3 Assumptions Evolutionists Make

[jari]

@Neuroscience101 thx for the response.

What I meant to say that isnt it interesting that scientist take it for granted that things evolve, just because there's animals that look a like. of course they want to theorise something because they dont believe someone just created everything so hence the theory.

But what if everything just stayed the way it was?

Like first life would be created out of chemical reaction and then just stay as micro-organism. But somebody thinks they evolved and Im still asking why?
Ive never heard explanation for that.


And trust me Neuroscience101 , about 80% people I have listen take evolution theory as abosolute fact.

Although scientist and you have admitted there's lot of things to theorise with and not actual facts that can be carved in stone as sure thing.

 

[Neuroscience101]

Jari:

If you're asking why did life evolve, then you might as well ask why the cooled energy from the big-bang became hydrogen and helium primarily.

To put it succinctly, have you ever played the game telephone? The mRNA and DNA in your body play that exact same game; a single-celled organism would also be playing the game as it's consistently trying to copy its own DNA and rebuild. However, chemical reactions are tricky and sometimes end up in a change in the protein sequences called a mutation.

Microevolution, which is what I think you're referring to, would say that life evolved on the small sense because of mutations in the genome (at least at the single-cell level); as more mutations took place and organisms became more complex, adaptations to the environment became more and more beneficial. For instance, the natural process of DNA replication and mutation - as well as environment - may explain why Arctic Hares are more prominent in the arctic than in the Sahara.

Though, Jari, I don't think I ever said that you should doubt theories. True, you don't need to prove them as absolute facts as further evidence might render them mute, however the hope of new evidence should not turn you away from the current best available explanation. Those people probably take Evolution via Natural selection as fact because, in the scientific community, there is no better theory available at the moment. They treat it as fact in the same way we treat the theory of gravity fields as fact in Physics.

I'm also not so sure that I've ever said theories do not have actual facts behind them; that would be a lie if I ever said that. They have the potential to be disregarded with new evidence, but the only reason theories exist is 9/10 (at least in the modern age; in the past, some theories were thrown left and right) they have evidence to back it up, as is the case with Darwin's Origin of Species.

 

[jari]

Jari:

If you're asking why did life evolve, then you might as well ask why the cooled energy from the big-bang became hydrogen and helium primarily.

To put it succinctly, have you ever played the game telephone? The mRNA and DNA in your body play that exact same game; a single-celled organism would also be playing the game as it's consistently trying to copy its own DNA and rebuild. However, chemical reactions are tricky and sometimes end up in a change in the protein sequences called a mutation.

Microevolution, which is what I think you're referring to, would say that life evolved on the small sense because of mutations in the genome (at least at the single-cell level); as more mutations took place and organisms became more complex, adaptations to the environment became more and more beneficial. For instance, the natural process of DNA replication and mutation - as well as environment - may explain why Arctic Hares are more prominent in the arctic than in the Sahara.

Though, Jari, I don't think I ever said that you should doubt theories. True, you don't need to prove them as absolute facts as further evidence might render them mute, however the hope of new evidence should not turn you away from the current best available explanation. Those people probably take Evolution via Natural selection as fact because, in the scientific community, there is no better theory available at the moment. They treat it as fact in the same way we treat the theory of gravity fields as fact in Physics.

I think the question still remains why do things evolve even though you may try to explain via science how everything has the nature to evolve, it still doesnt answer the questions why everything is evolving.

Its same as asking why does coffee maker make coffee? And answering with the technical details how coffee is made in the maker. This is not the ultimate answer even its interesting. The real answer, we are looking for, is somebody turned the coffee maker on!


Same with evolution, why is the world the way it is. How can life become self aware and have goal to evolve.

I think only will and design can make something evolve. Because what really gave any creatures DNA the Code/order to evolve in the first place?

And i dont think fish can turn into a creature living on ground without someone putting in its DNA the idea to adapt.

So this is what my main question is. Where does this will to adapt and evolve come from?

