Evolution compatible with Creation?

The answer to your question, is simple if you summarize the more significant points of the two worldviews.

Naturalistic worldview


1.We assert the material universe is all there is.

2.We are molecular entities that have grown over millions of years through the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection.

3.Choice is ultimately an illusion as all our actions are functional responses to changing molecular configurations in our brains. Every choice, every assertion is a product of the past.

4.Values, beauty, hope, truth survive as ideas only so far as they help us survive. Everything of supposed value in this world is ultimately a product of molecular motion. There are no absolute consequences, only "survival values".

5.The only permissible universe is one that can be measured. A hypothetical, invisible universe inhabited by spiritual beings is dismissed as superstitious folly and precluded from academic discussion.

6.The "anthropic principle" is explained by postulating millions of parallel or sequential invisible, immeasurable universes, each run under random arrangements of natural law. We can then claim that the optimal interrelations in our universe are unsurprising - we simply would not be able to observe them anywhere else.

7.Focus on getting the maximum out of life because life is short.
When life ends, the lights go out. "Near death" experiences are dismissed as medical anomalies.

Biblical worldview

1.God is infinite, transcending both time and space.

2. We are made in His image, making us of infinite worth to Himself. He records every word we say and knows the number of hairs on our head.

3. Although we rebelled against God and brought a curse of futility, pain and death on both ourselves and creation, God sent His Son Jesus to take the penalty for our rebellion - on Himself. This was done as a free gift, but one we need to appropriate for ourselves.

4. Behind every miracle in the Bible is a demonstration of God's willingness and power to reverse the terms of the original sentence that hangs over nature and ourselves - always on His terms.

5. Fulfilled prophecies demonstrate God's transcendence over time. As we perceive a single moment God sees all of time - describing Himself as "I Am" - transcending time. A practical consequence is Judaism and Christianity contain extensive prophetic literature, e.g. the crucifixion of Jesus is predicted in the Psalms and Jesus' predicted both the fall of Jerusalem and the later re-establishment of Israel. Fulfilled prophecy provides a logical foundation for assurance of eternal life.

6. The laws of the universe interrelate in a way that optimally supports life on earth. The "anthropic principle" is exactly as expected: anything other than a rational universe would constitute a mystery.

7.Our actions are not pre-determined. Because we are created in the image of God our actions are completely free but carry eternal consequences.

8. Values, beauty, hope, and truth reflect absolute attributes that come from God and are available to enrich our present experience.

9. Sacrificial loving, practical caring should be our ultimate goals.

10. When life ends, the stage lights go on - we meet the Author of Life.

So in my humble opinion the answer is just an implicit or explicit "leap of faith" with respect to one´s choice of worldview.

Peace

Originally posted by edmc^2

Love, sense of Justice, Mercy and Power - along with kindness and other beautiful traits. No other creation on earth posses these attributes - thus we are made in his image.

Oh really?






Sad that they view us as "similar" while we slaughter them


It's exactly this "superiority complex" many believers have that annoys me so much. Us humans aren't as special as we like to believe. Everything you see around you is made up of elements that come from the core of stars, you, every animal, plants, the car you drive, EVERYTHING is made up of the same base elements. So claiming you are somehow that much better or more special makes you look a bit silly imo

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

The bible is accurate?? Maybe there's some stuff in there that is, just like Spiderman has some accurate descriptions of NYC...but crucial things such as genesis (we know humans didn't just pop up in their current form), the global flood (apart from having no evidence, it's also physically impossible), and people living in whales (do I really have to go there) for days are total hogwash.

edit on 1-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

MrXYZ, may I suggest to stick to reality - no comic strips please.

ciao,
edmc2

research is tedious but fun.

Says the guy who uses the bibles as "proof" for things, how ironic

Explain me this then: If your bible is true, the earth was created BEFORE the sun. We know that's not what happened. So I'm curious, how will you twist reality to make it "fit" this time

reply to post by edmc^2

"Argument from authority" is an illogical approach to debate. For every "expert" you produce to support the bible, I can produce one to demolish it, and we waste our time, achieving nothing.

However there is no need to produce experts to demolish the bible, as the only chapter relevant to this discussion is Genesis, and the creation accounts have already been demolished.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Consider, not only the fruits and vegetables we consume keeps us alive and healthy but they are also delicious. Why the taste? Evolution has no satisfactory answer other than it evolved. If so, why is there taste in the first placed? We can survive without the sweetness of a mango fruit, but why is it there? There are animals that are alive and can eat food without taste. We too can do that, but what kind of existence will it be? So it's a gift from the Creator of life. It was there to not only keep us alive but to enjoy life. Of course, due to man's disobedience, here we are in a dying state.

If you are not aware of the survival advantages conferred on primitive man by having a sense of taste, you have quite a bit of learning to do.

For two examples, once our ancestors lost their ability to produce their own vitamin C, it was vital this was eaten in sufficient quantities. A love of the tastes of fresh ripe fruits ensured this.
Poisonous plants are often very bitter, so an aversion to very bitter plants helped protect from poisoning.

We were not magically given the ability to detect which foods taste good.
We developed the sensation that foods which were beneficial to us tasted good because that enhanced survival.

Now notice these list - where the nutrients to sustain man comes from, proving that man was indeed "from the the dust of the ground": . . .

Did you expect evolution to produce plastic people?
Of course we are going to consist of the chemicals which can be found in our environment.

Love, sense of Justice, Mercy and Power - along with kindness and other beautiful traits. No other creation on earth posses these attributes - thus we are made in his image.

I've seen so many examples by my own pets that contradict your claim, I couldn't list them all.


Hmm. Getting back to nutrition, if god created us, why did he give us only 3 of the enzymes needed to make our own vitamin C, but give amost all other animals all 4 enzymes?
Did god want humans to suffer and die horribly of scurvy, but decide to prevent that happening in animals?

reply to post by Seed76

Originally posted by Seed76
The answer to your question, is simple if you summarize the more significant points of the two worldviews.

Evolution is not part of a worldview, it is part of science.
Science has no worldview anymore than a hammer does.

Naturalistic worldview

...the naturalistic (actually, I think you mean materialistic) worldview is not required for evolution to be true. Again, a sentient, all-powerful blob of water could have decided to try and take a crack at making life. Evolution would then take hold. It is not necessary to hold a materialistic worldview for this.

1.We assert the material universe is all there is.

Actually, it's more like "We assert that all we are able to show evidence for is the material universe"

2.We are molecular entities that have grown over millions of years through the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection.

Well, that's true regardless of materialism or religious outlooks...we are still molecular entities whether you like it or not.
And we've still evolved over millions of years.

3.Choice is ultimately an illusion as all our actions are functional responses to changing molecular configurations in our brains. Every choice, every assertion is a product of the past.

Whoawhoawhoa
Materialists are in disagreement over this one. There is determinism and free will. I am in favor of free will, as it makes more sense to me with the evidence presented. Of course, people are free to disagree with me on this as there isn't conclusive evidence.

4.Values, beauty, hope, truth survive as ideas only so far as they help us survive.

...nope, again not part of materialism. Materialists all have different views on these subjects.

Everything of supposed value in this world is ultimately a product of molecular motion. There are no absolute consequences, only "survival values".

Well, you got one thing almost right. There is one absolute consequence, death.

5.The only permissible universe is one that can be measured.

No, the only certain universe is one that can be measured. The only universe about which scientific claims can be made is one that can be measured.

A hypothetical, invisible universe inhabited by spiritual beings is dismissed as superstitious folly and precluded from academic discussion.

No....it's just treated as a hypothetical. It's treated exactly like invisible pink unicorns. You can't really say it doesn't exist, but it's definitely not something you can prove. It's an unfalsifiable claim and therefore not the realm of science.

6.The "anthropic principle" is explained by postulating millions of parallel or sequential invisible, immeasurable universes, each run under random arrangements of natural law. We can then claim that the optimal interrelations in our universe are unsurprising - we simply would not be able to observe them anywhere else.

I've tried to be polite, but these have all been really bad straw men that I've seen repeatedly from people who have been exposed to Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator"

There are various explanations for the anthropic principle, the hypothesis of multiple universes is only one of them...and there are actually many variations on that.
There are some that claim that there are multiple universes with different variations on natural law (though not random, as the various forces of the universe are interrelated).
There are some that claim that there are multiple universes that are all variations on the events of this universe through quantum mechanics that follow the exact same natural laws as this one.
There are some who claim we are a universe inside of another universe which has startling different and unassailable natural laws.
There are some who claim that this is the only universe, that the natural laws are the way they are because it is the only way that a universe can exist.

Then there's one last thing: Life evolves to its surroundings. Maybe there are forms of life that would exist with different physical laws, we don't really have the resources to know right now.

7.Focus on getting the maximum out of life because life is short.

More or less the only thing I agree with here.

When life ends, the lights go out. "Near death" experiences are dismissed as medical anomalies.

...because there is quite conclusive evidence that they are.

Biblical worldview

1.God is infinite, transcending both time and space.

And reason. And self-contradiction.

2. We are made in His image, making us of infinite worth to Himself. He records every word we say and knows the number of hairs on our head.

Infinite worth? I almost actually wrote "lol", have you not read a Bible?

3. Although we rebelled against God and brought a curse of futility, pain and death on both ourselves and creation, God sent His Son Jesus to take the penalty for our rebellion - on Himself. This was done as a free gift, but one we need to appropriate for ourselves.

So God couldn't just....say that things were cool now?
And honestly, the whole 'we rebelled against God' thing? It's silly, the story it is taken from is definitive fiction

4. Behind every miracle in the Bible is a demonstration of God's willingness and power to reverse the terms of the original sentence that hangs over nature and ourselves - always on His terms.

...yes, like the scientific impossibility of the 'sun standing still in the sky' (and yes, the Bible is a geocentric book), or the Biblical flood....where God in his infinite wisdom decides to shake up the Earth like an Etch-a-Sketch.

5. Fulfilled prophecies demonstrate God's transcendence over time.

....lol
Show me a single fulfilled Biblical prophecy that isn't self-fulfilling or easily refuted. Trust me, I've heard them all.

What about the prophecy that Jesus would return in the Apostles' lifetime? He's....1970ish years late on that one...

As we perceive a single moment God sees all of time - describing Himself as "I Am" - transcending time.

Yes, and it also creates self-contradiction, as an omnipotent, omniscient being is an inherently deterministic being. It has no free will because it is already aware of all of its future actions. If it were to change its actions it would prove itself wrong, thus negating its omniscience. If it were unable to change its actions it would not be omnipotent.

A practical consequence is Judaism and Christianity contain extensive prophetic literature, e.g. the crucifixion of Jesus is predicted in the Psalms

...really? No, not really.

Here's a challenge: Prove that Jesus was a historical figure.
You can't even prove the guy existed, let alone that he was crucified and thus fulfilled a very vague passage from a song...

and Jesus' predicted both the fall of Jerusalem and the later re-establishment of Israel.

Not really...and he sort of got his own return wrong.

Fulfilled prophecy provides a logical foundation for assurance of eternal life.

...not a single prophecy of the Bible is fulfilled.

6. The laws of the universe interrelate in a way that optimally supports life on earth.

...no, not really. Life evolved to fit various environments. The Earth is far from optimal for life. Sure, it's really good and I've got no room to complain seeing as I'm still alive. But optimal?

We've had several mass extinction events in our history (none of which were floods)
There are regular natural disasters. Some of the most fertile areas in the world are also the most seismologically active.
Hurricanes and other powerful storms
UV radiation

And, honestly...why bother with there being a whole universe? All those billions of light years...just to support one tiny speck of a speck of a speck?

