It is a fundamental theory of biology, that's all.
It has nothing to do with cosmology.Are you saying that the ToE is not the foundation and basis of modern science?
I am asking you, and had been for a couple of preceding posts, what your point was.I don't see the point you are tying to make here.
First we have to clear up a misapprehension you seem to have that the ToE might apply to some other field than biology.Let's stay with that for a moment then. How has the ToE, as applied to biology, solved the biological problems we face?
Strawman alert! Ignorant or deceptive use of past tense. Honest question would be "How might the TOE help us to solve . . . .etc. "Let's stay with that for a moment then. How has the ToE, as applied to biology, solved the biological problems we face?
It has nothing to do with cosmology.
It has nothing to do with astrophysics.
It has nothing to do with geology (barring palaeontology, which supplies it with data, not the other way round.)
It has nothing to do with nuclear physics.
It has nothing to do with planetology.
It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (barring the insights QM provides to molecular biology)
Etc.
I am asking you, and had been for a couple of preceding posts, what your point was.
Strawman alert! Ignorant or deceptive use of past tense. Honest question would be "How might the TOE help us to solve . . . .etc. "
It's not much use in nuclear physics, either. I wonder why?It seems then that the ToE operates in a very small, select area of science. So why does the term appear in just about every science article about every scientific discipline?
My point is that it isn't helping us much with some very pressing problems, particularly climate change?
That is explicit acknowledgement that you deliberately use strawmen arguments, thereby dishonestly seeking to trick and deceive members. Or is it just more of your accidental (?) obfuscation?
That is explicit acknowledgement that you deliberately use strawmen arguments, thereby dishonestly seeking to trick and deceive members. Or is it just more of your accidental (?) obfuscation?
Your religion says agnostic, meaning you don't know, you're in unbelief. Theirs say atheist meaning they know for sure they believe there is no God.As far as I can see - in this instance, quite far - @Subduction Zone was not talking about God, but about one interpretation of Biblical Scriptures describing the suggested relationship between God and Man. Does this mean you only accept theological arguments or scriptural analyses, if they are offered by a Christian? (And if so do you consider such arguments and analyses equally sound if they come from a non-Baptist?)
@Subduction Zone please advise if I have misinterpreted the thrust of your post.
Nevertheless, the original point is well taken: many atheists in this forum know more about theology and the Bible than the general run of creationists.Your religion says agnostic, meaning you don't know, you're in unbelief. Theirs say atheist meaning they know for sure they believe there is no God.
Two separate points:Your religion says agnostic, meaning you don't know, you're in unbelief. Theirs say atheist meaning they know for sure they believe there is no God.
Nevertheless, the original point is well taken: many atheists in this forum know more about theology and the Bible than the general run of creationists.
My take on it is that creationists really don't know very much about the Bible or theology.That's because atheists here have diligently observed Christians and the bible and are often better able to present their arguments.
Two separate points:
1. Their atheist position does not exclude them from knowledge of theology. So would be good enough to answer my questions, repeated here for your convenience: Does this mean you only accept theological arguments or scriptural analyses, if they are offered by a Christian? (And if so do you consider such arguments and analyses equally sound if they come from a non-Baptist?)
2. I am an agnostic, but I am atheistic in regard to the Christian God.
It's questions of faith, and if you have no faith, then it's like speaking different languages, we're going to come to an impasse.
Do I take a literal interpretation on everything? No.
I'm not young earth, but I do have to acknowledge that most scientific estimates for the age of things are based on an assumption: That there is no God.
most young earth creationists base their timeline on another assumption of their own: That the bible gives a definite timeline with no gaps. They assume Adam sinned basically the same day he was created.
so I am actually agnostic on that question, as to the age of the world and universe.
I think we can probably use ice cores to count back a bare minimum age that is much older than 6000 years, but once we get into radiocarbon dating we're using an assumption that we know the original amount of C14 that was present, tying that with the assumption that there is no God and that this all happened on its own with no cause, it leads to an exaggerated age.
I'm also a theistic evolutionist.
Science does not make that assumption.I'm not young earth, but I do have to acknowledge that most scientific estimates for the age of things are based on an assumption: That there is no God.
I'm not young earth, but I do have to acknowledge that most scientific estimates for the age of things are based on an assumption: That there is no God.
It bewilders me that many members are unwilling or unable to answer a direct question with a direct answer. I think you may have answered "No" to my first question, but that is not at all clear, while you completely ignored my second question for the second time. I've re-read both my relevant posts and the questions seem quite clear, so I am at a loss to know why you chose not to answer them directly.It's questions of faith, and if you have no faith, then it's like speaking different languages, we're going to come to an impasse.
Do I take a literal interpretation on everything? No.
I'm not young earth, but I do have to acknowledge that most scientific estimates for the age of things are based on an assumption: That there is no God.
most young earth creationists base their timeline on another assumption of their own: That the bible gives a definite timeline with no gaps. They assume Adam sinned basically the same day he was created.
so I am actually agnostic on that question, as to the age of the world and universe.
I think we can probably use ice cores to count back a bare minimum age that is much older than 6000 years, but once we get into radiocarbon dating we're using an assumption that we know the original amount of C14 that was present, tying that with the assumption that there is no God and that this all happened on its own with no cause, it leads to an exaggerated age.
I'm also a theistic evolutionist.
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?