What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[The Grand Nudger]

You think that nightingales give birth to nightingales, not elephants.... and this is exactly what evolutionary biology predicts, describes...and explains.

Your beliefs about what fairies gave to nightingales are irrelevant, and nightingales don't require fae favors to possess what they possess, or to give birth to more nightingales...rather than elephants.

Being perfectly blunt with you..I think somebodies been pulling your leg about evolutionary theory. You seem to think that you can grant adaptation without evolution, but you can't..because the one -is- the other. You think that evolution is somehow the idea that birds will give birth to mammals..but, ofc, that's not at all what evolution predicts describes or implies. Your disagreement with a long list of things that aren't evolutionary biology provides you absolutely no justification for rejecting evolutionary theory, and your belief in god provides even less than nothing.

At least, in the case of saying "birds give birth to birds" you're communicating a fact. It's not a relevant fact, but at least it's a fact. When you refer to pixie gifts you've left the territory of fact -and- relevance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Bold added. These are examples of adaptation, not evolution, there was no species change here. The birds are still birds, fish are still fish, reptiles are still reptiles etc.

"Species change" is not the only measure of evolution.  A greater population with physical traits that would have been unusual a few generations before also qualifies.
But yes, species change is being measured in short spans, most often as a result of environmental changes.  

2015 Discover article:  http://discovermagazine.com/2015/march/1...-fast-lane
"Most recently, evolutionary biologist Yoel Stuart found that green anole lizards on islands in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon needed just 20 generations to adapt to an invasion of brown anoles. Driven to higher perches by the invaders, the green anoles became better at clinging to branches by developing larger toepads with more scales — in just 15 years. It’s more evidence of “evolutionary change on observable time scales,” says Stuart, now at the University of Texas at Austin."

As I understand it that only represents a change of expression of already available traits. Isn't a species typically defined by the ability to produce non-sterile offspring? I would assume that the mating of a current generation of green anoles with those having the genetic make-up of 15 years ago would still produce viable fertile offspring.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe, but not always.  It would depend on whether or not enough had changed in the pool to present incompatibilities.  It's not -always- possible for two subjects in the -same- generation to produce viable offspring. This is the how of reproductive isolation leading to speciation. I can do it in a few months here at home, with radishes. Most of the examples of speciation known to us, conveniently, come from agricultural research. We generally refer to these as cultivars or sub-species due to our ability to rehabilitate them - but when people want to make shit happen...they;ve managed to produce entirely new genera.

[Amarok]

Yup more failure and ignorance of biology  from the ID crowd . Guessing some homeschooling is involved .

[Banned]

So...here's the trouble. 

If you accept that these chemicals have "specific activities"...it doesn't matter much whether you think goddidit.  If chemicals have "specific activities" -however- they ended up that way is all the explanation required for why things made of chemicals have "specific activities".  If you want to add "godidit" to the list..fine, but you'll have to show a god.  Until then..the rest of us will posit that the "specific activities" account for self assembly..for example..in life, and your acceptance of those "specific activites" is acknowledgement that the chemicals can self assemble.

Could have been pixies, or the loch ness monster, or maybe it;s just a brute fact...but no matter what that answer is, you've already acknowledged the point of contention and made "god" incidental in the process. One of any number of ways or reasons for some state of affairs x..but, once that state of affairs exists..there's no need of reference to the incidental anymore. Regardless of whether goddidit, it were brute fact, or if the loch ness monster sprinkled fairy dust all over organic chemistry...what it would do..is what we see it doing - because that's the nature of those chemicals...they have specific activities.

Yes it is possible, if not common, to look at something designed and dismiss the inventor. There's a lot of people who drive cars but are clueless about the designers.

---

Do you have any evidence of things outside of God's creation, that just appear by organizing themselves into functionality and working?

No, but you want to use God's creation as an example of that?
So apart from nature, including the functionality of the elements and chemicals, you don't have any evidence that things work by themselves.
Things don't work by, or create themselves. That is a fact, not a theory.

And you don't have any evidence that a divine mover exists. So again, Occam's razor.

Who says it's not a fact? You? And I never argued things can create themselves anyway. Also, a theory in the scientific sense is not the same as conjecture. Good scientific theories are highly credible.

Things don't create themselves.

---

Would it be reasonable to assume most Christians should not feel they are 'guaranteed' a slot in heaven ??

The number of folks claiming to be Christian is large, the number of slots available is quite limited, so realistically, only the cream of the crop is getting in. The odds aren't good, they aren't good at all.