The "anthropic principle" is exactly as expected: anything other than a rational universe would constitute a mystery.

Actually, an irrational universe would be fairly within an omnipotent being's power, and far more entertaining at times.

7.Our actions are not pre-determined. Because we are created in the image of God our actions are completely free but carry eternal consequences.

...so...God is all knowing, right?
So he knows what you're going to do tomorrow
What? You can do something different from what he knows?
Then he isn't all knowing.

...free will + omniscient deity = inherent contradiction.

8. Values, beauty, hope, and truth reflect absolute attributes that come from God and are available to enrich our present experience.

Values are subjective
Beauty is subjective
Hope is subjective
Truth is never absolute.

9. Sacrificial loving, practical caring should be our ultimate goals.

I see what you did there. You made it look like atheists are jerks because they want to 'live life to the fullest'.
Well...let's take the world's greatest philanthropist, atheist Bill Gates. He's living his life to the fullest by....trying to make the world a better place.
Richard Dawkins? He is trying to make the world a better place (even if you disagree with his methods and ideals)

Hell, I'm trying to live life to the fullest, that includes a lot of sacrificial loving and practical caring, I just don't expect an infinite reward for it.

10. When life ends, the stage lights go on - we meet the Author of Life.

And then we have to praise him for eternity.

So in my humble opinion the answer is just an implicit or explicit "leap of faith" with respect to one´s choice of worldview.

False dilemma. There are billions of worldviews, and you created a massive monstrosity of straw to represent the 'naturalistic' view.

"Evolution compatible with Creation?"

Yes.

reply to post by edmc^2

What a load of misrepresentation and quote-mining tosh.

Newton lived three hundred years ago in an age of universal faith. He was also mentally unstable, socially maladapt and aggressive, and keen on alchemy and lots of other mumbo-jumbo besides.

Your second quote is from a reader's letter published in the AMA Magazine and does not reflect the views of the editors and publishers. See here. Quoting this as if it substantiates your views is an act of typical creationist deceit.

The rest of your quotes are the usual propaganda from interested parties, not worthy even of comment.

The Bible is not a trustworthy source of scientific, geographical or historical information, as scholars who have tried to use it as a guide have found innumerable times. Found Noah's Ark yet? :

reply to post by Astyanax

“I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”
-- Sir Isaac Newton

True to the form, mind if I say, you are so predictable?

Here's what I said - “Of course, the only way to disprove these people is to discredit them...”

Interestingly, according to Wiki (not my first or second choice for sources):

Sir Isaac Newton FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])[1] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian, and is considered by many scholars and members of the general public to be one of the most influential people in human history. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Latin for "Mathematical Principles Of Natural Philosophy"; usually called the Principia), published in 1687, is probably the most important scientific book ever written. It lays the groundwork for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws, by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation; thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution.

Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope[7] and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound.

In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of differential and integral calculus. He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.

Newton was also highly religious. He was an unorthodox Christian, and during his lifetime actually wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics, the subjects he is mainly associated with.

en.wikipedia.org...-61

Einstein on Newton:

“Fortunate Newton, happy childhood of science! He who has time and tranquility can by reading this book live again the wonderful events which the great Newton experienced in his young days. Nature to him was an open book, whose letters he could read without effort. The conceptions which he used to reduce the material experience to order seemed to flow spontaneously from experience itself, from the beautiful experiments which he ranged in order like playthings and describes what an affectionate wealth of detail. In one person he combined the experimenter, the theorist, one mechanic and, not least, the artist in exposition. He stands before us strong, certain, and alone: his joy in creation and his minute precision are evident in every word and every figure.

“Reflexion, refraction, the formation of images by the lenses, the mode of operation of the eye, the spectral decomposition of the different kinds of light, the invention of the reflecting telescope, the first foundations of colour theory, the elementary theory of the rainbow pass by us in procession, and finally come his observations of the colours of thin films as the origin of the next great theoretical advance, which had to wait, over a hundred years, the coming of Thomas Young.

