Reply With Quote
Yes it's possible that if a god exists that he used evolution.
Evolution as a means to existence is nothing but faith, bro. Deifying it while writing off creationism is the ultimate in intellectual laziness and dogma.
Yes it's possible that if a god exists that he used evolution.
Lol deifying evolution.
You're really stupid. And lazy.
Among other possibilities.
It's your gospel, bro. You're not a scientist; you're a Christian-hating cuck; come to terms.
Are you a scientist?
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
The theory of evolution was able to be developed only because the available evidence led to the conclusion that species have changed over time. The reason evolution is still a working theory hundreds of years later is because even in the present, after many discoveries and emergence of new new evidence (most significantly, genetics) it’s the only theory we have that is consistent with the entire body of evidence.
The existence of a god is not necessarily ruled out by science. The issue, as elnono brought up, is that any act attributed to a supernatural being is entirely untestable. That makes that exercise unscientific.
say i pitch the idea that god exists and personally set evolution in motion. We can look for evidence that supports the evolution part. But what evidence could we find that would support the god part? What useful predictions can be made? As darwin was developing his theory of natural selection, he predicted that contrary to what was known at the time, there must be moths in Madagascar with proboscobes about a foot long. No such creature was known to exist at the time, but due to characteristics of plants in the island, he said it must be true. That exact type of moth was discovered decades later.
There is no similar predictive capability when you attribute an act to a deity. Einstein’s theory of relativity laid the groundwork to the prediction that black holes must exist. Predictive capability is usually a sign of a successful theory.
From my understanding, the 'particles out of nothing' scenario is just an experiment where so called "virtual" particles were manipulated with pulses of light. The deeper theoretical physics here involved variational principles, quantum field theory, symmetry group, the bubbling vacuum, and a plethora of cosmological jargon and estoteric terms. Lawrence Krauss went over some of this in "A Universe from Nothing". What he does not address is the more ontological problem of how things form they way they do or the pre-existence of "coming into being". Of course, you can't test for what pre-exists so there's that. My point is something that goes back to Sir Arthur Eddington (in his Gifford Lectures) and the problem of existence prior to space and time. Math can't solve this problem nor can the problem be addressed in the absence of metaphysics. What we get from our mathematical models of the universe (based on observation and experiment) are incomplete representations of physical reality. A deeper question would be why there should even be laws of physics at all. And then there's just the whole problem of string theory...
Also, I just find it interesting that these "arguments' about the existence or non-existence of God come to down to this notion that it is science versus religion problem. Why defer to Hawking (or any learned person or polymath and his or her opinion? That person could not answer the question without stepping outside the scope of science. If a religous person steps outside the domain of faith then what do they defer to? The bible as word? If so, this gives ammunition to those who argue science can reject the existence of God. Hermeneutics? If so, this leads many to a domain of scholarship that they are ignorant of.
Anyway, it's ST so...
i dont think the purpose of this exercise is to prove or disprove the existence of a god, but rather if god (creationism) should be in science classes
i dont think science aims to "disprove god"... proving a negative has always been considered a waste of effort. while scientists can have their own personal opinions beyond their domain, (some are staunch atheists, some are theists), those scientists aren't out there finding evidence to prove or disprove god.
now that should be a no-brainer.
you would think
then again spurtacular is quite literally a no-brainer
“Bible God doesn’t exist”
Isn’t that the primitive, irrational, emotional part of your brain making that categorical assertion, oh so highly evolved atheist intelligent being?
in the sense that we know with a near certainty that some of the events in the bible (notably origin of life and the great flood) could not have happened, its safe to say that a god that performed those acts doesnt exist. at least not that version of god
Lol angry
Blake:
“My knowledge (or perhaps lack thereof) = EVERYONE’S knowledge”.
Me, angry?
I ain’t the one resorting (m)ad hominem.
Don’t project your feelings onto me.
So you believe the bible is 100% true and accurate?
Or, maybe there is a little bit of fiction thrown into it? Along with a little bit of truth. I’m not of the belief that every word in the Bible comes straight from God.
Lol ad hominem is exactly what you came out of the gate with, dumbass.
No. I definitely do not.
But I know that some of it is true. I won’t try & convince you otherwise, however.
God chooses to reveal Himself to certain people. Some people, such as yourself, He didn’t (or hasn’t) felt the need to. It’s not necessarily a group you want to be a part of.
Lol so you get to call some of it fiction but angry when I call all of it fiction.
Ok
Why are you calling me names?
I’m not angry. You keep calling me angry. Like I said, quit projecting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions