Given the principles of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc, do you think belief in the supernatural will die out or become a m

[Bradski]

You seem to think I was using “Nature” in the sense of godless nature, or as distinct from and in opposition to God. I was not.

I seem to be able to better understand what you have written that you do yourself. You specifically said that ‘God let nature take its course’.

Perhaps you can explain the difference between God specifically designing something versus Him setting up nature itself and, in your own words, ‘letting it take its course’.

If you think that that is an option (and after all, you are the one that suggested that it could be), then that is EXACTLY what most people have been trying to explain to you.

This is not a discussion as to whether God exists or not and not one single person has suggested that because evolution is undeniable except to the most fundamental of fundamentalists that He doesn’t. Certainly not me. In fact, I am quite happy to accept that He might well exist. It changes none of the points made in the slightest.

All the spluttering bluster being generated must be for your own benefit. Perhaps you are confusing it with righteous indignation. I could say that your arguments can be safely ignored, but you haven’t made any that are remotely relevant.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So chance cannot play a role in God’s universe?

No

 

[rossum]

You do not know what you are talking about. You obviously are not qualified to speak for the ID movement.

I may not be, but the Wedge Strategy is. I suggest that you read it.

Again you show your ignorance on what “simple” and “complex” mean in theology.

The Encyclopaedia is not a theological object, it is a material object and its complexity can be measured using material/mathematical means. If theology claims that God is omniscient, then that puts a lower limit on the mathematical complexity on God’s knowledge. Are you saying that God’s knowledge is not part of God?

God’s “knowledge” is not broken up into pieces, isn’t on individual pages in distinct volumes of molecule-filled books.

However, an omniscient God’s knowledge must exceed the knowledge in those books. Hence that allows us to put a lower limit on God’s mathematical complexity. I say nothing about His theological complexity because I do not have a way to measure that.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

No

Why not?

 

[grannymh]

I seem to be able to better understand what you have written that you do yourself. You specifically said that ‘God let nature take its course’.

Perhaps you can explain the difference between God specifically designing something versus Him setting up nature itself and, in your own words, ‘letting it take its course’.

If you think that that is an option (and after all, you are the one that suggested that it could be), then that is EXACTLY what most people have been trying to explain to you.

This is not a discussion as to whether God exists or not and not one single person has suggested that because evolution is undeniable except to the most fundamental of fundamentalists that He doesn’t. Certainly not me. In fact, I am quite happy to accept that He might well exist. It changes none of the points made in the slightest.

All the spluttering bluster being generated must be for your own benefit. Perhaps you are confusing it with righteous indignation. I could say that your arguments can be safely ignored, but you haven’t made any that are remotely relevant.

The basic problem is that most people fail to recognize the nitty-gritty of basic fundamental evolution. The necessary “population” was recently described on one of the threads. The nitty-gritty is simple – a new species comes from a polygenesis source located in a previous population. Surely, you must have seen the evolution “Homo” lines which followed the homo/pan split aka speciation event.

Go back to the basics of evolution and you cannot miss the normal conflict with Catholicism. Then use some common sense which apparently is a lost art on this website.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Why not?

Because God knows everything. It’s not chance, it is already known.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Originally Posted by **rossum **
At some point in the past all chimp ancestors were in one species and lived on one bank of the river. Then, for some reason a breeding population crossed the river and landed safely on the other bank. It could have been as small as two individuals, or even a pregnant mother. Perhaps they were swept away in a flood, managed to climb onto a floating log and reached the opposite bank?

There were then two different breeding populations on either bank of the river. Each population accumulated their own mutations, but both started with the same chimp-ancestor DNA (to within founder effect). Neither side had to develop wholly new systems; both had the same original systems to start with.

At least a 100 chimps would have to cross the river to start a sustainable new population. It would need at least a hundred thousand years for a new species to separate from its common ancestor. During that period, the river probably dried up a few times, and populations mingled again.

Apparently we have had about a hundred thousand years to evolve, and you can see ethnic differences in features, African, Asian etc. Man has been able to populate more of the globe than chimps, we are separated by seas, but no new species.

In a thousand years, the Bible will still be the inspired work of God. But I am guessing by then, the ToE will have floundered as a theory.

 

[rossum]

At least a 100 chimps would have to cross the river to start a sustainable new population.

Evidence please. Do you have a reference? Are you saying that Adam and Eve were actually 100 individuals?

It would need at least a hundred thousand years for a new species to separate from its common ancestor.

