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.
Design always points to a designer. Why would the natural world be an exception?Well then, there you go, get to it. We are only claiming that no one has done it yet. Show us where science points to God.
Just keep in mind that I don't personally know how this could have occurred does not qualify as evidence for God.
Even if that might be true, you have not demonstrated design yet. And it looks designed to me because I can't figure out how else it got here is still the I don't personally know.Design always points to a designer. Why would the natural world be an exception?
It’s possible, but if you take the classic example of Mt Rushmore the thing is that when you get even the loose dirt under a microscope you learn that that also looks like impressive design and organization, which can make you ask yourself well what if reality itself is simply always at a default level of organization? Even if things rust, and even if entropy wins against the whole universe what if reality itself is always in recycle mode? We can only speculate that the universe after heat death will recycle into some type of rebirth, but we can definitely see examples of rebirth within the universe, yes people die but people are also being born, yes stars die but new stars are also forming.Design always points to a designer. Why would the natural world be an exception?
Determinism isn't an assumption of science, it's a hypothesis that has been tested and, in general, confirmed. But as quantum mechanics has shown, it's possible that stochastic randomness is fundamental and determinism is emergent.Here's another logical conclusion. The fundamental assumption underlying science is that the universe is determined. Physical laws control and we can come to know them.
In science generally, and the biological sciences in particular, 'random' really means 'unpredictable' in the given context; so while the movement of particles that cause mutations may be in principle deterministic, it is not in practice possible to predict their interactions. They are, for all practical purposes in the given context, random. So yes, it implies ignorance - often the ignorance of not being Laplace's Demon.The logical extension of that assumption is that "randomness" merely implies ignorance: a thing cannot be determined and random. Yet "randomness" is fundamental component of Darwinism and all its derivatives. As to the diversity of life, the better scientific answer is, "We don't know, yet".
Then it should be a piece of cake for creationist scientists to figure it out.If there's such an intelligence it would have to be possible to observe it somehow through science.
Why is it silly that deities can not be falsified?The idea that science can't point us to God is silly.
If we allow that a given environment includes co-existing creatures then environment is the only force that drives diversity in living creatures. Correct? That is, mutations in offspring are instrumental but not causal.The environment is involved - mutations are the main source of heritable variation and, while the environment can affect the mutation rate, it has most effect in its role in natural selection, by determining which variants are most successful. It's worth bearing in mind that for a given individual, the environment includes other creatures, including its own kind.
It appears we agree that "species" is an invention rather than a discovery. As such, the term is arbitrary and of little value in a rigorous scientific endeavor. I agree that the movement to molecular biology will produce greatly improved classifications of living beings.Species is not a well-defined scientific term - the interbreeding definition is more of a convenient rule of thumb. Populations may be considered separate species when they are sufficiently different to justify being treated separately in some context.
Morphological changes are not the whole story - there may be little morphological variation between species, and there may be significant differences in things like diet and behaviour without significant differences in external morphology. I would think genetic variation would be the key determinant.
As it appears we agree that "species" is not a scientific categorization but a rather fluid term of convenience so we can dismiss the search for evidence of "speciation" in nature.I don't know the detailed differences between them, but IIRC, they're both West African. The Fongoli area tends to be hotter and dryer than the rainforest, so more physiologically stressful in that respect, and the Fongoli chimps show significantly different physiological stress markers as a consequence. They also seem to be significantly more creative and flexible in their behaviour, e.g. culture & tool use, and notably sanguine about fire. I don't know whether they can interbreed productively with rainforest chimps, but given their different behaviours and physiological responses, I would suspect that they're considered to be a subspecies of the West African chimp. Their genetics will indicate their lineage.
It occurred to me that their more flexible, creative behaviour might be an adaptation to the more challenging environmental extremes of their range, echoing similar evolutionary developments in the early ancestors of humans as they moved onto the savannah...
Determinism is the sine qua non presumption of science. Every scientific hypothesis depends on the truth that nature is determined. If untrue then the scientific endeavor would collapse. I do not know of any particular hypothesis that lists as one of its assumptions that "nature is deterministic"; it's presumed universally.Determinism isn't an assumption of science, it's a hypothesis that has been tested and, in general, confirmed. But as quantum mechanics has shown, it's possible that stochastic randomness is fundamental and determinism is emergent.
You appear fixated on species needing to be an exact measurement to be of scientific value.It appears we agree that "species" is an invention rather than a discovery. As such, the term is arbitrary and of little value in a rigorous scientific endeavor.
As usual, vacuous claims without substance.They have.
No, They really have not. In fact they do not have any scientific evidence for their beliefs at all. All they have are arguments from ignorance, strawman arguments, and outright lying.They have.
Because unlike you I can support my claims. You can't.Says random internet guy. Why would I believe him?
It's nothing you would be willing to understand, because you are steeped in your belief system. But evolution theory doesn't work with what we know about DNA.Because unlike you I can support my claims. You can't.
Tell us how they have it figure out. I know that you can't.
Please do not project your flaws upon others. I am willing to consider anything supported by scientific evidence. The problem is that creationists have none.It's nothing you would be willing to understand, because you are steeped in your belief system. But evolution theory doesn't work with what we know about DNA.
That says it all right there.I am willing to consider anything supported by scientific evidence. The problem is that creationists have none.
You claimed that evolution was improbable. But you don't know how. I know exactly how the evidence shows life evolved. I know how it shows natural selection was the method by which it happened. We have more evidence than can be contained in a host of museums. And yet you still continue to spew these lies. Now, I asked you to explain how you figured out which god existed. Not that a god existed. It's a simple question. Since you've conquered an improbable question in your own life please, let us in on the method.I don't have to. Because belief doesn't have to be proven. If you are gonna call something science, you need hard evidence, however.
We've been over this a million times. There can be no evidence. Peter or Jesus. I say no human being ever "walked on water" since that's not possible. Physics tells us you can't. Viscosity and such. That's science. Now you want to argue about whether we can know if someone 2,000 years ago did. Since nobody can, the answer is simple.That says it all right there.
Tell me, did Peter (not Jesus, Peter) walk on water? and if you say NO, are you doing it with respect to science, or in spite of it?
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?