A Christian reformer?

[Jon Miller]

there will always be some claims that cannot be tested and must be assumed

I tihnk that it would be appropriate to call these claims supernatural ones (note that this does not suggest a deity or anything of the sort)

hence there will always be the supernatural

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
the supernatural cannot be judged by science (fundamentally)

therefore they cannot be judged against becuase of that

there are a lot of claims that cannot be tested by science but that are undoubtedly true

Which claims are undoubtedly true but can't be tested by science?

This is an argument about science, it is he who is introducing supernatural elements. If he's going to do that, he has to provide some sort of support for supernatural claims.

If supernatural events do occur, we should be able to at least test them. Scientific testing is a matter of observing phenomena, at its root. When has a supernatural occurence been observed scientifically? Never.

when he starts talking about the validity of evolution, then he starts going against science

Which is exactly the problem of Creationists. They'd rather throw out the entire foundation of science than accept what science tells us. Philip Johnson and his ilk want nothing less than a return to theistic science. That's the Dark Ages, mind you.

(as far as it goes, evolution is not that great of theory compared to the ones we have in physics, but it is science, while the supernatural is not)

How is it "not that great?" Evolutionary theory is one of the greatest scientific theories ever put forth. It shaped almost everything we know of modern biology. It is currently being employed by numerous fields, including engineering, computer programming, medicine and the like to produce new, superior results. It's perhaps the most fundamentally important scientific theory of the past 100 years!

there will always be some claims that cannot be tested and must be assumed

I tihnk that it would be appropriate to call these claims supernatural ones (note that this does not suggest a deity or anything of the sort)

What do you mean by "testing?" I think you're being a little narrow in how you consider it. Look how we've "tested" atomic theory. Not through direct observation, but observational inference. As technology increases, we've been able to utilize observational inference to prove a lot of previously untested theories.

What you are talking about is the "preternatural," not "supernatural." Supernatural, by its very definition, describes something that defies the laws of nature in its workings.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Which claims are undoubtedly true but can't be tested by science?

This is an argument about science, it is he who is introducing supernatural elements. If he's going to do that, he has to provide some sort of support for supernatural claims.

If supernatural events do occur, we should be able to at least test them. Scientific testing is a matter of observing phenomena, at its root. When has a supernatural occurence been observed scientifically? Never.

Science is based upon a huge number of assumptions, which most everyone agrees to be true (which is why I said what I said).

If supernatural events occured and could be tested, they would cease to be supernatural and become natural (by deffinition).

This has happened numerous times in the past (always with a change in understanding of the event).

By diffinition, a supernatural occurence cannot be observed scientifically.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov



How is it "not that great?" Evolutionary theory is one of the greatest scientific theories ever put forth. It shaped almost everything we know of modern biology. It is currently being employed by numerous fields, including engineering, computer programming, medicine and the like to produce new, superior results. It's perhaps the most fundamentally important scientific theory of the past 100 years!

compared to the theories in phsycis (QED, Gen Rel, ect) our current theories of evolution are **** (I am sure someday they will be much better, but biology as a sceince does have near the understanding of the world it is studying compared to the understanding that physics has of the world it is undestanding)

I will give you important, but campred to QM it is nothing

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

What do you mean by "testing?" I think you're being a little narrow in how you consider it. Look how we've "tested" atomic theory. Not through direct observation, but observational inference. As technology increases, we've been able to utilize observational inference to prove a lot of previously untested theories.

What you are talking about is the "preternatural," not "supernatural." Supernatural, by its very definition, describes something that defies the laws of nature in its workings.

I agree that we will be able to learn a lot more a technology (And mathematics) progresses

science will be able to uncover a lot more of the natural world and I look forward to being part of it

nevertheless, there will always be sometihng that will be untestible (as a physicist I am well aware of how we test things in physics)

and I agree that the supernatural defies the laws of nature in its workings, but all science can do is study the laws of nature

science is not a tool made for, nor should it be used for, studying the supernatural (it works, and works well, when used for studying natural laws, therefore it works extremely poorly with the breakage of natural laws (which is what supernatural is by definitetion))

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

the differences between people is how big they think the supernatural is

athiests think that it is extremely small

agnostics don't know the size of it

thiests beleive it to be fairly large

none of this has to do with science

Jon Miller

[Neutrino]

Evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time. Not all of these changes, which occur at the genetic level, will manifest themselves as phenotypic changes.

Microevolution: gene frequency change within species or populations
Macroevolution: evolutionary patterns between species, operating on very long timescales
Speciation is the direct result of these processes.

Evolutionary theory conforms to the Hypothetico-Deductive Method:

http://home.columbus.rr.com/sciences/hypothetico-deductive.htm

The patterns defined by the current evolutionary theories (there are multiple theories combined into what is commonly refered to as 'evolutionary theory') are consistent with observed data.

[Agathon]

A piece of advice for creationists.

If you want to argue for creation it's best to go metaphysical, rather than debating the scientists on their own turf. Of course this has it's own problems.

[The diplomat]

You say that I am ignorant and don't understand evolution. It looks to me that you are somewhat uninformed about where I am coming from.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
He's asserting they arose because a supernatural being who is omnipotent and omniscient snapped his fingers and created it all. He is then saying that everything in the fossil, geologic, genetic and biological records that shows evolution to be true is, for some reason, false and that speciation doesn't occur, despite it having been observed,

I am not saying that the entire fossil, geologic, genetic, and biological records are somehow lying are false. I am simply saying that they have been misinterpretated. It has been shown that the fossil record could have been caused by a global flood. And it has been shown that a global flood could have deposited the fossils in the order that they have been found in. There is also supporting evidence such as marine fossils found in landlocked desertic areas, and erosion patterns that are caused by flood waters. So, I think it is possible that the geological record has been misinterpretated and could be evidence of a catastrophic flood.

Furthermore, as that article on fossilization that I posted pointe out, fossilization of transition forms is rare. Therefore, as extensive as the fossil record may be, it probably only represents a very small portion of all life that existed.

Biology has shown us the intricate, complex mechanisms of life, showing us that the odds of life are incredibly small. For me, biology shows evidence of design because of the multiple mechanisms that evolution cannot explain.

Genetic is the "language of life". Its intrincacies and complexities and mechanisms only illustrate the design nature of life. When we build computers, we burn code in the microprocessors so that it functions a certain way. The fact that life has a code that governs how it works, illustrates intelligent design.

The idea that the universe, basically an inanimate lump of energy and matter, organized itself and formed life and sentient life all by itself, is absolutely preposterous!!!

, and despite his having given no logical reason as to how the small variations he admits happen can't add up to big variations.

Small variations are unlikely to add up to big variations, because wereas there are mutations that are positive, there are also mutations that will be harmful. The positive mutations will not necessarily outweight the negative mutations. The species may end up "taking 1 step forward and 1 step back".

Furthermore, if a new species does emerge, but it is not able to sustain itself through reproduction, won't it die out? If you get one mutation that leads to one individual belonging to a new species, won't it automatically die out since it is the only member of its species and therefore can't reproduce with anyone? If a new species emerges but the members of the new species are geographically isolated, they won't be able to reproduce and the new species will die out?

There are many conditions, geography, environment, negative mutation, natural disaster, etc that can lead to a species to become extinct! It seems to me that there are a lot more ways for a species to die than for new species to succesfully emerge and prosper.

[Giancarlo]

Diplomat, I would follow Agathon's advice on this one (now that is a first you have me saying that). You cannot argue creationism on scientific grounds because you will not succeed.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Fez
Diplomat, I would follow Agathon's advice on this one (now that is a first you have me saying that). You cannot argue creationism on scientific grounds because you will not succeed.

Agreement with Fez twice in one day. A miracle?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Agathon


Agreement with Fez twice in one day. A miracle?

Actually only once. I didn't agree with you in that other issue. You misunderstood my post.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Fez

Actually only once. I didn't agree with you in that other issue. You misunderstood my post.

No, you misunderstood mine. eace:

[Neutrino]

For me, biology shows evidence of design because of the multiple mechanisms that evolution cannot explain.

Genetic is the "language of life". Its intrincacies and complexities and mechanisms only illustrate the design nature of life. When we build computers, we burn code in the microprocessors so that it functions a certain way. The fact that life has a code that governs how it works, illustrates intelligent design.

Terrestrial biology can also be explained by the evolutionary origin theories. Organic molecules + energy (heat, lightning, chem rxns) -> self-replicating molecules -> certain few are flexible and efficient enough to sustain themselves amid a changing environment -> beginning of natural selection.

Limited computer models have found this to be statistically plausible.

The fact that the genetic code is nearly constant among all living organisms suggests that it was developed very early on. RNA by itself is quite versatile (tRNA, mRNA, rRNA, etc) but those RNA molecules which, when interacting with certain nucleases and polymerases, created proteins, they had a much higher fitness.

Could this be intelligent design? Possibly. But there is no proof. Conversely I don't think there is any proof that it is not intelligent design.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Fez
Diplomat, I would follow Agathon's advice on this one (now that is a first you have me saying that). You cannot argue creationism on scientific grounds because you will not succeed.

Well, there are metaphysical arguments for the existence of god.

The Big Bang proves that the Universe had a fixed beginning. Which means that at some point there had to be something out of nothing. By definition, true nothingness cannot create something. It is a physical impossibility. Only something that is outside of the laws of nature, can create something out of nothing. By definition, something that is outside the laws of nature is a god. Therefore, since the universe was the result of something out of nothing, which only a god can do, then god must exist.

This argument does not prove the existence of the Biblical God, but it does require the existence of something outside of the laws of nature, which by definition must be a god.