Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

rl

Quote:

I would think it very important to you as a scientist to make sure that the definition of a natural process didn't include God.

Isn't that what you've been all about on these discussions?

Now you claim you have no opinion.

Why can't you muster the gumption to tell another evolutionist that they've got it wrong?

I think that, as some myth centered person, you could understand that there are millions of people who dont require that this issue be seriously discussed while involved in opur work.

"Hey Jim, Ive got a heavy metals separation and some forams in this split sample, should I evaluate whether the test modifications are the result of intelligent design"?

I dont recall things like that even entering our discussions.
As to whether its VERY IMPORTANT?, you really do give yourself positional staus that you dont even deserve.
There are entire years when noone brings up the concepts that you feel are "central" to science--Youre delusional fella.

0 Replies

PS, to prove my point, whenever you post some of your pseudo scientific rant, I like to take your position AS IF IT WERE TRUE, and then deal with what we would expect to see scientifically.

Im never gonna deny you or anyone their core beliefs . Discussing consequences in a natural world environment is what I do. My admonition to both you and parados, is that, your argument is entertaining but not at all critical.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
somebody wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

Can you give a simple yes or no whether you agree with him or not?

Same question to ros and xingu. Agree with parados or no?

As usual, you need to be more specific with your questions, or the answers won't make any sense.

For me, god and nature are the same thing, so saying, "god guiding a natural process" is like saying, "nature guiding a natural process". What version of god are you asking about when you ask your question? And just what do you mean by "guided".

I thought you had followed the thread better than this, ros.

The discussion was in the context of a survey in which 4 in 10 scientists surveyed took a theistic evolution position .

Eugenie Scott also agreed with this assessment of the survey:

Eugenie Scott wrote:

On the other hand, a statement implying theistic evolution showed 40% of both scientists and the general public agreeing that "Man evolved over millions of years from less developed forms of life, but God guided the process, including the creation of man."

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1480_creationists_and_the_pope39_12_22_2003.asp

as did Dr Porter who was quoted in the article

Quote:

Despite such affirmations, however, 55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man, according to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science.

"I am surprised to find that so many are theistic evolutionists" Duncan Porter, a Virginia Tech botanist and Darwin scholar, said in an interview.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

The same 40% figure for theistic evolution among scientists is noted at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

and at the American Geological Institute

Quote:

Among scientists, the last number jumps up to 55 percent with 40 percent of scientists favoring some type of theistic evolution and 5 percent favoring the literal biblical view.

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/oct99/scene.html

Why is this important?

Because it is this very point which parados has been laboring to deny. He has sought, without success, to render this interpretation of the survey as invalid.

-------------------------------------------

Hypernaturalists unfortunately often ignore prominent theistic evolutionists in the scientific community

Quote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220484,00.html

So it is in this context that I asked you, ros, do you agree with parados statement:

Quote:

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

PS, to prove my point, whenever you post some of your pseudo scientific rant, I like to take your position AS IF IT WERE TRUE, and then deal with what we would expect to see scientifically.

Im never gonna deny you or anyone their core beliefs . Discussing consequences in a natural world environment is what I do. My admonition to both you and parados, is that, your argument is entertaining but not at all critical.

Excluding the supernatural is not important to your definition of a 'natural process' , eh?

OK, let's remember this when you begin to discuss why ID can't be brought up in a science classroom.

I must admit I am surprised.

0 Replies

yawn.

Quote:

Excluding the supernatural is not important to your definition of a 'natural process' , eh?

OK, let's remember this when you begin to discuss why ID can't be brought up in a science classroom.

I must admit I am surprised.

Youve obviously got me confused with someone who gives a **** what you think is important.

The reason I dont want IDjicy taught in science is that I respect the scientific method, not that I care whether your beliefs are central to the argument. The First Amendment states my entire position precisely and concisely. Your opinions notwithstanding.

SO, youll see me arguing long and hard that IDjicy and CRetinism dont have a place in science education . That has no bearing on my personal beliefs. I dont deny that Cretinism wasnt an actual historical perturbation of our nations history, and further, the IDjits have spent a lot of time in the news these last few decades, so I really cant deny them their existence.
Please dont conflate those religious worldviews with their messengers. One is real, the other is just a fairy tale.

