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.
Juvenissun, how do you think ions got into the oceans? were they always there?
This, as I have come to expect from Juve, is absolute rubbish. The Cambrian explosion lasted about 40-60 million years which is about 10% of the history of multicellular life forms.
How this can be described as is beyond me, but par for the course for Juve spouting off about things he knows nothing about with that air of authority.
What would you do if people (include yourself) challenge your faith by science? There is no shortage of such people in this forum. Would that disturb your reconciliation between science and God?
Are you suggesting that someone has claimed that scientifically, there is no God?
I'd love to see that post.
I'm not sure of procedure on cut and paste. It was claimed within the last couple of hours that the whole of science rules out the existence of a god. I'll go see if I can dig up the specific thread and post number.
Depends what evidence was presented. But either way, as I said before, reconciling the two is a matter of finding no contradiction; if there's a contradiction, something's wrong. So I'd look at the science and I'd look at my theology. I'd think long and hard until I determined what had to give. I've done it before and, if necessary, I'll do it again. I refuse to knowingly believe a lie.What would you do if people (include yourself) challenge your faith by science? There is no shortage of such people in this forum. Would that disturb your reconciliation between science and God?
No. Short thread.
My need for a God is personal, not scientific. Like I've said before, I don't believe in a god who only fits in the gaps in our knowledge.
There you go"Question for Creationists", post #86
What the smeg, CL? I just told you that I do just that:It would be just as easy to believe in a god, but with no afterlife; of course no one does
Again, I don't have any particular belief on the afterlife. I think the message of Christ is related to the here and now, not vague nevernevers. But, again, that's probably just me. Interestingly, though, I don't think giving up the idea of eternal paradise was that hard for me. I certainly don't remember angsting over it at all.
There you go
Without trying to mindread, I think Chalnoth's point is one that he made to me a while back: that the lack of (scientific) evidence for God is sufficient evidence not to believe. That is, in science many things are denied because of lack of evidence. Essentially it's Russell's Teapot.
To post links, "[u_r_l = (url goes here)]blah blah[/u_r_l]" without the underscores.
As for the idea that things can be denied for lack of evidence, I understand the logical argument (I think), but does it hold truth as time goes on? For example, there was no definite evidence for other planets around other stars until astronomers and astrophysicists worked out a way to see and measure their presence. No science denied that they existed, as far as I know. Current lack of evidence only leads to current lack of existence. Or am I not stating this correctly?
My apologies: out of interest how many people do you know that believe in a god that created the universe, but not in an afterlife?What the smeg, CL? I just told you that I do just that:
No worries. Sorry if I was a bit... reactionary -- I was just peeved at being "no one"My apologies: out of interest how many people do you know that believe in a god that created the universe, but not in an afterlife?
...But perhaps not a "don't take my Santa Claus away! Lalalala I'm not listening!" kind of reality-denial, but rather a deep belief in some kind of order/justice/whatever in the universe.
I agree it's a very complex issue. That's one reason why I don't believe in a single-factor explanation. Though, would you mind enlightening me? What do these "controls of physics/astronomy" have to do with the Cambrian?The Cambrian explosion issue is hard because it involves several major aspects, such as biology, chemistry, and, of course, the controls of physics/astronomy are hidden.
The way I see it is that at least some of the "explosion" is an artefact of preservation. Complex animals could be (and, apparently, were*) there long before the Lower Cambrian and you wouldn't see them because they didn't have hard parts, were too small to have much chance of preservation, or were only preserved as trace fossils.Nevertheless, one of the major hurdle is the TIME constrain. All the processes had to be done in a geologically very short period of time.
Really? What I've seen so far tends to resemble another situation. One side clearly wins the argument and the other refuses to admit it. But of course I'm on only one side of the debateThis thread is not the place for it. But if you ever tried to dive into a detail debate on any evolution issue, chances are that neither side could ever get out of the debate and claim winning.
Why would it say anything like that? At most it says that both sides are stubborn as all hell.This nature of CvE debate says strongly: evolution has problems everywhere (even it is so to Creation too).
Basically what MarcusHill said.Thanks for the hyperlink lesson. As for the idea that things can be denied for lack of evidence, I understand the logical argument (I think), but does it hold truth as time goes on? For example, there was no definite evidence for other planets around other stars until astronomers and astrophysicists worked out a way to see and measure their presence. No science denied that they existed, as far as I know. Current lack of evidence only leads to current lack of existence. Or am I not stating this correctly?
I suggest you learn about them, then. Chromosome two and endogenous retroviruses are among the best pieces of evidence for our common ancestry with other apes.I don't know a thing on what you said.
One issue shows beyond reasonable doubt that chimps humans are related by descent. If those 99 other issues are to make a difference they should invalidate the evidence of the other 1 and not just pose unanswered questions about the details.But that is ONE issue. There are at least 99 others.
Very much so, but not only. As MasterOfKrikkit said, it's also a matter of nurture. (I wonder how much of the linguistic and cognitive capability of apes like Kanzi or Koko, or the parrots Alex and Griffin, would've developed if they weren't taught by humans)The one I favored (not I know much) is the difference on "intelligence". Is that also a biological issue?
Which gene is responsible for your height? The answer to both questions is: many genes. This is simply because intelligence is a very complex phenomenon, a composite of many abilities and needs a big brain with a complex structure, biochemistry and physiology. No way to make that all with one gene.Which gene is responsible for that?
This thread is not the place for it. But if you ever tried to dive into a detail debate on any evolution issue, chances are that neither side could ever get out of the debate and claim winning. This nature of CvE debate says strongly: evolution has problems everywhere (even it is so to Creation too).
Are you suggesting that someone has claimed that scientifically, there is no God?
I'd love to see that post.
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?