Evolution? How?

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Newton and many others were quite clear in their belief that God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it.

Does that make them 'unscientific' in your view?

If so, guess which one of you is probably in error.

Come on RL, you're going in circles here. We all watched this strawman burn to ashes at least twice in this thread already. Here, we'll burn it again...

It is not scientific to say that God created the Universe no matter who you are. It is possible however to do good science while believing that God created the Universe, you just have to keep your theology out of your science.

So in this case it's not Pauligirl or Newton who are wrong, it's you who are wrong for portraying a situation which is irrelevant and drawing conclusions from it. Shame on you, you bad boy.

Hi Ros,

Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable when I point out that your brand of hyper-naturalism is not shared by many of the great scientists of the past, nor by a large segment of scientists today ( we have discussed several times that 40-45% of scientists polled in recent times 'include God in the process' EVEN IF they are evolutionists) who do NOT agree that natural processes alone are sufficient to account for the origin of man, etc.

I know you'd like to think of it as irrelevant but the fact is you do not have to set your faith aside when you go to work as a scientist, or as anything else.

Unfortunately for you, your stance separates you from some of the greatest scientific minds in history. But then, you probably know better than they what true science is and isn't , right?

No shame on me, my friend. I don't mind saying something unpopular.

0 Replies

I thought people in this era were smart enough to know the simplest terminology of science.

Namely, science itself.

What is science?

It requires EVIDENCE
It requires that it be TESTABLE
It requires that the tests be REPEATABLE
It requires that from it, PREDICTIONS can be made that can be in tern TESTED.

For example, cropcircles.

Hoax vs. Aliens

How do you test for Aliens?
Whereas we can go out on any field to see people make crop circles, or even learn to make crop circles ourselves, how do you test for aliens?

We can make various predictions from a hoax:
1. That we can make crop circles
2. That more crop circles will pop up if people feel like making crop circles.

Shape of the Earth

Round vs. Flat

How do you test that there is a flat earth?
Sure, you may believe it out of faith, but is it enough?
How do you test for a flat earth?

Round Earth offers many predictions:
1. If we go around the Earth, we can go back to where we started.
2. The Earth from space will be round
3. There are things on the other side of the Earth

Origin of Life

Evolution vs. Creationism

How do you test for a "God"?
(See the next one for the predictions of evolution)

Complexity of Life

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Again, how do you test for aliens? Or for a diety?
There is already much evidence for evolution. One is the fossil record.
Evolution offers many predictions:

1. That life will diversify
2. That new species will be
3. That life on Earth in the far future will be different

Physiology of Brain

Neurology vs. Phernology

How do you test that the lumps on the brain is actually how it functions?

Neurology offers predictions:

1. If a metal bar goes through your head at a very high speed, then your personality will change.
2. Your brain activity is determined by your neurophysiology, and can change with your neurons.

0 Replies

rl, apart from committed passion, you've brought nothing to the table. The ID-iot proposition is absurd on its face, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. Faith cannot be differentiated from superstition, and religion has no place either in government nor public education. Believe as you wish; that is your prerogative, and irt is a right I will defend. However, I do not choose to surrender to supertition,. nor will I stand idly by while others try to inflict superstition on government and by extension on public education.

I draw comfort from the obvious desperation of the ID-iot crowd, and laud their incredibly disingenuous efforts to bring their vacuous cause before the bench and the electorate; the clowns have set in motion their own ultimate trivialization, and pursue that end with both vigor and success.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Unfortunately for you, your stance separates you from some of the greatest scientific minds in history.

I doubt it. I bet most of those great minds would agree with me and call you a fool. Newton followed the scientific method in his research, even though he allowed God to fill the cracks in his own view of life. But none of Newton's laws of motion ever called on God as a factor in the equations. For that reality he relied on science.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Unfortunately for you, your stance separates you from some of the greatest scientific minds in history.

I doubt it. I bet most of those great minds would agree with me and call you a fool. Newton followed the scientific method in his research, even though he allowed God to fill the cracks in his own view of life. But none of Newton's laws of motion ever called on God as a factor in the equations. For that reality he relied on science.

Do you deny that Newton believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Unfortunately for you, your stance separates you from some of the greatest scientific minds in history.