“Newton’s age has long since passed through the sieve of oblivion, the doubtful striving and suffering of his generation has vanished from out ken; the works of some few great thinkers and artists have remained, to delight and ennoble us and those who come after us. Newton’s discoveries have passed into the stock of accepted knowledge: this new edition of his work on optics is nevertheless to be welcomed with the warmest thanks, because it alone can afford us the enjoyment of a look at the personal activity of this unique man...”

These is just two of the many hundred testimony of the greatness of Sir Isaac Newton as a scientist.


And all you can come up with is this?

Newton lived three hundred years ago in an age of universal faith. He was also mentally unstable, socially maladapt and aggressive, and keen on alchemy and lots of other mumbo-jumbo besides.

Are all 'people who believe in evolution like you Asty? I hope not.

Very inspiring indeed specially for kids aspiring to be like Newton I might add.

As for the rest of what you said – I'll take your word “not worthy even of comment.”

As for Noah's Ark – why are you still looking for it? It's looooong gone. Good luck finding it.

And just to let you know – my trust and faith on the Bible as the Word of God does not depend on a looooong gone ark.

If you need more info about the Noah's Ark - it's all in the Bible.


Ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


1: Argument from authority
2: Newton lived at a time when it was impossible to question the Bible on most any basis for social reasons.
3: Argument from authority to back up your argument from authority (Einstein again? Seriously?)
4: Newton wasn't right about everything. There were a few points where he simply went "Goddit" and left work available for future, less faithful scientists (also less brilliant).
5: Newton didn't have access to a tenth of the information we have today. Not even a hundredth. We have more knowledge to support any claim today than Newton encountered in his lifetime.
6: Newton believed in the claims of alchemy
7: What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?
8: The Bible is bunk on the topics of science, I've pointed that out repeatedly.

reply to post by edmc^2

You were heard the first time. Your post was even replied to.

Newton was also highly religious. He was an unorthodox Christian,

Unorthodox, yes, but a Christian?
What's your opinion of someone who calls himself a Christian, but does not believe Jesus is the son of god?
Would you consider him an authority you should listen to?

If you wanted to publicly persue science and alchemy in a Catholic country in those days, you needed to be very vocal in your support for scriptural infallibility. Anyone not in agreement with the many tenets of the church was risking confiscation of property, torture, and death.


What about poor old Galileo, who was subjected to house arrest for the rest of his life because his findings contradicted the words of the bible?

reply to post by edmc^2

Are you trying to teach me about Newton? An old proverb about grandmothers and sucking eggs springs to mind.

And all you can come up with is this?

Astyanax: Newton lived three hundred years ago in an age of universal faith. He was also mentally unstable, socially maladapt and aggressive, and keen on alchemy and lots of other mumbo-jumbo besides.

I could come up with a lot more, but that will do. I stand by every word. Scholars of Newton will bear me out.

My trust and faith on the Bible as the Word of God does not depend on a looooong gone ark.

I don't care if it depends on Pamela Anderson's fake bustline. Trust and believe in the Bible all you like. Just don't expect to hear anything but derisive laughter from educated people when you quote it as a scientific source.

If you need more info about the Noah's Ark - it's all in the Bible.

A bit childish, all this, no? I suppose archaeological evidence for the desert wanderings of the Children of Israel is also 'looooooooong gone'? How about the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus? Also 'looooong gone', or are you going to bring up Tacitus and Josephus again? How about even one tiny bit of physical evidence for any aspect of the religious doctrines you subscribe to?

Oh, dear. Looks like that's 'looooooooooong gone' too...

reply to post by Kailassa

What's your opinion of someone who calls himself a Christian, but does not believe Jesus is the son of god?

Bravo, Kailassa!

