Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    I'm saying that Exodus may have taken a metaphorical text and used it as the basis for the literal.
    Exodus 20:11 is metaphorical (i.e. not literal). That's basically your proposition, you're saying that perhaps the proposition that Exodus 20:11's "six days" is metaphorical in some way, is a fact. I'm agreeing with you, "Perhaps." Also, perhaps its direct opposite is a fact instead. Perhaps Exodus 20:11 is literally signifying, denoting, and referring to six literal days, the same 'days' that we still intend today when we write or say the word 'days.'

    I say that perhaps Exodus 20:11 is literally true, and not just metaphorically true; on the question of whether the universe is over 13 billion years old; you say yes it is a fact, and I say no is a possibility.
    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    Again, numbers like seven are symbolic of perfection and point to God. If you look you'll see them all over scripture. Sevens and multiples of seven. Indeed the week may have been to remind people of the creation story, the point of which is more to tell people, God made the earth and it has a purpose and is good. Unlike the peoples around the ancient Israelites who thought the world was run by angry deities and the earth was made by accident.
    Today the Church celebrates the Lord's death, burial, and Resurrection (1Co15:3-4) once a week. It points to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, through celebrating what Christ did, every week, at Mass.
    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    If you take the appearance of age argument, the world could have been created two seconds ago and we'd never know it.
    Not really. I know I remember far longer than two seconds ago, as you do too. It's as certain as two and two is four. Solipsistic philosophy is prima facie balderdash. And extreme skepticism was already weighed by Descartes, and it was found wanting.

    Furthermore, all my argument does is establish that the logical space exists for my proposition to be a fact. It does not prove it. It does prove that it is not provable without something akin to a time machine. Perhaps with the new telescope replacing the Hubble, we are not far from something akin to a time machine, as this new device hopefully can outperform Hubble by at least a factor of three, and will show us the actual beginning, and we will see and know which proposition is correct.
    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    It's kind of a pointless argument in my opinion.
    Not if your proposition above, that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is fictional. 'Point is clear in such case. Namely that it's the fact of the matter.
    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    It offers no useful predictions that technologies can be built on, so why bother with such an idea?
    Science provides useful predictions regardless of which of our directly opposing propositions is fictional, and which is the fact. Tell me you understand that? Tell me that you understand that my position is Not Nihilism. If it really took God six days to make everything, that doesn't somehow mean nothing matters anymore. I don't even understand how ppl can come to such a bizarre and irrational conclusion but they do and have.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
      Might want to look in the mirror on that one Stripey.
      You could quote me specifically saying that to reject my ideas is to reject science.

      I can quote you saying exactly that.

      Evolution isn't irrational.
      Notice how I never said anything of the sort?

      I'm not convinced you know what science is.
      It's the process of eliminating rational ideas by considering the evidence.

      We cannot go through that process until you present a sensible, testable and falsifiable idea.

      Hint: "Change" is not something anyone in their right mind s going to challenge.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        So then can you now confidently say that truth exists?
        Yes.
        “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



        - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
          Exodus 20:11 is metaphorical (i.e. not literal). That's basically your proposition, you're saying that perhaps the proposition that Exodus 20:11's "six days" is metaphorical in some way, is a fact. I'm agreeing with you, "Perhaps." Also, perhaps its direct opposite is a fact instead. Perhaps Exodus 20:11 is literally signifying, denoting, and referring to six literal days, the same 'days' that we still intend today when we write or say the word 'days.'
          Sigh, you don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. I think exodus is not necessarily referring to a literal event, not that the Exodus text itself is metaphorical. It's making a plain statement about how to count the weeks. But it doesn't HAVE to be referring to a 100% literal historical event to make sense. Much like our modern reference to sunset and sunrise. We know the sun isn't literally setting or rising, but we often refer to that symbolic phrase in other contexts. Six days is a way of making the creation story simple and easy to remember for an oral culture. It's not a science textbook or a detailed news report. Mind you my church is going through the book of Genesis currently and just said exactly that from the pulpit. And no it's not a liberal church that rejects miracles or the resurrection.

          I say that perhaps Exodus 20:11 is literally true, and not just metaphorically true; on the question of whether the universe is over 13 billion years old; you say yes it is a fact, and I say no is a possibility.
          Today the Church celebrates the Lord's death, burial, and Resurrection (1Co15:3-4) once a week. It points to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, through celebrating what Christ did, every week, at Mass.
          Not really. I know I remember far longer than two seconds ago, as you do too. It's as certain as two and two is four. Solipsistic philosophy is prima facie balderdash. And extreme skepticism was already weighed by Descartes, and it was found wanting.
          How do you know that those memories aren't fabricated then if you think the universe was created with the appearance of age. Did Adam and eve have belly buttons and were they able to speak after creation? Fabricated memories then. Once you go down this particular road there's no guardrails.

