justlookinla
Regular Member
Only naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life as we know it today?
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.
The naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it today.
Well, actually, the theory does say that. However, it cannot be proven that only naturalistic mechanisms were ever applied. In the same way, it cannot be proven that the present position of Pluto is only due to natural law. Who can possibly rule out angels pushing it around a few centuries ago?
Of course, there is no reason to suspect anything other than natural law for the present position of Pluto, and there is no reason to suspect anything other than natural law for the evolution of life.
The naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it today.
Only naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life as we know it today?
Well, the theory does not state; "only", but you are correct, it only mentions natural mechanisms, because that is what science can examine.
It just so happens, the theory works with those natural mechanisms as well.
Science cannot examine the view that only naturalistic mechanisms creating the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.
Those who embrace Godless creationism are embracing a faith based creationist system.
Science can examine evidence. Have any?
Science cannot examine the view that only naturalistic mechanisms creating the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.
Those who embrace Godless creationism are embracing a faith based creationist system.
Nothing but pseudo-science guesses and suppositions. That wouldn't qualify as evidence.
Yes, it is. You don't like the evidence, so your only recourse is to pretend that it was magically poofed into being by a deity.
The same way we know that fingerprints do not just pop into existence.
Ummm....it makes unsubstantiated guesses and suppositions?
While I agree that natural mechanisms are sufficient, Just wants to take that to mean that the theory of evolution makes a statement about the non-existence of God. Additionally, while the theory shows the sufficiency of natural mechanisms, it is not taught in school that they are the only mechanisms in the development of life.Well, actually, the theory does say that. However, it cannot be proven that only naturalistic mechanisms were ever applied. In the same way, it cannot be proven that the present position of Pluto is only due to natural law. Who can possibly rule out angels pushing it around a few centuries ago?
Of course, there is no reason to suspect anything other than natural law for the present position of Pluto, and there is no reason to suspect anything other than natural law for the evolution of life.
The naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it today.
No.
Here's your question again:
IF the universe is such that makes life highly improbable according to such highly refined requirements but it has met those highly refined requirements what made that possible?
Notice the bolded part? That's where your assumption is embedded.
You assume that the reason for the universe to be the way it is, is to make life possible. And as formulated, you are asking me why that is the case.
It's just an obfuscated variation of "why do you hit your wife"?
Here's the question formulated so that it doesn't make such assumptions:
Why is the universe the way it is and could it have been any different?
And the answer to that is: we don't know, cosmologists are trying to find out (and priests pretend to know already before asking the question).
You can't calculate the probability of something if you only have a set of exactly 1 example. You also can't calculate the probability of something if you don't know the initial conditions of the system.
Whenever you argue that "chance couldn't have done it", you are by definition appealing to ignorance. Because it's impossible to properly calculate those chances for the reasons I just gave: your sample is to small and you have no idea what the initial conditions are.
As I've said so many times, for all you know, the probability of the universe to be the way it is is exactly 1 in 1.
We know next to nothing about the origin of the universe.
...while appealing to what isn't known. Appeal to ignorance.
...
Those who embrace Godless creationism are embracing a faith based creationist system.
This is not about what I think. I asked you a question about your position.
This has no correlation whatsoever. Finger prints are a known feature of the human being and are a product that needs a human to exist.
And unfortunately, when seen often, it makes them also distrustful of Christianity. How valid is the message of Christ if his followers have to resort to dishonesty to support it?Let us not play word games as a means of winning people to Jesus. It only makes the people on whom you play the word games distrustful of you.
Yes science can. Even with the "only" thrown in, a scientific judgment as to the sufficiency of the mechanism can be made. And the judgement has been made, and the mechanism seems to be sufficient.
This statement is empty of useful content. Of course, we all have a little faith in such things as the consistency of experience. It doesn't make much sense to stress the word "faith" to include that. Being skeptical about God is not normally considered an act of faith.
Let us not play word games as a means of winning people to Jesus. It only makes the people on whom you play the word games distrustful of you.
And unfortunately, when seen often, it makes them also distrustful of Christianity. How valid is the message of Christ if his followers have to resort to dishonesty to support it?
I think the message of Christ can stand on its own when presented with honesty and integrity. Obviously not all agree but it is what I think.
Dizredux
Actually the complete opposite is true.
The Theory of Evolution is based on evidence, not faith.
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?