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.
Yes, I see how your line of thinking leads to irrational thoughts.If we follow this line of thinking then we must conclude that the watch wasn't designed either, it's also a product of evolution because humans are a product of evolution. You begin to see how this line of thinking leads irrational thoughts - of course a watch is designed by people, evolution should not get the credit for the design of a watch because evolution can't think like humans can.
Some might say that would be a win-win scenario - they get their dearest wish, and they're no longer around... I couldn't possibly comment...If evidence comes out in time, to show abiogenesis is a well supported theory, the suicide rate of fundies would sky rocket.
I can't speak for fundies, but just to be clear, abiogenesis would not be a game stopper for belief in a Creator. You still have the more preliminary problem of the finely tuned constants which allow anything to exist at all. And if God chose to have life created by some abiogenetic means, then that's what He did.Here is the deal;evolution is scary enough for the fundy types, but abiogenesis would be a complete game stopper for them. If evidence comes out in time, to show abiogenesis is a well supported theory, the suicide rate of fundies would sky rocket.
I agree. Most religious believers modify their creator belief to accomodate for well evidenced science. My comment was in regards to fundies, which are not in the habit of modifying beliefs based on new evidence.I can't speak for fundies, but just to be clear, abiogenesis would not be a game stopper for belief in a Creator. You still have the more preliminary problem of the finely tuned constants which allow anything to exist at all. And if God chose to have life created by some abiogenetic means, then that's what He did.
I can't speak for fundies, but just to be clear, abiogenesis would not be a game stopper for belief in a Creator. You still have the more preliminary problem of the finely tuned constants which allow anything to exist at all. And if God chose to have life created by some abiogenetic means, then that's what He did.
Honestly I can't think of a single bit of science which has caused Christianity to modify its Creator belief. The only change I've personally experienced is that new science makes me more in awe of something I was already in awe of.I agree. Most religious believers modify their creator belief to accomodate for well evidenced science. My comment was in regards to fundies, which are not in the habit of modifying beliefs based on new evidence.
You honestly dont believe as the evidence for evolution mounted over time, it hasnt changed how many christians view the role of the creater they believe in?Honestly I can't think of a single bit of science which has caused Christianity to modify its Creator belief. The only change I've personally experienced is that new science makes me more in awe of something I was already in awe of.
Abiogenesis means that the resulting life cannot be traced back to a living source.I can't speak for fundies, but just to be clear, abiogenesis would not be a game stopper for belief in a Creator. You still have the more preliminary problem of the finely tuned constants which allow anything to exist at all. And if God chose to have life created by some abiogenetic means, then that's what He did.
Correct. It describes life brought into existence from non-living materials.Abiogenesis means that the resulting life cannot be traced back to a living source.
Replication of life via chemical interactions in a laboratory accomplished via human intervention would not prove the theory of abiogenesis because it would have needed human intervention or a living thing with a planning, purposefully controlling and directing mind to bring it about and abiogenesis demands that it have absolutely no connection to a prior living thing.Correct. It describes life brought into existence from non-living materials.
because scientific theories are never proven. They are either consistent with and supported by the evidence or disproven by the same. Read up a bit on the problem of induction and get back to us.Replication of life via chemical interactions in a laboratory accomplished via human intervention would not prove the theory of abiogenesis because
In a laboratory it would need a human, that is true, to establish the conditions under which the necessary chemical reactions would occur spontaneously. Just like any other chemical synthesis, it is the correct conditions, whether naturally occurring or arranged by humans, which bring about the reaction--not direct manipulation of the chemicals.Replication of life via chemical interactions in a laboratory accomplished via human intervention would not prove the theory of abiogenesis because it would have needed human intervention or a living thing with a planning, purposefully controlling and directing mind to bring it about and abiogenesis demands that it have absolutely no connection to a prior living thing.
Please note that I aced my cogent reasoning course and have absolutely no reason to seek any clarification as to what induction and the inductive leap involves. Your claim that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is ridiculous nonsense. If a theory is consistent with reality it is proven to be true. That is why NASA can count on the reliability of gravity when planning its space exploration missions.because scientific theories are never proven. They are either consistent with and supported by the evidence or disproven by the same. Read up a bit on the problem of induction and get back to us.
Nope, that's not how science works. Like I said, do some reading on the problem of induction. You might actually learn something. Or not. Doesn't matter to me.Please note that I aced my cogent reasoning course and have absolutely no reason to seek any clarification as to what induction and the inductive leap involves. Your claim that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is ridiculous nonsense. If a theory is consistent with reality it is proven to be true.
Please note that I aced my cogent reasoning course and have absolutely no reason to seek any clarification as to what induction and the inductive leap involves. Your claim that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory is ridiculous nonsense. If a theory is consistent with reality it is proven to be true. That is why NASA can count on the reliability of gravity when planning its space exploration missions.
Trashing cogent reasoning isn't science-it's quackery.You keep demonstrating over and over, you don't understand science.
Even if science were willing to start with the question "who?" (which, as has been pointed out, comes with many problems), I fail to see how it could possibly arrive at an answer that goes beyond:So much so that atheistic evolutionists don't even ask "who" anymore.
There´s no need to suppress it. It´s a question that - seeing the candidates - isn´t scientifically investigable.I see no need to suppress a "who" as a possible cause for biological life. In fact, suppressing that possibility is a sign of willful ignorance.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
10 Lewontin, Richard, Review ofThe Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
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?