0 Replies

real life,
It is funny how you think if you go away for a couple of weeks people will forget how your argument was torn apart. It is no more valid now than it was 2 weeks ago.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3059795#3059795

Believing in God does not mean someone no longer believes in nature or natural processes. It may mean you think that but we know for a fact that the respondents didn't all think that. There responses make it clear. We know for a fact that "theistic evolution" isn't defined the narrow way you have attempted to define it. The definition of "theistic evolution" makes that clear. That leaves us with the very clear fact that you are doing nothing but throwing **** out as if it was the most beautiful flowers. It's **** and will always be ****. Making the argument repeatedly only proves you like to throw ****. It doesn't prove your point which has been shown to be wrong time and again.

Sorry farmer but the only way to corner real life is to point out the errors in the minutia that he believes build a solid basis for his argument. But on very close examination it is revealed for the quicksand it is.

0 Replies

go for it parados. I find that RL is a typical Cretinist whose arguments, are fairly shallow and fact-free.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I thought you had followed the thread better than this, ros.

The discussion was in the context of a survey in which 4 in 10 scientists surveyed took a theistic evolution position.

I'm not interested in surveys RL, they don't change the facts of the natural world. I'm interested in understanding the things that science teaches us, and I'm interested in seeing you (or anyone) provide some proof (or even a shred of scientific evidence) for creationism. That was after all, the original challenge of the thread (which you have successfully derailed with your irrelevant survey).

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life,
It is funny how you think if you go away for a couple of weeks people will forget how your argument was torn apart. It is no more valid now than it was 2 weeks ago.

I haven't gone anywhere.

But I have shown that Eugenie Scott, American Geological Institute, Dr Porter and the 'religious tolerance' website (NONE of these could be considered pro-ID, or creationist sources) all said the same thing about the survey that I did.

So, you are still entitled to your opinion, but it's a minority view even among those on the evolutionary side, it would appear.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL is a typical Cretinist

You used to be atypical on A2K, an evolutionist who cared more about science and things like the definition of 'natural process' than about mudslinging and name calling.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
I thought you had followed the thread better than this, ros.

The discussion was in the context of a survey in which 4 in 10 scientists surveyed took a theistic evolution position.

I'm not interested in surveys RL, they don't change the facts of the natural world. I'm interested in understanding the things that science teaches us

So answer the question regarding the definition of a 'natural process'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life,
It is funny how you think if you go away for a couple of weeks people will forget how your argument was torn apart. It is no more valid now than it was 2 weeks ago.

I haven't gone anywhere.

But I have shown that Eugenie Scott, American Geological Institute, Dr Porter and the 'religious tolerance' website (NONE of these could be considered pro-ID, or creationist sources) all said the same thing about the survey that I did.

So, you are still entitled to your opinion, but it's a minority view even among those on the evolutionary side, it would appear.

No, you haven't shown that at all. You have taken their words and twisted them and redefined them to try to make them mean what you said.

Porter saying that 40% are "theistic evolutionists" does NOT mean Porter thinks that 40% believes that God is directly involved and there is no natural process.
exhibit 1 - the article which cites answers given by the respondents that directly contradicts your claim
exhibit 2 - the definition of "theistic evolution" that includes deism which you said it should not.

The simple fact of the matter is that anyone that believes in a God that created the universe and then no longer interferes would find one answer to be closest to their beliefs does NOT mean they believe the answer completely as you do. It only means they found the answer closest. It is a complete misrepresentation of the question to pull that answer out and ignore the fact that the question asked for the one "CLOSEST" not the one exactly like "real life" interprets it.

If any opinion is in the "minority" it would be yours. You dissemble, you hedge, you outright lie.

Here is the opinion of what "theistic evolution" means from creationist.org

Quote:

The point is clear. The theistic evolutionist believes organic evolution was simply "the way God did it" as He brought the Universe and its contents into existence. And although there are almost as many varieties of theistic evolution as there are people who espouse it, a few characteristics are common to all. For example, the theistic evolutionist believes in: (a) an old Earth; (b) wholly natural processes responsible for life as we see it, once the initial matter was brought into existence by God, and; (c) a figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

http://www.creationists.org/theisticevolution.html
Wow.. Even Creationists think theistic evolution involves "natural processes."

