- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Just looking at the complexity of the human heart it's hard to imagine that it evolved.
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.
Plausible how?
Or is this another "gut feeling" thing?
Have you looked at the complexity of the hearts of other organisms?
Yup, personal incredulity based on feelings.
Understood.
So your God "created" all of the hearts that you have looked at, from the extremely simple muscle tube to the primate heart that you find so amazing, in a whole spectrum of complexity just to fool everybody into thinking the heart evolved over time?I have.
So your God "created" all of the hearts that you have looked at, from the extremely simple muscle tube to the primate heart that you find so amazing, in a whole spectrum of complexity just to fool everybody into thinking the heart evolved over time?
Do you think the human heart existed 70 million years ago? Or 270 million years ago? Or 500 million years ago?
Incredulity. You said it yourself when you stated, "it's hard to imagine...".
That's the very definition of incredulity.
The incredulity of a scientist or sceptic is based upon contrary evidence, or the lack of supporting evidence, not upon "beliefs" or "feelings" or "common sense" or "gut feel", or any of the other excuses that are used in an attempt to cover up the absence of rational thought.That door also swings both ways.
You may be confusing plausibility with mental effort - it's certainly easier, in terms of mental effort, to believe in creation, but it means ignoring multiple independent lines of evidence, gathered over 200 years, supporting common descent, ignoring the elegant and demonstrable natural mechanisms by which it occurs, and ignoring the implications of the practical applications of those discoveries and mechanisms.Creation seems more plausible to me.
You may be confusing plausibility with mental effort - it's certainly easier, in terms of mental effort, to believe in creation, but it means ignoring multiple independent lines of evidence, gathered over 200 years, supporting common descent, ignoring the elegant and demonstrable natural mechanisms by which it occurs, and ignoring the implications of the practical applications of those discoveries and mechanisms.
As an explanation, creationism lacks explanatory power, being untestable, giving no understanding of the diversity of creatures, their similarities, differences, and histories, and it gives no framework of understanding to unify our knowledge of them in the widest contexts. It also means uncritically accepting the existence of a contradictory, ill-defined, invisible entity with supernatural powers, for which there is no evidence or explanation, that raises a host of unanswerable questions, that contradicts all we have learned of how the world works, and that anthropological evidence points to being one of many human origin fictions confabulated to cover our ignorance, and later co-opted as a means to societal order and control.
In short, for those without access to scientific knowledge, it's a belief born out of ignorance, and for those with access to scientific knowledge, it's a belief of willful ignorance.
The incredulity of a scientist or sceptic is based upon contrary evidence, or the lack of supporting evidence, not upon "beliefs" or "feelings" or "common sense" or "gut feel", or any of the other excuses that are used in an attempt to cover up the absence of rational thought.
Scientific "rational thought" has been quite destructive lately.
So when did this "first human" show up? Was it like an instantaneous "poof" and there he/she was?
Industry using "scientific information" has been quite destructive lately.
FIFY
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?