Subduction Zone
Regular Member
The problem with ID, as well as other variations of creationism, is that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Upvote
0
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.
The problem with ID, as well as other variations of creationism, is that there is no scientific evidence for it.so why are you arguing? LOL because you have a different belief.
In other words, you have no answer to the question.Which is why you need to learn more of the basics of science first. Right now you will reject any explanation unjustly.
Your thought here is, unfortunately, demonstrably wrong. Christian biologists see intricate design and believe in a designer -- and overwhelmingly conclude that God created that design via evolution, incorporating millions of random occurrences. Atheist biologists who look at the same data reach the same conclusion about evolution, but without belief in God.Personally, I think it's what one's fundamental base is.
One sees intricate design (meaning there is a designer) ... others see millions of random occurrences happening over billions of years (evolution)
Maybe you can answer the question with all that sound science... "why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?"Interesting. The National Academy of Sciences, the premier scientific organization in the US, think evolutionary biology is sound science. So does the American Association for the Advancement of Science. So does every scientific publisher, every major research university, all of the major professional organizations for scientists, and every philosopher, historian, and sociologist of science. But you know different. Have you considered the possibility that you're not really in a position to judge what constitutes good science?
No, that is false. Your user name is Inquiring Mind. Do you want to learn or not?In other words, you have no answer to the question.
The better question is why couldn't it?Maybe you can answer the question with all that sound science... "why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?"
Your thought here is, unfortunately, demonstrably wrong. Christian biologists see intricate design and believe in a designer -- and overwhelmingly conclude that God created that design via evolution, incorporating millions of random occurrences. Atheist biologists who look at the same data reach the same conclusion about evolution, but without belief in God.
It's not clear what the 'why' part means -- 'nature', that is the physical world, does what it does based on the regular behavior of matter and energy. Why the universe behaves the way it does is not within the scope of science to answer. How it could is simple: through mutation and selection operating on non-intelligent living things. Nature is constantly creating states that didn't exist before. It's like asking why and how gravity would make a planet out of a dust cloud when neither the dust cloud nor gravity have planets in them. The question strikes me as just about meaningless.Maybe you can answer the question with all that sound science... "why would, and how could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?"
I'm talking about evolution, not the origin of life.What there is in science in regard to the origin of life is a lot of theories ... and it is still referred to in that manner
Just like the theory of gravitation is and always will be a theory. It's still a fact that gravity exists, just as it's a fact that existing life evolved from earlier common ancestors. Evolution provides explanations for how that happened.Theory of Evolution and will always be.
No, they are not "dismissing" it. If anything if God did create the Earth his creation dismisses a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Earth itself tells us that life did not begin that way.well christians who try to incorporate evolution into creation are dismissing the Genesis account as it is written and thereby causing confusion amongst themselves ... and others.
outside of that .... answer this question that another poster put forth ....
how/could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?
as far as I know there hasn't been a conclusion with science ... it's on going ...
(the end or finish of an event or process)
What there is in science in regard to the origin of life is a lot of theories ... and it is still referred to in that manner .... Theory of Evolution and will always be. Nobody was there.
Have you considered asking them what they're doing, rather than just making up stuff and attributing it to them? Speaking as one of them, I'm not dismissing the Genesis account as it is written, since to me it is patently obvious that it's written in mythological terms appropriate for its ancient Near East origin. The idea that it's an historical statement about anything strikes me as dismissing what's actually there and replacing it with some kind of account that didn't exist at the time -- regardless of whether evolution is true.well christians who try to incorporate evolution into creation are dismissing the Genesis account as it is written and thereby causing confusion amongst themselves ... and others.
It's not clear what the 'why' part means -- 'nature', that is the physical world, does what it does based on the regular behavior of matter and energy. Why the universe behaves the way it does is not within the scope of science to answer. How it could is simple: through mutation and selection operating on non-intelligent living things. Nature is constantly creating states that didn't exist before. It's like asking why and how gravity would make a planet out of a dust cloud when neither the dust cloud nor gravity have planets in them. The question strikes me as just about meaningless.
We don't know. Maybe they were direct divine creations. What does that have to do with whether living things have evolved or not?Why does matter and energy exist? Without using theory ... Where does matter and energy come from?
I'm talking about evolution, not the origin of life.
Just like the theory of gravitation is and always will be a theory. It's still a fact that gravity exists, just as it's a fact that existing life evolved from earlier common ancestors. Evolution provides explanations for how that happened.
Right -- evolution takes over after the origin of life. We're talking about evolution here -- micro and macro evolution. Why do you keep trying to change to subject to the origin of life?The origin of life means the emergence of heritable and evolvable self-reproduction.
Evolutionary biology puts forth a theory (actually multiple, connected theories) about how it did happen -- and then goes on to test those theories against data. Over and over and over again.No ... evolution puts forth theory of how it MIGHT have happened.
We don't know. Maybe they were direct divine creations. What does that have to do with whether living things have evolved or not?
enlighten me.No, that is false. Your user name is Inquiring Mind. Do you want to learn or not?
Right -- evolution takes over after the origin of life. We're talking about evolution here -- micro and macro evolution. Why do you keep trying to change to subject to the origin of life?
Evolutionary biology puts forth a theory (actually multiple, connected theories) about how it did happen -- and then goes on to test those theories against data. Over and over and over again.
How many evolutionary biology papers have you read in the scientific literature? Do you have even the faintest idea what actual evolutionary biologists do?
How many evolutionary biology papers have you read in the scientific literature?
Sure, it's necessary for life to evolve. Again, how does that tell us anything about whether evolution is an accurate description of the history of life on this planet?well .... necessary to have a planet capable to support life .... or for life to "evolve" on.
About what I expected.It's not clear what the 'why' part means -- 'nature', that is the physical world, does what it does based on the regular behavior of matter and energy. Why the universe behaves the way it does is not within the scope of science to answer. How it could is simple: through mutation and selection operating on non-intelligent living things. Nature is constantly creating states that didn't exist before. It's like asking why and how gravity would make a planet out of a dust cloud when neither the dust cloud nor gravity have planets in them. The question strikes me as just about meaningless.
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?