Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Keep in mind that it isn't us that are supporting things like evolution as fact, despite all sorts of arguments otherwise. It's not us that suggests that we should not teach other viable theories for how the universe came about.
Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came about. I believe God is why the universe exists. Evolution explains HOW life changes over time, period. Some evolutionists exceed the bounds of the data and make unsupportable assertions, but that does not affect the sound and widespread basis for the theory itself.
Keep in mind that it isn't us that are supporting things like evolution as fact, despite all sorts of arguments otherwise. It's not us that suggests that we should not teach other viable theories for how the universe came about.
Viable theories would be fine. Please let us know when you have developed one.
Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came about.
Yet, those who hold to it are almost universally opposed to the idea of creation science, or intelligent design. They go hand in hand.
Quote:
I believe God is why the universe exists. Evolution explains HOW life changes over time, period. Some evolutionists exceed the bounds of the data and make unsupportable assertions, but that does not affect the sound and widespread basis for the theory itself.
OK.
I think you get my point, in that it isn't Christians that are suppressing the idea of looking at all possible theories, or ideas of the universe beginning, or life developing by means of a designer. It's non-Christians.
Viable theories would be fine. Please let us know when you have developed one.
This is problematic since we do not KNOW how the universe/multiverse came to be. Since ALL of our existing knowledge about it is based on the less than 5% we can measure and investigate, it seems presumptuous to make ANY assertions based on the 95+% we have no clue about. Even if you are keen on using probabilities, we are starting from a low probability base of knowledge (less than 5%).
Yet, those who hold to it are almost universally opposed to the idea of creation science, or intelligent design. They go hand in hand.
OK.
I think you get my point, in that it isn't Christians that are suppressing the idea of looking at all possible theories, or ideas of the universe beginning, or life developing by means of a designer. It's non-Christians.
ID is not a theory, at best its only a hypothesis, more accurately described as conjecture. Propose an evidence hypothesis and ID would have a seat at the table.
You are correct that those who accept the TOE generally reject creationism (not a science), because the same processes are engaged that lead to both, observable, testable, falsifiable, verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence.
This is problematic since we do not KNOW how the universe/multiverse came to be. Since ALL of our existing knowledge about it is based on the less than 5% we can measure and investigate, it seems presumptuous to make ANY assertions based on the 95+% we have no clue about. Even if you are keen on using probabilities, we are starting from a low probability base of knowledge (less than 5%).
Out of context for the win. Nice job of trying to misdirect in order to hide your inability to actually address comments.
I responded to your 5% quote above. If you have objections to my post, why don't you respond to it?
You are actually responding to my contention that creationism isn't a valid theory.
This is problematic since we do not KNOW how the universe/multiverse came to be. Since ALL of our existing knowledge about it is based on the less than 5% we can measure and investigate, it seems presumptuous to make ANY assertions based on the 95+% we have no clue about. Even if you are keen on using probabilities, we are starting from a low probability base of knowledge (less than 5%).
5% is obviously arbitrary since we don't actually know how much we don't know, but for the sake of argument I can accept that figure. Because we only know 5%, does that preclude from us concluding that gravity is the force acting upon matter. Because we only know 5%, does that preclude us from accepting the Theory of Relativity, or the Laws of Thermodynamics? What causes you to believe that God created the cosmos?
Out of context for the win. Nice job of trying to misdirect in order to hide your inability to actually address comments.
I responded to your 5% quote above. If you have objections to my post, why don't you respond to it?
You are actually responding to my contention that creationism isn't a valid theory.
No misdirection involved. I am NOT defending Creationism because it is indefensible. I am defending existentialism because that which is responsible for the existence of everything DOES exist. You call it Nature or the Universe/multiverse or "We don't know" and I call it God. Its existence is indisputable based on the fact that everything DOES exist. You can play your silly games of Creator using infinite regresses, but the simple truth is that existence itself is undeniable. It doesn't matter to me how long existence has been true nor if there was anything before existence because existence itself simply IS. God has no need to play any more role than to EXIST, period.
No misdirection involved. I am NOT defending Creationism because it is indefensible. I am defending existentialism because that which is responsible for the existence of everything DOES exist. You call it Nature or the Universe/multiverse or "We don't know" and I call it God. Its existence is indisputable based on the fact that everything DOES exist. You can play your silly games of Creator using infinite regresses, but the simple truth is that existence itself is undeniable. It doesn't matter to me how long existence has been true nor if there was anything before existence because existence itself simply IS. God has no need to play any more role than to EXIST, period.
I'm happy to hear you describe the origin of the cosmos this way, though it seems to simply be a semantic game, relabeling concepts for which we already have names, much like another poster here does on a regular basis. But, then, you suggest that this "God", "Universe", or "we don't know" has agency, suggesting that we do know the attributes of this existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
