Heaven forbid that they should be dependent on one another....
They are related, yes. But not the same thing.
If you cannot determine how life originated, then what is the point in musing about how it changed over time?
What a strange question.
If life and the universe has an Intelligent Creator, then evolution falls in a smelly heap.
Actually, it doesn’t. The evidence remains the same and still requires explanation.
An intelligent creator could most certainly have created the process of evolution.
Still waiting for someone to demonstration the existence of this Intelligent Creator though …
But science seems rather desperate to eliminate all mention of such a Being.....as if science knows that he can’t exist because they have not invented a way to test for him.
Another 50+ year old creationist canard with no actual basis in reality. See, this is why I keep telling you that you need some new material.
Science doesn’t deal with things which produce no evidence and it doesn’t inject unnecessary variables into explanations where they aren’t needed.
Science doesn’t posit the existence of a god because there’s no evidence for such a thing and our explanations of the universe work just fine without having to insert any god into them at all.
That’s the thing.
But there are people, as I’ve pointed out to you countless times, like Francis Collins, who identifies very strongly as a Christian, but still contributes to scientific research without injecting any god(s) into it whatsoever. He managed the Human Genome Project and never once felt the need to inject any sort of gods whatsoever into his work. He certainly doesn’t seem very desperate to eliminate any gods from his life and yet he still does good science.
Yep.....these amazing things....life, the universe, gravity..... just happened...like “magic”....it’s just that science can’t identify their magician yet.....but no matter how amazing their discoveries are, they cannot be from an intelligent source.....no, no, no.....that’s not “scientific”. There’s certain kind of “blindness” mentioned in the Bible that explains everything to us believers. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
Let’s be clear here, it’s
creationists who posit magic when it comes to the universe and its origins. You are the ones saying it was all poofed into existence with god magic. (Oh and God magic that you can’t even explain in any detail whatsoever). So you are essentially just arguing against your own position here.
And again, please stop trying to drag science down to religion’s level. It detracts from your case rather than bolstering it.
Scientists posit actual explanations based on analysis and investigation of the available evidence. Magic never once comes into play and wouldn’t constitute any kind of explanation at all.
We have no annoying “blanks” or “gaps” to fill in.
Yeah, you just fill them with “God” and no further explanation and that’s it.
I’m sorry to tell you but that’s not actually a useful explanation for anything as it explains nothing.
And I’m sorry it bothers you so much that we don’t know every single thing there is to know, and that there is still much we have to learn about our world, but let’s be clear here, everything we do know about our world comes to us as a result of rigorous scientific investigation, and not from ancient holy texts written thousands of years ago.
We clearly see the hand of an intelligent designer at work....so intelligent in fact, that humans have to reach a certain level of education to even begin to understand the peripherals of what exists in this world and beyond.cbv
Weird how none of you can demonstrate this obviously “hand of an intelligent designer at work.”
Instead, you simply attempt to poke holes into scientific explanations as though that would magically make your position right and true. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way. You have to actually demonstrate that.
LOL.....but you don’t believe that those parts just came out of nowhere, by some natural process, do you? If you have a computer for example, you know that each component is carefully designed and manufactured by intelligent minds.....they then have to be integrated into one working unit by sequencing and correct placement.....if one part out of place, or malfunctions, then the whole thing is useless.
It doesn’t matter where they came from, when we’re talking about explanations as to how they operate. I don’t need to know how gravity originated in order to measure it and attempt understand how it operates. Just like I don’t have to know where the car parts came from in order to use them to assemble a car.
I know that computers were designed by human beings. That is a demonstrable claim. Your claim is not demonstrable, or you would have actually demonstrated it by now.
Then we have to provide a power source....a completely separate external component which itself is a complex network involving power generation and distribution of that power via extensive cabling......or again it won’t work.
That would be a different field of study then. As abiogenesis is a different field of study from evolution.
This too required design, planning and manufacture, then integration so that machines designed to operate by that power can function as they were designed to. No guesswork as to what must have taken place, because all of it requires intelligent direction and implementation.
This is an assertion that needs to be demonstrated.
After that, connection to the internet is needed to communicate with other computers. Again this is a completely separate network that required design and manufacture in order to fulfill its role in our conversation. If none of that happened by natural means, but required intelligent direction, how on earth can science assume that the extraordinary complexity of the universe, nature, and even the working of the human body and it’s supercomputer contained in our cranium can be accidental or the product of unintelligent forces.....how can intelligent people be so blind?
Computers were designed by humans. That is a demonstrable claim.
Your claim that “god did it” has not been demonstrated.
Because if it behaves like a religion, then it deserves the label. I find it amusing that you see that as a denigration because you all are as guilty of “faith and belief” in something you cannot prove, as we are...it just that you can’t admit it.
There’s nothing about science that behaves anything at all like a religion, as you’ve so aptly helped demonstrate in this very post.
The denigration is a result of
your position. I’m simply pointing it out. You’re the one making the argument that science is no better than religion, not me.
I have to wonder what you and your fellow science “believers” are going for....?
I want to believe as many true things as possible while not believing as many false things as possible. That’s it.
We have the same “evidence” as you do....but we have a completely different interpretation. I don’t see your interpretation as any more valid than ours.....
You view the evidence through your religious lenses based on your preconceived beliefs taken from ancient holy texts. Your “interpretation” of the evidence is not demonstrable, nor is it scientific.