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.
Such as? I 'believe' that the Earth is ~ 4.5 billion years old. That is proven scientifically. I 'believe' that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. That is proven scientifically. I 'believe' that we share ~ 98% of our DNA with chimps. That is proven scientifically.
So you couldnt support your statements. Big surprise.
I don't, personally. Any and all unscientific explanations for things are fair game to me. Religion, astrology, homeopathy, phrenology, electric universe woo, etc. I class them all pretty much in the same boat - of no relevance scientifically. If people want to believe in such things, that is up to them. It is only when they start claiming that there is some scientific basis to their beliefs that I will have a go at them.
I don't see any that I believe. How about... 11. The universe is 6000 years old, as well as man and life on earth, which all were created by Jesus. Evolution did happen to the created kinds, and science is not equipped to know the extent of what was created or what evolved from the various kinds, because the fossil record only contains those creatures that could fossilize in the former nature, which may be something like 5% of the life that was alive.This is just an attempt to categorize the different gradations of beliefs regarding evolution and creationism, because there is quite a large spectrum. Starting from one extreme and proceeding to another:
1. There is no God or other higher intelligence, life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.
2. There is a God or higher intelligence, but it never did anything to encourage the development of life. Life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.
3. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it arranged things so that the laws of physics would be conducive to forming life. Life arose from chemical processes and evolved on its own to the level we see today.
4. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it directly intervened in some way to make sure life arose. After that, life evolved on its own to the level we see today.
5. There is a God or higher intelligence, and it intervened to make sure life arose, and continues to intervene to guide its evolutionary path. The modern science of evolution and biology is correct, but cannot detect God's interference.
6. Evolution and common descent are correct, but every step of the process is directly controlled by God.
7. Deep time is correct, and species can evolve into new species, but the ancestors of all modern lifeforms were divinely created by God.
8. Deep time is correct, and species can evolve to an extent, but not into new species. God created each species separately.
9. The earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. God created each species separately, but they can evolve, just not into new species.
10. The earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. Evolution does not and cannot happen. Every species today is exactly the same as when God created it.
I'll include a poll.
Stuff from earth escaped our gravity in the flood epoch and some ended up elsewhere in the solar system.And if we then find evidence of it elsewhere, such as at Mars, your excuse will then change to.........what, exactly?
Science (so far) finds a lifeless universe apart from earth. No surprise to me.
However the arrogance of science assumes that people reflexively believe even their wildest speculations, and sadly most do.
The skeletal structure of hominids is ideal for bipedal man, and creating new flesh on old bones makes God very efficient.
Stuff from earth escaped our gravity in the flood epoch and some ended up elsewhere in the solar system.
So far the evidence and data shows a lifeless universe out there.
The natural state of the universe is the absence of life, therefore biological life on earth is supernatural, therefore ..................
What do mean by "ideal?" For the record, there is a drawback to having a spine suited for bipedalism. Humans have a much higher incidence of significant, symptomatic intervertebral disc problems than other mammals. Almost everyone will get degenerative disc disease with aging. It's why back pain is so common. And it's independent of lifestyle--it develops in people who aren't overweight, or haven't engaged in high impact occupations or sports. (Though obviously, being hard on your back makes it worse.) It appears to be a function of the unique mechanical forces that many years of upright posture place on the spinal column. From an evolutionary viewpoint, it's easy to understand. Lifelong bipedalism is a relatively new development, and there hasn't been enough time to work the bugs out. And also, it generally doesn't affect reproduction, so there's no natural selection pressure to eliminate weaker spines. But I'd think a truly intelligent designer would realize that a bipedal creature needs a spine that must withstand unusual stresses for 70-90 years or more.
Still no support of your assertions.
Sooo, there is life out there? I didn't know.
People will sometimes argue that science is the philosophical rich man, creationism is the poor man.
Science has practical benefits. Faith has fewer visible pay offs, they'll say. And generalise to all cases, science rules.
But can you worship God and make money. Not if you make make money your absolute master. That leads to all kinds of awful consequences, like conveience abortions, dehumanising the poor, IQism etc.
"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
IMO you need a balance, its possible to be faithful and have some respect for science, just not putting all your money into one basket (i.e. spread your bets between faith and science). Like a mixed cognitive economy with faith and science both* being respected. Social pluralism saves the goods of faith and science.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, *but with God all things are possible.”
That we dont know.
But that is not what you assert.
My assertion is similar to that of science.
Science: There is no God (as far as we know).
OldWiseGuy: There is no life out there (as far as we know).
No that is wrong.
Science doesnt deal with god(s) at all.
Also, your assertion is still baseless.
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?