Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Jaime]

How is it different?

[Texas Conservative]

Similar to the resurrection and virgin birth, huh?

Science doesn't allow for a woman to concieve without male genetic material.

Science doesn't allow for someone to be dead in a cave for 3 days, and be resurrected.

So extremely similar.

[Alan]

Other than atheistic views, science doesn't attempt to give explanations of miracles. The creation of life is a miracle itself regardless of how it was achieved, however God has left us sufficient evidence to observe how He put creation in motion over 13.82 billion years. 

[Texas Conservative]

Other than atheistic views, science doesn't attempt to give explanations of miracles. The creation of life is a miracle itself regardless of how it was achieved, however God has left us sufficient evidence to observe how He put creation in motion over 13.82 billion years.

Science would say those miracles did not happen because they violate natural law.

[Alan]

Science would say those miracles did not happen because they violate natural law.

Where have you seen that? I've heard it stated many times myself but that was purely philosophical and not based on any facts whatsoever.

[Jaime]

To a Christian, is the resurrection and virgin birth a fact or just a philosophical square peg forced into a round hole?

[The Barbarian]

Science would say those miracles did not happen because they violate natural law.

Absolutely not.   Science does not and cannot rule out miracles, since it has no way at all to determine whether they happen or not.   Science, by its very methodology, is limited to the natural universe, and is unable to say what else might exist.

Science can't say anything at all about the supernatural.

But scientists can.

[Jaime]

Absolutely not.   Science does not and cannot rule out miracles, since it has no way at all to determine whether they happen or not.   Science, by its very methodology, is limited to the natural universe, and is unable to say what else might exist.

Science can't say anything at all about the supernatural.

But scientists can.

And WHEN it (the universe) came into existence OUTSIDE of what scientific methodology might indicate provided it was created in it's present form?

[The Barbarian]

And WHEN it (the universe) came into existence OUTSIDE of what scientific methodology might indicate provided it was created in it's present form?

We can only say what happened just after the beginning.   What happened at the moment that the universe began, is forever beyond scientific investigation.

How long ago that was, is at least in principle, accessible to science.    The "deep magic" just before that, is out of reach of any method science can use.

[AVZ]

Other than atheistic views, science doesn't attempt to give explanations of miracles. The creation of life is a miracle itself regardless of how it was achieved, however God has left us sufficient evidence to observe how He put creation in motion over 13.82 billion years.

Are you saying there is no evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

[Texas Conservative]

Where have you seen that? I've heard it stated many times myself but that was purely philosophical and not based on any facts whatsoever.

If Parthenogenesis was a means of reproduction for humans, Jesus would not have been able to be born.  If such births were possible, only a female could be conceived.  Since males have XY chromosomes, and get the Y from the sperm of the father, we can conclude that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ violates natural law. 

There are some non-mammal animal species that can produce offspring via parthenogenesis.

[KiwiChristian]

We can only say what happened just after the beginning.

No, you can't. there are many theories. There is NOT one, universally-accepted theory.


  What happened at the moment that the universe began, is forever beyond scientific investigation.

Why? Also, why not teach kids that we dont know and dont give all the crud that cannot be proved? ie: give them ALL the options or none.


How long ago that was, is at least in principle, accessible to science.    The "deep magic" just before that, is out of reach of any method science can use.

There is there no date? why are there so many DIFFERENT dates presented?

[AVZ]

Claim 1: Science does not and cannot rule out miracles, since it has no way at all to determine whether they happen or not.
Claim 2: Science can't say anything at all about the supernatural.

The proper limitation is that science cannot STUDY the supernatural.
Again you are making a statement that is a misrepresentation, you should stop that.

Just an example to make my point:
Imagine a scientist observes a blind man and Jesus passes by.
Jesus speaks to the man, and immediately the man can see.

Your first claim is incorrect. Science has just observed a miracle and can hence come to the conclusion that they do happen.
Science may not be able to explain the miracle, but through scientific observation science is perfectly able to determine if miracles happen or not.
Your claim is false

Your second claim is incorrect. Science just witnessed a miracle but the observation of Jesus and the mode of healing makes it possible for science to say something about the supernatural.
For example science can say that the supernatural has a way to communicate with man because it observed Jesus speaking to a person. It can also conclude that the supernatural has healing abilities. So by observation of the event science is perfectly able to say something about the supernatural.
Your claim is false


The factual claim by science is that it cannot STUDY the supernatural, but by observing the natural science can perfectly come to the conclusion that miracles exist, do happen and what their properties are.
And we are back at Romans 1:20. God has made our natural world in such a way that His presence is observable and undeniable. God even claims that there is no excuse for not coming to this conclusion, that's how obvious He has made it.