From what I understand from chemistry is that if u mix substances chemical a reaction happens and life was born out of water but how can life have such attribute as evolving?

I know there's lot of things in creatures of similar behaviour like small changes in species when some animal has loosed ability or feature over the time. Or wounds that heal. But these all follow a pattern and my question still is where did this idea to follow the pattern come from?


I think the will to evolve had to be evolved it self, in order for it to be possible for things to begin evolving. What do you think?

 

[jari]

Neuroscience101 . I hope im not too boring with my question.

I think you already said scientist just dont know why life evolves. But I wanted to post in order to glarify what i have been thinking.

And its perfectly ok if you dont want to answer my questions



I just dont buy evolution theory my self because even somebody would think its correct I think you could make many other theories just as well that seem just as correct.
So thats why im not buying it

 

[Neuroscience101]

I think the question still remains why do things evolve even though you may try to explain via science how everything has the nature to evolve, it still doesnt answer the questions why everything is evolving.

How does the idea of genetic mutation not answer that why?

Are you expecting some glorious answer that will solidify the idea of "why are we here?" If that's the case, then science would say we are here because it is possible.

Its same as asking why does coffee maker make coffee? And answering with the technical details how coffee is made in the maker. This is not the ultimate answer even its interesting. The real answer, we are looking for, is somebody turned the coffee maker on!

No, it's not the same thing. This gets back to the Ray Comfort idea of "every painting needs a painter"; the problem with this analogy is that you only know that coffee makers and paintings are designed because you don't see them occurring naturally, and you know the process by which they are designed. You don't know that life was designed, so then can't use the argument of "I know it's designed because it has a designer."

Same with evolution, why is the world the way it is. How can life become self aware and have goal to evolve.

Why are we self-aware? Most neuroscientists I know would attribute that to the billions of action-potentials in your brain.

You seem to think that "evolve" is an intrinsic goal. No one said it was. Survival may be an intrinsic goal but survival is not evolution.

I think only will and design can make something evolve. Because what really gave any creatures DNA the Code/order to evolve in the first place?

Again, you act on the assumption that something or designer must have done it when there's no reason to think that (see: Ray Comfort above). The DNA code is a series of simple proteins which are amino acids, which are simple nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrofen (sometimes sulfur). We know that all of these elements come from the stars; abiogenesis which is NOT evolution has demonstrated that these things can come together and form life under certain environmental conditions.

Once more: abiogenesis is not evolution. They are two separate things.

So this is what my main question is. Where does this will to adapt and evolve come from?

Again, you seem to think there is a will to evolve and I don't agree with that. I would guess our will is to survive; evolution - then - is the explanation as to why that will to survive has produced some complex changes between organisms.

I think it's an interesting discussion which highlights some difficulties in communication, probably between the scientific community and the populace.

 

[Neuroscience101]

I just dont buy evolution theory my self because even somebody would think its correct I think you could make many other theories just as well that seem just as correct.
So thats why im not buying it

If that's your conviction, then there's no stopping you. I would, of course, you see some experts and get the straight evidence and do your own research to see exactly why you couldn't just make another theory that's just as correct, but I respect your opinion.

 

[jari]

No, it's not the same thing. This gets back to the Ray Comfort idea of "every painting needs a painter"; the problem with this analogy is that you only know that coffee makers and paintings are designed because you don't see them occurring naturally, and you know the process by which they are designed. You don't know that life was designed, so then can't use the argument of "I know it's designed because it has a designer."

But I dont believe evolving could have started out of random But scientist believe it did.

Although theres no quarantee for anything to happen after a bang (big bang). Even though many others things could happen out of random but it all came out orderly to this day's world?

And life became so beatiful and so smart? Out of random?

I have always thought it takes a lot faith to beleive that.

Thats why designer is what i believe in..

 

[David777]

Back neuroscience.

Yes, neuroscience, you did throw a ton of knowledge at me. That's ok, I will just have to break it down into manageable chunks.

You said,

"Agnosticism is more of a philsophical viewpoint on knowledge in general, simply claiming that absolute knowledge is impossible. This leads to the perplexing rise of "Agnostic atheists" which are pretty much soft atheists..."

I found this component of your reply confusing. I need further info on your definition. You seem to unite athiesm with agnostism. This is perplexing indeed neuroscience. Please do not take any of this in a personal way. I am interested in ascertaing your belief brother. I know you believe, we just have to find out what it is you believe?

What is your definition of God, this I also require.

Further, a definition of knowledge would be helpful.

All these i do require, otherwise confusion reigns. With these areas clarified i can examine the rest of your reply. Thankyou.

 

[Neuroscience101]

Yes, neuroscience, you did throw a ton of knowledge at me. That's ok, I will just have to break it down into manageable chunks.

You said,

"Agnosticism is more of a philsophical viewpoint on knowledge in general, simply claiming that absolute knowledge is impossible. This leads to the perplexing rise of "Agnostic atheists" which are pretty much soft atheists..."

I found this component of your reply confusing. I need further info on your definition. You seem to unite athiesm with agnostism. This is perplexing indeed neuroscience. Please do not take any of this in a personal way. I am interested in ascertaing your belief brother. I know you believe, we just have to find out what it is you believe?

What is your definition of God, this I also require.

Further, a definition of knowledge would be helpful.

All these i do require, otherwise confusion reigns. With these areas clarified i can examine the rest of your reply. Thankyou.

I'll try to clarify, David. I wouldn't want to confuse anyone. I also won't take anything you say in a personal way; it wouldn't be fair of me to take offense while we're having such a civil conversation - a rare treat on the internet. It's only right that I not take offense to anything said; if I was offended by every line of inquiry, then we wouldn't be able to discuss fully and that wouldn't get us anywhere

Agnosticism is the idea that certain things - mostly claims - cannot be known with a hundred percent certainty. However, it's more of a philiosphical view and doesn't much help us in the real world. For instance, if someone tells you they have a magic, invisible giraffe in their backyard, you can't be completely certain that he does or does not, but you probably won't bother to go check it out, comfortably dismissive of the idea.

Agnosticism and Atheism are not the same thing - and I don't mean to give the impression that they are - but the two can work in tandem as one is a framework of skepticism and the other deals with non-belief (or absolute belief, depending on which Atheists you're talking to) in a God or deity.

To give an example: Richard Dawkins would be considered a "Hard Atheists" - He truly believes there is no God or deity. The majority the atheists you may meet however as agnostic atheists - They understand that the claims for God cannot be absolutely knowable/unknowable, but they - in practical terms - lack belief in a God or deity.

My definition of God will probably be different than yours, however I would define God as "the creator of the Universe."

I don't think I could provide a definition for knowledge. This would only be because I'm unaware of Psychologies operational definition, and I know that philosophers have debated that definition and continue to do so. That gets into the realm of epistemology which - as much as I like theory - is far too theoretical for my tastes

 

[David777]

Thanks neuroscience.

I could not agree more on the difficulty of the definition of knowledge. We will leave it undefined. Definition of God as creator, fine by me.

As far as a definition of athiesm, non belief in God. Agnostism, insufficient knowledge to know of God.

Shall we proceed. To the next paragraph of your reply.

"To go back on the idea of the supernatural, this eventually leads us into a case of special pleading, if you argue that the Atheists cannot know of the supernatural, then there's no way that the Muslim, the Christian or the Witch-doctor could know of the supernatural. This leads to belief, which those of faith have and the Atheists lacks. I don't see the issue arguing that atheists lac belief, as belief and knowledge are not synonymous."

The word Supernatural is not definable by human rational thought. Hence, if an athiest does not consider the possible existence of the supernatural. Then the supernatural does not exist to an athiest. It does of course not mean that the supernatural does not exist. Just that they refuse to consider or to believe it does.

Do you see neuroscience, that athiesm may in fact be a refusal to believe rather than non belief. This refusal to believe is not based on any hard evidence, rather it is fashionable in this day and age. It may appear a fair position, but is rather narrow and submissive of that which it does not understand.

If God appeared to neuroscience and said "I am", neuroscience would then consider the supernatural as real. Neuroscience would then tell david777 that God had spoken to him. So how would I respond? Take another blue pill neuroscience and have a good lie down. This is the true definition of athiesm, "those who have not recieved the revelation". This is only logical neuroscience no matter how you attempt to define athiesm.

It is temporal, shallow, and very contempory. No slight intended.

How's that so far.

 

[Neuroscience101]

I could not agree more on the difficulty of the definition of knowledge. We will leave it undefined. Definition of God as creator, fine by me.

As far as a definition of athiesm, non belief in God. Agnostism, insufficient knowledge to know of God.

I would take issue with your definition of agnosticism, if only because it is not insufficient knowledge, but rather the idea that absolute knowledge pertaining to certain things is not entirely possible.

The word Supernatural is not definable by human rational thought. Hence, if an athiest does not consider the possible existence of the supernatural. Then the supernatural does not exist to an athiest. It does of course not mean that the supernatural does not exist. Just that they refuse to consider or to believe it does.

Ah, but that's a fallacy of equivocation. The word "supernatural" is definable by human thought - rational or otherwise. If it were not, we could not define it; it is entirely possible to define something with or without its existence. For instance, we have defined leprechauns.

The word supernatural and the supernatural are not the same thing.

You're also assuming that the atheist does not consider the existence of the supernatural; it is entirely possible that the atheist does consider the supernatural, yet does not believe in it because he has no evidence for it. There's nothing there to imply a refusal to believe, as there is nothing there to justify a belief. Essentially, there is no difference then between the Atheist who has considered the supernatural and anyone else. However, none of this matters because of this important caveat to belief:

Regardless of whether or not someone believes something or no is not indicative of somethings existence. Essentially, you're making a special plead by saying that, "because the atheist does not believe in the supernatural, and they can't be sure that it doesn't exist, then it must not exist to the Atheist but exist for everyone else." This is a case of special pleading because it asks for different rules depending on some defining characteristic; something cannot "not exist" for someone else, but exist for others. Existence is one of those all-or-nothing things.

It's like Schroedinger's cat: A cat in a box cannot be both alive and dead at the same time.

Do you see neuroscience, that athiesm may in fact be a refusal to believe rather than non belief. This refusal to believe is not based on any hard evidence, rather it is fashionable in this day and age. It may appear a fair position, but is rather narrow and submissive of that which it does not understand.

No, I do not. For the atheist to refuse the belief in the supernatural, there has to be a justification for that belief. If the atheist - as I alluded to in the last paragraph - has no evidence for that belief, then he's not refusing to believe something. He simply just doesn't believe.

For instance, if an agnostic atheist - or someone who understands that absolute knowledge in certain areas is impossible - considers the possibility of the supernatural, but does not believe in God afterwards, how can you then say that he is refusing belief? You have no reason to assume that he was given justification for a belief in the supernatural so how can you then imply that he (or she) has refused the belief?

If God appeared to neuroscience and said "I am", neuroscience would then consider the supernatural as real. Neuroscience would then tell david777 that God had spoken to him. So how would I respond? Take another blue pill neuroscience and have a good lie down. This is the true definition of athiesm, "those who have not recieved the revelation". This is only logical neuroscience no matter how you attempt to define athiesm.

David: If God appeared to me and said, "I am" - in order to have a firm belief in the supernatural - I would need to first discover that I wasn't hallucinating, ascertain the material presence of God before me (matter, energy, etc.) and then be able to explain how that matter and energy appeared before me. If there was no other explanation other than the intervention of the supernatural, then I would not only consider it, but the scientific community would finally have evidence of the supernatural. However, as I said, it requires that I be able to disclaim any other possible explanation.

However, moving on, that definition of atheism doesn't work. Not only have you stated its logical without any sort of reasoning behind it, but it also paints everyone who does not believe in the Christian God as an atheist; you're basically stating that no matter how I - or an atheist, a Muslim, or a Hindi - define their own religion, that they do not believe in a God. I would have to say that "is rather narrow and submissive of that which it does not understand."

Your comment on "revelation" also alludes to another problem we would have. We agreed to a definition of God to be "creator of the universe". Under that definition, there's no "revelation", no division or separation, and not even - really - a reason to discuss the supernatural as there is no reason to assume, with that definition, that God is supernatural.

I'm going to assume that you're now referring to the God as it is in the Bible. To put it numerically, the Bible (Christian) - with the New and Old Testament - if about 774,746 (some containing more or less) - Let's call it a cool 800k.

The definition I described is about four words; put as an expression, the definition I gave to the definition you're alluding to is about 4:800,000...which is a 200,000 magnitude difference between the definition we worked with, and the ideas you alluded to. I hope that we can discuss this point in the future, David

 

[David777]

Yo.

Hello again neuroscience.

You said,

"Ah, but that's a fallacy of equivocation. The word "supernatural" is definable by human thought - rational or otherwise. If it were not, we could not define it; it is entirely possible to define something with or without its existence. For instance, we have defined leprechauns."

Let's consider your reply. "Supernatural" has a definition, but this definition is not acceptable. It is defined as beyond the natural, beyond science. Hence, it is beyond human understanding, why define something that is impossible to understand? This is not equivocation, just a senseless definition.

You said,

"Regardless of whether or not someone believes something or no is not indicative of somethings existence. Essentially, you're making a special plead by saying that, "because the atheist does not believe in the supernatural, and they can't be sure that it doesn't exist, then it must not exist to the Atheist but exist for everyone else." This is a case of special pleading because it asks for different rules depending on some defining characteristic; something cannot "not exist" for someone else, but exist for others. Existence is one of those all-or-nothing things."

I said, "if the athiest does not believe in the supernatural, then for the athiest it does not exist". This is not a special plead, this is what an athiest believes. I never said it exists for everyone else. I said "this does not mean that it does not exist".

 

[Neuroscience101]

Let's consider your reply. "Supernatural" has a definition, but this definition is not acceptable. It is defined as beyond the natural, beyond science. Hence, it is beyond human understanding, why define something that is impossible to understand? This is not equivocation, just a senseless definition.

Why is the supernatural impossible to understand? If the supernatural were impossible to understand, then neither you nor I could talk about it, think about it, or even consider it.

Simply because something cannot adhere to the scientific method does not make it beyond understanding; that's another equivocation fallacy. The scientific method and understanding are not the exact same thing.

Yes, David. That is equivocation still. You're still arguing that the word and the thing are exactly the same. They are not, regardless of whether or not you think it is "just a senseless definition." For instance, is the word car the same as a car? Is the word black the same as the color black? No, they are not. The supernatural may be impossible to consider, but the word is not the same thing as it is simply a definition which allows us to work with the concept in an abstract sense.

They're not the same thing, David.

I said, "if the athiest does not believe in the supernatural, then for the athiest it does not exist". This is not a special plead, this is what an athiest believes. I never said it exists for everyone else. I said "this does not mean that it does not exist".

David, I've already explained to you that existence is not a subjective thing; it's an absolute that is separate from belief. It's not that the supernatural does not exist for the atheist, it's simply that they do not believe in its existence. Belief is not the same thing as truth.

You're now equivocating belief in something to its personal existence. This is a special plead because you're saying that - for the atheist - his lack of belief is the equivalent of non-existence to him, which is absolutely not true as I've already said that existence is not subjective.

Furthermore, you're arguing that an atheist "believes" when we've already agreed that Atheism is "non-belief in God". Non-belief is not the same thing as belief; to quote several atheists, "If non-belief is a belief, then off is a T.V. channel; if non-belief is a belief then bald is a hair color."

