Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

[k2skier]

Isn't science just discovering god's blueprints? If not, why not?

Because Adam & Eve we're made in God's image and looked like modern man does today, the Bible goes completely against any sort of evolution because it leaves out dinosaurs and ancient man.

 

[BigBarry]

Isn't science just discovering god's blueprints? If not, why not?

Because Adam & Eve we're made in God's image and looked like modern man does today, the Bible goes completely against any sort of evolution because it leaves out dinosaurs and ancient man.

So god looks like a he-she? Sorta like Boy George?

 

[Si modo]

....

Completely false, science explains a lot of basic physics principals now that we had no clue about 2,000 ago; the Bibles, deities and dogmas would be very different if man in BC times knew just a little about astrology and basic physics......

Wrong. Science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.



The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Don't play at something out of your league.

.... Because there's many, many different religions that ALL claim to be the only one and the only correct one, hence humans history of killing over ones beliefs.



For my choice I use reasoning, not faith.

Go for it. I don't give a shit when it comes to beliefs. I do give a shit when those who argue logic don't use it.

Si modo, I have to disagree with but just to a degree. The trap that people often fall into is that they misread human faults as those inherent to the field. Science, religion, politics et cetera are all fields impacted by human nature. So is the persecution such as the case of Galileo exclusive to the field of religion? No, for that to be true then the field of science must be totally free from human corruption which is certainly not the case.

In the law catagory of the USMB on a school textbook thread, the debate has also focused on the theories of creation verse evolution and I have listed numerous examples where the science field displayed many faults cited common with the field of religion. For instance the "Piltdown Man" fraud, the racist views of Darwin, the suppression and destruction of the "Kennewick Man" site, the persecution of Thomas E. Lee and other examples. The specific reasons for these faults vary except in the sense that all are a result of the human failings not exclusive to the religious.

I will not concede a false point that science belongs only to the non-religious. There are thousands of examples that prove otherwise such as Copernicus, Louis Pastuer and Lewis Leakey. It seems to me the non-religious try to portray themselves as a superior in intellect and the facts just don't bear this out.

Thanks for your input and you bring up a good point. In your first paragraph you seem to be applying a post-modernistic take on the sciences. In that case, we can stipulate that there are two types of sciences - the hard or pure sciences and applied sciences (whichever label suits your tastes) and the soft sciences (typically the social sciences). Yes, society/"human corruption" (and I'm talking the current state of the sciences, not the past) does influence the soft sciences as society is inherent in the study. When examining the pure sciences today, the scientific method and the logic of scientific discovery are quite elegant as they remove that human element from the increase and expansion of knowledge in the pure sciences; the subjective nature of 'proof' is removed from the equation and replaced with the objective support and falsification.

Some attempt to project post-modern philosophical views and principles onto the pure sciences, pehaps because they do apply to the soft sciences, but there is no fit in the pure sciences. This struggle of keeping post-modern philosophical principles out of the pure sciences has been going on for decades. Most pure scientists are aware of this and have been quite successful in keeping their science pure from such human influence.

Nothing is absolute, of course, but the pure sciences are in a relatively good position in that respect. Among the pure sciences, the biological sciences seem to be in the limelight right now. They face quite the challenge of keeping these human/societal influences at at least arms length.

 

[Si modo]

....

Completely false, science explains a lot of basic physics principals now that we had no clue about 2,000 ago; the Bibles, deities and dogmas would be very different if man in BC times knew just a little about astrology and basic physics......

Wrong. Science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.

Karl Popper on logic of falsification

The falsifying mode of inference here referred to -- the way in which the falsification of a conclusion entails the falsification of the system from which it is derived -- is the modus tollens of classical logic. It may be described as follows:
Let p be a conclusion of a system t of statements which may consist of theories and initial conditions (for the sake of simplicity I will not distinguish between them). We may then symbolize the relation of derivability (analytical implication) of p from t by 't -> p' which may be read 'p follows from t'. Assume p to be false, which we may write '~p', to be read 'not-p'. Given the relation of deducibility, t -> p, and the assumption ~p, we can then infer ~t (read not-t); that is, we regard t as falsified. If we denote the conjunction (simultaneous assertion) of two statements by putting a point between the symbols standing for them, we may also write the falsifying inference thus: ((t->p)•~p)->~t, or in words: 'If p is derivable from t, and if p is false, then t also is false'

By means of this mode of inference we falsify the whole system (the theory as well as the initial conditions) which was required for the deduction of the statement p, i.e. of the falsified statement. Thus it cannot be asserted of any one statement of the system that it is, or is not, specifically upset by the falsification. Only if p is independent of some part of the system can we say that this part is not involved in the falsification.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Don't play at something out of your league.

