See the part I bolded? That's a pretty bold statement to make. See my post
#97 where I showed this way of thinking to be wrong. The part I underlined, my post #97 shows why that is faulty reasoning. Science gets closer and closer everyday to actually getting to that explanation. The part in red? It's never the "logical" choice to explain something by something else that is completely illogical.
I see you are not paying attention. I wasn't implying that every conceivable thing that science cant explain now wont be explained by science based on future findings. What I am saying is, science will never be able to explain absolute origins. Science will never be able to explain the origin of life from nonlife, and the origin of the universe by natural means. This is not going to happen. So you are waiting for nothing. Science is going beyond its juristiction by trying to explain these things. Thats what I was saying. And second, intelligent design is not "completely illogical". Intelligent design is used when science doesnt have the capability to explain. Third, explain how Intelligent Design is any more illogical than saying "naturedidit". When I see the kind of complexity that we see in the structure of DNA, immediately conclude that there was intelligence behind it. You think the same thing, except when something is driving towards theistic implications.
Science has no problem explaining this from an evolutionary standpoint.
So, explain what is the scientific explanation for the complexity of DNA?? Please provide an answer as to how it is explained from an "evolutionary standpoint".
Whether you accept or reject that explanation is up to you. But just because you believe it doesn't, doesn't make it so.
And just beccause you believe in evolution doesn't make it so. I've never seen space shuttles assemble themselves, so using common sense, anything more complex than a space shuttle could not have gave itself its own complexity and more than the space shuttle could have assembled itself.
Especially when you haven't done any research on it yourself to see how science explains it.
I did enough research and also based on my experience in every day life, I've come to the conclusion that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. The evolutionists wants me to believe that long ago, far and wide, that animals were doing things millions of years ago that they have not been doing since man entered the world. I can't believe this.
First, your confusing evolution and abiogenesis, again. They are two separate fields of study.
Two separte fields of study, but nonetheless, as I keep pointing out, before you get to evolution you have to have life. You have to have dna, you have to have cells. So far no man has been able to build or create anything more complex than a living cell. Why is this? Because the intellectual being that created the cell is vastly more intelligent than his creation, thats why.
Theism is not the best answer for where life came from. Theists have always thought that about things science had yet to explain, and then science always ends up finding a natural answer. Again, see my post #97.
I never implied that every single thing that science cant explain, we should take the "goddidit" approach. What I am saying is, science will never ever be able to explain absolute origins. Science will never be able to explain the origin of life and the origin of the universe. Never. We cannot used science to explain the origin of its own domain. Now, I have said this at least 5 times, and no one has responded to this. But the fact remains, science cant explain the origins of itself. No, i dont believe in evolution because all evidence provided could easily mean common designer. But the fact that we have life to EVOVLE IN THE FIRST PLACE, and the fact that no one has ever seen or been able to show how life can come from nonlife, goes to show that we are not here by an accident, but we are here because we were placed here.
And you say no one has ever observed life come from non-life. This doesn't mean it didn't happen.
No it doesnt mean that it didnt happen per say, but based on the astronomical improbability of it occurring by a blind and unguided process, this makes it highly unlikely, and that is an understatement.
You believe that this is explained by something you have never observed.
But this is a conclusion that a draw based on negating its competitor. Life did not come from nonlife. There is no evidence of this large scale evolution. The evidence that has been provided could mean something else, so that "evidence" cant be passed of as a "fact" that some of you naturalists like to claim.
So you refute your own argument. Naturalists don't use faith. Naturalists know that just because science doesn't have an exact explanation for something yet, that doesn't mean that it won't in the future. History bears this out.
What?? Naturalists dont use faith?? Naturalists base their whole "ideology" on faith. There is no evidence that life came from nonlife as you just admitted, yet, you believe it. That is faith. There is no evidence showing that an intelligent designer DIDNT use evolution as a means to create, yet, you believe it. Theists are not the only onces using faith here.
Why do naturalists not accept a supernatural cause? Because, if you'll look at history, science has a better track record. Every time the theists use the "goddidit" excuse, science has found a naturalistic explanation.
This is irrelevant, because once again, we are talking about absolute origins. Science doesnt have a better track record in that regard, because there is no evidence of life coming from nonlife and there cant be an naturalistic explanation of how or why the universe began to exist. These are two problems for the naturalist.
So, the logical choice would not be to accept a supernatural creator, but science, which has been proven right over the bible every step of the way.
Science has not been proven right on the subjects of the two things i mentioned above, which are life from nonlife, and explaining why the universe began to exist.
I'm not so arrogant to believe that just because science has no explanation now, that it won't in the future. I'm not emotionally tied to a rigid dogmatic belief system that only allows me to think in one way.
Right, so you are a naturalist, meaning you will only believe what can be scientifically proven. There are some things that science will never prove, and i mentioned two.
Here's what I find funny. If you had lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about a flat earth, geocentricity, god's wrath as the explanation for natural disasters and disease, etc. And like science proved the church and bible wrong on those things, it will be vindicated by this as well.
And here is what i find funny. If you had lived 500 years ago, and you were walking in a vast field in the middle of the night and from a distance, you seen a big object with lights shining from it, and you walked to it....and you see this vast object looks like something you never seen before. You walk inside it, and you see all of this complex machinery and computers and on the screen is a language that you dont understand. These computers have buttons that you can press, and whene you press it, it performs a certain tasks (such as one button, when you pressed it, the door closed) You never seen this before, yet, you would still recognize it as intelligent design. You wont think that it assembled itself, right? Now fast foward 500 years in to the future, we see cells and dna structures that are vastly more complex than the object you walked in (whatever it was you walked in). But for some reason, you dont believe that the more complex item you saw 500 years in the future is not intelligent design, but yet the item you saw 500 years in the past is?? Now why is this? Because the item you see in the future has theistic implications, and the item you saw in the past doesn't.
If you had actually studied or read anything at all about evolution, you would know that evolution doesn't teach that one type of animal doesn't produce another kind of animal all at once. Science has proven evolution, your beliefs won't allow you to accept it.
My beliefs wont allow me to accept it? This is coming from the same person that wont allow him/herself to think beyond science, despite the evidence saying otherwise. So I am not the only one that has a belief system to stick too.
And science will be able to prove one day exactly how life came from non-life. Take a look at how far science has come, and how they've proven the bible and the church wrong thus far. So it's you who's being dishonest. Your faith has caused blindness to what's really there.
The creationist isn't denying using science as a tool to understand how the world operates. The creationist is denying science when science attempts to explain absolute origins. That is the problem. You can learn about the wonders of science without trying to ask the question of "where the universe came from".......or..."how did life originate". Once you start using science to explain absolute origins, then you are adopting a religious belief at which you accept by faith.