Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians

[Antlerman]

Uh... As I know it, the alternative to reductionism is called “relational science”. And I think it makes organization the “object” of its study. It was through Kauffman that I was introduced to it.

Is this what Rosen was talking about in his work? Emergence? Yes, I think we're thinking along the same lines... finally.

[Legion]

Uh... As I know it, the alternative to reductionism is called “relational science”. And I think it makes organization the “object” of its study. It was through Kauffman that I was introduced to it.

Is this what Rosen was talking about in his work? Emergence? Yes, I think we're thinking along the same lines... finally.

In part, I think so Antlerman. Rosen simply pointed out that hardcore reductionism denied legitimacy to ideas such as emergence and novelty. But that these ideas were entirely compatible with a relational approach.

[Vigile]

Allow me, if I may, to summarize the Christian argument for Creation Science:

 

- Since we do not have every single conceivable fact about the past 4.5 billion years, that means that there are significant gaps in our understanding.

 

- Some pretty smart people think there are holes in Evolutionary theory.

 

- Since Evolutionary theory cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, there is no reason to accept is as fact. It has the word "theory" right there in the name. Everybody knows theories aren't facts.

 

- The unknown and/or questionable things about Evolutionary Theory "prove" that it can't be right, therefore something else must be true.

 

- The only conceivable "something else" is that God did it.

 

- Therefore God did it.

 

There. We're done.

 

That's a good summation but as you can see it's purely criticism of ToE and offers absolutely nothing in terms of HOW goddidit. He's god, he can do anything, including creating something from nothing sounds as childish to me as Santa knows when you've been naughty and when you've been nice, he's Santa afterall.

 

Dunno. I guess since I began losing faith as I entered adulthood I have a hard time empathizing with adults who still hang on to theirs.

[Neon Genesis]

This thread reminds me of this video for some reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TthHltjrvA

[LNC]

C'mon LNC, hop in here. Give us your theory of how life on planet Earth came about.

 

Listen, I asked a simple question. There are different ideas about evolution and in order to make sure that I am discussing and debating your ideas, it only seems fair that you lay them out for me. For example, let's start with the origin of life; do you believe that evolution accounts for that origin or, as many evolutionists understand it, do you believe that evolution only accounts for the development of that which is already alive? There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

 

 

Nice try. Just answer the question. Give us your theory of how life on planet Earth came about.

 

I have already indicated that I believe that an intelligent agent had to be involved. I find that it best explains the existence of life from non-life, information (DNA), the sudden appearances of life, consciousness, and other factors better than natural processes alone can.

[Ouroboros]

I have already indicated that I believe that an intelligent agent had to be involved. I find that it best explains the existence of life from non-life, information (DNA), the sudden appearances of life, consciousness, and other factors better than natural processes alone can.

That's not much of a theory. Sounds more like a speculation or a hypothesis. So what is the method with which you intend to prove this hypothesis?

[LNC]

C'mon LNC, hop in here. Give us your theory of how life on planet Earth came about.

 

Listen, I asked a simple question. There are different ideas about evolution and in order to make sure that I am discussing and debating your ideas, it only seems fair that you lay them out for me. For example, let's start with the origin of life; do you believe that evolution accounts for that origin or, as many evolutionists understand it, do you believe that evolution only accounts for the development of that which is already alive? There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

 

You are missing the whole point of this thread. No one asked you to debate ToE. We asked you to provide your explanation, not your critique; there's a big difference. You don't need to know anyone else's position on the matter to provide your own do you?

 

Sorry, I guess I was confused by the title to the thread that says, "Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians." It seemed to me that it was to contrast my ideas as a Christian against that of naturalistic evolution.

[LNC]

There are different ideas about evolution and in order to make sure that I am discussing and debating your ideas, it only seems fair that you lay them out for me. For example, let's start with the origin of life; do you believe that evolution accounts for that origin or, as many evolutionists understand it, do you believe that evolution only accounts for the development of that which is already alive? There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

 

I'd say firstly, lets make a clear distinction between evolution vs. ambiogenisis.

 

Ambiogenesis = theory of how life began.

Evolution = theory of how life came to be found in it's present form.

 

That's pretty broad, but I'd say it's a start and will avoid the whole "Evolution doesn't explain how rocks turned into humans!" argument that usually get's pulled out.

 

This thread IS NOT about Evolution....PERIOD! I asked LNC to Give us his theory of how life on planet Earth came about. I didn't say ANYTHING about Evolution.

 

When you say that you didn't say ANYTHING about evolution, what do you make of the title to the thread including the word EVOLUTION?

[LNC]

Listen, I asked a simple question. ... There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

So, turning the tables are we? That's your answer?

 

The question was YOUR theory, not the evolutionary theory. So the question is not: what do you think about Evolution. But the question is: What is your alternative explanation instead of Evolution, and explain your alternative in detail.

 

Why do you need any of the other theories you don't believe in to explain the theory that you do believe in? Unless you're just trying to avoid the question?

 

So again, the thread isn't about the position of RO, or the evidence of Evolution, but rather what is YOUR evidence for Not-Evolution.

 

But I guess that's too complicated for you understand. Even with your degrees and education and all.

 

The title asks a question, "Don't believe in evolution?" Since there are different understandings of evolution and I don't totally discount all aspects of evolution, I simply wanted to know what RO's understanding of evolution is so that I can tell him whether I believe in his model of evolution. That seems fair enough since he asked the question and then asked me to specifically come into this discussion from the other thread. I don't see why you get defensive about that and accuse me of trying to turn the tables. Maybe you can explain why you are so defensive about this? How can I give you evidence for not-evolution when, as I said, I accept some aspects of evolution and don't know what I am supposed to be countering? Alas, I have given my explanation earlier in the thread, so I hope that is satisfactory for you to begin to beat up on my ideas. I assume that is why RO has established this thread.

[Legion]

Alas, I have given my explanation earlier in the thread, so I hope that is satisfactory for you to begin to beat up on my ideas. I assume that is why RO has established this thread.

Oh LNC, that made me laugh.

 

Oh goodness, I needed that man. Thanks.

[LNC]

C'mon LNC, hop in here. Give us your theory of how life on planet Earth came about.

 

Listen, I asked a simple question. There are different ideas about evolution and in order to make sure that I am discussing and debating your ideas, it only seems fair that you lay them out for me. For example, let's start with the origin of life; do you believe that evolution accounts for that origin or, as many evolutionists understand it, do you believe that evolution only accounts for the development of that which is already alive? There is a simple starting place for you to help me to understand your position.

I'll play.

 

Evolution does not directly deal with the origin of life from non-life. That's called abiogenesis, and although evolutionary biologists are working on the problem, it is not, strictly speaking, part of the theory of evolution.

 

What evolutionary theory does address is the progression of life from simple forms into more complex forms, and the division of complex forms into distinct species.

 

One of the difficulties in deciding when evolution began has to do with the question of what is life and what is not life. This is a more difficult question than you might think. The earliest form of proto-life is thought to be a virus-like molecular chain. But whether this was true life, or whether true life only came when cellular walls evolved, is an open question. And how those first virus-like chains came into being is not, strictly speaking, a part of the theory of evolution.

 

Most people who accept the theory of evolution also accept that life began when complex chains formed such that automatic replication of those chains would naturally occur. Whether or not God was involved is irrelevant, as it is in all branches of science. Science properly deals with the how, not the why of life, the universe, and everything. Unless the why can lead to a how, it's a pointless question as far as science is concerned.

 

So that's how science says life began, and how species originated. How do you say it happened?

 

That is a good summary. When you say that science is interested in "how, not the why of life, the universe, and everything" are you referring to efficient causality? Now, when you get into the whys you are shifting to final causality which implies a purpose and that would fall outside of science and into philosophy and metaphysics. The problem with an endless string of prior event causes is that it leads to a philosophical absurdity; sorry to bring philosophy into this discussion, but science is rooted in philosophy, after all and scientific understanding must also be logically consistent. That is where I go back to the need for an intelligent causal agent that is causally prior to time.

[Ouroboros]

The title asks a question, "Don't believe in evolution?" Since there are different understandings of evolution and I don't totally discount all aspects of evolution, I simply wanted to know what RO's understanding of evolution is so that I can tell him whether I believe in his model of evolution.

Eh, okay. So you do believe in Evolution then? No, wait, you don't totally discount all aspect of evolution, i.e. you discount much of it... the theory that you don't know if you agree to or what?

 

I think you're spinning to avoid answering the question.

 

That seems fair enough since he asked the question and then asked me to specifically come into this discussion from the other thread. I don't see why you get defensive about that and accuse me of trying to turn the tables.

Because you are. I'm not being defensive by calling you out.

 

And why are you so defensive about it?

 

Maybe you can explain why you are so defensive about this?

No, the question is why you are you reluctant to explain your theory.

 

How can I give you evidence for not-evolution when, as I said, I accept some aspects of evolution and don't know what I am supposed to be countering?

So, you DO know what evolution is then? Otherwise, how can you say you accept some aspects of it? There's no "it" if there is debate of what "it" is!

 

In other words, you're trying to avoid answering by attacking us instead. You have done this over, and over, and over again. Avoiding to really answer anything, but attacking everyone for whatever they say, and throw logical fallacies left and right and for minor stuff and things that had nothing to do with the core of the arguments, and you do it with some overly "sophisticated" language to sound more educated, meanwhile you miss point after point people make, and fail to understand even the simplest arguments.

