selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 45
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
How on earth does it take more faith to say "I don't know" than "Goddidit?"
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.
Then I submit it takes more faith to believe your way, than it does mine.
Anything -- since you said, "I don't know".Depends. What is this 'it'? The Big Wobble?
It's hard to mistake someone saying, "I don't know."I think you're mistaken as to what it is I believe,
Suit yourself, but don't expect me to agree.... what I call 'science', and what I call 'religion'.
If the shoe fits, wear it.Don't take your beef with someone else out on me.
Yup -- you guys make your own rules, don't you?Oh goody.... yet another newbie creationist coming here and telling us what is and is not science. Scientists determine what is science.. not lying professional creationists like those who made the website you linked.
I said "We don't know" to a very specific question (namely, "But what causes the expansions and contractions and why?").Anything -- since you said, "I don't know".
And yet, you've managed to do it quite spectacularly. Again, "I don't know" was in response to a specific question.It's hard to mistake someone saying, "I don't know."
As I wasn't talking to you in the first place, that suits me fine.Suit yourself, but don't expect me to agree.
I've known you for a good few years now, and the day we agree on anything will be the day Satan skates to work.If you want to call what you believe 'science' -- fine -- just don't call what you believe 'science' and what I believe 'religion' and expect me to agree.
Here's your post, as I saw it:I said "We don't know" to a very specific question (namely, "But what causes the expansions and contractions and why?").
I assumed you were responding to the second question.But what causes the expansions and contractions and why? There had to be energy...so what created that energy?
As I've said before, we don't know.
Saying "I don't know", while believing nature did it over God is, to me, exercising more faith.How on earth does it take more faith to say "I don't know" than "Goddidit?"
I am a deist of sort who support evolution in principle. I realize there is much detail that needs to discovered.
If organisms do not evolve from other organisms than that means that they have to pop into existence. Creationists also argue that the evidence for evolution is weak or not there at all, but has anyone ever observed a living organism just pop into existence? No. The entire concept is rather silly, yet this this what creationists must believe if they do not accept evolution. If not then explain. If you do believe god makes organisms pop into existence then provide me with evidence.
Then Hell -- to you -- must be 95% ice?I've known you for a good few years now, and the day we agree on anything will be the day Satan skates to work.
Yup -- you guys make your own rules, don't you?
That's like letting bartenders determine what constitutes alcoholism.
How does it require more faith?? You guys just don't make any sense. This is why we always talk across each other here.Saying "I don't know", while believing nature did it over God is, to me, exercising more faith.
See what I mean? They use "creation" itself as proof, but it can be perfectly well explained by a natural process.
There are billions of people on earth who believe in god and the theory of evolution. The notion that this has anything to do with doubters is simply baseless.
Once again, if god makes all living things pop into existence then how come we have no evidence or eye witnesses of it? Notice that even Christian creationists who believe this don't ever mention it. You would think there would be reports all over the world of people walking around then 'poof' from nowhere springs a new organism, but it never happens.
Aminos to monomers, monomers permeate lipid membrane bubbles, those monomers combine into chance assemblages of polymers, some of which are inevitably self-replicating, and from there evolution can take its course."Perfectly" is a stretch. No natural process has been shown to assemble amino acids into living organisms. (Of course, this is not evolution per se, so let's try not to de-rail.)
Define 'sudden'. If you're referring to the 'Cambrian explosion', it's worth pointing out that this 'explosion' took tens of million years, and is primarily typified by the appearance of hard body-plans. Extant body-plans may well have evolved much earlier, but until they could readily fossilise, they wouldn't appear in the fossil record. Come the Cambrian explosion and your body plans are now fossilising - which would show a 'sudden' appearance in the fossil record.All the basic body plans found in nature today did not appear gradually, but suddenly, in the (pre)cambrian era, founding the diverse "lineages of almost all animals living today."
Define "relatively similarly". Bacteria are one of the most diverse groups of organisms on the planet. Just because they're small and unicellular doesn't mean they haven't changed.Further, most of the organisms in the fossil record before this time either died out (no longer passing on genetic information) or persisted relatively similarly (bacteria, plankton, and algae).
How in the world did you conclude that?This is contrary to the Darwinian tree of life, and common ancestry from one living organism to many over time.
Not really: the ancestors of primates during the Cambrian explosion were fishes.(So primates may have common ancestry with other primates, but the idea that primates and fish have common ancestry is not represented in the cambrian explosion.)
There are two examples I like the best: nylon-eating bacteria, and Lenski's citrate-eating E. coli. Both show clear instances of the evolution of novel, hitherto non-existent traits.Also, natural selection is problematic in that genetic mutation tends to cause problems rather than aid survival and adaptation. For that matter, I'd like to see actual examples of mutations increasing fitness, if anyone can provide links, as well as evidence that a change in genotype can provide a new phenotype rather than variations on existing phenotypes.
The proof is all around us, friend.
When the doubters accept God, all doubts are deleted, friend.
There Is No Proof For God - Typical Christian Nonsense - YouTubeCertainly, all creation shows the works of God's hand, but I don't hold to the rest of this. Doubt is a necessary component of faith. It's the ability to trust God in the face of doubts that defines faith. Doubts cannot simply be deleted by acceptance of God, they must be wrestled by faith over time, and even then, new doubts will appear to once again challenge faith.
Saying "I don't know", while believing nature did it over God is, to me, exercising more faith.
Physics and chemistry.By the way, what natural process governs and/or causes all these other natural processes?
I think you mean the Cambrian, which btw covers millions of years."All the basic body plans found in nature today[/URL] did not appear gradually, but suddenly, in the (pre)cambrian era, founding the diverse "lineages of almost all animals living today."
There were also jellyfish, worms, etc. The Edicarians seemed to have died out, but it isn't clear if some were indeed ancestral to Cambrian species."Further, most of the organisms in the fossil record before this time either died out (no longer passing on genetic information) or persisted relatively similarly (bacteria, plankton, and algae).
How could common ancestry of primates and fish have been represented in the Cambrian? There weren't even any vertebrates in existance, only primitive chordates. BTW... where were all the vertebrates???"This is contrary to the Darwinian tree of life, and common ancestry from one living organism to many over time. (So primates may have common ancestry with other primates, but the idea that primates and fish have common ancestry is not represented in the cambrian explosion.)
No. Beneficial mutations are selected for and tend to increase in a population, while detrimental mutations are selected against. That is precisely what Natural Selection does." Also, natural selection is problematic in that genetic mutation tends to cause problems rather than aid survival and adaptation.
Sure. I have one in the archive:"For that matter, I'd like to see actual examples of mutations increasing fitness, if anyone can provide links, as well as evidence that a change in genotype can provide a new phenotype rather than variations on existing phenotypes.
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?