Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And of all the possible choices you have to pick the least likely causality. It's magic that did it!
Last edited:
Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
That is a dangerous viewpoint which I do not hold, and is certainly concerning, in those that do.
All kinds of evil acts have been done using “in the name of God”, in order to justify them.
Still going on today.
I think we both agree that it is very wrong!
This is why I believe very strongly in the Separation of Church and State!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I am glad we agree on that.
My question is why has nothing changed in a couple of millenia. The people that just occupied the Capitol building are probably all good Christians, believing they're doing the Lord's work. How is that even possible in a "civilized" nation.
Little do they know they are doing the devil's bidding. I can speak metaphorically also.
Last edited:
Well, it makes sense to me, at least.
You are welcome to disagree!
The Eternal Something would have to be able to Create all of existence from Nothing, and also have the sustaining power necessary to keep it all from blinking back out of existence again. It would perhaps have to hold it in a state of existence all the time by its own power.
There is also the little matter that...
God has actually revealed himself to mankind, quite a few times by now, as I am sure you have heard many times before.
It would be really fun about now if somebody would yell at me for “preaching”, right about now.
... or how about now?
Feel free to anytime!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
He did? Did I miss that miraculous event? How did he do that? Can you point it out? I am seriously interested!
Why do you feel that the creative power has to be a sentient motivated intentional being somewhere out there, instead of a probabilistic mathematical/physical expression of "necessity and sufficiency"?
How can you tell the difference and if you can't why ignore Occam's admonishment?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Let's get rid of deranged people in positions of power. Perhaps then more sober minds can prevail.
If it were only a probabilistic mathematical/physical expression of “necessity and sufficiency,” and if it was also eternal as well, why would we not have a steady state existence for all of eternity? In other words why would it or how could existence ever change?
What do you think?
You have thought about this view much more than I have!
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I think the universe had a beginning, just as it will have an end. We exist between those events.
We will never know what was before the beginning and we won't know what will be after the end. All we can do is learn and make the most of what's in between.
SetiAlpha6:
That does nothing to prove creationism, however.
Please prove special creation by your God. Or, show some integrity, like I do, and admit that you cannot do that. Admit that you don't know.
Once a scientific theory of abiogenesis exists, as it almost certainly will sooner or later, it will be falsifiable using the usual scientific methods - experiment, observation, consistency with everything else that is known, etc. etc.
P.S. You realise that all this stuff about abiogenesis is completely off topic for the current thread?
Abiogenesis is just a label. I agree with you that there's currently no scientific theory of abiogenesis.
That does nothing to prove creationism, however.
I literally just explained the difference to you, in the very post you're quoting. Sheesh. There's just no getting through to somebody whose mind is so tightly closed, and who is so unwilling to learn anything new. Is this what your Christianity does to you?
No. I just explained it to you, in my previous post. Try reading it. Try taking in what I told you. Try responding to what I told you.
There is no scientific theory of abiogenesis.
I can't.
Please prove special creation by your God. Or, show some integrity, like I do, and admit that you cannot do that. Admit that you don't know.
I don't have a faith position on origins. I have an open mind on origins. That's not to say that I consider all ideas equally likely to be true, mind.
There is no such theory, so the question is meaningless.
Once a scientific theory of abiogenesis exists, as it almost certainly will sooner or later, it will be falsifiable using the usual scientific methods - experiment, observation, consistency with everything else that is known, etc. etc.
P.S. You realise that all this stuff about abiogenesis is completely off topic for the current thread?
It's a hypothetical, more or less speculative, presumption.
Those who adopt it usually do so because it is much better supported by established fact, new and frequent observation, and powerful relevant theory, than any alternative available so far.
Those who reject it have had a very hard time explaining why, and no success at all in replacing it with anything remotely as plausible or well supported.
That is similar to the situation surrounding the evolutionary development of biological entities such as species, with the difference that instead of being merely hypothetical and speculative that is established beyond reasonable doubt, complete with overwhelming evidence and a powerful explanatory theory.
Last edited: