Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I think most scientists would happily answer "I don't know". A perfectly acceptable answer especially when followed with, "but we are working on it"The question is always the one someone is trying to answer, but I think it's funny when you ask a science-minded person... Why was the big bang something that happened? It seems unimportant and unnecessary... Thus, there is some reason why that probably gets down to something more than "it just did"... That wouldn't be a good enough answer to explain a chemical reaction in a college class let alone explain the origin of the universe. All of the creation theories are as plausible as anything science comes up with after they point; they both have ideas... and that's all they are..We should hit these problems in a unified fashion using the lore of our past with the science of now. If we're interested in the truth we don't care where it comes from just that it is.
My pet theory was always that "God" (not Yahweh) killed itself to make the rest... Much like when you have a bacteria reproduce asexually by dividing. But, it's just a theory... It's not something I believe, but more something that I see nature do.
As far as the gaps I think the real problem is we can't get DNA/genes from fossils that are really old. We have a fundamental problem proving their ancestry due to the fact that it doesn't survive well past 250,000 years. All of the taxonomic assumptions past that time may be completely wrong -- these are educated guesses, but they are still guesses. There are four species of hominid that we know existed in that period so we have better clues, but past that... It's a crap shoot - let's separate science fact from science fiction.
For some reason creationism gets pushed more than any other theological concept. There are quite a few people demanding creationism/ID is taught in schools for example yet they don’t make the same call for anything else. This gives the debate a more immediate and practical consequence and so it gets more attention that other concepts that will be just of academic interest (to the non-theists at least).
Who says what bias is unacknowledged by whom?
This would be true for some atheists, but not for all.
Hah!
There are different definitions of "atheist", so that's probably the problem you've run across. I prefer to use two words, "atheist" and "agnostic" to cover this, with the former as being defined as "one whom believes there are no deities", and "agnostic" as "one who does not know if there are any deities". However, some people use the word "atheist" to cover both definitions.
Ugh...I was busy elsewhere that day.
I see overlap between "atheist" & "agnostic".
theistic evolution=/= creationism
You're correct-- for once.
[notice my sophisticated French appearance here]
I do smell cheese with a hint of surrender.You're correct-- for once.
I'm a low potential low achiever.
No way. My honorable French ancestry is from the Normandy coast whereas neufchatel cheese (similar to cream cheese) is from.