In fact Romans 1:20 goes a step further:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

God claims that by observing nature once can clearly see His invisible qualities, eternal power and divine nature.
Those are all supernatural properties which you say science cannot observe...and God says it can.
Who do you think we should believe?

[The Barbarian]

The proper limitation is that science cannot STUDY the supernatural.

Rather, science can't say anything about the supernatural.

Again you are making a statement that is a misrepresentation, you should stop that.

You don't understand how science works, or you'd see why.

Just an example to make my point:
Imagine a scientist observes a blind man and Jesus passes by.
Jesus speaks to the man, and immediately the man can see.

Your first claim is incorrect.

Nope.  You're confusing science and scientists.

Science has just observed a miracle

No.  A scientist observed a miracle, but he could not use the scientific method to say that it was.  For example, he could not rule out a conversion disorder, in which a person is psychologically unable to see, and then, accepting help, sees again.   He could take it on faith, but he could not demonstrate it with scientific study.

Again, your error is in confusion science, which is a particular method, with scientists, who are quite capable of observing and accepting miracles.

In fact Romans 1:20 goes a step further:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

And again, you are confusing science with scientists.     It happens when I'm out by myself in nature, that I can sometimes apprehend both at once, and it's an amazing epiphany.   But science can't do that.   It's just a method.

[AVZ]

Rather, science can't say anything about the supernatural.

You don't understand how science works, or you'd see why.

Nope.  You're confusing science and scientists.

No.  A scientist observed a miracle, but he could not use the scientific method to say that it was.  For example, he could not rule out a conversion disorder, in which a person is psychologically unable to see, and then, accepting help, sees again.   He could take it on faith, but he could not demonstrate it with scientific study.

Again, your error is in confusion science, which is a particular method, with scientists, who are quite capable of observing and accepting miracles.

And again, you are confusing science with scientists.     It happens when I'm out by myself in nature, that I can sometimes apprehend both at once, and it's an amazing epiphany.   But science can't do that.   It's just a method.

I give you two examples why your claim still is incorrect, one is hypothetical and the other factual


GRAVITY
Take for example gravity. We know it exists and we can measure it. We do not know how it works, where is comes from and why it is.
All we know it is here. Now science has declared gravity a natural phenomena, however science has no reason to declare it that because science does not know the source of gravity.

So imagine gravity is here because God instituted it and He also upholds it. That would be completely plausible. God continuously exercises His power to keep gravity going.
But if that is the case, then gravity would be a supernatural phenomena and it would be a miracle.
And as per your claim science would be utterly incapable to say anything about gravity. Yet it does, libraries full.

Hence it is completely possible for science to say anything about something supernatural.


DARK MATTER
Dark matter is not observed by science, yet we know some force does exist by way of deductive experimentation and reasoning.
Science has declared the presence of dark matter because it results from conclusions made from external experiments.
Well, that same method can be applied to the supernatural. If all natural explanations are insufficient, then the only explanation left is a supernatural one.
For all we know dark matter is a supernatural force upheld by God, and that would classify as a miracle.

Hence, science can very much be used to determine whether miracles exist.

[4WD]

I give you two examples why your claim still is incorrect, one is hypothetical and the other factual


GRAVITY
Take for example gravity. We know it exists and we can measure it. We do not know how it works, where is comes from and why it is.
All we know it is here. Now science has declared gravity a natural phenomena, however science has no reason to declare it that because science does not know the source of gravity.

So imagine gravity is here because God instituted it and He also upholds it. That would be completely plausible. God continuously exercises His power to keep gravity going.
But if that is the case, then gravity would be a supernatural phenomena and it would be a miracle.
And as per your claim science would be utterly incapable to say anything about gravity. Yet it does, libraries full.

Hence it is completely possible for science to say anything about something supernatural.