          Furthermore, all my argument does is establish that the logical space exists for my proposition to be a fact. It does not prove it. It does prove that it is not provable without something akin to a time machine. Perhaps with the new telescope replacing the Hubble, we are not far from something akin to a time machine, as this new device hopefully can outperform Hubble by at least a factor of three, and will show us the actual beginning, and we will see and know which proposition is correct.
          Not if your proposition above, that the universe is over 13 billion years old, is fictional. 'Point is clear in such case. Namely that it's the fact of the matter.
          Science provides useful predictions regardless of which of our directly opposing propositions is fictional, and which is the fact. Tell me you understand that? Tell me that you understand that my position is Not Nihilism. If it really took God six days to make everything, that doesn't somehow mean nothing matters anymore. I don't even understand how ppl can come to such a bizarre and irrational conclusion but they do and have.
          If creation was actually over six days but the universe looks and acts like it's 13 billion years old, why would six days be anything more than symbolic in that case anyway?

          Science acts based on the evidence available so, if what you're proposing were true it wouldn't matter as far as science is concerned.
          “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



          - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            Yes.
            Thank you. Moving on...

            Does reason exist?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              You could quote me specifically saying that to reject my ideas is to reject science.

              I can quote you saying exactly that.
              Rejecting biological evolution is rejecting science.

              We cannot go through that process until you present a sensible, testable and falsifiable idea.
              I asked you why the Chestnut fungal disease killed almost all of the North American trees but not those from China. You never even attempted an answer. Science provides an easy answer, which has been confirmed in lots of other situations. If your ideas are also scientific and testable why can't you explain such a simple event?
              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                Thank you. Moving on...

                Does reason exist?
                Yes. I do hope you have a point to get to that doesn't take another 10 posts.
                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                  More like people were probably in a famine and were forced to drink milk to survive. Some of them had the ability to continue to drink milk and not get sick. They survived and that genetic mutation took over in the population, well in northern Europe and parts of Africa where people developed the cultural practice of milk drinking. Might have even just been that women that could drink milk and not get sick had healthier babies over a few hundred years. Whatever it was the selection was very strong in some areas.



                  Just trying to drink milk over and over if you're lactose intolerant doesn't work.
                  This is confirmation bias. Read rather, here. While drinking milk or other lactose rich items, taking it slowly can work against the assertion, it is rather obvious that dairy farmers and communities don't 'lose' the lactose enzyme, not because of genetic specialty, but because of environmental influence as Stripe suggests.
                  My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                  Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                  Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                  Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                  No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                  Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                  ? Yep

                  Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                  ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                  Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                    This is confirmation bias. Read rather, here. While drinking milk or other lactose rich items, taking it slowly can work against the assertion, it is rather obvious that dairy farmers and communities don't 'lose' the lactose enzyme, not because of genetic specialty, but because of environmental influence as Stripe suggests.
                    Um no not at all. Now there is an interplay, people with weaker lactose tolerance will sometimes end up with the gene turned off if they stop drinking milk for a while. But people without the trait at all won't be able to drink milk as an adult pretty much at all.

                    Also from your own reference:


                    Dr. Savaiano: “About three-quarters of the world’s population has the potential for lactose intolerance, and about one-fourth of the U.S. population. Lactose intolerance is a genetic trait – it’s not an environmental trait. It’s a trait that is actually recessive, but most common among the world’s population.”

                    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      Yes.
                      Good.

                      See if you can follow my line of reasoning below, then, and how it relates to your (in-passing) irrational statement that the universe could have been created moments ago and we wouldn't know it, which causes people to fundamentally doubt their own and God's existence, which causes all sorts of mental problems.

                      I do hope you have a point to get to that doesn't take another 10 posts.
                      Apologies. I'll get to the point.

                      ----


                      - I never doubt that I exist.
                      - I never doubt that truth exists, because for example, it is true that I exist.
                      - I never doubt that reason exists, because I can reason to the truth of the previous sentence.
                      - I never doubt that there is a reality, because truth and reason exist.
                      - I never doubt that the universe exists, because I exist as part of it, and I can reason to the truth of its existence.
                      - I never doubt that the universe must have had a beginning, because stars still burn available energy.
                      - Since truth and reason exist, I never doubt that logic exists.
                      - Since I exist and logic exists, I never doubt that existence itself must be rational.
                      - Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that whatever has a beginning must have a cause.
                      - Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that the effect cannot be greater than the cause.
                      - I never doubt that whatever caused the universe must be powerful and even greater than the universe itself.
                      - And since logic exists, I realize that nothing that has a beginning can have existed forever.
                      - And since the Cause of the universe must exist, I realize that it has no beginning, and has existed forever.
                      - And since this uncaused Cause created the universe, i.e., its ingredients, I don't doubt that it also created me.
                      - And since I'm a person and the effect can't be greater than the cause I don't doubt that the Creator is personal.
                      - And because we persons are creative like He is, I never doubt that we are made to some extent in His likeness.
                      - And because the Creator is a person, I never doubt that He must be alive.
                      - So I never doubt that the attributes of our eternal Creator are that He is living and personal.
                      - And I never doubt that human beings refer to the living and personal eternal Creator as "God".
                      - And I never doubt that to be a person, one must have a will, so that it is by God's will that I exist.
                      - And because we creatures have the ability to know our Creator, I never doubt that He is relational.
                      - And because He made us with the ability to love, I never doubt that the Creator Himself can love.
                      - And because God can love, and He made us to know good and evil, I therefore never doubt that He is good.
                      - So I never doubt our all-powerful, eternal Creator God who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.
                      - And I never doubt that all these things could be intuitively understood by everyone who's ever lived.
                      - And because God is good and loving and made us, I never doubt that He cares about us and wants to save us.
                      - And I never doubt that if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as prophesied, that Christianity is false.
                      - Nor have I ever doubted that if Jesus did rise from the dead, then all other religions are false and as He claimed, He is the only way to eternal life.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        Rejecting biological evolution is rejecting science.
                        Nope. It's just a theory.

