Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Feathered dinosaur tail preserved in amber.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    On a serious note, do you ''believe'' that biological evolution happened and is still happenning today?

    I am asking because from my personal experience most Christians (especially Evangelicals) don't.

    The obvious exception here being Rogue06.
    Actually I don't "believe" that evolution has taken place and continues to do so having been observed in both the lab and in nature, but rather I accept the evidence for it.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      Actually I don't "believe" that evolution has taken place and continues to do so having been observed in both the lab and in nature, but rather I accept the evidence for it.
      This is new, and confusing, also needs clarification.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        This is new, and confusing, also needs clarification.
        Do scientists "believe" in scientific theories? Not sure that is a clear way of describing the acceptance theories. When we import the connotations associated with religious belief, things only get muddled.

        I would say that I believe, or accept, evolution. But that belief is based on the theological idea that G-d's creation will necessarily reveal some things about the divine and nature itself; which is why nature is sometimes called a type of divine revelation. Then other theological beliefs are also brought in, such as whether the Lord would use natural processes to account for the presence of man.

        An example: Once upon a time, the scientific theory of plate tectonics was rejected and ridiculed as a fanciful theory. But over time, it is accepted and (I think) universally held. It is worth noting that the scientists do not see it as a significant change in world view, nothing like moving from atheism to theism. If scientific consensus changes, my beliefs, or acceptance, would likely follow, if I could accept the explanations for the change (I am not a scientist).
        Last edited by simplicio; 12-18-2019, 06:54 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by simplicio View Post
          Do scientists "believe" in scientific theories? Not sure that is a clear way of describing the acceptance theories. When we import the connotations associated with religious belief, things only get muddled.

          I would say that I believe, or accept, evolution. But that belief is based on the theological idea that G-d's creation will necessarily reveal some things about the divine and nature itself; which is why nature is sometimes called a type of divine revelation. Then other theological beliefs are also brought in, such as whether the Lord would use natural processes to account for the presence of man.
          The dual revelation concept -- God has revealed His creation both in word (the Bible) and deed (nature) -- goes back to at least the ECFs and likely longer.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by simplicio View Post
            Do scientists "believe" in scientific theories? Not sure that is a clear way of describing the acceptance theories. When we import the connotations associated with religious belief, things only get muddled.

            I would say that I believe, or accept, evolution. But that belief is based on the theological idea that G-d's creation will necessarily reveal some things about the divine and nature itself; which is why nature is sometimes called a type of divine revelation. Then other theological beliefs are also brought in, such as whether the Lord would use natural processes to account for the presence of man.

            An example: Once upon a time, the scientific theory of plate tectonics was rejected and ridiculed as a fanciful theory. But over time, it is accepted and (I think) universally held. It is worth noting that the scientists do not see it as a significant change in world view, nothing like moving from atheism to theism. If scientific consensus changes, my beliefs, or acceptance, would likely follow, if I could accept the explanations for the change (I am not a scientist).
            Thank you for the clarification. This is very very close to what I believe.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              The dual revelation concept -- God has revealed His creation both in word (the Bible) and deed (nature) -- goes back to at least the ECFs and likely longer.
              The dual revelation concept is probably a central sticking point in the yec evo divide within Christianity. And the differing views carry across to other areas, such as the divine sovereignty - free will debates.

              Can the Lord use natural processes to achieve his goals of creating the human race? Can the Lord use the free will of humans to achieve his goals for His plan of salvation? Did Mary have a choice in her role for carrying Jesus in her womb? The arguments of the first question carry over to the other questions. The differences between Evo and yec are as stark as the differences between Catholic and Protestants.

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
              48 responses
              135 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Sparko
              by Sparko
               
              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
              16 responses
              74 views
              0 likes
              Last Post shunyadragon  
              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
              6 responses
              47 views
              0 likes
              Last Post shunyadragon  
              Working...
              X