Part of the reason for this thread was to show that Evolution is not like Gravity, quantum mechanics etc. I was trying to avoid the assertion with no explanation.
Tell me what is the connection between Gravity and Evolution, other than they are both Scientific theories? Do you know how they came to exist and the thought processes behind their creation (methodology) Do you understand how Evolution might impinge on God whereas Gravity cannot? Do you actually understand what Gravity means in terms of Living? Or to what difference the existence of God,or the concept of God that gravity or Evolution might have? What difference does it make to God whether I stay on the ground or float?
The whole point of all this is to show precisely what you are denying could possibly exist.
Evolutionary theory, as it stands, says nothing about the existence of God. You have been told that multiple times but I guess you just donât agree. If a writer says something to the contrary that is their opinion. Do you throw out the Bible when a atheist uses it to disprove the existence of God or do you throw out their opinion?
So you are attempting to make an argument that you admit can not prove evolution is wrong to prove evolution is wrong? I am more than confused.
your problem lies in the scientifically ignorant position that evolution is a random unguided process and survival fitness is the ability to grab, kill and f*** fastest. That might be a common interpretation but is clearly void of critical thinking as it is anything but that.
It is a process regulated via a feedback loop which immediately shows that it is not unguided. The feedback loop actually implies a purpose as in the propagation of life. The regulator, e.g. survival fitness is not determined by being the biggest bully, but, as you can see by current and past events, the ability to love thy neighbour like ones own (not oneself). Those who are overly selfish, thus a drain on the system, are eliminated by the system or the system / civilisation will collapse
I am not sure that it will ever be allowed. I am not going to try it until I think it will get a fair hearing. And it is this assertion that is frustrating me. I know that God is not mentioned! Why would He be? God is not part of Science! That is not the point of this thread. It never has been, but people are asserting that it does.
I have yet to see this. Why can you?
Sorry. I was just admitting that there may be a cohesive version of Evolution without God, just that I donât think it exists yet.
how do yo justify science if not based on the law of ultimate causality and the proposition that reality is based on order and information, thus intelligible?
I am sorry but you clearly have not got the foggiest idea of what I am about here.
It was an assertion with nothing to back it up, that shows you do not understand what I am about here.
It was not patronising.
And you will see whether I know what i am talking about if you âallowâ me to show you. Which means trying to understand me instead of making your assertions based on what you assume I am talking about instead of what I am.
I love your convoluted description of science. Perhaps if you followed my arguments you would see that I am claiming that the methodology and concept that brought the evolutionary theory into being do not match your definition. And how do I know what these concepts and methods are? That will be revealed in the analogies and concepts that I claim. The whole idea of an analogy is to prove precisely that. That I understand the thoughts behind the theory. IOW the proof is in the eating. But I canât show you unless you actually understand what I am showing you.
Then you have not actually read my responses. I think I have demonstrated an understanding of the criticisms made and given appropriate answers. Perhaps you do not, but the idea of this preamble was to establish the reasons for arguing by philosophy (analogies etc) but the criticisms are not based on philosophy or the understanding of its uses. The criticisms are actually the antipathy of philosophy which I would find amusing if it wasnât so sad.
IOW there is no point in arguing philosophically if the other parties neither appreciate nor understand, the validity of a philosophical argument. Or are even able to use them themselves and therefore understand what is being saidâŚ
Your answer was strictly speaking correct but did not actually address what I was referring to.
It was a literal answer to a question that was not based on the factors you were looking at.
You know what a scientific theory or law is. But you cannot see any difference between the structure and form of Evolutionary theory and the formation of the laws of gravity. You give them the same value and the same credibilty so if i criticise ne you automatically transfer that criticism to all. But my crits are very specfic to Evolution. They are not meant to be taken as a universal crit of all science and theory.
Nobody is stopping you from posting. Getting the people on this forum to agree with you is the problem.
Perhaps because most of your arguments in the past have given the impression that you believe âGod did it.â Donât you want a Theory of Evolution that includes God?
It is a thing, even if you havenât seen it. Doesnât mean that I agree with it. Question back to you, why donât you just throw out Dawkinsâ opinion, because that is all it is? Of better yet, find a peer reviewed paper that includes the disclaimer that God was excluded in examining the results of the test.
There is, just that you donât believe it, yet.
Pretty sure I have yet to see you philosophy argument.
One could make that argument, but it strikes me as a diminished view of God.
Events such as volcanoes, thunder, and eclipses have been ascribed to the dealings of gods, but there is no concern that God is rendered redundant as natural causes have been found. On what basis is it necessary to maintain an exception for biology?
Why would you hold that a God who creates instantaneously is greater than a God who creates a dynamic, process driven natural world?
