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.
You are making a good point, from evolution humans are simply the end result of a random process. To play devils advocate a theistic evolutionist could argue that humans are the result of a creator deity's natural law.I disagree with that phrase for two reasons.
First it suggests a directional goal to the natural processes, as if the whole line was either directed or inevitable.
Second it portrays humans as the end goal or endpoint, which we are not (since we see new species form).
Mocking is being rude or embarrassing.Molecules to man is evolution or realistically the beginning of evolution.
Not at all.
My disgust is not with apologists but with those who understand the ToE regardless of their religions beliefs. People like Michael Behe who has a PhD in biochemistry and who understands the ToE even if he doesn't agree with it. There are others at DI, AIG, Uncommon descent et. al. some of whom have graduate degrees from Harvard. They are the nefarious people I refer to in the sense that it is shameful that they knowingly misrepresent the ToE. One can disagree with the ToE w/o mocking it. I say the same about people who mock religious beliefs.
I'm not lying...?Mocking is being rude or embarrassing.
Blatantly lying is is a shameful moral failure. The ID crowd don't just lie about their opponents beliefs, they lie about their own.
Or program or design, etc.To play devils advocate a theistic evolutionist could argue that humans are the result of a creator deity's natural law.
I don't use it a lot, but this site is helpful for symbols: Unicode Character TableI reject both. But fish to cat isn't G to U. It's G to sigma ()
edit, I can't change the size of the image of the Greek letter sigma. I know it looks ugly. I apologize for that.
I was discussing the intelligent design movement as exemplified by the Discovery Institute.I'm not lying...?
I think life by process of evolution is a program, etc...
God Bless!
Oh, ok...I was discussing the intelligent design movement as exemplified by the Discovery Institute.
They simultaneously misrepresent what scientific research into physics, chemistry and biology is and how it operates and pretend that their own ideas are dispassionate, reasonable conclusions from secular scientific data, rather than a dishonest reworking of faith statements from Creationist religious conviction.
Scientists announce a breakthrough | Psyc.org
"Scientists at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution announced today that ribonucleic acid (RNA), an analog of DNA that was likely the first genetic material for life, spontaneously forms on basalt lava glass. Such glass was abundant on Earth 4.35 billion years ago. Similar basalts of this antiquity survive on Mars today....Led by Elisa Biondi, the study shows that long RNA molecules, 100-200 nucleotides in length, form when nucleoside triphosphates do nothing more than percolate through basaltic glass.""Basaltic glass was everywhere on Earth at the time," remarked Stephen Mojzsis, an Earth scientist who also participated in the study. "For several hundred million years after the Moon formed, frequent impacts coupled with abundant volcanism on the young planet formed molten basaltic lava, the source of the basalt glass. Impacts also evaporated water to give dry land, providing aquifers where RNA could have formed.""The beauty of this model is its simplicity. It can be tested by highschoolers in chemistry class," said Jan Špacek, who was not involved in this study but who develops instrument to detect alien genetic polymers on Mars. "Mix the ingredients, wait for a few days and detect the RNA....Thus, this work completes a path that creates RNA from small organic molecules that were almost certainly present on the early Earth. A single geological model moves from one and two carbon molecules to give RNA molecules long enough to support Darwinian evolution."“By understanding the fundamental complexity of life, in the laboratory, we can start to estimate the chances of life on other planets and determine the likelihood that planets such as Mars either had or still have the potential to harbor life.”
Up until 2 years ago they had no idea where the RNA come from they were still searching. Those who believe in abiogenesis say the RNA sprung up spontaneously. Those who believe in panspermia said RNA came from outer space too.
No disagreement concerning the ideas of scienceScience may be hard, but that’s its beauty
WHAT hope has consciousness of understanding the world, when it doesn’t yet understand itself?The answer is we don’t know – but it’s a blast trying to find out. Science is the art of asking hard questions and, whether or not we find answers, finding new perspectives that extend our knowledge.Often those perspectives are truly mind-blowing, as our special feature “Get your head around the most mind-bending concepts in science” makes plain. You might dispute our choice of 13 of the most intriguing ideas from science and technology – indeed, when we undertook a similar exercise in 2014, the list was entirely different (13 December 2014, p 32).But all exemplify how scientific enquiry defines and shapes our thinking in often unexpected ways. They illustrate the beauty of the subject: how it follows no agenda or preconceptions, but guides us on a stumbling path to greater enlightenment.Science may often be hard to get our heads around, but to echo the ending of our special feature: it is the worst way of seeking truth, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time.
Yet you fail to see the discrepancies of your previous comment and this one.No disagreement concerning the ideas of science
So why do you think is impossible for your God to setup the laws of nature where there is unity of organic and inorganic?_ after all God did give man that knowledge and as written in Daniel's 12 chapter 4 in the last days knowledge shall increase and there are many scientific breakthroughs _ who is the ultimate scientist but God himself.