                        When you're ready for a rational discussion over the evidence, let us know.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Good.

                          See if you can follow my line of reasoning below, then, and how it relates to your (in-passing) irrational statement that the universe could have been created moments ago and we wouldn't know it, which causes people to fundamentally doubt their own and God's existence, which causes all sorts of mental problems.
                          Hmm I think you misinterpreted part of that discussion. My point wasn't that people would necessarily doubt any of those things, it's just if the universe's appearance is perfectly false, there's not really a good way to know that. And even if we knew it for sure, it wouldn't be useful to us scientifically. Because science studies the evidence that's left behind and if all the evidence is false, either science breaks down entirely or you just have to go with the evidence you have.

                          Now, wrt to your line of logic, it's good at the beginning but I think you make several logical leaps towards the end that aren't fully supported. I agree with your conclusions but I doubt they'd be convincing to an atheist (especially the bit about God being good). I think the problem comes in the atheist definition of good . . but I digress.

                          I agree with the concept of the uncaused cause because the alternative is an actually infinite series of causes, which doesn't really make any sense. Or at least is no better than an uncaused cause.
                          “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                          - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            Nope. It's just a theory.

                            When you're ready for a rational discussion over the evidence, let us know.
                            I keep posting it and you keep ignoring it.
                            “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                            - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              Um no not at all. Now there is an interplay, people with weaker lactose tolerance will sometimes end up with the gene turned off if they stop drinking milk for a while. But people without the trait at all won't be able to drink milk as an adult pretty much at all.

                              Also from your own reference:


                              Dr. Savaiano: “About three-quarters of the world’s population has the potential for lactose intolerance, and about one-fourth of the U.S. population. Lactose intolerance is a genetic trait – it’s not an environmental trait. It’s a trait that is actually recessive, but most common among the world’s population.”
                              And the same article also says 1) "potential"-ly. Not actual. 2) Further, the other link said that it is certain that many can increase their tolerance.

                              Genetics come into play, Stripe wouldn't say they don't. What he would say, however, is that such is consequential of lifestyle and environment ELSE dairy communities wouldn't continue with a high tolerance. That's why I believe you've bought into confirmation bias rather than science. Confirmation bias is different than good science.
                              My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                              Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                              Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                              Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                              No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                              Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                              ? Yep

                              Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                              ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                              Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                                Hmm I think you misinterpreted part of that discussion. My point wasn't that people would necessarily doubt any of those things,
                                That is simply the natural consequence of that belief.

                                it's just if the universe's appearance is perfectly false, there's not really a good way to know that.
                                Sure there is.

                                If Christ did not rise from the dead, then the one religion that claims exclusivity for its Founder raising Himself from the dead is false, and since that Founder is also the Creator of the universe, it renders Him a liar, and that leads to all sorts of problems that I don't have the time nor space to go into here, not the least of which being that God wouldn't be trustworthy.

                                And even if we knew it for sure, it wouldn't be useful to us scientifically.
                                Sure it would.

                                If we knew that the universe has existed, and that how long it has existed is consistent with the Bible, then it tells us all sorts of things about the Creator.

                                Because science studies the evidence that's left behind and if all the evidence is false, either science breaks down entirely or you just have to go with the evidence you have.
                                Science breaks down when you try to use the "moments-old universe" as your base model.

                                Yet science is upheld when using Biblical model of creation.

                                Now, wrt to your line of logic, it's good at the beginning but I think you
                                Whoops, I think I forgot to add the link to where I quoted that from...

                                *checks*

                                Yup.

                                Sorry about that.

                                Here's the link:
                                https://kgov.com/on-doubt

                                make several logical leaps towards the end that aren't fully supported.
                                Which parts, specifically? Maybe I can close the gaps, as it were...

                                I agree with your conclusions but I doubt they'd be convincing to an atheist (especially the bit about God being good).
                                See the comments here:
                                https://santitafarella.wordpress.com...vative-enough/

                                I think the problem comes in the atheist definition of good . . but I digress.

                                I agree with the concept of the uncaused cause because the alternative is an actually infinite series of causes, which doesn't really make any sense. Or at least is no better than an uncaused cause.
                                Which brings us to another question:

                                Is there such thing as absolute right and wrong?

                                If not, then there is no such thing as good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X