Right...i dont know and its irrelevant. we can only know that it was the result of design.
Via what objective criteria?
Upvote
0
Right...i dont know and its irrelevant. we can only know that it was the result of design.
Just to be clear, you are suggesting - in all seriousness - that there is more evidence for a deity (and presumably the Christian deity) than there is for evolution?
Note: it is a given that science is not in the business of proving things.
I applaud your honesty. You are agreeing that blind faith is believing something because you think it is true and regular faith is recognising that you believe something just because you believe it.
But they are two separate questions, not alternatives. The theory of evolution does not speak to the existence of God, either for or against.If we define deity here as intelligent creator of life, and evolution as in Darwin's theory of it,
absolutely yes, quite a bit more objective scientific evidence for the former I would submit to you!
But it is a fact. Evolution has occurred--even creationists agree to it. The theory of evolution, an explanation of the process by which that evolution occurred, is something else again.ideally yes, unfortunately not all scientists agree with us
"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact."
Richard Dawkins
Blind faith is demonstrated in the Dawkins quote, failing to recognize one's personal beliefs as such-
But they are two separate questions, not alternatives. The theory of evolution does not speak to the existence of God, either for or against.
But it is a fact. Evolution has occurred--even creationists agree to it. The theory of evolution, an explanation of the process by which that evolution occurred, is something else again.
Just as evolution "allows" one to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian--because there are no implications.Yes I agree, they are not mutually exclusive - though I don't think we can entirely separate the implications one would have for the other...
Dawkins noted that 'evolution allows him to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist'- paraphrasing but that was the substance
Just as evolution "allows" one to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian--because there are no implications.
Based, it seems, entirely on analogies and quote-mines. Super.....- I'm skeptical of Darwinism first and foremost
Cool false dichotomy!great. so till you have an empirical explanation for these gears the best explanation is still design. so far we just have a belief that gears can evolve naturally.
Yes, he's an atheist. Quite militant about it, too, as a consequence of the crap that's been handed him by biblical creationists. What opinion would you expect of him? In any case, Dawkins opinions are not a barrier to the acceptance of the theory of evolution by a theist.I guess you'd have to argue that one with Dawkins, he obviously sees implications there- & I don't think it's a complete coincidence that the best selling book from the world's best known Darwinist - was titled 'The God Delusion'.
It's always good to be skeptical of obsolete theories.And I don't really flatter myself as a Christian, so I can't really speak directly for them either- I'm skeptical of Darwinism first and foremost
Yes, he's an atheist. Quite militant about it, too, as a consequence of the crap that's been handed him by biblical creationists. What opinion would you expect of him? In any case, Dawkins opinions are not a barrier to the acceptance of the theory of evolution by a theist.
It's always good to be skeptical of obsolete theories.
Well we have one known process which can great gears (creative intelligence)
Yes - Humans make gears.we know that gears can be designed through creative agency- that is utterly unambiguous, and nobody disputes this, correct?
Humans.Bottom line: we only have one definitely known cause for such things as this
Humans.and digital information systems
Oops - Unwarranted Extrapolation Alert! Over-extended Metaphor Alert! Analogy as Evidence Alert!as we see in DNA required to build those gears.
I would argue the opposite, but neither can be definitively proven.'
Too many straw men in that post to allow a definitive answer.well between the Dawkinses and the biblical creationists, I guess most of us are somewhere in between in our beliefs? and maybe that's where the truth lies also.. and I think as long as we all acknowledge those beliefs as such- we can all get along, and even be open to changing our minds now and again?
It's when people on either side reject 'belief' and claim 'undeniable fact'- isn't that where the problems always begin?
My attitude to Dawkins was summed up years ago on an online forum, when I declared "I wouldn't even vomit on his hamburger". Although I almost forgave him much else for "The Ancestor's Tale"ideally yes, unfortunately not all scientists agree with us
"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact."
Richard Dawkins
Blind faith is demonstrated in the Dawkins quote, failing to recognize one's personal beliefs as such-
That's just too ludicrous to respond to seriously, but if you open a thread on the matter I'll give it a go. If you choose to address it in this thread I shall take that as a message you are not serious and will ridicule it accordingly.If we define deity here as intelligent creator of life, and evolution as in Darwin's theory of it,
absolutely yes, quite a bit more objective scientific evidence for the former I would submit to you!
My attitude to Dawkins was summed up years ago on an online forum, when I declared "I wouldn't even vomit on his hamburger". Although I almost forgave him much else for "The Ancestor's Tale"
That's just too ludicrous to respond to seriously, but if you open a thread on the matter I'll give it a go. If you choose to address it in this thread I shall take that as a message you are not serious and will ridicule it accordingly.
Then it was discovered that they are actually a limit case of Einsteinian Relativity... still perfectly adequate for most everyday purposes and sending probes around the solar system.... the laws of classical physics were once considered so factual as to be utterly 'immutable'
A staunch atheist? How does that work?To be honest, I was raised a staunch atheist myself...
Then it was discovered that they are actually a limit case of Einsteinian Relativity... still perfectly adequate for most everyday purposes and sending probes around the solar system.
In a similar vein, original Darwinism has been subsumed by a more sophisticated theory, but still has explanatory power.
A staunch atheist? How does that work?
No, there is a limit to the amount of variance from the parent. The "principle of reproductive similarity" I believe is what Darwin called it. But there is no known limit to the sum of those variances over many generations.Yes, apples still fall from trees, and genetic apples still fall not far from their genetic/evolutionary 'trees' right? and in a superficial sense, they both work fine of course