking generally.
Ok.
That's gonna be one of those opinions we'll agree to disagree about.
Roger that.
Adaptation is a fundamental part of evolution. You're basically arguing that evolution is false, but all the steps to get there are true.
Adaptation is indeed a fundamental part of Evolution, but it doesn't follow that because species adapt, they must also evolve.

And "all the steps?" Bro, there's a LOT more to Evolution Theory than just adaptation.
It's also worth noting that our observation of adaptation is a tiny blip on the time scale of life on earth, and our understanding continues to deepen and grow. The most we've seen so far (well, to my knowledge--I'm not a biologist) are dramatic changes in bacteria and viruses to the extent that they (and sometimes the associated diseases) dramatically change. Whether or not you can chalk that up as a species change is questionable.
At best.

So what? It doesn't mean criticism of Evolution Theory MUST come from religion.
What plausible alternatives are there?
Well I've said it a thousand times in various threads on this forum but heck, what's one more? My skepticism comes from inconsistencies and junk practices in some of the "research" I've seen on the subject. I've seen falsified data, I've seen data being massaged to point to what the researchers want it to point to, and no, people aren't doing verification studies to check these results. I've seen diagrams put into Biology textbooks that are known to have been falsified, but are included anyway. (Even my Biology teacher friend admitted to that.)

So in short: One alternative is that the "science" being conducted where Evolution is concerned is sloppy at best.

Spontaneous Biogenesis is another theory that's total bunk and you don't need to believe in God to see it. Once you drill down to the chemistry layer you start to see why it's statistically impossible for random proteins to just combine into life by random chance. (Yes, that takes into consideration the size and age of the Universe.)
most everyone on the internet is generally far less well informed than they think they are, which means they believe in it from faith, not reason or full understanding.
Ain't that the truth.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ChickenSoup » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:59 pm

Adaptation is indeed a fundamental part of Evolution, but it doesn't follow that because species adapt, they must also evolve.

And "all the steps?" Bro, there's a LOT more to Evolution Theory than just adaptation.
I'm doing a couple school assignments and sipping whisky right now. Excuse my imprecise description. But that is essentially the building block.
It's also worth noting that our observation of adaptation is a tiny blip on the time scale of life on earth, and our understanding continues to deepen and grow. The most we've seen so far (well, to my knowledge--I'm not a biologist) are dramatic changes in bacteria and viruses to the extent that they (and sometimes the associated diseases) dramatically change. Whether or not you can chalk that up as a species change is questionable.
At best.
The time in which we've observed adaptations compared to the geologic/biologic time scale of the earth is a relative blink of an eye. Would you have expected to see new species emerge before our eyes?
Well I've said it a thousand times in various threads on this forum but heck, what's one more?
I haven't exactly been active here.
My skepticism comes from inconsistencies and junk practices in some of the "research" I've seen on the subject. I've seen falsified data, I've seen data being massaged to point to what the researchers want it to point to, and no, people aren't doing verification studies to check these results. I've seen diagrams put into Biology textbooks that are known to have been falsified, but are included anyway. (Even my Biology teacher friend admitted to that.)

So in short: One alternative is that the "science" being conducted where Evolution is concerned is sloppy at best.
Is it really the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biology that is falsified, or examples you've seen that have poisoned the well for you?
Spontaneous Biogenesis is another theory that's total bunk and you don't need to believe in God to see it. Once you drill down to the chemistry layer you start to see why it's statistically impossible for random proteins to just combine into life by random chance. (Yes, that takes into consideration the size and age of the Universe.)
I dunno dude, there's been a lot of interesting chemistry research coming out lately. Anyway, there's more to it than that. For example, carbon atoms tend naturally form into complex organic molecules--it's not truly random. It turns out that interesting things happen And you know what? Everyone keeps talking about statistics and improbability (IIRC, earlier on or maybe in another thread someone said "I use statistics to disprove evolution all the time") Can you show me these numbers? Can you show me how you've factored in every single factor, how you've taken the breadth of a potentially infinite universe into consideration? Or is it just ostensibly improbable, at face value?

What do you have to say about the speed of light, the observable universe, and the implications for the age of the universe?

What do you have to say to Christians discussing theistic evolution?
most everyone on the internet is generally far less well informed than they think they are, which means they believe in it from faith, not reason or full understanding.
Ain't that the truth.
Amen, brother. Sadly, I'm admittedly in that group too often.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ArcticFox » Sun Jul 10, 2016 8:23 am

I'm doing a couple school assignments and sipping whisky right now. Excuse my imprecise description. But that is essentially the building block.
It's 'a' building block.

The time in which we've observed adaptations compared to the geologic/biologic time scale of the earth is a relative blink of an eye. Would you have expected to see new species emerge before our eyes?
Of course not, but it isn't up to me to prove it wrong. The argument you're making here sounds a lot like "Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there." That isn't a scientific statement, it's a statement of faith.

As you said earlier, science is about observing nature. You've literally just deployed an argument based on our inability to observe this in nature.

Is it really the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biology that is falsified, or examples you've seen that have poisoned the well for you?
The problem is systemic. All data gathered is interpreted through the lens of Evolution, which itself comes from theories that have yet to be verified.

I dunno dude, there's been a lot of interesting chemistry research coming out lately. Anyway, there's more to it than that. For example, carbon atoms tend naturally form into complex organic molecules--it's not truly random. It turns out that interesting things happen And you know what? Everyone keeps talking about statistics and improbability (IIRC, earlier on or maybe in another thread someone said "I use statistics to disprove evolution all the time") Can you show me these numbers? Can you show me how you've factored in every single factor, how you've taken the breadth of a potentially infinite universe into consideration? Or is it just ostensibly improbable, at face value?
Chemistry is the bane of Evolution. When you get a chance, look up the difference between "left handed proteins" and "right handed proteins." One of them (I forget which off the top of my head) occurs in living organisms. It cannot form in a nonliving environment. Guess which one would have to already exist before it could combine with other proteins to form life? That's to say nothing of the chemical environment of a primordial Earth where such chemicals couldn't possibly exist dues to the presence of other compounds.

A study was done several years ago (If I can find it I'll link it) where a researcher calculated all of the factors involved to determine the statistical probability of a random set of proteins combining to start the process of live. The result was 1/1^340,000. Read that number carefully. That isn't "one in three hundred forty million." That's "One over one and three hundred forty million zeroes." Statistical impossibility occurs, in that study, at 1/40,000. And yes, that takes into account the age of the Universe and the likely number of planets it could possibly happen on.

As was said earlier, it takes greater faith to believe in that than to believe God did it.

What do you have to say about the speed of light, the observable universe, and the implications for the age of the universe?
What would you like me to say?

What do you have to say to Christians discussing theistic evolution?
They can say whatever hey want.

Amen, brother. Sadly, I'm admittedly in that group too often.
We all are, brother. We're just a bunch of armchair quarterbacks most of the time.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Angrus
Noob
Noob
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby Angrus » Thu Jul 28, 2016 12:18 am

Hi again folks, it's been a while since I commented on here.
I'm not going to quote, because it takes so long to read past all the quotes in each post, it's like reading 3 times the number of posts just to get to the meat of it. Not saying it doesn't help, just that I'm tired, it's been a long day and such, and I'd like to just cut to the meat of my point. :P

I believe both of my points are responses to ChickenSoup's points specifically, and generally the discussion between ArcticFox and ChickenSoup which has quoted me on both sides. The first is a clarification:

I didn't call science religion, I did call evolution religion. There are those who don't see a difference between the two, and so I can see why they would make that assumption. From many discussions, and for too many reasons to list here when I'm ready to fall asleep, I don't think evolution makes good science. We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

My second point is on the nature of adaptation and evolution. What we see around us and call adaptation is also called microevolution, and what is postulated by evolutionists as creating one species from another is called macroevolution. (micro meaning in the very small scale, macro meaning in the very large scale). Microevolution is often used as proof of macroevolution by those who propose it as a scientific fact. Many people think these are the same thing, however there is a very distinct difference which is either unknown or overlooked. The difference is that when it comes to microevolution, or adaptation, all of the information required for the change is already written into the organism's DNA. Adaptation is the selection of certain information that is already there, and the de-selection of other information that is already there. One could argue convincingly that this removal of, or using less, information, is the exact opposite of macroevolution. For macroevolution to occur, NEW information would have to be written into the organism's DNA. In each recorded case of adaptation, the organism is selecting from a subset of information that already exists. You can do that as many times as you want, and it will never create a larger subset, only a smaller subset. I think that point both speaks to the conversation on adaptation vs. evolution, and explains to a small degree why I don't consider (macro)evolution to be scientific.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Why Aren’t More Intellectuals Believers?

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:55 am

The difference is that when it comes to microevolution, or adaptation, all of the information required for the change is already written into the organism's DNA. Adaptation is the selection of certain information that is already there, and the de-selection of other information that is already there. One could argue convincingly that this removal of, or using less, information, is the exact opposite of macroevolution. For macroevolution to occur, NEW information would have to be written into the organism's DNA.
This. Information Theory is a pretty interesting field of science/mathematics and I'm not an expert or anything but I've been reading a bit about it and how it applies to his issue. The thing is, information can't spontaneously spring into existence, and yet the Theory of Evolution requires exactly that. People swallow it because it's handwaved away as being minute changes brought about by advantageous mutation over the course of thousands of generations but it doesn't change the basic fact that Evolution asserts the impossible, and it doesn't magically become possible just because you give it a long enough timespan. If I leave a pile of rust in the middle of a warehouse I can guarantee you that there is no set of random events that can possibly happen to turn that pile into a Buick regardless of the time frame you give it.

Yes, that last analogy was a joke, not an accurate metaphor for what Evolution Theory claims.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests