(June 24, 2016 at 8:30 am)robvalue Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 7:28 am)robvalue Wrote: I would be very interested to hear what our resident Christians' actual models are.

What happened, and how is evolution involved, if at all?

Anyone prepared to share?

Seriously.

Some people are creationists, and literally think people were created pretty much as they are now.

Some accept evolution, but maintain some sort of belief that God was involved somewhere.

Yet some seem to suggest they are neither creationists, nor accept evolution, but they don't say what they do believe. Would this mean they are actually undecided as to what happened? Don't feel like sharing? Why the secrecy?

I'm not accusing anyone in particular here. This is a trend I've noticed where people are aware creationism is too embarrassing to present, yet the theory of evolution too damning to the narrative. So what exactly is going on? Do such people actually have a model in mind? Did we evolve from something or not? If so, what, and how? If not, how did we get here?

A good point. I think the most intellectually honest thing to do is let the science figure out what it can and go from there. I don't think there is anything in Genesis 1 that leads me (and others) to believe it was meant to be taken literal. I do believe God had a hand in creating life. How? I don't know. I was not there and no one that was has shared. 

Not taking Genesis 1 literally is not new. Long before evolution was a theory people debated this topic.

(June 24, 2016 at 7:57 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:LOL. Fine. You won. You have set out to prove why you are superior and theist are ignorant. Of course you don't have any idea how to defend what it is you believe, but since you are confident you are on the right side...you win! Congrats.

Since hundred of millions, if not billions of theists accept biological evolution as a fact, your poor showing as a follower of the ID sub-branch of Creationism (which has never been able to propose an unsolvable instance of 'irreducible complexity') hardly demonstrates that theists are ignorant.

I find that anything with the word system in it is largely irreducibly complex.  The cardiovascular system for instance.   Which came first, the pump, the plumbing, the fluid in the system.   Not to mention, that this is a transport system for other systems (just pumping blood through the body isn't sufficient).  It even comes with it's own repair system, so when a feed or return line breaks, it is automatically patched (within reason)  It is a closed loop system, with feedback, and control modification for when demands change. 

As an engineer, I wonder how many trials unguided evolution had to go through, before the return lines made it back to the heart (or all the lines connected at all)?  How many times did a version appear, where the system became bypassed?   Which came first, the heart, or the control systems, that power and regulate it? 

I agree with this post at uncommon descent http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...o-a-whale/

Let's start putting some numbers to the claims, and see if they make sense!

(June 24, 2016 at 8:58 am)SteveII Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 8:30 am)robvalue Wrote: Seriously.

Some people are creationists, and literally think people were created pretty much as they are now.

Some accept evolution, but maintain some sort of belief that God was involved somewhere.

Yet some seem to suggest they are neither creationists, nor accept evolution, but they don't say what they do believe. Would this mean they are actually undecided as to what happened? Don't feel like sharing? Why the secrecy?

I'm not accusing anyone in particular here. This is a trend I've noticed where people are aware creationism is too embarrassing to present, yet the theory of evolution too damning to the narrative. So what exactly is going on? Do such people actually have a model in mind? Did we evolve from something or not? If so, what, and how? If not, how did we get here?

A good point. I think the most intellectually honest thing to do is let the science figure out what it can and go from there. I don't think there is anything in Genesis 1 that leads me (and others) to believe it was meant to be taken literal. I do believe God had a hand in creating life. How? I don't know. I was not there and no one that was has shared. 

Not taking Genesis 1 literally is not new. Long before evolution was a theory people debated this topic.

OK, thanks.

So you think God created some form of life, and then things evolved from there? Did we evolve from another species in your opinion, or not?

If you're following the science, then the clear answer is yes we did. But I'm really not sure if you accept that answer, or what you think the alternative is.

(June 24, 2016 at 8:26 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 8:11 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Sigh. The Bible isn't the data, it's the model. For instance, it's unreasonable to believe the Exodus occurred as written, the archaeological evidence is firmly against it (the data). It is a story from the Babylonian Captivity, likely a sort of a 'God beat Pharaoh for us and gave us a homeland, he'll get us out of this' tale.

What evidence is firmly against it?

The complete lack of requisite archaeological and anthropological evidence to establish support for that claim. We know where Egypt is, and where to dig to find information about the events and culture of the time period during which the Jews are supposed to have been enslaved there. As it turns out, we do have a good bit of information from that time, and not one shred of it suggests mass enslavement of Jews in Egypt, nor their wandering in the nearby desert for 40 years. If the Bible's claims were true, there would absolutely be evidence in this case. It's one of the rare instances where absence of evidence does actually constitute evidence of absence.

One of the most important indicators of a model's accuracy is its predictive power. The Theory of Evolution, for instance, has been able to predict the discovery of certain kinds of fossils in specific strata of rocks. Predicting when and where a scientific discovery will happen is a HUGE checkmark in favor of that model's veracity.

If the Bible were accurate, we would expect it to have the same predictive power. If the Bible is true, and it says the Jews were in a certain place in large numbers during a certain time period, then we should be able to go to that place, dig up things from that time period, and find evidence of huge numbers of Jews. We have done that digging, and we've found plenty of evidence to suggest that people were living in those areas at that time...just not a bunch of Jewish slaves. That really doesn't look good for the Biblical model.

(June 24, 2016 at 9:14 am)robvalue Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 8:58 am)SteveII Wrote: A good point. I think the most intellectually honest thing to do is let the science figure out what it can and go from there. I don't think there is anything in Genesis 1 that leads me (and others) to believe it was meant to be taken literal. I do believe God had a hand in creating life. How? I don't know. I was not there and no one that was has shared. 

Not taking Genesis 1 literally is not new. Long before evolution was a theory people debated this topic.

OK, thanks.

So you think God created some form of life, and then things evolved from there? Did we evolve from another species in your opinion, or not?

If you're following the science, then the clear answer is yes we did. But I'm really not sure if you accept that answer, or what you think the alternative is.

No, I do not believe that God kicked off life and then evolution happened. I believe at the minimum the process was directed. 

I am not sure if we evolved from another specie or not and I do not think the science is clear on that.

Okay thanks. I'm afraid I can't understand that at all though.

The science is extremely clear that we did evolve from another species. Where are you getting this information to the contrary? Do you have sources? Peer reviewed scientific papers, I would hope.

Again, what is the alternative? We were created fully formed?

Evolution requires no direction either, so that's incompatible.

I'll leave you alone after this. I appreciate you trying, but I have no idea what you think happened.

For those following the arguments, this thread has ironically ended up serving as evidence for the original post, which wasn't my intention but is certainly an amusing outcome.

Kind of like how if you say "Islam isn't a religion of peace" they come out with placards with "Behead those who insult the religion of peace!" as though they were planted stooges to help you make your case.

(June 24, 2016 at 7:14 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 6:29 pm)SteveII Wrote: It's a gap in knowledge, in understanding of how it works. That is my whole point. You can't simply say vague things like "evolution is fact". You have to be more specific.

If facts where as abundant for evolution as polemics, then I would probably be an evolutionist!

Surely you recognize that the facts for creationism flat out do not exist.  It is merely the "what else could it be?" reaction of a pre-existing mental bias.

(June 24, 2016 at 10:21 am)robvalue Wrote: Okay thanks. I'm afraid I can't understand that at all though.

The science is extremely clear that we did evolve from another species. Where are you getting this information to the contrary? Do you have sources? Peer reviewed scientific papers, I would hope.

Again, what is the alternative? We were created fully formed?

Evolution requires no direction either, so that's incompatible.

I'll leave you alone after this. I appreciate you trying, but I have no idea what you think happened.

When I said "at minimum I think the process was directed", I meant evolution. 

When God said "let the earth bring forth..." that could very well be some evolutionary process. I believe if that happened, it was directed because I believe there was purpose and end result in mind. To my knowledge this is not incompatible with any generally accepted principle of evolutionary biology. 

I don't feel I have to figure out what happened. I only need to make sure my view is internally consistent and in accordance with scientific facts.

(June 24, 2016 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: When I said "at minimum I think the process was directed", I meant evolution. 

When God said "let the earth bring forth..." that could very well be some evolutionary process. I believe if that happened, it was directed because I believe there was purpose and end result in mind.

I sure wish I understood your need to infer a bandleader in all of this. I just don't get that at all.

(June 24, 2016 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: To my knowledge this is not incompatible with any generally accepted principle of evolutionary biology. 

I applaud you for this.