Newton was indeed a believer in the Arian heresy, one of the oldest and blackest heresies of Christianity, one reviled by all major Christian denominations to this very day.

He may have believed in the 'truth' of the Bible, but his 'truth' and edmc^2's truths are in doctrinal opposition to one another. Wonder if they were reading the same Bible?

More about Newton's Arianism here, including a list of the elements of his Arian 'creed'.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by WfknSmth

 

Q5: What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order?

According to one calculation: the same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order.

The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

First post. I'm not sure if this was addressed, but I saw that it was questioned. The calculation used for this was solved by taking, 10! (10 factorial). In other words, take 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 = 3,628,800. This calculation is used for calculating the number of ways of reordering a ten number sequence, using numbers 1 through 10.

Originally posted by cxb450

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by WfknSmth

 

Q5: What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order?
According to one calculation: the same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order.
The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

First post. I'm not sure if this was addressed, but I saw that it was questioned. The calculation used for this was solved by taking, 10! (10 factorial). In other words, take 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 = 3,628,800. This calculation is used for calculating the number of ways of reordering a ten number sequence, using numbers 1 through 10.

The probability for that situation is correct, there's no argument there.
The problem is that people have been trying to use that figure to prove the Genesis account of creation to be true.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

8x for Madness' breakdown of edmc^2's last quote-spam.
Point 7 appears to be like herpes in this thread.
Nevertheless, I bet more fallacies and misapplications are to come...

@edmc^2:

Your dust-idea really made me chuckle thank you.
The term "Dust" is just a generalization for particals in specific scales and says nothing about the minerals or whatever it contains.

I just read a fascinating article about how nutrient-rich whale feces are... (best bio-fertilizer )
so according to your logic we could also be made of spacewhale-poop
Just kidding.

Originally posted by WfknSmth
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

8x

for Madness' breakdown of edmc^2's last quote-spam.
Point 7 appears to be like herpes in this thread.
Nevertheless, I bet more fallacies and misapplications are to come...

@edmc^2:

Your dust-idea really made me chuckle

thank you.
The term "Dust" is just a generalization for particals in specific scales and says nothing about the minerals or whatever it contains.

I just read a fascinating article about how nutrient-rich whale feces are... (best bio-fertilizer

)
so according to your logic we could also be made of spacewhale-poop

Just kidding.

edit on 3-12-2010 by WfknSmth because: (no reason given)

I'm glad that you're having fun in the sandbox mrSmth - just kidding.

ANyway, I find this fascinating, how come whenever 'people who believed in evolution theory' quotes something or provides a video link from someone - 'who believes in the evolution theory' and is a proponent of the evolution theory, 'people who believe in the evolution theory' assumes right away that the person being quoted who is a believer of evolution theory - is accepted as THE AUTHORITY - like a god?

Yet when I quote from an authority like Sir Isaac Newton - right away I get told that:

"Argument from authority" is an illogical approach to debate. -- Kailassa

.

sup with that? - me thinks, that 'people who believe in the evolution theory' have a very weak platfom and foundation so they can't allow any opposing POV especially an "Argument from authority".

And if not succesful - destroy the messenger by portraying him/her as a:

"mentally unstable, socially maladapt and aggressive, and keen on alchemy and lots of other mumbo-jumbo besides" -- msAsty

Why is that?

note:
sorry for the long description describing "people who believe in evolution". I was told not to use the term 'evolutionist' as it is (I guess) offensive to 'people who believe in evolution'

ty,
edmc2



later...

reply to post by edmc^2


The difference between us quoting sources for our claims and you quoting Newton is that Newton can't seriously be used as a source to prove/disprove modern evolutionary theory. Newton had no chance at knowing only 1% of what we know about evolution today.