I doubt it. I bet most of those great minds would agree with me and call you a fool. Newton followed the scientific method in his research, even though he allowed God to fill the cracks in his own view of life. But none of Newton's laws of motion ever called on God as a factor in the equations. For that reality he relied on science.
Do you deny that Newton believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it?

Argumentum ad verecundiam

0 Replies

Oh good. Someone to speak Latin with Timber. He'll be so excited. He's had no one to play with on the block for the longest time.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Unfortunately for you, your stance separates you from some of the greatest scientific minds in history.

I doubt it. I bet most of those great minds would agree with me and call you a fool. Newton followed the scientific method in his research, even though he allowed God to fill the cracks in his own view of life. But none of Newton's laws of motion ever called on God as a factor in the equations. For that reality he relied on science.
Do you deny that Newton believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it?

What has this got to do with anything?

Newton believed in God as a law-maker not a tinkerer, which is why he would find the very notion of ID, abhorrent. He would prefer Evolution and Natural selection over ID, because Evolution requires God to make a law, not tinker with it and leave things to their own devices.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Unfortunately for you, your stance separates you from some of the greatest scientific minds in history.

I doubt it. I bet most of those great minds would agree with me and call you a fool. Newton followed the scientific method in his research, even though he allowed God to fill the cracks in his own view of life. But none of Newton's laws of motion ever called on God as a factor in the equations. For that reality he relied on science.
Do you deny that Newton believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it?

What has this got to do with anything?

Newton believed in God as a law-maker not a tinkerer, which is why he would find the very notion of ID, abhorrent. He would prefer Evolution and Natural selection over ID, because Evolution requires God to make a law, not tinker with it and leave things to their own devices.

I think you are assuming that this is what he believed and this is what he'd prefer because that is what you would hope.

Newton, among other things, wrote a huge volume of Biblical prophecy and his views on God's active workings to fulfill prophecy.

He was not a deistic believer in any sense, but believed God to be very active in the present day (his day).

0 Replies

Newton was empirical in his science. His religious beliefs are something separate.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Newton was empirical in his science. His religious beliefs are something separate.

Same question for you as for Ros then:

Do you deny that Newton believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it?

0 Replies

Newton was a man of his time. I wonder how hed react in his religious life, if he knew what we know now. Its only speculation but every bit as valid as RL claimimg that Newton was a "creationist". RL knows that the term Creationist had to be presented as a term that was an alternative to something . Something that was not a "state of the practice" in the 1600s.
When RL originally posted this , it was in response to my challenge for him to name us just one scientific advance that came about using Scientific Creationism thinking. As far as I recall, this lame bit of temporal transposition was all I got in response. The challenge still is out there, (as are those 13 or so biology questions that defied any Creationist to answer).

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do you deny that Newton believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it?

Do you deny that Newton kept those beliefs seperate from the science he was doing?

What the heck is your point with all this anyway. Are you trying to say that good scientists from the past had religious views? We know that. Are you trying to say that some scientists today have religious views? We know that too.

Are you tring to imply that scientists of the past, and scientists of today (the 40% to 45% from the survey) all believed in a "creationist" type of Biblical God? Because that's *not* true, and if that's your point, then you will have to make a better case for exactly what these people believed, not just imply that all people who believe in God, happen to believe in *your* God.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Unfortunately for you, your stance separates you from some of the greatest scientific minds in history.

I doubt it. I bet most of those great minds would agree with me and call you a fool. Newton followed the scientific method in his research, even though he allowed God to fill the cracks in his own view of life. But none of Newton's laws of motion ever called on God as a factor in the equations. For that reality he relied on science.
Do you deny that Newton believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it?

What has this got to do with anything?

Newton believed in God as a law-maker not a tinkerer, which is why he would find the very notion of ID, abhorrent. He would prefer Evolution and Natural selection over ID, because Evolution requires God to make a law, not tinker with it and leave things to their own devices.
I think you are assuming that this is what he believed and this is what he'd prefer because that is what you would hope.

Newton, among other things, wrote a huge volume of Biblical prophecy and his views on God's active workings to fulfill prophecy.

He was not a deistic believer in any sense, but believed God to be very active in the present day (his day).

Again, just whutinhell has that to do with anything? Teacher of and mentor to Pythagoras, thus by extension all who have followed, Thales of Miletus, ca 7th Century BCE, is the father of science; he was known to be a devout man, and to make diligent practice of sacrificing to the gods.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Again, just whutinhell has that to do with anything? Teacher of and mentor to Pythagoras, thus by extension all who have followed, Thales of Miletus, ca 7th Century BCE, is the father of science; he was known to be a devout man, and to make diligent practice of sacrificing to the gods.