The absence of belief is not the same thing as having belief, in the same way that not having any candy isn't the same thing as having candy.

 

[will]

It doesn't matter. The article equivocates physical properties and laws with logic laws. It's a fundamental problem we're dealing with.

Uh, I don't think I said anything in my post to you about the science and discoveries. Unless you mean the existence of God, in which case, No, science will not tell you that God does not exist. Its findings will simply argue against an omnipotent, interventionist God.

There seems to be this stigma that "Science" is an singular ideal; it's not.

I brought up the term discovery because I thought you confuse what I said about some atheists who thought that logic is invented (not discovered) by human mind.

Anyways, your statement in bold above, not sure what you mean there. Science findings will argue *against*? how come? give me some examples.

No. The bold is a classic false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance. It presents only two options (either logic was invented, or it was discovered and God exists) and provides evidence for neither of them, asserting that if one is wrong then the other must be right. Chads article mentioned the logical law of non-Contradiction. What it so wonderfully forgets to mention is that two contradictory statements can both be wrong.

It is not a false dichotomy, it is a known dichotomy. One (naturalistic origin) depends on statistics and chance, the other depends on a set of books that claims it is written by a Supreme Being capable of creating the universe. I do not consider any other options because these two covers all possibilities.

Unless you are going to give us a third option on how the universe came about that does not involve God or evolution. Are you?

The same can be said about your statement that both can be wrong. If that is the case, what is the truth then?

If certain Atheists can't prove that logic is an invention, that does not give credence to the argument that God created the rules of logic. Disproving one does not prove the other; the other needs its own evidence.

It is not a matter of evidence, the evidence that God created the universe is evident, but only when you accept His claims in the Scriptures. I have no burden to convince you either way because that is not my battle.

But it is my duty to tell you about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That He died to atone for your sins and mine, and that we will find our purpose and fulfillment if we trust in His saving power and walk with Him through the study of the Scriptures every day.

Yes, I understand the difference between discovering and inventing. However, logic could have existed before humans formally refined and developed it. In that sense, the formal rules of logic are an invention while the idea of logic itself is more of a discovery as it is entirely possible for it to exist prior to the invention of formal rules. -- Logic, as a concept, is an invention but logic itself was a natural process. Some would call it an invention; I wouldn't in the same way I wouldn't call the formation of Hydrogen and Helium from the cooling of energy an invention.

Saying logic is a natural process is easy. But how do you substantiate it? Please show me how logic came about or constructed the way you explain how Hydrogen and Helium came to being.

Neuroscience101, time out a bit.

I don't know you from Adam. But the Holy Spirit has changed my perspective on how I perceive others. I care about you (and other people) in a way that would have been unthinkable (to me) before that change.

Have you received Jesus Christ as your savior? if you have, please indicate so, so I can rejoice and continue this discussions with you knowing that if needed be, we can continue in heaven .

But if you haven't, don't let your intellectual analysis prevent you from the most important decision you have to make in this life.

 

[Property Of God]

Great post brother Chad! Evolution is the idiot's way into intelligence. Since they can't figure God, they think they need something to discover. I think any person who believes in evolution, just believed in it cause their brain was too tired of thinking that they needed a theory to help them sleep at night.

 

[Neuroscience101]

Anyways, your statement in bold above, not sure what you mean there. Science findings will argue *against*? how come? give me some examples.

The easiest one to use is the argument of fine-tuning. Most people will argue that there must be a God because the universe is finely tuned for life. However, this argument also works against the idea of an omnipotent God because it means that it's this way or no way. If something is changed a little this way, we all die; a little bit that way and we never existed at all.

In essence, God cannot set the combination himself as only one way allows for life and potential worshippers. It is for that reason that God cannot - neither logically or scientifically - be omnipotent.

It is not a false dichotomy, it is a known dichotomy. One (naturalistic origin) depends on statistics and chance, the other depends on a set of books that claims it is written by a Supreme Being capable of creating the universe. I do not consider any other options because these two covers all possibilities.

Unless you are going to give us a third option on how the universe came about that does not involve God or evolution. Are you?

Yes, that is a false dichotomy. When you say "a set of books" you're referring to an entire continuum of religions; the options cannot be this or something from these many different ideas - Christianity is not the same as Islam, which is not the same as Hinduism, which is not the same as the Greek Gods.

Saying that the debate is Science vs. God is a false dichotomy, because there are a number of different "God"s on parade. The actual debate is Cosmology vs. Christianity vs. Judaism vs. Hinduism vs. Shintoism, etc. -- Yes, you are creating a false dichotomy. Regardless of whether or not you consider other religions valid, they are part of the debate in the same way that you don't consider the naturalistic option valid but it's part of your proposed debate. You're cherry picking which things go on which side, and that's simply not how it is.

Also - for the last time - Evolution does not explain the creation of the Universe or even how life cannot form from non-life. You're referring to the Big Bang Theory which - on its own - is not a set of theories and chances to explain the creation of the universe; in fact, it proposes only one possible way for the universe, as we see it now, to have been formed.

The same can be said about your statement that both can be wrong. If that is the case, what is the truth then?

I never said that wasn't the case. I simply don't know or claim to know - with absolute certainty - what the truth is. However, that doesn't lend any credence to your assertion nor does it hinder anyone else's. If you were then going to say, "because you don't know, you must consider my assertion" would be an argument from ignorance; I don't have to give any credence to your opinion simply because I don't know - or claim - absolute knowledge.

It is not a matter of evidence, the evidence that God created the universe is evident, but only when you accept His claims in the Scriptures. I have no burden to convince you either way because that is not my battle.

But it is my duty to tell you about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That He died to atone for your sins and mine, and that we will find our purpose and fulfillment if we trust in His saving power and walk with Him through the study of the Scriptures every day.

That has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance I pointed out.

Saying logic is a natural process is easy. But how do you substantiate it? Please show me how logic came about or constructed the way you explain how Hydrogen and Helium came to being.

I don't think it would be possible to explain the logic as a natural process in the same way that I could explain Hydrogen and Helium via BBT.

However, I'm not claiming that logic is a natural process; I'm setting a hypothetical that stands in contrast to your claim that "...if they say that human discovered logic, then they are up against the bible statement that God created everything". It's not a matter that I think that logic is a natural process, it's the fact that it is a possibility that logic could have existed between species before formal rules were developed for logic therefore allowing for "formal rules" to be an invention but logic itself to be more of a refined discovery.

The problem that you glazed over when you quoted me was the issue that:

It presents only two options (either logic was invented, or it was discovered and God exists) and provides evidence for neither of them, asserting that if one is wrong then the other must be right.

You still have yet to provide any evidence for either or your original claims; I willfully admit that I could not substantiate the idea of logic as a natural process - I simply don't know enough.

However, that does not give credence to your dichotomy, or either of your claims. The hypothetical is still a possibility regardless of whether or not I - myself - can substantiate it, just as your claims of an omnipotent God is possible but not substantiated or of the Atheists motives are possible but not substantiated.

 

[Neuroscience101]

Great post brother Chad! Evolution is the idiot's way into intelligence. Since they can't figure God, they think they need something to discover. I think any person who believes in evolution, just believed in it cause their brain was too tired of thinking that they needed a theory to help them sleep at night.

I've heard this one before, but I've always been perplexed by it:

How does Evolution stand against God? Why is it even an issue?

 

[David777]

Dear neuroscience.

You are correct, i was providing dual meanings. I will endeavour to avoid this. You must admit that semantics plays a significant role in this discussion. This was the initial problem, arriving at suitable meanings for terms.

Could you provide a definition of believe.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Cosmology isn't concerned with the origin of life (as we know it anyway). It's merely concerned - in a broad sense - with astrophysics; don't quote me on that though. I'm not a physicist.