Also, notice there's a difference between making a random statement that gets quoted (Newton's quote) and an actual scientific study. Scientists are humans too (I know, hard to believe), and unless they back up their claims with scientific studies, you should treat what they say as an opinion. Evolutionary theory ISN'T an opinion

Originally posted by edmc^2
ANyway, I find this fascinating, how come whenever 'people who believed in evolution theory' quotes something or provides a video link from someone - 'who believes in the evolution theory' and is a proponent of the evolution theory, 'people who believe in the evolution theory' assumes right away that the person being quoted who is a believer of evolution theory - is accepted as THE AUTHORITY - like a god?

Yet when I quote from an authority like Sir Isaac Newton - right away I get told that:

"Argument from authority" is an illogical approach to debate. -- Kailassa

.

sup with that? - me thinks, that 'people who believe in the evolution theory' have a very weak platfom and foundation so they can't allow any opposing POV especially an "Argument from authority".

Do you still not understand the problem of "Argument from Authority" after I've explained it to you?
If twenty venerable intellectuals tell you your computer is powered by mice on a treadmill, are you going to automatically believe them? Or would you want some proof first?

Any person can be mistaken. That's why scientific journals don't just write articles avbout the scientist concerned when they publish new data. The name or reputation of the scientist do not prove anything.
Instead, the journal published details of the experiments or investigation that lead to the finding, and will then publish comments and refutations from other scientists who can add to, question or disprove the methodology, data or conclusions.

If you check back, you'll find that no-one has argued against creationism by saying: "such and such agrees with me," and left it at that. We argue by presenting data and logical aguments. If your best counter to that is, "some book or some person says you're wrong," then you lose the debate.

Regarding Newton, as has been pointed out to you, he knew he was in danger of being burnt at the stake for his heretical beliefs, and so had to loudly support the bible for safety's sake.
He was obviously lying when he claimed a belief in the veracity of the bible, because if he did believe the words of the bible, he would also have to believe Jesus was the son of god. And he provably did not beieve that.

Also, how many of the indoctrinated men of his time knew more about the beginnings than the bible taught?

And if not succesful - destroy the messenger by portraying him/her as a:

"mentally unstable, socially maladapt and aggressive, and keen on alchemy and lots of other mumbo-jumbo besides" -- msAsty

Why is that?

You were the messenger in this case, and no, this was not said about you.

You chose to use Newton's reputation to bolster your argument.
And now you think examining that reputation was an unfair tactic?

note:
sorry for the long description describing "people who believe in evolution". I was told not to use the term 'evolutionist' as it is (I guess) offensive to 'people who believe in evolution'

No, you were not told the term was offensive 'to people who believe in evolution', you were taught why evolution is not a belief.
But don't worry. I'm sure all of us here understand your need to goad.

reply to post by edmc^2

Here we go again.

Originally posted by edmc^2:
[...]how come whenever 'people' quote something or provide a video link from someone - 'who believes in the evolution theory' and is a proponent of the evolution theory, 'people' assume right away that the person being quoted who is a believer of evolution theory - is accepted as THE AUTHORITY - like a god?

Because the way you've seen these quotes or links used is to substantiate an argument.

And no one expects you to accept it right away.
You dont have to believe in a theory... youre welcome to doubt it, go back to its hypothesis and test it...
If it turns out to be right, you know it is true. Its in the absolute contrary to the belief in a god.

Yet when I quote from an authority like Sir Isaac Newton - right away I get told that: "Argument from authority" is an illogical approach to debate. sup with that?

Because you're doing it wrong.
Look, you claim the bible is scientifical accurate (despite this is already proven to be wrong)
and you go and quote a person, who claims the same (wrong) point.
Youre saying:
"This authority (In this case I.Newton, who indeed was an authority, but on a totally different subjekt, with a lack of knowledge about our actual subjekt) said “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” Therefore (because he is Newton) it must be true.

Definition of an Argument from Authority:
1. Person A claims that P
2. Person A is a respected scientist or authority.
3. Therefore, P is true.

You have not proven that P is true... only that Person A claims P is true, not why... not a real argument.

edit: dang you guys write fast i swear when i started to write my reply your posts werent there yet