I don't normally write such long posts. Fortunately, I had some time this morning before I travel again for a week. So, it may be some time before I can reply in depth to your thoughtful posts.
{Remainder deleted to save space}
You:
Friend, this is a Christian forum.
No. This is a Non-Christian forum. There are "Christians Only" forums elsewhere on this website, but this particular forum is for Non-Christians.
You:
If you want to talk about mass extinction events, please start another thread.
I did start the following separate thread on the topic of contradictions in the Bible:
Contradictions
Did you see that? But I've continued to discuss the issue of evolution on this thread as most of the prior discussion is already on this thread, and mass extinctions are very much a part of the history of life on earth. You don't get to tell me what to do on this Non-Christian forum.
You:
If I listed 6 steps in the reasoning behind Christianity, would that convince you or would your drum beat still be EVIDENCE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT?
Sure-- go for it. Just don't try to argue that the stories of the Bible are true, as I will just point you to the "Contradictions" thread cited above. And please bear in mind the fact that in my listing of 6 elements of the reasoning and inferences behind evolution in Posting #953, all of items (a) through (e) have actually been observed. The only item yet to be conclusively nailed down is the last one-- (f).
You:
I pointed out that there is not one single example of one kind of animal, evolving into another kind of animal. To that, your non-responsive reply was to state that it takes many 100's of millions of years (LONG TIME), which means it is not science at all as it defies hypothesis testing.
I actually said in previous postings that the whole process can be
sped up. I gave a specific example-- the Lenski experiment. So it is simply not true that the time scale of millions of years is forever out of reach. I can think of several ways in which it might be possible in the future to demonstrate the origin of a new biological organ or a new species through natural processes alone. I'm not an experimental biologist, but I suspect there are biologists who are actively applying the lessons of the Lenski experiment to the designs of future experiments that will achieve exactly that.
Let's just think for a moment about your assumptions. Your chief claim is that it is
impossible for one species to evolve into another. That must mean that there is some natural law or mechanism that would prevent that from happening. I asked you in a previous posting (
#953) how you would test that hypothesis. Did you consider that? At least the principles of evolution are testable in principle. If you wish the hypothesis of Intelligent Design to be regarded as based on observable fact then you will need to at least describe a method by which its most important assumption could actually be tested. If it's not testable, then it is simply a belief-- not a fact.
I'm arguing that the theory of evolution is the last remaining viable hypothesis. The immense discrepancy between the Bible's creation story and the actual known facts of the history of the universe rules out the Bible's creation story. And the history of mass extinctions rules out the Intelligent Designer hypothesis because it shows that the history of life on earth has been disrupted again and again by random events that show absolutely no evidence of intelligence. Therefore whatever designer might be operating behind the scenes, that designer could not possibly be intelligent. And that leaves only evolution as a possible explanation for the observed changes in the forms of life over time.
You:
Why does the Natural World obey mathematical laws?
As I said, that's a very good question. It is one way of saying that it seems odd that the human mind is capable of understanding anything at all about the world around us. Mathematical laws, after all, are simply symbolic representations of patterns that can just as readily be expressed in natural language. It's just that the symbolic language of mathematics is more compact and efficient.
Imagine what it would be like to live in a world that we simply could not understand. It would be a world with no discernable patterns at all. I think that to humans it would seem crazy, and very scary.
If you wish to ascribe this curious aspect of the natural world to divine guidance, I have no problem with that. Those aspects of the natural world that are not explicitly ruled out by science are open to religious interpretation. I'm an atheist (an atheist who believes that God does not exist, but that God is
logically necessary). But I'm not trying to force atheism on anyone else.
You:
The statement that there is no evidence that God created a human body. This is refuted in the fact that humans are the only animals who wear clothes or need to. How this is evidence that God created a human body is very much worth exploring.
I view the fact that humans make and wear clothes, make and use complex tools, speak and write human languages, create art and music, and think abstractly about philosophy, religion, and mathematics are all founded in our shared genetic heritage and are therefore derived from the evolution of our species. If you believe that there are some aspects of human behavior that are not related directly to genetics, then please identify them-- and please also describe how you would test such an hypothesis in an experiment. If it's not testable, then it's just a belief, not a fact.
You:
Atheism on Trial. You got no answer to the Genesis story.
I disagree. I cited the NRSVue translation's rendition of the creation story which aligns perfectly with my own interpretation as expressed in my very first posting. You and
@Illuminator and
@FlySwatter have different interpretations that are based on other widely referenced translations. That's fine-- I can live with people having different interpretations of the creation story. I would just point out that the copyright on the NSRVue is held by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States-- hardly an atheist stronghold. So you have your interpretation, and I have mine-- and both are compatible with widely referenced translations.
As to the origin of the universe, the Big Bang with cosmic inflation hypothesis has by far the best fit to known observable facts. The book I mentioned in an earlier posting, "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, provides a lot of background on how the universe could have originated from literally nothing. Or at least nothing more than a momentary quantum fluctuation. And what could have given rise to that original fluctuation? It's unknown.
That theory represents the absolute limits to our knowledge about the origin of the universe. And if you wish to describe that original unknown event that triggered the process of the Big Bang to divine intervention, I have no problem with that. Again, I'm not trying to deter anyone from theism. I'm only opposed to theisms that are based on too literal readings of the Bible or on outright denials of matters of fact.
