Evolution

[GreecePwns]

Well what is the birth of Jesus Christ then? Was he just a normal guy who preached things, son of Mary and Joseph or was he God decended upon the earth, son of God (and Mary and Joseph) who died and came back to life and gave lame men the ability to walk and blind the ability to see?

If you believe the latter, you believe in a god actively intervening in the universe, because people do not naturally die and come back to life or touch people to give them sight or tell lame people to "get up" and they get up.

If you don't beleive the latter and believe in god creating the universe and simply watching it go and nothing else, you are a deist.

And if what we discover to be a natural law is broken, then it wasn't the true natural law. More evidence is gathered and the theory is refined/replaced with a better one. That doesn't prove the absence of some law.

[BigBallinStalin]

GP, the best thing about arguing with player is the product of codifying your own thoughts. Other than that, she's not helpful. She'll change "intervention" into "changing something but not really because there's no way you can observe a change." That's not "intervention," that's just called "making it up" or "bullshitting."

[kentington]

Well what is the birth of Jesus Christ then? Was he just a normal guy who preached things, son of Mary and Joseph or was he God decended upon the earth, son of God (and Mary and Joseph) who died and came back to life and gave lame men the ability to walk and blind the ability to see?

If you believe the latter, you believe in a god actively intervening in the universe, because people do not naturally die and come back to life or touch people to give them sight or tell lame people to "get up" and they get up.

If you don't beleive the latter and believe in god creating the universe and simply watching it go and nothing else, you are a deist.

And if what we discover to be a natural law is broken, then it wasn't the true natural law. More evidence is gathered and the theory is refined/replaced with a better one. That doesn't prove the absence of some law.

I don't know why this turned in to a religious thread. Haggis I didn't forget about your comment about Ecoli I will be reading that and looking it up. Thanks for that.

GP; by that logic there can be no acceptable proof of a god. If some being came to you appearing out of nowhere and broke natural laws in front of you and claimed to be a deity, you would then say the laws need to be refined? Or you would believe in said deity? Or would you need further proof?

[GreecePwns]

GP; by that logic there can be no acceptable proof of a god. If some being came to you appearing out of nowhere and broke natural laws in front of you and claimed to be a deity, you would then say the laws need to be refined? Or you would believe in said deity? Or would you need further proof?

As a note, this is a continuation of a discussion in the Mormons thread.

There's a difference between "some being coming to me out of nowhere and breaking natural laws and claiming to be a deity" and what Player has claimed to be divine intervention. At some points, she has claimed that it was subtle, like "god slightly tweaking the movement of genes" or "thoughts resulting from some inspiration" or even that god does not break natural because his creation is perfect (deism).

The things she explains as god intervening are explained by natural laws (such as the movement of cells, the nervous system etc), and therefore god is not intervening in those cases. Your case obviously differs from the ones Player discussed.

[oss spy]

Well what is the birth of Jesus Christ then? Was he just a normal guy who preached things, son of Mary and Joseph or was he God decended upon the earth, son of God (and Mary and Joseph) who died and came back to life and gave lame men the ability to walk and blind the ability to see?

If you believe the latter, you believe in a god actively intervening in the universe, because people do not naturally die and come back to life or touch people to give them sight or tell lame people to "get up" and they get up.

If you don't beleive the latter and believe in god creating the universe and simply watching it go and nothing else, you are a deist.

Now I might be stupid for asking this, but could you kindly point out the part that has to do with evolution?

And if what we discover to be a natural law is broken, then it wasn't the true natural law. More evidence is gathered and the theory is refined/replaced with a better one. That doesn't prove the absence of some law.

Laws, by definition, cannot be broken. Laws observe a natural phenomenon (i.e. no particle with mass can reach the speed of light), theories are well described facts that explain the law perfectly, have mountains of evidence, and predict the future with great accuracy (i.e. special relativity), and a hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a law that has little evidence supporting it as of yet (pink unicorns push the light and go, "VROOOM!!!") Your point is invalid.

[Army of GOD]

special relativity "corrects" Newton's second law with regards to momentum. It's only a matter of time in my opinion until we find out that an object with mass can exceed the speed of light.

Humans will never fully understand the natural universe so laws will never be as infallible as you think they are. Yes, they are very strongly support theories. But they are, in the end, theories.

[kentington]

special relativity "corrects" Newton's second law with regards to momentum. It's only a matter of time in my opinion until we find out that an object with mass can exceed the speed of light.

Humans will never fully understand the natural universe so laws will never be as infallible as you think they are. Yes, they are very strongly support theories. But they are, in the end, theories.

That is a good way of putting it.
The law can't be broken, but the definition may be off?

[AlgyTaylor]

I love discussions about evolution starting to agree with Dawkins that it's not really worth discussing it with intelligent design folk though.

A lot of problems I think stem from misinterpreting the scientific word "theory" from "theory" in commonly used English. A theory has a LOT of evidence supporting it, to the point where it's almost beyond question - I'd not say beyond question, I don't think anything in science is, but the weight of evidence supporting it is huge.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has no evidence supporting it. Just a few silly word games (cosmological argument etc) and the Bible, which is an important piece of literature, but not a scientific document.

[GreecePwns]

Well what is the birth of Jesus Christ then? Was he just a normal guy who preached things, son of Mary and Joseph or was he God descended upon the earth, son of God (and Mary and Joseph) who died and came back to life and gave lame men the ability to walk and blind the ability to see?

If you believe the latter, you believe in a god actively intervening in the universe, because people do not naturally die and come back to life or touch people to give them sight or tell lame people to "get up" and they get up.

If you don't believe the latter and believe in god creating the universe and simply watching it go and nothing else, you are a deist.

Now I might be stupid for asking this, but could you kindly point out the part that has to do with evolution?

The positions discussed here in this thread are as follows. I'll also address the post about family values:


1. Conservative creationism - God created and intervenes in the universe, and evolution was not a natural process but god actively intervening to alter the course of events. Because of this, we must follow the moral code the God has given us, however he gave it to us. It is to be taken literally (for the most part, societal changes let us ignore certain aspects while taking the rest literally).

2. Mainstream creationism - God created and intervenes in the universe, but evolution was a natural process that god simply ensured happened without actually doing anything about it. Because of this, we must follow the moral code the God has given us, however he gave it to us. It is to be taken literally (for the most part, societal changes let us ignore certain aspects while taking the rest literally; more liberal than position 1).

3. Deism - God created the universe but does not intervene in it, and evolution was simply a natural process, as is everything else in the universe. We don't have to follow a moral code given to us by God necessarily, but we must follow a moral code based on rationality.

4. Agnosticism - We don't know for sure if god created the universe, but if he did he certainly does not intervene in it, and evolution was simply a natural process. Until evidence proves god's existence, moral code should be derived from rationality.

5. Atheism - God does not exist, and evolution was simply a natural process. Moral code should be derived from rationality.

Position 1 goes against all sorts of evidence to the contrary on the evolution issue. We can simply toss it out.
Position 2 is what Player was advancing, but whenever convenient she would speak as if she believed in position 3. I argued against position 2 in this thread and the Mormons thread, because you can't attach "supernatural intervention" to something happening naturally.
Positions 3, 4 and 5 are essentially the same in regards to the evolution issue.

[jimboston]

... still waiting for destruction to occur!

[Neoteny]

It's because my argument from ducksex is unbeatable!

[PLAYER57832]

You neglect the part where a lot of that has changed, but it remains within the Bible because it is history and provides direction.. of change as much as anything else.

I didn't neglect anything. Kentington said

Actually, I do take the Bible literally

The WHOLE Bible, not parts, which means that some parts of the law superceded earliers parts. Also, when Jesus came, a lot of the earlier parts were explained or modified for the greater purpose outlined by Jesus..

[PLAYER57832]

Well what is the birth of Jesus Christ then? Was he just a normal guy who preached things, son of Mary and Joseph or was he God decended upon the earth, son of God (and Mary and Joseph) who died and came back to life and gave lame men the ability to walk and blind the ability to see?

A. you cannot prove either, neither can I. So, its irrelevant to your idea that it somehow demostrates God is outside of the Natural order.

If you believe the latter, you believe in a god actively intervening in the universe, because people do not naturally die and come back to life or touch people to give them sight or tell lame people to "get up" and they get up.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that each case you think ought to be a case of direct intervention is.

If you don't beleive the latter and believe in god creating the universe and simply watching it go and nothing else, you are a deist.

That seems to be a definition of your own. Its not something uniformly stated, but I have no idea why you feel the distinction is even important.

And if what we discover to be a natural law is broken, then it wasn't the true natural law. More evidence is gathered and the theory is refined/replaced with a better one. That doesn't prove the absence of some law.

LOL

"natural laws" are constructs of humanity. They are explanations of how we see things working, not really true "laws" that cannot be broken. Also, even when scientists do put forward laws, there are always various qualifications ranging from "in our universe, on Earth" to various other more specific or less specific qualifications. These things are not always stated because to do so gets very wordy and pretty redundant, but it is absolutely understood.

Again... you attempt to make a point, but it really means nothing.

God is. I believe God intervenes at times, not at others. You cannot prove otherwise.