 

 

Alas, I have given my explanation earlier in the thread, so I hope that is satisfactory for you to begin to beat up on my ideas. I assume that is why RO has established this thread.

Alas? You're a poet from the 19th century England?

 

No, you haven't given any explanation at all, except for making a hypothesis. The question is, what is your theory. Since you're so educated and learned, then you perhaps can give the proper scientific evidence to support your hypothesis?

 

And when it comes to beat up your ideas... well, if that is what worries you, then why are you even here? There's only one reason to why you keep on debating with us, and it's that you're worried that you're wrong and we're right.

 

---

 

But wait, I can use your method of arguing your theory, and apply it to Evolution too.

 

Why is Evolution right? Because.

 

How does it work? It just magically does.

 

How do we know it is true? Because it says so in books.

 

Okay, so with that part over with. Now we can go on to Creationism or LNC-modified-Evolution theory, and see what kind of reasonable science is behind it.

[Ouroboros]

Alas, I have given my explanation earlier in the thread, so I hope that is satisfactory for you to begin to beat up on my ideas. I assume that is why RO has established this thread.

Oh LNC, that made me laugh.

 

Oh goodness, I needed that man. Thanks.

Well, at least he is showing some minuscule comprehension, considering the fact that he's absolutely right.

[Legion]

I’ve heard some people say that all of Aristotle’s causes (material, efficient, formal, AND final cause) are fair game for scientific explanations. And I don’t agree with those who say that science only concerns itself with the how of things.

[Ouroboros]

I’ve heard some people say that all of Aristotle’s causes (material, efficient, formal, AND final cause) are fair game for scientific explanations. And I don’t agree with those who say that science only concerns itself with the how of things.

Well, if you would have an alternative explanation to evolution, then perhaps you do need a "how" explanation.

 

If we look at the DNA, why does it look the way it does, and why is this there and that there, and how does that works, etc... All those things which Evolution answers today, must have an alternative answer if Evolution is wrong, and it's not enough to say, "because" or "magic box" or "shazzam." It should be a theory that matches Evolution. Which can be tested, compared, argued...

 

To just use a philosophical argument, will not help genetic therapy or developing new vaccines. While Evolution can contribute to answer some questions in those areas, day-dreaming doesn't.

 

And I know you mean well, but I think RO's request is more of the down-dirty answers. Like, what kind of dirt did God use to create Adam? How does "First Cause" explain DNA?

 

Besides, Evolution does NOT deny First Cause, but is very much dependent on it. In fact, First Cause is a very good argument to life as being an effect and emerging from a universe in order. So, I'm not sure why First Cause deny evolution? Take Theistic Evolution as an example. It's the belief that God created the Universe, and used Evolution to create life and humans. Maybe for the sake of argument, we can accept a First Cause, and even a God, but then, what is the evidence for Created life instead of evolved?

[Legion]

Hans I think you have confused me with LNC.

 

I don't believe in "shazzam".

[RationalOkie]

And I know you mean well, but I think RO's request is more of the down-dirty answers. Like, what kind of dirt did God use to create Adam? How does "First Cause" explain DNA?

 

Besides, Evolution does NOT deny First Cause, but is very much dependent on it. In fact, First Cause is a very good argument to life as being an effect and emerging from a universe in order. So, I'm not sure why First Cause deny evolution? Take Theistic Evolution as an example. It's the belief that God created the Universe, and used Evolution to create life and humans. Maybe for the sake of argument, we can accept a First Cause, and even a God, but then, what is the evidence for Created life instead of evolved?

 

We're getting the run around with LNC. I think it might be an entire Bible College we are circle jerking with. They/it/he/she whatever, refuse to be cornered into just one question. You ask a single question...Wham! 10 questions are asked back. The question you did originally ask will be turned back on you to defend..show evidence...give me examples...etc... Whatever... So, 166 posts into the discussion and He/She/It/They are still asking for clarification as to what the question is.

[Dagan]

This whole thread makes me think of two opposing forces, with the weaker force trying to argue the terms of engagement as long as possible while waiting for reinforcements because it knows if it engages directly itès going to get shit-kicked.

[Skankboy]

Now, when you get into the whys you are shifting to final causality which implies a purpose and that would fall outside of science and into philosophy and metaphysics. The problem with an endless string of prior event causes is that it leads to a philosophical absurdity; sorry to bring philosophy into this discussion, but science is rooted in philosophy, after all and scientific understanding must also be logically consistent. That is where I go back to the need for an intelligent causal agent that is causally prior to time.

 

What specific "philosophical absurdity" are you referring to? Just curious.

 

For me, implying an intelligent agent is "needed" only begs the question of what created the intelligent agent? If you say "nothing, he's eternal/exists outside of time" that's great, but why couldn't a non-intelligent agent be "eternal/exists outside of time"? Intelligent agent pretty much assumes theres a "plan" or an over-arching "purpose" to the universe. I don't believe there is any such thing, nor have I seen convincing evidence for it.