RL is fighting hard to convince us that the 40% to 45% of scientists in that survey (cited way back when) all believed in a "creationist" type God, which isn't true of course.

He's using notable but ancient scientists to try to make that case and to try to distract us from his real point, which he can't support.

0 Replies

Evolution is a verb... the physical world is comprised of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, prepositions, adverbs etc... the human being makes up a phrase and we all fit together into sentences and paragraphs. All of histories events are recorded in the book of life... Every character and syllable is a dream of the author...

Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Again, just whutinhell has that to do with anything? Teacher of and mentor to Pythagoras, thus by extension all who have followed, Thales of Miletus, ca 7th Century BCE, is the father of science; he was known to be a devout man, and to make diligent practice of sacrificing to the gods.

RL is fighting hard to convince us that the 40% to 45% of scientists in that survey (cited way back when) all believed in a "creationist" type God, which isn't true of course.

He's using notable but ancient scientists to try to make that case and to try to distract us from his real point, which he can't support.

You miss the point of what I have said.

Coming from you, I would have a hard time believing it is intentional misstatement, but I also believe you are much too bright to misunderstand my post. So what gives?

The poll clearly states that 40-45% of scientists polled 'included God in the process' of evolution. It did not say, and I did not present it as saying that these were 'creationists'. (You know what I have said, it has been repeated several times.) The common term for these folks is theistic evolutionists, and their numbers both in the general public and in the scientific community are quite large. I do not share their position and have made it clear that I do not.

But they do not share your hyper-naturalism either.

These scientists did not believe that natural processes alone were a sufficient explanation for the origin of man, etc.

It is doubtful that they see themselves as 'unscientific' or that they think there is a need to drop their faith when they show up for work.

Newton also did not take a purely naturalistic view. He believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it. Did he understand what science is and is not? I would say he did.

Was he 'unscientific' for his beliefs? It is doubtful that he thought this was the case.

You want to try to draw an artificial line that 'real scientists' must use in keeping their faith and their work separate.

So, did Newton cross the line when He stated that God created the universe, etc ? Did he improperly mix his faith with science? Only in your own mind perhaps.

0 Replies

Please pay attention, people.

aktorist wrote:

I thought people in this era were smart enough to know the simplest terminology of science.

Namely, science itself.

What is science?

It requires EVIDENCE
It requires that it be TESTABLE
It requires that the tests be REPEATABLE
It requires that from it, PREDICTIONS can be made that can be in tern TESTED.

For example, cropcircles.

Hoax vs. Aliens

How do you test for Aliens?
Whereas we can go out on any field to see people make crop circles, or even learn to make crop circles ourselves, how do you test for aliens?

We can make various predictions from a hoax:
1. That we can make crop circles
2. That more crop circles will pop up if people feel like making crop circles.

Shape of the Earth

Round vs. Flat

How do you test that there is a flat earth?
Sure, you may believe it out of faith, but is it enough?
How do you test for a flat earth?

Round Earth offers many predictions:
1. If we go around the Earth, we can go back to where we started.
2. The Earth from space will be round
3. There are things on the other side of the Earth

Origin of Life

Evolution vs. Creationism

How do you test for a "God"?
(See the next one for the predictions of evolution)

Complexity of Life

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Again, how do you test for aliens? Or for a diety?
There is already much evidence for evolution. One is the fossil record.
Evolution offers many predictions:

1. That life will diversify
2. That new species will be
3. That life on Earth in the far future will be different

Physiology of Brain

Neurology vs. Phernology

How do you test that the lumps on the brain is actually how it functions?

Neurology offers predictions:

1. If a metal bar goes through your head at a very high speed, then your personality will change.
2. Your brain activity is determined by your neurophysiology, and can change with your neurons.

0 Replies

rl, the sole focus of your participation here is to attempt to provide some sort of legitimacy for the ID-iot proposition. In that the proposition is intellectually, academically, philosophically, and scientifically bankrupt, you have no point to make. No valid defense of the proposition you champion is possible.

0 Replies

Okay, then.

Who designed the designers?

ID is in the same rank as Creationism.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know