[crispybits]

The WHOLE Bible, not parts, which means that some parts of the law superceded earliers parts. Also, when Jesus came, a lot of the earlier parts were explained or modified for the greater purpose outlined by Jesus..

There I was thinking jesus said that he was not undoing or re-writing any religious law?

Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[PLAYER57832]

The WHOLE Bible, not parts, which means that some parts of the law superceded earliers parts. Also, when Jesus came, a lot of the earlier parts were explained or modified for the greater purpose outlined by Jesus..

There I was thinking jesus said that he was not undoing or re-writing any religious law?

Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

LOL...
Nice try.

He did not come to undo the ultimate law, he only changed some details.. details that human beings had by then greatly distorted. But getting into all that requires getting into Bible theology more than I care to do in this particular forum at this time.

If you were truly interested, instead of just trying to pooke holes in a debate, there is plenty already out there to be found.

[crispybits]

Trust me, after 12 years of a VERY catholic education I've had more than my share of reading into things like that. And if anything Jesus made the laws even stricter and added even more thought crime onto the list than Moses and his tablets ever did.

But I'm just having a little fun while waiting for my next turn in one of my games so carry on... as you were

[PLAYER57832]

Trust me, after 12 years of a VERY catholic education I've had more than my share of reading into things like that. And if anything Jesus made the laws even stricter and added even more thought crime onto the list than Moses and his tablets ever did.

But I'm just having a little fun while waiting for my next turn in one of my games so carry on... as you were

LOL.. well, 12 years of Roman Catholic "education" might not have illuminated why the Pope is wrong on many points.
Or how the Roman Catholic church is fairly well following in the steps of the pharisees Christ condemned. Most Protestants would argue that it is not Jesus, but the Roman Catholics (and other churches as well) who added most of the laws to which you refer. But... that is another topic entirely (or several) and, the one who used to be able to bring up all the points on that is no longer posting. (BK Barunt).

[crispybits]

I've read up on that stuff too

I said I had a catholic education, I didn't say it worked

[PLAYER57832]

I've read up on that stuff too

I said I had a catholic education, I didn't say it worked

lol
(and note.. I am currently sending my youngest son to a Roman Catholic school)

[crispybits]

Without wanting to drag this off-topic (so this is the last non-evolution-related post I'll make) but on every aspect apart from being a bit biased on the religion stuff I've found and heard that RC schools generally provide very very good educations, so while their dogmas didn't rub off on me I don't regret going to their school for a second.

[Maugena]

... still waiting for destruction to occur!

This.

[Nola_Lifer]

I was taught by Jesuits. The first religion class I had was interpretation of the Bible. Guess what they told us but you can't tell anyone. You shouldn't interpret the Bible literally. And they taught us about other religions too and how fucked up church history was.

[PLAYER57832]

I was taught by Jesuits. The first religion class I had was interpretation of the Bible. Guess what they told us but you can't tell anyone. You shouldn't interpret the Bible literally. And they taught us about other religions too and how fucked up church history was.

Yeah, my church teaches that as well. However, I am not completely in agreement.. or at least, I don't think that evolution and a literal interpretation of the Bible truly conflict.

[Symmetry]

I was taught by Jesuits. The first religion class I had was interpretation of the Bible. Guess what they told us but you can't tell anyone. You shouldn't interpret the Bible literally. And they taught us about other religions too and how fucked up church history was.

Yeah, my church teaches that as well. However, I am not completely in agreement.. or at least, I don't think that evolution and a literal interpretation of the Bible truly conflict.

They sought of do, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "literal" interpretation of the Bible...

[PLAYER57832]

GP; by that logic there can be no acceptable proof of a god. If some being came to you appearing out of nowhere and broke natural laws in front of you and claimed to be a deity, you would then say the laws need to be refined? Or you would believe in said deity? Or would you need further proof?

As a note, this is a continuation of a discussion in the Mormons thread.

There's a difference between "some being coming to me out of nowhere and breaking natural laws and claiming to be a deity" and what Player has claimed to be divine intervention. At some points, she has claimed that it was subtle, like "god slightly tweaking the movement of genes" or "thoughts resulting from some inspiration" or even that god does not break natural because his creation is perfect (deism).

The things she explains as god intervening are explained by natural laws (such as the movement of cells, the nervous system etc), and therefore god is not intervening in those cases. Your case obviously differs from the ones Player discussed.

I don't believe I have made any specific claims, definitely not those you put forward. You assume I do.

No, my claim would be more on the order of could we have had a rain of frogs and toads. The answer is "yes". The answer is also that such an event is rare enough that for it to have happened at a particular time would be a miracle.

Also, stop claiming this thing you call being a "deist" exists.

A deist is someone who believes in God.. nothing else of what you say is necessary, at all.