Quote:

Many Christians, including men of science as well as theologians, accommodate the discoveries of science in their religion by suggesting that God did not create the world (in its present form) supernaturally. Rather, He used natural processes as His "method of creation," and guided evolution to the final realization of man. In this view, Adam's body was produced as a result of the process of evolution, and God then completed His "creation" of man by giving him an eternal soul. The creation of life as described in Genesis is thus recognized to be essentially poetic, or at least to be flexible enough to permit God a wide latitude in His method of creation. This interpretation is generally referred to as "theistic evolution" (Young, 1985, p. 46, emp. and parenthetical item in orig.).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1990
Several other definitions of "theistic evolution" there as well which include "natural processes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Quote:

A theory of theistic evolution (also called evolutionary creation) proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-cr.htm

Quote:

2. TE, since it simply accepts and baptizes materialistic evolution, is subject to all of the scientific objections to materialistic evolution.

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay27.htm

Quote:

Theistic Evolution (TE) is the theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature.

Now that I have shown several definitions of "theistic evolution" that include natural processes, how can my opinion by in the minority? Please provide some scholarly definitions that would dispute the ones I posted. Your word doesn't count for anything since you obviously are given to prevarication at every opportunity. Please provide valid sources and a LOT of them if you want to claim that my opinion and the opinion of everyone I have posted so far is in the minority. (I have only started by the way. I still have over 46,500 websites to peruse and post to dispute your claim that someone believing natural processes being part of "theistic evolution" is in the minority.)

Here is one more for good measure..

Quote:

There are two basic categories of theistic evolution. One view is that God created the universe and then stepped back and let things run on their own. Evolution by random chance then took over and became the mechanism by which lifeforms came into being. This view is called deism.

http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_theistic.html

You haven't gotten one person to agree with you here on your idiotic question. It is YOUR opinion that is in the obvious minority. It is so deluded that even other creationists don't agree with you on the definition of "theistic evolution" must preclude all natural processes.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life,
It is funny how you think if you go away for a couple of weeks people will forget how your argument was torn apart. It is no more valid now than it was 2 weeks ago.

I haven't gone anywhere.

But I have shown that Eugenie Scott, American Geological Institute, Dr Porter and the 'religious tolerance' website (NONE of these could be considered pro-ID, or creationist sources) all said the same thing about the survey that I did.

So, you are still entitled to your opinion, but it's a minority view even among those on the evolutionary side, it would appear.

No, you haven't shown that at all. You have taken their words and twisted them and redefined them to try to make them mean what you said.

I've twisted nothing.

They based their responses on the survey question , not on your hand-picked 'definition'. They were speaking in keeping with the context, which is more than I can say for you.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
I thought you had followed the thread better than this, ros.

The discussion was in the context of a survey in which 4 in 10 scientists surveyed took a theistic evolution position.

I'm not interested in surveys RL, they don't change the facts of the natural world. I'm interested in understanding the things that science teaches us

So answer the question regarding the definition of a 'natural process'.

What happened, did you lose your dictionary or something? Look it up. Either that or get straight to your point, whatever it is.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life,
It is funny how you think if you go away for a couple of weeks people will forget how your argument was torn apart. It is no more valid now than it was 2 weeks ago.

I haven't gone anywhere.

But I have shown that Eugenie Scott, American Geological Institute, Dr Porter and the 'religious tolerance' website (NONE of these could be considered pro-ID, or creationist sources) all said the same thing about the survey that I did.

So, you are still entitled to your opinion, but it's a minority view even among those on the evolutionary side, it would appear.

No, you haven't shown that at all. You have taken their words and twisted them and redefined them to try to make them mean what you said.

I've twisted nothing.

They based their responses on the survey question , not on your hand-picked 'definition'. They were speaking in keeping with the context, which is more than I can say for you.

Gee. they based it on the question? Does that mean they didn't base it on your parsing of the question? If you want to claim they based it on the 'question' then you have to include the ENTIRE question which is something you have continually failed to do as you picked out one answer and pretended it was an absolute for those that answered that way in direct contradiction of the respondents quoted. Then you pretended that "theistic evolution" as used by Porter had a definition that is not the common one.

My hand-picked definition? That is funny. I merely googled "theistic evolution" and "definition". I posted the first one that came up and 5 out of 10 from the first page. Feel free to point out those that I missed that support your claim. The ones I didn't quote just had much longer definitions or no definition at all. They certainly didn't have a definition that supported your position. It is hardly my "hand picked" definition when it is the common definition used by just about everyone. For you to claim I am the one "hand picking" or ignoring the context is more of you flat out lies.