We do not know, scientifically, why gravity exists; we just know that it does.  However, we do know how gravity works.  That is one of the really tremendous results of Einstein's Relativity. God doesn't need to "keep it going". That was simply part of His creation.  There is nothing supernatural about gravity.  Gravity is purely a natural phenomenon; that is how God created it.  For the study of the physical, i.e., the natural, universe to say anything whatever about the supernatural would be oxymoronic. Gravity is no more supernatural than is dirt.

DARK MATTER
Dark matter is not observed by science, yet we know some force does exist by way of deductive experimentation and reasoning.
Science has declared the presence of dark matter because it results from conclusions made from external experiments.
Well, that same method can be applied to the supernatural. If all natural explanations are insufficient, then the only explanation left is a supernatural one.
For all we know dark matter is a supernatural force upheld by God, and that would classify as a miracle.

Hence, science can very much be used to determine whether miracles exist.

Your view that a physical force , i.e., natural force, is supernatural.  One more oxymoronic statement from AVZ.  And by the way dark matter is not a force.  Perhaps you were thinking of dark energy.

[Alan]

Perhaps you were thinking of dark energy.

Or maybe Dark Forces

[AVZ]

We do not know, scientifically, why gravity exists; we just know that it does.  However, we do know how gravity works.  That is one of the really tremendous results of Einstein's Relativity. God doesn't need to "keep it going". That was simply part of His creation.  There is nothing supernatural about gravity.  Gravity is purely a natural phenomenon; that is how God created it.  For the study of the physical, i.e., the natural, universe to say anything whatever about the supernatural would be oxymoronic. Gravity is no more supernatural than is dirt.

Your view that a physical force , i.e., natural force, is supernatural.  One more oxymoronic statement from AVZ.  And by the way dark matter is not a force.  Perhaps you were thinking of dark energy.

With your reasoning you can dismiss every miracle, because you cannot proof that a supernatural force was at work.

For example: Eyesight is created in people and animals all the time. For some species it takes a bit longer than for others, but a non-supernatural path is followed in the creation of eyesight in embryo's. So when Jesus made the blind man see, He did not really do something supernatural right? He took a completely natural process and made it happen a bit faster, right?

What you say is that anything that exists in nature, things like gravity, cannot be supernatural because they exist in nature.
That is of course circular reasoning, and besides it is not fact because we simply do not know if gravity is purely a natural phenomenon. It could very well be supernatural.

Oh and for your information, there is division over the fact if dark matter contains a force. Some studies seem to show that dark matter continuously interacts with itself.
So what you call oxymoronic, is in fact a respectable scientific hypothesis.


What I am saying is that anything that cannot be explained by natural science in this universe, is potentially supernatural.
Unless of course you insist that everything that happens in this universe must have a natural explanation, but then miracles cannot exist.

[grams]

GODS  word does not tell us that the earth  is millions of years old !

I  believe GOD       not  man    !   

[4WD]

With your reasoning you can dismiss every miracle, because you cannot proof that a supernatural force was at work.

That is an illogical statement from beginning to end. The definition of a miracle is an observable instantaneous action outside the bounds of the natural.  That is simply an observation.  Nothing is really proven one way or the other.

For example: Eyesight is created in people and animals all the time. For some species it takes a bit longer than for others, but a non-supernatural path is followed in the creation of eyesight in embryo's. So when Jesus made the blind man see, He did not really do something supernatural right? He took a completely natural process and made it happen a bit faster, right?

You don't even understand what it means when in Scripture it says that God creates.  Look up the meaning of ex nihilo.  Jesus didn't create eyesight in the blind man.  He miraculously cured the eyes of the blind man which were not functioning properly.

What you say is that anything that exists in nature, things like gravity, cannot be supernatural because they exist in nature.
That is of course circular reasoning, and besides it is not fact because we simply do not know if gravity is purely a natural phenomenon. It could very well be supernatural.

Another bit of pure nonsense.  If something is natural it is by definition not supernatural.  And if something is supernatural it is by definition not natural.  By definition there is no third option.

Oh and for your information, there is division over the fact if dark matter contains a force. Some studies seem to show that dark matter continuously interacts with itself.
So what you call oxymoronic, is in fact a respectable scientific hypothesis.

Matter, whether dark matter or ordinary (baryonic) matter, does not contain forces.  You obviously are so scientifically challenged you don't even understand the concepts of matter and forces.