No I don't fail to see the discrepancies but what I do see is your disagreements on what I say. Is there any proof of the non-existence of God or his creations of this universe and possibly others? After all the first thing a non-believer will say is prove that God exists. Well prove he doesn't and when you prove he doesn't you'll prove I'm wrong.Yet you fail to see the discrepancies of your previous comment and this one.
So why do you think is impossible for your God to setup the laws of nature where there is unity of organic and inorganic?
I don't think its easy to find anNo I don't fail to see the discrepancies but what I do see is your disagreements on what I say. Is there any proof of the non-existence of God or his creations of this universe and possibly others? After all the first thing a non-believer will say is prove that God exists. Well prove he doesn't and when you prove he doesn't you'll prove I'm wrong.
You ask why do I think it is impossible for my God _ I'm not the one that thinks it's impossible, you are. And besides whatever answer I may give you would refute.
Even those in the scientific community will not try to prove or disprove the existence of God because they know it is impossible.
Man he's just now beginning to learn there is far much more he doesn't know. God himself could be a form of living energy, like energy has no beginning or no end but exist.... If the idea of panspermia could be correct, there as a possibility that that same organism of life is of the entity we call God, whose existence is in space, as the Bible notes.
If abiogenesis is correct, in an infinite space who's to say that the process or type of process of evolution didn't take place an infinite amount of time ago and the results of that process is the entity. we call God who has life within himself and is able to give life to whatever he chooses to create.
There is zero proof either for or against the existence of gods.No I don't fail to see the discrepancies but what I do see is your disagreements on what I say. Is there any proof of the non-existence of God or his creations of this universe and possibly others? After all the first thing a non-believer will say is prove that God exists. Well prove he doesn't and when you prove he doesn't you'll prove I'm wrong
That there is no proof of gods does not negate that a god or gods exist.You ask why do I think it is impossible for my God _ I'm not the one that thinks it's impossible, you are. And besides whatever answer I may give you would refute.
Even those in the scientific community will not try to prove or disprove the existence of God because they know it is impossible.
If an all powerful god exists there is no reason why he could not have setup the laws of nature where there is unity of organic and inorganic or however he chooses to do so.Man he's just now beginning to learn there is far much more he doesn't know. God himself could be a form of living energy, like energy has no beginning or no end but exist.... If the idea of panspermia could be correct, there as a possibility that that same organism of life is of the entity we call God, whose existence is in space, as the Bible notes.
If abiogenesis is correct, in an infinite space who's to say that the process or type of process of evolution didn't take place an infinite amount of time ago and the results of that process is the entity. we call God who has life within himself and is able to give life to whatever he chooses to create.
One of the main things an atheist has said in my conversation is to prove he exists, throughout the past 20 years. No that doesn't cover all atheist but then percentages is not taken from all, but a small portion of the whole.I don't think its easy to find an
atheist so dimwitted they think
God is subject to proof. Far fewer,
Imo, than believers who think god
can be proved. See Kalam cosmology,
for one big group.
One could, of course, note that god/gods,
any and all ever discussed have much in
common with Atlantis, that is, all display
the characteristics of the nonexistent.
Nobody can prove I don't have a secret
alien spaceport on my patio, but they can
apply the " reasonable person" standard
to say it is extremely improbable.
Flying saucers....
Bye now.
Who's driving those things? Hey you brought it up not me!Flying saucers....
Bye now.
That's rather silly. Science is about discovering the unknown. I understand the God you believe in to be omniscient, so they wouldn't need to employ scientific methods to discover the nature of what they had created. Perhaps you meant to say that God was the ultimate engineer.who is the ultimate scientist but God himself
Two points - atheists I know would only ask that out of frustration at weird responses to all the other challenges. So it would be the last thing they would say, not the first.After all the first thing a non-believer will say is prove that God exists. Well prove he doesn't and when you prove he doesn't you'll prove I'm wrong
Absolutely. In any well organised residence alien spaceports are always placed adjacent to the tradesmen's entrance.Nobody can prove I don't have a secret
alien spaceport on my patio, but they can
apply the " reasonable person" standard
to say it is extremely improbable.
Estrid brought up alien spaceships as an example of a ridiculous thing of which one could say "prove it doesn't exist".Who's driving those things? Hey you brought it up not me!
Absolutely. In any well organised residence alien spaceports are always placed adjacent to the tradesmen's entrance.
Well, gosh. I'm not quite sure where it is located. Obviously I have people who deal with tradesmen. To be honest, I have people who deal with the people who deal with the tradesmen.I'm not of the gentry, so is the tradesman's entrance just the door from the carport (sorry no spaceport) to the kitchen?
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?