Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're really not helping your case.
Oh, but you're willing to just accept that some entity that's outside of the universe just made the universe and tweaked things from outside like they're playing The Sims?
Because if we aren't absolutely certain, it's "just an opinion"? That's not rhetorical spin at all to insinuate you're "right" because we can't "prove" something that isn't proven (science doesn't often deal in that, only formal science at best in the technical use of that term)I don't have a case. I'm not here to prove anything. I'm just here to gather opinions; and that pretty much all that has come my way.
Ray Comfort called
Science makes assumptions and uses axioms without proof. So what's wrong with any other set of assumptions about the causation of life?Using magic as an answer in an science debate is an auto-loss.
So you believe in hard deterministic atomism and God is effectively Laplace's demon? Cute, but demented as well, because it means we have no freewill in a meaningful sense and effectively are pawns in the game of an entity that would seem by that description to be morally questionable in motivation for creating the world.My view is that each identifiable particle of force is on its trajectory, as planned from the start. Each one going where it's supposed to go, each moment.
Science makes assumptions and uses axioms without proof. So what's wrong with any other set of assumptions about the causation of life?
Because scientific axioms are neutral in application, they're not trying to insinuate things from an anthropocentric perspective that regards us as superior to animals and the like. If this is the best you have, not sure you're remotely understanding science in the first place if you throw out "proof" when talking about natural sciences and suggest that because we cannot have "proof" of such things as uniformity of nature in a scientific manner that we're engaging in faith based claimsScience makes assumptions and uses axioms without proof. So what's wrong with any other set of assumptions about the causation of life?
I'm glad you understand the irony.
Well, you're basically engaging in his tactics, and I'm genuinely surprised, seeing how much he advertises his tripe. Way of the Master? Kirk Cameron? Evangelists that do selective interviews and try to suggest evolution is something atheists and such have faith in and "even the playing field"?Never heard of him.
Life exists on Earth now. At some point it did not. So at some point life began to exist. That is abiogenesis. If it had not happened we would not be alive here to talk about it.
I think you do believe in abiogenesis. You just don’t want to call it that.I don't think that I do. I think that it actually takes more faith to believe in abiogenesis.
Science makes assumptions and uses axioms without proof. So what's wrong with any other set of assumptions about the causation of life?
So you're saying that if life was shuttled in from another planet; that's abiogenisis?
So you believe in hard deterministic atomism and God is effectively Laplace's demon? Cute, but demented as well, because it means we have no freewill in a meaningful sense and effectively are pawns in the game of an entity that would seem by that description to be morally questionable in motivation for creating the world.
So you're saying that if life was shuttled in from another planet; that's abiogenisis?
He's right. Science offers no proofs. Math does.You dont seem to understand how science works.
Because if we aren't absolutely certain, it's "just an opinion"? That's not rhetorical spin at all to insinuate you're "right" because we can't "prove" something that isn't proven (science doesn't often deal in that, only formal science at best in the technical use of that term)
That's Panspermia. A legit theory.That would be abiogenesis yes.
However, there is no data supporting that idea.
They might have swiped it from me. I was online taking about the faith of Atheists almost 20 years ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?