What I am saying is that anything that cannot be explained by natural science in this universe, is potentially supernatural.
Unless of course you insist that everything that happens in this universe must have a natural explanation, but then miracles cannot exist.

Simply more really ignorant and illogical reasoning.  I have never insisted any such thing.

[4WD]

GODS  word does not tell us that the earth  is millions of years old !

I  believe GOD       not  man    !

Grams, God's word does not tell us that combining hydrogen and oxygen forms water either but we know that it does.

[Alan]

GODS  word does not tell us that the earth  is millions of years old !

I  believe GOD       not  man    !

The bible also does not give us a clear indication that the earth is 6000 years old, I also believe God and not the interpretations of man.

[Alan]

Gravity is a universal law, every body and it's orbits exhibit some degree of gravity, some far greater than what we experience here on earth, and others very little.


Is there a supernatural connection to Jupiter having 2.4x the gravity of earth?

[Texas Conservative]

Gravity is a universal law, every body and it's orbits exhibit some degree of gravity, some far greater than what we experience here on earth, and others very little.


Is there a supernatural connection to Jupiter having 2.4x the gravity of earth?

No. 

[The Barbarian]

give you two examples why your claim still is incorrect, one is hypothetical and the other factual

Well, let's take a look...

GRAVITY
Take for example gravity. We know it exists and we can measure it. We do not know how it works, where is comes from and why it is.
All we know it is here. Now science has declared gravity a natural phenomena, however science has no reason to declare it that because science does not know the source of gravity.

Mass.  It's caused by mass.   The more mass there is, the more gravity.  That's very well documented and measurable.   So why is there gravity at all?   The demonstrated fact is that gravity is not actually a force, but a curvature of space-time caused by uneven distribution of mass.   And yes, that's been experimentally verified.  Would you like to learn how?

So imagine gravity is here because God instituted it

So are you.  But there's also a nicely naturalistic explanation for the physical you being here, that does not depend on miracles. (except in the sense that St. Augustine used when pointing out that existence itself is miraculous once one realizes that God created all things)

and He also upholds it.

And this is why science works.   He does so in a consistent and dependable way such that it is not necessary to consider God when doing science (or plumbing, for that matter).   I think it has something to do with His intention that we be free to accept Him or not accept Him as we will.

That would be completely plausible. God continuously exercises His power to keep gravity going.

If He took His mind from us for even a moment, we would not even exist.   But that doesn't mean He pushes the planets and stars around.

But if that is the case, then gravity would be a supernatural phenomena and it would be a miracle.

If He intervened and set aside the rules by which His universe works, that's a miracle.  Otherwise, it's natural.   

And as per your claim science would be utterly incapable to say anything about gravity.

Hopefully, you now see the flaw in your thinking.

Barbarian observes:
Hence it is completely possible for science to say anything about something supernatural.

DARK MATTER
Dark matter is not observed by science, yet we know some force does exist by way of deductive experimentation and reasoning.
Science has declared the presence of dark matter because it results from conclusions made from external experiments.

Hence, not miraculous.   We know it's natural, because it does obey natural laws.

Well, that same method can be applied to the supernatural. If all natural explanations are insufficient, then the only explanation left is a supernatural one.

No.  For example, the duality of light is as of yet unexplained.   Sometimes, it has properties of particules (the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein got his only Nobel) and sometimes it has the properties of waves.   And weirdly, a single photon in a two-slit experiment will produce an interference pattern as if it was a wave.   This doesn't mean that God set aside nature to miraculously cause an interference pattern.   It means there's a deeper physical reality that we have not as yet understood.

For all we know dark matter is a supernatural force upheld by God, and that would classify as a miracle.

Nope.  So far, it works according to nature as well.  No sign of divine intervention in the universe from that.

Hence, science can very much be used to determine whether miracles exist.

And now you see where your argument failed.

[Alan]

No. 

Why thank you kind sir,   

[The Barbarian]

With your reasoning you can dismiss every miracle, because you cannot proof that a supernatural force was at work.

An ancient Ionian Greek philosopher observed:
"People attribute a god to anything they don't understand.  But if that were so, there would be an infinity of gods."