Evidence please. Do you have a reference? I can quote many papers from de Vries (1905) onwards showing speciation in far less time.

rossum

 

[inocente]

Physical sight is nothing next to spiritual sight.

Way to trivialize the handicapped!

*The supernatural man Jesus intervened in the order of nature and made the blind to see by a miracle. Jesus also cures our spiritual blindness, which science is powerless to cure.

Apparently you don’t believe in miracles? You don’t believe God can design a miracle when and where he pleases?*

Yikes, now it’s faith healers? 285 million visually impaired worldwide. I suppose that’s nothing to do with God. And your message to those 285 million, and to all the scientists and medics and others trying to help them, is give up and wait for a miracle?

285 million living in the dark on your promise of a miracle? No chance.

*If so, have you read the Gospels lately?

Have you ever read them? *

Yikes dude, you get worse . Print your post and this reply, take them to your priest, and ask him to explain the good news. It’s nothing like what you imagine from trying to interpret the bible by yourself.

 

[inocente]

Yes, this is a heresy that was prevalent down through history. We can believe exactly as we please. You of course will not address Paul’s plea made several times in several epistles, and the plea of Jesus as well, for unity of Christians in their faith. There is absolutely no unity if everyone is allowed to believe exactly as he pleases and then uses “freedom of conscience” as a cover for doing so.

Protestantism has wounded Christianity to the core. No wonder mainline liberal Protestantism is a rapidly vanishing breed. People who are tired of making up their own “truth” are desperate for the truths they can really count on, the ones taught by the apostles and their successors.

Why even bother to go to church if you need nothing more than conscience as your guide?

Protestantism first threw out the Church. Now it is throwing out the Bible. Next it will throw out … conscience. What will liberals have left to throw out?

Ask a Catholic to explain to you what the CCC means by “dignity of the human person is rooted in his or her creation in the image and likeness of God” and “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience”.

---

In post #638 you want me to stop agreeing with your Church and instead bow down to what you call “traditional theology, which says that God designed the universe and everything in it”. I guess you’re talking young earth creationism, circa 1580. JPII said it had been proved wrong:

“The error of the theologians of the time, …] was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. …] In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.”

Other popes since have echoed that sentiment. I agree with them. You don’t. Bit rich for you to try to lecture me on unity.

 

[IWantGod]

Because God knows everything. It’s not chance, it is already known.

God’s knowledge of what will happen does not preclude chance. A random mutation is still random even if God knows its going to happen. God doesn’t “predict”, God is eternally present to the effect.

 

[inocente]

Creationists have done plenty to help the blind and deaf! Are you without reason? Christians in particular have helped the blind, deaf, lame, widowed, and orphaned for two thousand years. And they’ve done it for free! Out of the goodness of their hearts. Not because they were paid for it, or because it was their job. Okay, some did, some have to, because of their role and the size of their charity, school, mission, whatever. Just as some scientists have done pro bono work in their free time.

How can you distinguish between “scientists” and “scientists”? I mean, I know for a fact there are many Christian scientists. Do you mean the scientists who are Christians refuse to help the blind or deaf? Goodness, what a claim.

Hang on. You say “Creationists” and then “Christians is particular” as if Christians are a sect of creationism. It’s the other way round - creationists are a sect within Christianity.

Then you went off on a bit of a wild goose chase because you misread what I said. I didn’t say “what have creationists ever done”, I said “what has creationism ever done”. Evolution helps cure disease because it explains how disease progresses, which gives the researcher clues for finding a cure. Whereas creationism is no help at all, it just says ‘God done it’. Well, not even that, as creationism usually has God only design kittens and little baah lambs.

But agreed, there a lots of Christians who are scientists. Which is something I keep pointing out to the science deniers on CAF, but they keep forgetting.