 

If you can construct a logically consistent theory that explains the available evidence better than the current theories of abiogenisis and evolution, I'm willing to hear it out.

 

Thanks,

[Ouroboros]

Hans I think you have confused me with LNC.

Sorry! I was tired yesterday night, an explanation, not an excuse, so again, sorry.

[Ouroboros]

If you can construct a logically consistent theory that explains the available evidence better than the current theories of abiogenisis and evolution, I'm willing to hear it out.

He won't answer that. He will however attack the other part of your post, question in, accuse you of some logical fallacy, and leave his theory at: magic box full of sparkly pixie stuff in rainbow colors, did it. They don't have a theory. They only have complaints about the existing one. They're whiners, losers, and they really don't care to find the truth, because they love to explain everything with the latest dream they had (what they call "revelation"). (I also have revelations, but they involve more pretty women than gods, xcept for one... but I think I leave it at that.)

[Neon Genesis]

I have already indicated that I believe that an intelligent agent had to be involved. I find that it best explains the existence of life from non-life, information (DNA), the sudden appearances of life, consciousness, and other factors better than natural processes alone can.

You're missing the point. We don't know want to know if you think an intelligent agent had to be involved. We know that already. What we want to know is HOW did the intelligent agent create the universe? Simply saying "Goddidit" does not explain how the immune system works and how it formed etc. You have to have an actual explanation. And can we please cut to the chase and ditch the intelligent agent nonsense? We already know you believe it's God, so unless you're training to work for Discovery Institute, it seems dishonest to call it something else when it's obvious to everyone what you're talking about.

 

The title asks a question, "Don't believe in evolution?" Since there are different understandings of evolution and I don't totally discount all aspects of evolution, I simply wanted to know what RO's understanding of evolution is so that I can tell him whether I believe in his model of evolution.

Shouldn't it be bluntly obvious what kind of evolution we're talking about at a site called EX-Christian? If you can't figure that out alone, then it's obvious you're not actually interested in listening to what we have to say or you're trying to lure us into some sort of trap just like the Pharisees.

 

They're whiners, losers, and they really don't care to find the truth, because they love to explain everything with the latest dream they had (what they call "revelation"). (I also have revelations, but they involve more pretty women than gods, xcept for one... but I think I leave it at that.)

At least alchemists attempted an alternative theory to chemistry but intelligent design is just worthless. Sometimes I think creationists just want to cheat to get a good grade in biology. I mean, can you imagine what a creationist science test would be like? All you have to do is put "Goddidit" on every question to get a free A.

[Guest Davka]

Sorry, I guess I was confused by the title to the thread that says, "Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians." It seemed to me that it was to contrast my ideas as a Christian against that of naturalistic evolution.

Not merely to contrast, but to provide a competing theory.

 

In order to truly be a theory, your model must have predictive ability. Evolutionary theory makes predictions about what kinds of fossils we will find; what kinds of variations in DNA we will see; what kinds of physical characteristics will be observed in animals; how populations of microorganisms will respond under pressure, and so on. By examining these predictions in contrast to actual data from the real world, we can determine the accuracy of the theory.

 

What this thread is looking for is NOT a refutation of Evolutionary Theory, or an assertion that God must have had a hand in the process of evolution. What it is looking for (and failing to find, because it does not exist), is a predictive model which will allow us to compare the predictions to real-world evidence, in order to evaluate the reliability of the theory.

 

Your hypothesis is that God created life and (if I understand correctly) that God caused life to diverge into different species. What we are looking for, again, is a predictive model. We want to hear what sorts of things you would expect to find in nature if your hypothesis were true. What's more, these predictions must be ones which cannot be accounted for more easily by Evolutionary Theory. (see Occam's Razor)

 

So. What kinds of things do you think you would find in the natural world if God, rather than natural processes, were responsible for speciation?

 

More specifically, what processes do you think God used to create life and species, and what evidence of these processes should we expect to find in nature?

 

That would constitute a Theory of Creation.

 

(yes, I know I'm making this way too easy. I got tired of talking past each other.)

[Ouroboros]

(yes, I know I'm making this way too easy. I got tired of talking past each other.)

I think we all were hoping the LNC were smart enough to understand, without someone having to spell it out. I was almost at the point of doing a post like yours.

[Guest Davka]

(yes, I know I'm making this way too easy. I got tired of talking past each other.)

I think we all were hoping the LNC were smart enough to understand, without someone having to spell it out. I was almost at the point of doing a post like yours.

I don't think it's lack of intelligence so much as lack of education. Our public education system does an abysmal job of explaining the basics of the scientific method.

 

I blame God.