Here is the ENTIRE question

Quote:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

Which one of us, you or me, has been arguing that God guiding the process must mean that anyone that answered with #1 can't believe in a natural process? Which one of us has pointed out that #1 is only the CLOSEST to their beliefs and doesn't mean they interpret #1 as being supernatural only? Which one of us has provided a definition of theistic evolution from 6 sources while the other one has claimed they are the majority while providing few if any sources to support their claim?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life,
It is funny how you think if you go away for a couple of weeks people will forget how your argument was torn apart. It is no more valid now than it was 2 weeks ago.

I haven't gone anywhere.

But I have shown that Eugenie Scott, American Geological Institute, Dr Porter and the 'religious tolerance' website (NONE of these could be considered pro-ID, or creationist sources) all said the same thing about the survey that I did.

So, you are still entitled to your opinion, but it's a minority view even among those on the evolutionary side, it would appear.

No, you haven't shown that at all. You have taken their words and twisted them and redefined them to try to make them mean what you said.

I've twisted nothing.

They based their responses on the survey question , not on your hand-picked 'definition'. They were speaking in keeping with the context, which is more than I can say for you.

Gee. they based it on the question? Does that mean they didn't base it on your parsing of the question?

That's correct.

With no prompting from me, they each described those who had answered

Quote:

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process

as 'theistic evolutionists' , just as I did.

Did you think that I had talked them into this interpretation? Laughing

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
I thought you had followed the thread better than this, ros.

The discussion was in the context of a survey in which 4 in 10 scientists surveyed took a theistic evolution position.

I'm not interested in surveys RL, they don't change the facts of the natural world. I'm interested in understanding the things that science teaches us

So answer the question regarding the definition of a 'natural process'.

What happened, did you lose your dictionary or something? Look it up. Either that or get straight to your point, whatever it is.

You still driving that old dodge?

I thought my point was rather succinct.

I asked if you agreed with:

parados wrote:

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural

But you answered in an evasive rambling way, 'well gee I guess that depends on which god you are talking about.......'

Just to help you out, the word could refer to any supernatural being referred to as 'God'.

You also alluded to your apparent equating of 'god' with 'nature', but since 'nature' is not a sentient being and therefore doesn't 'guide' anything (evolution is a directionless process, remember?) then obviously it doesn't refer to 'nature'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Quote:

Gee. they based it on the question? Does that mean they didn't base it on your parsing of the question?

That's correct.

With no prompting from me, they each described those who had answered

Quote:
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process

as 'theistic evolutionists' , just as I did.

Did you think that I had talked them into this interpretation?

You have twisted the meaning of "theistic evolution" to not include deism.

0 Replies

Quote:

The point is clear. The theistic evolutionist believes organic evolution was simply "the way God did it" as He brought the Universe and its contents into existence. And although there are almost as many varieties of theistic evolution as there are people who espouse it, a few characteristics are common to all. For example, the theistic evolutionist believes in: (a) an old Earth; (b) wholly natural processes responsible for life as we see it, once the initial matter was brought into existence by God, and; (c) a figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

http://www.creationists.org/theisticevolution.html

You can argue until you are blue in the face real life but it is obvious to everyone that you have attempted to twist the meaning of what Porter and Potts said by changing the meaning of the phrase "theistic evolution" from its standard accepted meaning.

1. Some of the respondents answered that God created the process when he created the universe.
2. The definition of "theistic evolution" includes those that think evolution is a natural process that God put in motion.
3. When Porter said that some of the respondents were "theistic evolutionists" he was not saying they didn't believe in natural processes.

Your argument has been bull **** for weeks now real life. Continuing it only makes you look psychotic. You were much better off slinking away.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
Quote:

Gee. they based it on the question? Does that mean they didn't base it on your parsing of the question?

That's correct.

With no prompting from me, they each described those who had answered

Quote:
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process

as 'theistic evolutionists' , just as I did.

Did you think that I had talked them into this interpretation?

You have twisted the meaning of "theistic evolution" to not include deism.

If it already is included or at least implied, then why did the two scientists add their qualifying comments to the bottom of the survey, explaining that they meant a deistic view?

Apparently they didn't think it was included.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know