For example: Eyesight is created in people and animals all the time. For some species it takes a bit longer than for others, but a non-supernatural path is followed in the creation of eyesight in embryo's. So when Jesus made the blind man see, He did not really do something supernatural right? He took a completely natural process and made it happen a bit faster, right?

Science can't say.   Conversion blindness does happen, and it can be cured psychologically.   You need faith to understand a miracle, not science.

What you say is that anything that exists in nature, things like gravity, cannot be supernatural because they exist in nature.

Except in the sense of Augustine; nature is a miracle itself.

That is of course circular reasoning,

Perhaps you don't know what "circular reasoning" means.  It does not mean that definitions don't exist.  Natural things are those that exist in nature and follow natural laws.   Miracles in our world are God stepping in and setting aside those rules for a particular purpose.

and besides it is not fact because we simply do not know if gravity is purely a natural phenomenon.

Turns out, it is.   

It could very well be supernatural.

No. It consistently follows natural laws.   If it somehow violated natural laws, it would be miraculous.

What I am saying is that anything that cannot be explained by natural science in this universe, is potentially supernatural.

No.   The duality of light is not potentially miraculous, since it follows regular laws, too.  We just don't understand why at this point.

[AVZ]

Gravity is a universal law, every body and it's orbits exhibit some degree of gravity, some far greater than what we experience here on earth, and others very little.


Is there a supernatural connection to Jupiter having 2.4x the gravity of earth?

Yes we do know how gravity behaves and what it does, but we do not know what it is.
And if we do not know what it is, then it could be supernatural.

[AVZ]

The definition of a miracle is an observable instantaneous action outside the bounds of the natural.

A miracle could be outside the bounds of the natural, but it not necessarily is.

Back to the blind man.
When Jesus spoke to the blind man, his eyes started to work again. So that means that either the functionality of the various parts in the eyes returned, or new parts were created.
Either way, we see the process of the growth of sight in embryo's all the time.

When sight is developed in embryo's a normal natural process is being followed. It does not violate any laws of nature.
Now similar with the blind man, his healing could also have followed a normal natural process, identical to that what happens in embryo's.
No laws of nature were necessarily violated.

So a miracle not necessarily is outside the bounds of the natural, and it therefore not necessarily falls outside the bounds of science.
Now if you insist that giving sight to the blind man was a miracle (and I do not disagree), then creating sight in a blind embryo equally is a miracle.
The principle is exactly the same. You have a blind person, and due to a creative process the person gets sight.

[4WD]

A miracle could be outside the bounds of the natural, but it not necessarily is.

AVZ. it is obvious that you do not even know what a miracle is.  Or based on your above comments it is just that you do not know the difference, biblically, between natural and supernatural. If an action is not outside the bounds of the natural, then it is by definition not a miracle. 

[The Barbarian]

Yes we do know how gravity behaves and what it does, but we do not know what it is.

It is curvature of space time by uneven distribution of mass.  And yes, that was checked and found to be true.  Would you like to learn about it?

And if we do not know what it is, then it could be supernatural.

In the American west, native Americans noticed that food took longer to cook at high altitudes.   (we know that because water boils at a lower temperature there, cooking takes longer).

They had a different idea.   Evil spirits interfere with cooking.   And the concentration of evil spirits increases with altitude.   

You could likewise argue that gravity is caused by gravity fairies, and gravity fairies always gather near large masses.

But I don't think so.

[AVZ]

AVZ. it is obvious that you do not even know what a miracle is.  Or based on your above comments it is just that you do not know the difference, biblically, between natural and supernatural. If an action is not outside the bounds of the natural, then it is by definition not a miracle.

Then tell me, in the miracle of the blind man being healed for example...which natural law is being violated?

[4WD]

Then tell me, in the miracle of the blind man being healed for example...which natural law is being violated?

An instantaneous cure by Jesus.  Such is not found in natural law.

[AVZ]

An instantaneous cure by Jesus.  Such is not found in natural law.

There is no natural law that describes a minimum or maximum amount of time to healing. It does not exist.
So I am asking you again: When the blind man was healed, which natural law was violated?

[The Barbarian]

There is no natural law that describes a minimum or maximum amount of time to healing. It does not exist.
So I am asking you again: When the blind man was healed, which natural law was violated?

None whatever, since science does not rule out miracles.  It neither deny nor verify miracles.   

You're still confused about what science does.