DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

So, you're totally OK with the evidence that the big bang resulted in humans on earth, as god could well have created the environment for such a big bang?

 

I suppose, but as I said the details don't interest me.

 

God bless you, Friend.

http://ScienceOfTheBible.blogspot.com

 

Some evolve and some dont

 

RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
⁜→ Paul7, et al,

I don't find these types of "Faith-Based" positions all that uncommon.

(COMMENT)

There are a significant number of people that drive a car or fly in commercial airliners and not know how they work. It is a form of both "apathy" (I don't care how it works) and "confidence" (expectation of performance).
........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

Paul7 is making a good decision - knowing more cosmology, biology, etc., isn't going to change religion, nor should it.

And, many aren't going to have the time or interest to focus on those subjects, given all there is to learn/study - a matter of economic allocation of a scarece resource, time.

Surely that is the kind of division between the worlds of religion and science that we need to respect - even encourage.

 

"CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth."

The rebuttal to that statement is that there is no explanation for how God was created.

 

Nor is there any evidence a god actually exists.

 

I'm atheist and I don't agree with that. God is seen as eternal. You and I can disagree with "believers" about that, but then we're just having a difference of religious opinion - which is totally pointless and alienating.

We just need to find ways to better separate the realms of religion and science.

Science can do that by focusing on how our universe works as based on evidence. Scientific method can never address the supernatural, so attempting that direction is always going to end with a matter of belief.

 

Which might be interesting, were there any reason to belive God was - or needed to be - created.

 

If that becomes part of any argument, then it's game over, as neither science nor religion has any way to answer such questions about god.

 

No, that is NOT a rebuttal. It is simplistic, illogical wordplay.
1. The very question creates an infinite regression, viz., who made God's maker, and then who made God's maker's maker, ad infinitum.
Wordplayers know this and yet continue to play the game because they do not like the clear implications.
2. "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?" - Professor John Lennox, in A Matter of Gravity, available for your viewing on YouTube.com
3. Either nothing made the universe or Nature's God made the universe. Take your choice. *Nothing* is unscientific, illogical, indefensible, crude and leads nowhere. Nature's God is forever beyond the purview of our understanding, but He is a logical, coherent answer, eminently defensible, and has been elegantly defended for centuries. Nature's God leads to hope, goodness, happiness and forgiveness. Oh, and eternal joy. Whether you believe it or not has no bearing on its reality. But it has a very big impact on your future. Don't get it wrong. It's win/win for believers and lose/lose for atheists clinging to 1859 pseudoscience, so rabidly embraced by murderous Soviet, Chinese, and other leaders including Adolf Hitler.

 

Saying "god did it" certainly has historical standing for being used to placate the masses concerning pretty much everything mankind has ever had a hard time understanding.

However, that answer explains absolutely nothing. And, the fact that people like simple answers instead of truth is just a feature of human nature.

Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler CHINA!!! Yikes!! Now THERE is a "logical, coherent" reason to believe "god did it"!!

 

Yes, simplistic, but your answers (talk about wordplay) only reinforces my question.

IF God is a living thing, then " ... the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God" does not explain the creation of God.

I'm not looking for scientific proof … just the answer to a seemingly unanswerable question.

 

I would guess that most people don't study the philosophy of religion - they study their own religion, which holds a god of a particular characteristic as a fundamental assumption, not a proposition to be questioned.

Also, religions describe god as eternal. So, the meaning of "living" is certainly not equivalent to what we see on earth. Plus, something that is eternal doesn't have to have a creator.

 

You're half right.

 

The question you continue to harp on is answerable to the extent humans can comprehend. God WAS NOT CREATED.
You continue to ask a fabricated question which as you have admitted is "seemingly unanswerable." No, it is absolutely unanswerable.
So why do you continue to harp on it? Because you have nothing else. Nature's God is incomprehensible. How could HE be otherwise.

 

I guess that blind faith is a good thing if the fear of going to Hellit keeps people from

I "harp" on it because you keep telling me a nonsensical answer, like God is eternal … something that only someone with blind faith could accept.. Further discussion. is useless. You can have the last word..

 

You abuse words with every breath, in every sentence.

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe…This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. - Robert Jastrow

 

As I've alluded, I agree with this. The Abrahamic faiths believe there is an eternal god. There's no way to dispute or support that - it's a fundamental principle of that religious system. It's a root assumption for those who choose that system.

In fact, if someone believes that god does gravity, moveing objects in an organized fashion, there isn't even a way to argue against THAT! Clearly, an infinitely powerful god COULD do that. And, we have no way of testing whether god did it.

The most science can do is identfy reliable explanations that don't depend on the supernatural.

We need to get past the "prove there is no god" thing, because there is no way to falsify any claims about the supernatural..

 

If you know of another basis for acceptance of the idea that the universe appeared from nothing or is without a beginning, I'm all ears.

 

Cosmologists (who study that) do not believe our universe came from nothing.

Also, they see it as perfectly reasonable that the bigbang was not the first case of anything existing. That is, it's the start of our universe. But, we don't know what came before.

The fact that it's hard to test to see what went on isn't an argument that "god did it". It's an argument that it's hard to test what went on.

 

RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
⁜→ yguy, et al,

Well, I do not have an alternative idea; but, Dr Lawrence Krauss • Dr Richard Dawkins and • Dr Christopher Hitchens come together and present a provocative set of answers that you might consider,

(REFERENCE READING)

Download a Copy (FREE) @ • The Universe from Nothing •

​

(COMMENT)

It seems to make some sense. I was impressed, but you can evaluate it yourself.

.................
MOST RESPECTFULLY,
R

 

1. It does NOT enlighten.
2. It cannot be riveting.
3. Everything coming out so elegantly from nothing cannot begin to "make sense."
You seem to be easily impressed RoccoR.

 

1, yes
2, yes ( not a whale into a bear, this isn't magic like turning dirt into a human )
3, it's a slow process, not one minute they are a fish and poof they are a bear

now there are theories that we may have started on another planet and migrated here or aliens tinkered with earths dna and sped the process up, but we will probably never know

they recently discovered the milky ways black hole had a massive explosion about 3.5 billion years ago, maybe the minute radiation from that caused major genetic change on earth, who knows