What's stopping you from being certain of heaven?

---

Scripture says 144,000 get in.


Seems pretty limited, no ?

The 144,000 are the number left alive when God terminates the world. The rest were killed by the wicked by persecution.

[GrandizerII]

And you don't have any evidence that a divine mover exists. So again, Occam's razor.

Who says it's not a fact? You? And I never argued things can create themselves anyway. Also, a theory in the scientific sense is not the same as conjecture. Good scientific theories are highly credible.

Things don't create themselves.

There's no need for divine creation when there is something in or about the universe that is eternal.

[Banned]

One of the real problems is how theists could detect design when they think literally everything is designed.

One of these rocks is designed; can you tell which one. I am a trained archaeologist and struggled with this test.

How do you detect design. I do it by a comparison, and that comparison is to NATURE, not supernature.

The Super is the bit that has never been demonstrated.

One professor studied the simple cell for 35 years, and discovered that it so complex that the studies will never end. That's super in one cell.
But of course you can scoff at that, because it's easy.

[Banned]

DNA is neither engineered -nor- a product of "happenstance". It's deoxyribonucleic acid, one of those chemicals with "specific activities"- in this case self replication...constrained on all sides by organic chemistry and demonstrably a product -of- organic chemistry.

I think it is both - DNA, like any element and chemical activity is a design which allows for random results, but it also has certain attractions at each level to produce the desired product.

I guess you could compare it to computers starting off with very strict and limited programs to produce predicable activities.
Having achieved that we are happy to throw in randomness for the sake of AI.

[The Grand Nudger]

So...here's the trouble. 

If you accept that these chemicals have "specific activities"...it doesn't matter much whether you think goddidit.  If chemicals have "specific activities" -however- they ended up that way is all the explanation required for why things made of chemicals have "specific activities".  If you want to add "godidit" to the list..fine, but you'll have to show a god.  Until then..the rest of us will posit that the "specific activities" account for self assembly..for example..in life, and your acceptance of those "specific activites" is acknowledgement that the chemicals can self assemble.

Could have been pixies, or the loch ness monster, or maybe it;s just a brute fact...but no matter what that answer is, you've already acknowledged the point of contention and made "god" incidental in the process.  One of any number of ways or reasons for some state of affairs x..but, once that state of affairs exists..there's no need of reference to the incidental anymore.  Regardless of whether goddidit, it were brute fact, or if the loch ness monster sprinkled fairy dust all over organic chemistry...what it would do..is what we see it doing - because that's the nature of those chemicals...they have specific activities.

Yes it is possible, if not common, to look at something designed and dismiss the inventor. There's a lot of people who drive cars but are clueless about the designers.

What on earth are you talking about..........?

DNA is neither engineered -nor- a product of "happenstance".  It's deoxyribonucleic acid, one of those chemicals with "specific activities"- in this case self replication...constrained on all sides by organic chemistry and demonstrably a product -of- organic chemistry.

I think it is both - DNA, like any element and chemical activity is a design which allows for random results, but it also has certain attractions at each level to produce the desired product.

I guess you could compare it to computers starting off with very strict and limited programs to produce predicable activities.
Having achieved that we are happy to throw in randomness for the sake of AI.

You're working with novel interpretations of engineering and happenstance, then.

[Banned]

Things don't create themselves.

There's no need for divine creation when there is something in or about the universe that is eternal.

What you are saying is quite significant.
If science keeps going with those notions, it is only doing what was predicted over a 100 years ago, 1880's.
Science will be introduced to the ultimate way to make God of no consequence and obsolete.
This philosophy will open up the gates to discovering another aspect of matter, hitherto ignored by the vast majority.
People will fall for this, not just intellectually, but with every sense, because it will produce some mind blowing results.

---

What on earth are you talking about..........?


You're working with novel interpretations of engineering and happenstance, then.

I'm probably on a tangent in my response, what I'm saying is that you can look at the world and not see any evidence of Divine power, because the universe was designed to be independent of God, a super economy if you like.

It is not necessary to say "God did it to every action," as if there isn't a real physical phenomenon at play, but to appreciate the thing made by God anyway.

There is a mindset, which says that as soon as something has a tangible and physical explanation or mechanism, then God isn't in the question.

It's like a kid who gets money from his dad in his bank account, one day he finds out that the money is automatically added each month, and so he now believes in the bank and dismisses his dad's contribution altogether.