One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight001 said:
He was asking you about tests that provide evidence that design exists and you want to start off from the assumption that design exists? That seems to be very circular logic.
Click to expand...
No this is setting your “falsifiability” standard. If it can’t be accepted that design is possible, presumably in nature, then there is nothing left to be said. The impossibility of design has been determined a priori, so what is left to discuss?
 
Peter_Plato said:
No this is setting your “falsifiability” standard. If it can’t be accepted that design is possible, presumably in nature, then there is nothing left to be said. The impossibility of design has been determined a priori, so what is left to discuss?
Click to expand...
He didn’t ask if design was possible, though. He asked if we could agree that it exists, and he asked this in the context of life. He was pre-assuming he was right to prove he was right.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
IF science proved that God did it, then we’d have the intersection, but we don’t.
Click to expand...
Science by its own definition cannot do that. All it can do is put the data up. In this case it sits squarely in the intersection of faith and reason.

Revelation–>faith–> time -----------science–>reason–> time
Revelation–>faith → space -------science–>reason–> space
Revelation–>faith → matter -------science–>reason–> matter

There is no language here about God or proving God.
 
Peter_Plato said:
No this is setting your “falsifiability” standard. If it can’t be accepted that design is possible, presumably in nature, then there is nothing left to be said. The impossibility of design has been determined a priori, so what is left to discuss?
Click to expand...
The problem with assuming design is that it is a non-falsifiable assumption. Fully functional organs in the human body? Design! Organs present in the human body which serve a purpose in other species with similar organs, but seem to serve no useful purpose in us? Design! 🤷
 
buffalo said:
Science by its own definition cannot do that. All it can do is put the data up. In this case it sits squarely in the intersection of faith and reason.

Revelation–>faith–> time -----------science–>reason–> time
Revelation–>faith → space -------science–>reason–> space
Revelation–>faith → matter -------science–>reason–> matter

There is no language here about God or proving God.
Click to expand...
But you leave out from Revelation that God did it.
Revelation doesn’t say that time, space, & matter began.
Revelation says that God created time, space, & matter. Very different.

Intelligent Design proposes to be a science that places God in your formula with the missing factor.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
But you leave out from Revelation that God did it.
Revelation doesn’t say that time, space, & matter began.
Revelation says that God created time, space, & matter. Very different.

Intelligent Design proposes to be a science that places God in your formula with the missing factor.
Click to expand...
So they didn’t begin?
 
buffalo said:
So they didn’t begin?
Click to expand...
Right, but science and religion cannot agree upon the existence of God, which
is what the supposed intersection requires. Intelligent Design began for the pur-
pose of bringing into science something that is not scientific.
 
buffalo said:
It does?
Click to expand...
If we remove God from revelation, then it isn’t revelation.
Both Revelation and Science can agree that Time, Space, & Matter began, in that respect
both are heading in the same direction, but when you bring Intelligent Design and God into
the mix, Revelation takes a sharp turn away from science. Instead of intersecting, the two
subjects of Revelation and Science diverge from one another.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
If we remove God from revelation, then it isn’t revelation.
Both Revelation and Science can agree that Time, Space, & Matter began, in that respect
both are heading in the same direction, but when you bring Intelligent Design and God into
the mix, Revelation takes a sharp turn away from science.
Click to expand...
The (name removed by moderator)uts into the diagram can be many. For example one could take all of the provisional pronouncements of human reasoned science.

Many won’t intersect with anything on the faith side. But some will. Where they do, we have a highly plausible way to draw a conclusion.

Revelation tells us God created everything. God created with purpose and intent. Revelation tells us about the word, the logos, the thought of God. Now take a human reasoned (name removed by moderator)ut that science delivers. Let us take the language of DNA. Languages always are the product of a mind.

Run them through the diagram. A conclusion we could draw would be that the DNA language is a product of a mind, the mind of God.

You got me thinking, there are other ways to know reality. Perhaps another (name removed by moderator)ut to human reasoning should be added.

Other posters what do you think?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720
 
buffalo said:
The (name removed by moderator)uts into the diagram can be many. For example one could take all of the provisional pronouncements of human reasoned science.

Many won’t intersect with anything on the faith side. But some will. Where they do, we have a highly plausible way to draw a conclusion.

Revelation tells us God created everything. God created with purpose and intent. Revelation tells us about the word, the logos, the thought of God. Now take a human reasoned (name removed by moderator)ut that science delivers. Let us take the language of DNA. Languages always are the product of a mind.

Run them through the diagram. A conclusion we could draw would be that the DNA language is a product of a mind, the mind of God.

You got me thinking, there are other ways to know reality. Perhaps another (name removed by moderator)ut to human reasoning should be added.

Other posters what do you think?
DIAGRAM]
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see that this is what it looks like in your head, but it is still incorrect.

“IDvolution” is the attempt to shove God in-
to the scientific world and force science to
acknowledge God.

This is impossible and if you need a reminder: Intelligent Design is not a science.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Yes, I can see that this is what it looks like in your head, but it is still incorrect.

“IDvolution” is the attempt to shove God in-
to the scientific world and force science to
acknowledge God.

This is impossible and if you need a reminder: Intelligent Design is not a science.
Click to expand...
It is the conclusion of (name removed by moderator)uts. Science can continue along adding in (name removed by moderator)uts. Since it cannot say nothing about God, it makes no difference.

The philosophers reason God. Theology gets personal.
 
buffalo said:
The (name removed by moderator)uts into the diagram can be many. For example one could take all of the provisional pronouncements of human reasoned science.

Many won’t intersect with anything on the faith side. But some will. Where they do, we have a highly plausible way to draw a conclusion.

Revelation tells us God created everything. God created with purpose and intent. Revelation tells us about the word, the logos, the thought of God. Now take a human reasoned (name removed by moderator)ut that science delivers. Let us take the language of DNA. Languages always are the product of a mind.

Run them through the diagram. A conclusion we could draw would be that the DNA language is a product of a mind, the mind of God.

You got me thinking, there are other ways to know reality. Perhaps another (name removed by moderator)ut to human reasoning should be added.

Other posters what do you think?
Click to expand...
Honestly? I think you made a venn diagram that looks nice and symmetrical but is ultimately meaningless. Its just a baseless assertion in chart form instead of by words alone.
 
I believe in evolution but I believe that God guided it. So that would make me a Theistic Evolutionist. I also believe in a literal Adam and Eve because if I understand correctly, it is unorthodox to not believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top