What “faults in its poor design” has "science" fixed? Science is not an agent. It cannot “do” anything. Nothing! Let me rephrase that. What “faults in its poor design” have scientists fixed?
Science is knowledge, a process, a field, effected by people. Only people can help the blind and deaf. And people aren’t prevented from helping others by their jobs or beliefs. That is such an ignorant thing to say! Recently, two scientists committed murder. That didn’t help anyone. So “scientists” can do bad things and refrain from doing good things. “Scientists” are not the end all and be all of creation. Being a “scientist” is just another role in a long, long list of roles that people can engage in. Whatever career a person enters doesn’t make them good or bad, nice or mean, smart or stupid. Their actions do that. No field of work has a monopoly on goodness, charity, intelligence, or the advancement of knowledge.
People who study medicine “fix” some things, like broken bones and cancer.
I don’t know anyone who has “fixed” any “faults in [the alleged] poor design” of a human being. Maybe some technicians have improved things - I wear glasses - some people have artificial limbs. You know what “design” means, right? It doesn’t mean each molecule of a person’s body. A “design” is not an infinite set of pictures. A “design” is a pattern. So let’s say there is a pattern for a human. Then humans are born. They fit the pattern. That is sufficient. Atheists have to believe it’s absolutely horrible because for them all there is to life is the physical life, and they so dearly think they deserve to have “perfect” lives (as they define “perfect”). But to people with a broader perspective - yes, even Buddhists, and then also Catholics and Mormons, people who believe there is more to life, to our existence, than our physical body, the limitations (you would call them “faults” I suppose) of their physical bodies are no more than a minor burp, part of life, the comfortable and the uncomfortable. Even death is a part of life. Some people worry too much about being perfect, wasting time they could better put to productive use.

Got a bit lost where you’re going there. Scientific medicine is the methodical diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease. It’s the alternative to faith healing, snake oil, chicken bowels and other forms of magic. They either don’t work or do more harm than good. As a result, when someone is moved by compassion to try to cure the sick, she uses scientific medicine. Doesn’t matter what she believes on weekend, she uses scientific medicine because it’s proven to work.

 

[grannymh]

At least a 100 chimps would have to cross the river to start a sustainable new population. It would need at least a hundred thousand years for a new species to separate from its common ancestor. During that period, the river probably dried up a few times, and populations mingled again.

Apparently we have had about a hundred thousand years to evolve, and you can see ethnic differences in features, African, Asian etc. Man has been able to populate more of the globe than chimps, we are separated by seas, but no new species.

In a thousand years, the Bible will still be the inspired work of God. But I am guessing by then, the ToE will have floundered as a theory.

Chimps?

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_07

 

[IWantGod]

Hang on. You say “Creationists” and then “Christians is particular” as if Christians are a sect of creationism. It’s the other way round - creationists are a sect within Christianity.

Then you went off on a bit of a wild goose chase because you misread what I said. I didn’t say “what have creationists ever done”, I said “what has creationism ever done”. Evolution helps cure disease because it explains how disease progresses, which gives the researcher clues for finding a cure. Whereas creationism is no help at all, it just says ‘God done it’. Well, not even that, as creationism usually has God only design kittens and little baah lambs.

But agreed, there a lots of Christians who are scientists. Which is something I keep pointing out to the science deniers on CAF, but they keep forgetting.

Got a bit lost where you’re going there. Scientific medicine is the methodical diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease. It’s the alternative to faith healing, snake oil, chicken bowels and other forms of magic. They either don’t work or do more harm than good. As a result, when someone is moved by compassion to try to cure the sick, she uses scientific medicine. Doesn’t matter what she believes on weekend, she uses scientific medicine because it’s proven to work.

Poor design in nature only makes sense if natural evolution is the processes by which things develop.

 

[grannymh]

Poor design in nature only makes sense if natural evolution is the processes by which things develop.

And natural evolution is described as …

And where does natural evolution take place…

Try not to confuse basic material evolution with the Science of Human Evolution.

 

[rossum]

Hang on. You say “Creationists” and then “Christians is particular” as if Christians are a sect of creationism. It’s the other way round - creationists are a sect within Christianity.

Jews believe that YHWH created the world, so Jews are a form of creationists. Muslims believe that Allah created the world, so they are also a form of creationist. Hindus believe that Brahma created the world… You get my point I think.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

In this interesting thread, has anyone had the courage to study

Genesis 1:27

27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* he created them.

usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

 

[inocente]

You may be right. On the other hand, most Baptists are Creationists. Maybe we should switch religions!

Somebody told me there’s a Noah’s ark theme park in Kentucky. Seems it was the brainchild of evangelicals, like the Discovery Institute. Apparently, while 600-year-old Noah and his sons made quick work of the original, this ark needed hundreds of builders with modern power tools and cranes and so on. And it’s got dinosaurs on it, because, well… I have no idea.

 

[inocente]

Jews believe that YHWH created the world, so Jews are a form of creationists. Muslims believe that Allah created the world, so they are also a form of creationist. Hindus believe that Brahma created the world… You get my point I think.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

You specifically asked for something produced by science. How can science produce human insight? The wording of your question excludes things like human insight. Either accept my answer or ask a better question.

Atheists** do** believe biological evolution has produced insight. What else? In their scheme of things there is nothing else but the physical universe.