Looks like folks here have been running you ragged I posed the question to the brother-in-law (Physics Professor) and I wanted to respect his privacy, since the science field can be a bit unforgiving so I'll give the part that pretty much sums up his perspective.

"Lastly, there are many people (especially scientists) who are coming from a perspective that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of truth. These people subsequently reject any notion of God, life after death, miracles, etc. Personally, I have never seen any reason to attribute this kind of power to science. Science has been a very successful endeavor but the assumption that everything can eventually be explained by science is (in my opinion) wishful thinking at best. There is no a priori reason to think that this will be the case. This kind of thinking is (to me) based on a BELIEF that the physical world is all that is, ever was and ever will be (as Carl Sagan put it). This may certainly turn out to be true, but I don’t believe it for a second. And the reason I don’t believe really comes from cosmology. If the universe had a beginning, then one of two things are true. Either, it was brought into existence by a Being, or it just somehow sprang into existence for no apparent reason. I find the second option incomprehensible and I go on from there. "

Believe this or not, but I also have a nephew who is a Nuclear Physicist grad from MIT who is also a believer! I guess you can be a scientist and know Christ Jesus as your savior, without compromising the science.

Psalm 51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden [part] thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

 

[Neuroscience101]

"Lastly, there are many people (especially scientists) who are coming from a perspective that scientific knowledge is the only valid form of truth. These people subsequently reject any notion of God, life after death, miracles, etc. Personally, I have never seen any reason to attribute this kind of power to science. Science has been a very successful endeavor but the assumption that everything can eventually be explained by science is (in my opinion) wishful thinking at best. There is no a priori reason to think that this will be the case. This kind of thinking is (to me) based on a BELIEF that the physical world is all that is, ever was and ever will be (as Carl Sagan put it). This may certainly turn out to be true, but I don’t believe it for a second. And the reason I don’t believe really comes from cosmology. If the universe had a beginning, then one of two things are true. Either, it was brought into existence by a Being, or it just somehow sprang into existence for no apparent reason. I find the second option incomprehensible and I go on from there. "

I would agree with your brother-in-law on many issues. There are some (but not many) who consider science the only form of truth, but there are limitations to science as there are any other thing.

He's also right that, in a broad sense, that there is no reason to think that the physical world (the Universe we currently have) is all that ever was and all that ever will be...but this is where I part from your brother-in-law.

For the fact remains that there is no a priori reason to believe in either the idea that the natural is all there is or the idea that there is more. At this point, it comes down to a matter of personal preference; there's no reason to believe either. However, I do share your brother's conviction that the Universe was created by something more intelligent, more patient, and more understanding than (more than likely) any human that has ever lived.

This doesn't mean that my belief is correct and - using your brother-in-laws word - there is no "a priori reason" to believe that, other than the fact that I - personally - cannot fathom another possibility. However, it's entirely possible that his latter option is the actual answer; my belief is not a substitute for fact.

I think the issue most people come to then is, "If I believe there is a God, then which God do I believe it is?" If your brother-in-law has decided that Christianity is the best option, then that's fine but of course some people would take exception to that based on the rather core principles that seem to contradict even our own understanding (age of Earth, light from stars, fossils, etc.).

This (in my opinion) leads to the perplexing difference between some Christians who would claim one of three things: 1) Science is wrong, 2) The Earth is only 6,000 years old but God made it look older, or 3) It's actually just a metaphor (please note that these are not exhaustive and are only indicative of my experience -- I welcome any other answers).

I - personally - never saw why both a creator and science cannot both be right. After all, if there is a God, then science is merely the description of what he did (or set in motion) and how.

Your brother-in-law has an interesting perspective and I understand the need for privacy. Although, I would say that there are a good many physicist who are actually deists.

Thank you for allowing me insight into his perspective

Could you provide a definition of believe.

My definition would be, "A personal feeling and/or cognitive appraisal about a thing or concept with or without the presence of evidence supporting the feeling."

EDIT: And I do understand the issue semantics plays in discussions. I apologize if I've been confusing in any part of our discussion myself =)