|
|
#21
09-24-2007, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
Thats the whole point, its an unguided physical process. [/ QUOTE ] Then do you really want to redo the Dennett thread? 
|
|
#22
09-24-2007, 03:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator. [/ QUOTE ] This is only true if the creator is part of the Universe that we can observe. It is completely conceivable that there would be some kind of being/force outside the Universe. You could argue that we would have no way of examining or having contact with this being/force, but I'm sure theists would say that is what prayer and meditation is for.
|
|
#23
09-24-2007, 03:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator. [/ QUOTE ] This is only true if the creator is part of the Universe that we can observe. It is completely conceivable that there would be some kind of being/force outside the Universe. You could argue that we would have no way of examining or having contact with this being/force, but I'm sure theists would say that is what prayer and meditation is for. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. If such a being exists, then it is, BY DEFINITION, part of the Universe and subject to its laws. This is because the Universe is defined as everything that exists.
|
|
#24
09-24-2007, 03:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Biology shows that a creator as complex as would be needed to create the universe could only arise as a result of a long evolutionary process, which requires the existence of the Unverse to begin with. Therefore there cannot have been a creator. [/ QUOTE ] This is only true if the creator is part of the Universe that we can observe. It is completely conceivable that there would be some kind of being/force outside the Universe. You could argue that we would have no way of examining or having contact with this being/force, but I'm sure theists would say that is what prayer and meditation is for. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. If such a being exists, then it is, BY DEFINITION, part of the Universe and subject to its laws. This is because the Universe is defined as everything that exists. [/ QUOTE ] Then you're assuming that we can observe the entire Universe and there is no way of proving that this is the case. For example, it is quite conceivable that we live in a Universe that we can't see outside of and that is within a larger Universe with different physical laws.
|
|
#25
09-24-2007, 03:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
Then you're assuming that we can observe the entire Universe and there is no way of proving that this is the case. For example, it is quite conceivable that we live in a Universe that we can't see outside of and that is within a larger Universe with different physical laws. [/ QUOTE ] No, I don't think that we can observe the entire Universe. I think that you are confusing 'observable universe' with 'Universe'. When I say 'Universe', I mean anything and everything that exists, regardless, whether or not we are aware of it.
|
|
#26
09-24-2007, 04:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready, Please go over to my microevolution thread. I took 3-1 that you would agree with at least 90% of it. [/ QUOTE ] I read your post. At first, I was reluctant to post because if I do I'm going to get trapped into answering an unending series of minute questions so you and your bettor can determine who wins. What I will do, if you agree, is make one and only one post in response. That's it. You and the bettor will have to decide from that who, if anyone, wins. But no exceptions, no further posts, no clarifications, no answers to anyone else's posts.
|
|
#27
09-24-2007, 04:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
.... I was reluctant to post because if I do I'm going to get trapped into answering an unending series of minute questions so you and your bettor can determine who wins. [/ QUOTE ] You certainly are trapped, but its a trap of your own making. We haven't trapped you, you have trapped yourself with your circular and contradictory logic.
|
|
#28
09-24-2007, 04:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Then you're assuming that we can observe the entire Universe and there is no way of proving that this is the case. For example, it is quite conceivable that we live in a Universe that we can't see outside of and that is within a larger Universe with different physical laws. [/ QUOTE ] No, I don't think that we can observe the entire Universe. I think that you are confusing 'observable universe' with 'Universe'. When I say 'Universe', I mean anything and everything that exists, regardless, whether or not we are aware of it. [/ QUOTE ] But if you define the universe as anything and everything that exists, you can't make any claims about it from what we have discovered scientifically. Our scientific understanding only relates to the observable universe. You can't make claims about the entire universe because it's not clear that we will ever be able to observe even .1% of it. So basically I'm saying that you can only make claims about the observable universe and it is perfectly consistent to claim that God (whatever that term means) is outside of the observable universe. That is why I said in my first post: [ QUOTE ] This is only true if the creator is part of the Universe that we can observe. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#29
09-24-2007, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] For all the Christian creationists on the forum: If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and keep his faith in God, why can't you? [/ QUOTE ] For all the atheists on the forum: If Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin's God ) is able to accept evolution and believe in God, why can't you? [/ QUOTE ] If you leave the concept of God vague and leave off the bonus attributes theists assign to "Him", I sort of do believe in God, I just don't call it that because it gives people the wrong idea. I have tried unsuccessfully to get this point across before but it's Monday so whatever [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#30
09-24-2007, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
No dodge. I've said before I don't think evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Just a small problem with evidence, like there is none. [/ QUOTE ] Simply amazing. NR, suppose you are the lead homicide detective investigating the rape and murder of some poor young girl. Analysis of the perpetrator's DNA (unlikely left due to only casual contact based on where it was found on the victim's body, etc) compared to the DNA of the girl indicates, according to the lab scientist, he is a relative. The girl's father is deceased, so suspicion immediately falls upon an uncle, who is the only nearby male relative. Would you consider the DNA analysis, by itself, sufficient evidence to get a court order to collect a sample of the uncle's DNA, and treat him as a suspect, or do you discount the claim of the crime lab scientist?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
