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!
"God's hand" does not constitute a "how." It's a claim of agency, nothing more.
The leprechaun question is a good analogy.
It is the norm.
"even if you're right, you're still wrong".
You don't understand that simple concept?
No. It's demonstrated by DNA.
Then you have an infinite amount of beliefs.
Science says nothing at all about gods and plenty of scientists (who see no need to reject science) believe in god.
Horse evolution is very well supported by evolution and as a result is the victim of dishonest quote mining by creationists. There are over fifty species of "horses" in their history. The quote mining that you will here is that the relatively simple picture that evolution did not occur as portrayed in the picture that you linked. Of course creationists will quote mine it to mean that it never happened. But what we know instead is that it is far more complex than the simple ABCD pictures that we see. There are all sorts of offshoots that have their own small trees before they went extinct and even with modern "horses" we have the domestic horse, Przewalski's horses, (these two can fertilely interbreed even though they have a different number of chromosome pairs, just as had to be the case in our own history), donkeys (three species and I can't say the more proper "***"), and three species of zebras. Those are all from the last surviving branch, and like all life when a group is narrowed down to one species and then spreads all over much of the Earth it once again undergoes speciation. For the horses we see at least eight species today.
I would say that Hawking's work is not a fact yet, but it is getting close. It is possible that it may not be quite right. But from my limited understanding the math for it is very very strong, and that part of the sciences right now can only be modeled and tested mathematically. Could the math be wrong? Yes, but am not going to be the one that refutes it. At least no one has come knocking on my door asking me to do that yet. <darn>Debatable.
Not true as every single book I have read on BB cosmology deals with various hypotheses on what led to the BB with one exception. The first time I ran across non-causation was a hypothesis on this from Hawking. But he didn't claim that this is what happened but that it was hypothetically possible.
Our minute universe likely expanded for a reason, so the question is what was that reason.
And then there's string theory, so ...
Well, it is certainly tricky.Debatable.
Not true as every single book I have read on BB cosmology deals with various hypotheses on what led to the BB with one exception. The first time I ran across non-causation was a hypothesis on this from Hawking. But he didn't claim that this is what happened but that it was hypothetically possible.
Our minute universe likely expanded for a reason, so the question is what was that reason.
And then there's string theory, so ...
www.pewresearch.org
Did you ever give god a thought while you were actually doing the science of astronomy or was it peripheral to the actual job?What an absurd statement!
"According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006."
Ok, not a particulatly recent poll, but I doubt the numbers are significantly different today.
Scientists and Belief
When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National
That is fine as a belief and a personal conclusion, but I assume you never found a god term to put in a calculation, only that you were left wondering why it was as you found.
Where was this Creator before the universe existed?
That's not how scientists think, but that IS how creationists think. They want their deity to exist so badly that they go to any lengths to convince themselves that the contradictory evidence doesn't exist. I think you're projecting.
You're not qualified to determine what gaps are too large or how large they should be. Neither am I. We would have to know how likely it is for any given creature to become a fossil, what fraction of fossils have survived to the present, and what fraction of those are found.
Even were that the case, why is that a problem for a creationist? That's the currency of a creationist's belief - speculation. He believes things that he can't demonstrate. Your previous comment about the size of the gaps in the fossil record was just speculation. And this is a good illustration of what I just said about creationists going to any lengths to deny the science, including introducing a double standard for religious and scientific belief. That cannot be justified.
Not to an atheist or even an enlightened theist who understands that the evidence doesn't support his beliefs but chooses to hold them any way presumably because it's comforting or familiar.