- May 20, 2021
- 3,136
- 574
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
Citation?Which god? There is no god worshiped by a majority of humans. In fact you can tell anyone on Earth that a majority of humans disagree with their god.
Five and five make ten.Creation is the claim, it is not an explanation.
If the multiple methods all rely on sophisticated apparatuses and highly skilled technicians then the decrease in uncertainty is minimal. Have you ever heard that doing the same thing twice and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity?On the contrary, having multiple methods by multiple experts that agree on an age decreases the uncertainty. Even carpenters know this basically, ever heard of measure twice cut once.
Riiiiight.If everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.
What's your point? What Catholics must believe as a matter of faith is concretely published. The Church does not make technical judgements and we have no obligation to hold or reject any of science's tentative positions.If everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief. But as you know, not even Catholics can seem to agree. Even disagreeing with each other on matters of basic science.
They're different fields - it's like complaining that the history of car makes & models doesn't include drilling for oil or smelting steel.Sounds like you agree.
The most fundamental property of a human being is that they are a living creatures. A comprehensive explanation of human beings, therefore, requires an explanation of how human beings came to life. Creation provides the explanation. Evolution does not.
100% of Christians ever born, alive today, and will be tomorrow believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.
Apparently, you live in the world of academia. From "Ghostbusters":What's the argument here? People interested in dinosaurs pay for dinosaur research? Are we supposed to be scandalized?
For me, I never accepted it in the first place as an alternative to creation.This just goes back to my earlier point in the thread. You seem to be rejecting science as a means of epistemology in favor of theological beliefs.
Are you serious?My impression from Christians is they don't seem to believe in the same god.
Riiiiight.
100% of Christians ever born, alive today, and will be tomorrow believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.
So why aren't atheists "seriously doubting their lacks of belief"?
No need to. The creation account is not proposed as science. Therefore, using science's standards to criticize the creation of man is inappropriate. However, the account must hold up to rational examination. Can you show any of it claims as irrational, or internally inconsistent. Go for it.Go for it!
Evidence gained from examining contemporary living beings does not support the theory of man evolving from eukaryotes. Do you have citations to support the direct observation of speciation? Of course, kindly tell us what "speciation" really means first.Er, no. Little of that featured in Darwin or Wallace's foundational work on evolution. Prior to molecular biology, there was also evidence from embryology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and comparative biochemistry, biogeography, direct observation of natural selection and speciation, and so-on. As paleontology developed, it provided increasing support for the patterns that had become apparent in those other independent lines of evidence.
Nice try / won't work.Because of people like you and o_mlly truth be told. Well, people like you were the start of me dismantling my religious beliefs. I used to think 'What? They really believe this?'
I was shocked then. More amused/bemused these days.
Not necessarily - any scientist should know that a sophisticated apparatus can have systematic error and highly skilled technicians can make systematic errors. That's why the scientific methodology and independent replication is important.If the multiple methods all rely on sophisticated apparatuses and highly skilled technicians then the decrease in uncertainty is minimal.
No, but I have heard that, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”Have you ever heard that doing the same thing twice and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity?
OK. So, what does your abiogenesis department have to offer?For a scientific approach to the origins of life, you need to look at abiogenesis, not evolution.
Why does a self-proclaimed scientist know so little about science?
What's your point? What Catholics must believe as a matter of faith is concretely published. The Church does not make technical judgements and we have no obligation to hold or reject any of science's tentative positions.
But you're okay with how we got our moon, aren't you?My point is that if everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.
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?