So you believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth huh? ....

Did you pull that strawman from your ass or pick it up in the garbage on your way home today? Either way, it's both worthless and boring.

.... These are 2 very significant things that science proved correct over the church...

Read Popper's work. You really haven't a clue about this. Whenever one says there is scientific proof, that is a big red flag that they have either not understood their studies in science, that their teachers (not profs) sucked, or they haven't adequate education in the sciences.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong. Science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Don't play at something out of your league.

So you believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth huh? ....

Did you pull that strawman from your ass or pick it up in the garbage on your way home today? Either way, it's both worthless and boring.

.... These are 2 very significant things that science proved correct over the church...

Read Popper's work. You really haven't a clue about this. Whenever one says there is scientific proof, that is a big red flag that they have either not understood their studies in science, that their teachers (not profs) sucked, or they haven't adequate education in the sciences.

si modo's entries clearly reveal a dearth of critical reasoning skills. si modo is arguing from a priori position, thus ensuring that a false premise leads to a false conclusion. This type of "logic" by si modo is completely unacceptable to mature reasoning human beings. I believe in God and also believe si modo offers an illustration that in its darkness and falsehood allows the light of reason with faith to shine more brightly.

 

[Diuretic]

Isn't there such a concept as scientific proof? I might not have the right words but science does come up with conclusions doesn't it?

 

[Si modo]

I see more nonsense trolls have entered the room. (Not you, Diuretic.)

 

[rdean]

Sure right after you give me evidence that God exists i'll get right on getting you evidence that the same God intended its creations to evolve .

Please dont use your personal opinion to prove the existence of said god (Balls getting busted ).

i'm not the one making the baseless assertions here. Which is why I pounced on your original quote. Feel free to flounder about however you will.


ps, hey brainiac.. I'm the arch atheist around here. I'm not in the business of proving god. I am, however, in the business of reminding you why evidence is necessary. So, by all means, shock this monkey and support your assertions with a lil bit more than laughable attempts at shit talking.

Ok then when you prove God doesn't exist i'll show you where I got that theory from. Please provide EVIDENCE, as it is necessary. Support your assertation that god doesn't exist with a lil bit more than your laughable attemts at doucebaggery.




NOOB

Oh and don't get butthurt, its all fun where i'm sitting

Following that logic, you can say anything followed with a "Prove that it's not true".

Prove God doesn't wear a thong.

Prove the center of the moon isn't made of soft gooey cheese.

Prove you have a GED.

 

[Si modo]

Isn't there such a concept as scientific proof? I might not have the right words but science does come up with conclusions doesn't it?

There hasn't been that concept for some time, at least among scientists. Colloquially, of course, but not technically. Although intutively we all have a good idea of what proof is, but it is also inherently subjective. Karl Popper recognized this sticky wicket in the process of scientific discovery. Now, theories are either supported or falsified. What that means is that a theory stands as accepted as long as it has been supported with data. Until the time that the theory is falsified, it is an accepted theory (as long as it has supporting information). By adopting this general method, the pure sciences have eliminated that subjective nature of proof.

The ID proponents who have knowledge of this will promote their ID theories as 'scientific' because they have not been falsified. But, they will not mention that the ID theory has little to no support. So, most scientists will not regard it as an accepted scientific theory.

For that reason, I am not in favor of having ID taught in science classes. Teach it in the social studies classes.

[edit] Didn't answer about conclusions: The conclusion we reach are that the hypothesis of the study is supported or partially supported with the science presented. The hypothesis is tweaked if needed and more studies and knowledge ensue. It's really a great process - always expanding. [/edit]

 

[Diuretic]

Si modo. Question - on the falsifiability concept. Is it about what science can do or should focus on? I've read a bit about Popper (but not read his work itself) because it's very interesting, his philosophy of science, but I admit I still don't get all of it. If something can't be falsified, that is if it can't be demonstrated as being "wrong", then it's not a proper topic for science. Is that correct? Let me given an example.

There is a claim that God exists. That claim can't be falsified. If it can't be falsified then it's not amenable to science or the scientific method. Is that how it goes?

 

[Si modo]

Si modo. Question - on the falsifiability concept. Is it about what science can do or should focus on? I've read a bit about Popper (but not read his work itself) because it's very interesting, his philosophy of science, but I admit I still don't get all of it. If something can't be falsified, that is if it can't be demonstrated as being "wrong", then it's not a proper topic for science. Is that correct? Let me given an example.

There is a claim that God exists. That claim can't be falsified. If it can't be falsified then it's not amenable to science or the scientific method. Is that how it goes?

Absolutely spot on. You have a great grasp of it. A theory is not a theory if it does not have falsifiabilty. And it's another good reason to keep it out of science classes.

 

[THE LIGHT]

But doesn't the bible say that the earth was made in 6 days, with man/woman on the 6th is it?

Behold!!!! the point to which the evolutionist truely wants to reach. Not can evolution exist with God's plan because the answer to that is yes, God created the earth and all the living things there in to adapt to their surroundings which is called micro-evolution. You truely want to use it as a deceptive wedge to push God out entirely as you have in this question to say "yea hath God said" (Satan's original LIE) and continue on to say macroevolution exists and God didn't create anything but the blob of matter for which you evolutionists have no idea how it could ever come about on it's own so you are finally coming to the revelation that maybe God did it.

 

[logical4u]

Pilg, I can prove to you that god doesn't exist. Because if god did exist, do you think he'd only show himself to douchebaggers, or would he let everyone see him? Like maybe a press conference on the white house lawn?

In the OT book Numbers, the "people" went to Moses and begged him to ask of the Lord that He not appear before them in a pillar of fire or a column of smoke for it made them afraid.

He gave us the Ten Commandments: a set of rules to apply to all men (up to that point, men's laws were selective, according to society's rank). After that, He gave us His son to teach us: spirituality, faith and hope (the real kind). At that point, He has given us reason and knowledge of Him (the need to seek spirituality). Every person was given those two gifts; it is up to them how they use them. He has already told us every thing we "need" to know. Why should He make an appearance for those that do not "use" His gifts?

What nonsense. If a magical god were going to "appear" before me, I would want to see magical smoke or fire. How fun. I would just hope that he keeps his shorts on. He is wearing shorts, isn't he?

At that time the Lord was known to "burn" (to ashes) anyone that was not "purified" or invited that got to close to Him. He was in the process of disciplining "His people"; He was not lenient. If you think that is something, you should read the whole story about Exodus and Numbers. It is better than SciFi.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Si modo. Question - on the falsifiability concept. Is it about what science can do or should focus on? I've read a bit about Popper (but not read his work itself) because it's very interesting, his philosophy of science, but I admit I still don't get all of it. If something can't be falsified, that is if it can't be demonstrated as being "wrong", then it's not a proper topic for science. Is that correct? Let me given an example.

There is a claim that God exists. That claim can't be falsified. If it can't be falsified then it's not amenable to science or the scientific method. Is that how it goes?

"Millions of years" can't be falsified either.

 

[logical4u]

Dear Moron,
The earth is Millions of years old and people did not inter act with dinosaurs
Read a book Science denier!!

Where does that "proof" exist?

 

[logical4u]

Isn't science just discovering god's blueprints? If not, why not?

Because Adam & Eve we're made in God's image and looked like modern man does today, the Bible goes completely against any sort of evolution because it leaves out dinosaurs and ancient man.

The Bible does not mention dinosaurs, that is true. The Book of Enoch (spoken about in the Bible) does imply where dinosaurs and other "mythical" animals originate. The Bible only touches into this "mating" in Genisis when it explains "nephelim".
Scientists could learn a lot from reading this book (if they aren't suffering from a god complex themselves). It explains how a lot of knowledge was taught and how it was used, for evil. The Book of Enoch is in religious libraries, and is part of the Apocryphia.
If it was made into a movie, it would beat Star Wars, the Exorcist and John Wayne all rolled into one.

 

[Care4all]

Dear Moron,
The earth is Millions of years old and people did not inter act with dinosaurs
Read a book Science denier!!

Where does that "proof" exist?

from my understanding, science calculated deterioration of elements/gases...and dated us in this manner....moon rocks, similar to our rocks but with certain element deterioration or something like that....confirmed it to be over 4 billion earth years old...

i have no problem with such...since we have no idea what a ''day'' is, in genesis 1...we just know the SEQUENCE that we are told in genesis...what happened 1st-day 1, what happened 2nd-day 2, what happen 3rd-day 3 etc....that can be compared with evolution....

for the longest time, things seemed like they did not match up....but recent scientific discoveries, within the last decade or so, have brought life back to Genesis 1 and evolution debate imo, a revelation of sorts, and the accuracy of it, though written thousands of years ago.

even yesterday, on the documentary on The Universe, i learned something new to debate Shogun on, that he mentioned earlier on a post, of which i was stumped on....

all i ask, is that you keep yourself open to whatever is revealed....science is not the enemy, it is God given imo....and yes, it is not completely accurate and things that were once theories, sometimes get thrown out, or improved upon as we discover more or more is revealed to us...this is just part of the process.

I believe everything, through Faith....i do not need Science for proof, BUT OTHERS DO need this proof....so, if science ends up meshing with the Bible writen thousands of years ago, and this gives the true scientist reason to believe now....their own little awakening...then good!

Even our beloved doubting Thomas, needed proof....was Jesus really mad at him for it? NO, He accepted it and supplied him proof.

care

 

[Care4all]

Isn't science just discovering god's blueprints? If not, why not?

Because Adam & Eve we're made in God's image and looked like modern man does today, the Bible goes completely against any sort of evolution because it leaves out dinosaurs and ancient man.

The Bible does not mention dinosaurs, that is true. The Book of Enoch (spoken about in the Bible) does imply where dinosaurs and other "mythical" animals originate. The Bible only touches into this "mating" in Genisis when it explains "nephelim".
Scientists could learn a lot from reading this book (if they aren't suffering from a god complex themselves). It explains how a lot of knowledge was taught and how it was used, for evil. The Book of Enoch is in religious libraries, and is part of the Apocryphia.
If it was made into a movie, it would beat Star Wars, the Exorcist and John Wayne all rolled into one.

does the bible mention every animal and make claim to such? 93% of the animals and other creatures were extinct before man came on to the playing field?

what passage says that only the animals adam (man) named were the only animals that ever existed on earth?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

i'm not the one making the baseless assertions here. Which is why I pounced on your original quote. Feel free to flounder about however you will.


ps, hey brainiac.. I'm the arch atheist around here. I'm not in the business of proving god. I am, however, in the business of reminding you why evidence is necessary. So, by all means, shock this monkey and support your assertions with a lil bit more than laughable attempts at shit talking.

Ok then when you prove God doesn't exist i'll show you where I got that theory from. Please provide EVIDENCE, as it is necessary. Support your assertation that god doesn't exist with a lil bit more than your laughable attemts at doucebaggery.




NOOB

Oh and don't get butthurt, its all fun where i'm sitting

I sent a letter to God and it came back unopened. If he was so powerful, then why couldn't he open a letter?

The post office is a government organization and we have a seperation of Church and State so they couldn't bring it to God for you

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

i'm not the one making the baseless assertions here. Which is why I pounced on your original quote. Feel free to flounder about however you will.


ps, hey brainiac.. I'm the arch atheist around here. I'm not in the business of proving god. I am, however, in the business of reminding you why evidence is necessary. So, by all means, shock this monkey and support your assertions with a lil bit more than laughable attempts at shit talking.

Ok then when you prove God doesn't exist i'll show you where I got that theory from. Please provide EVIDENCE, as it is necessary. Support your assertation that god doesn't exist with a lil bit more than your laughable attemts at doucebaggery.




NOOB

Oh and don't get butthurt, its all fun where i'm sitting

see, THIS is why you people are so shitty at science. I can't disprove a negative, stupid. Now, just to drive the point home, lets see you prove that ZUES DOESN'T EXIST. See how fun that is, stupid?




clearly, science is not your friend, heyseed. I suggest you go ahead and stick with reading fortunes in the guts of chickens and whatever else your kind do to explain reality.

Ah so you can't disprove it and resort to insults instead. KUDOS. Game over I win.

Since you're not willing to live by your own demands i have no desire to entertain your request for proof. However I dont get that belief from the bible, just to humor you.


But I have a question.....what is "my kind" or who are "you people" Just curious what group are you lumping me in with?