This is strange topic for me to bring up, but I heard an American guy talking on the radio about Creationism (I think he was in the UK to give a lecture) and it was an interesting dicussion, although 'The flat earth society' sprang to mind.
Several of you here are far more qualified to discuss this subject....so....off you go....
Evolution or Creationism
Evolution or Creationism
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
Evolution or Creationism
Diuretic wrote: Creationism is closely connected with Christian fundamentalism. Evolution is closely connected with science.
And neither will agree on periods and dates.
And neither will agree on periods and dates.
Evolution or Creationism
ArnoldLayne wrote: I understand that some believe that both are not necessarily mutually exclusive, ie that the Supreme Being created and allowed the rest to evolve
That would be me. As far as I can see, the Creator set up the laws specifically in mind to create both life and intelligence in the Universe.
The only question is why?
As for Creationism, it's just plain silly to ignore centuries of scientific advance and believe that all creation "sprang" into being just a few thousand years ago. For some reason, Creationists think that evolution means that there is no God. They couldn't be more wrong. On the contrary, it proves there is one.
That would be me. As far as I can see, the Creator set up the laws specifically in mind to create both life and intelligence in the Universe.
The only question is why?
As for Creationism, it's just plain silly to ignore centuries of scientific advance and believe that all creation "sprang" into being just a few thousand years ago. For some reason, Creationists think that evolution means that there is no God. They couldn't be more wrong. On the contrary, it proves there is one.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
DesignerGal
- Posts: 2554
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:20 am
Evolution or Creationism
Jives wrote: That would be me. As far as I can see, the Creator set up the laws specifically in mind to create both life and intelligence in the Universe.
The only question is why?
As for Creationism, it's just plain silly to ignore centuries of scientific advance and believe that all creation "sprang" into being just a few thousand years ago. For some reason, Creationist think that Evolution means that there is no God. they couldn't be more wrong. On the contrary, it proves there is one.
yeah that.
The only question is why?
As for Creationism, it's just plain silly to ignore centuries of scientific advance and believe that all creation "sprang" into being just a few thousand years ago. For some reason, Creationist think that Evolution means that there is no God. they couldn't be more wrong. On the contrary, it proves there is one.
yeah that.
HBIC
Evolution or Creationism
It seems to me that "Creationism" is nothing more then a pseudo science.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
Evolution or Creationism
OpenMind wrote: And neither will agree on periods and dates.There are times when I think you do that deliberately, OpenMind. Eww.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Evolution or Creationism
Diuretic:-6
I am in complete agreement with that post. Of course they can and do compliment each other. Science answers to the physical questions and religion answers to the spiritual questions. Science is one way of looking at reality and religion is another.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I am in complete agreement with that post. Of course they can and do compliment each other. Science answers to the physical questions and religion answers to the spiritual questions. Science is one way of looking at reality and religion is another.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Evolution or Creationism
spot wrote: There are times when I think you do that deliberately, OpenMind. Eww.
Sometimes, Spot, I think that you're too imaginative.
Sometimes, Spot, I think that you're too imaginative.
Evolution or Creationism
Diuretic wrote: 1. Speaking as a non-religious person I don't see a conflict between the theory of evolution and the idea of God.
2. I believe that Catholic theology accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory - smart thinking.
3. I think though that Christians of a more fundamentalist bent believe that the the theory of evolution contradicts the literal meaning of the Bible and therefore the Bible is to be preferred.
4. This usually ignites a firestorm of controversy so let me say that I have absolutely no problem with someone believing in the literal meaning of the Bible.
5. Where I do get cranky is where - as Ted has pointed out - the pseudo-science approach is invoked to attack the theory of evolution and science in general.
1. I don't either, Di, but I would say the theories of evolution, as there are various theories of exactly how evolution works, just as there are various theories of how gravity works. Like gravity, evolution itself is a fact, not a theory.
2. Of course, the Catholic Church has been in the forefront of science education for centuries.
3. True, and it is quite remarkable that many otherwise intelligent individuals feel obligated by their religious affiliation to affirm that everything in the Bible is literally true, when they are obviously aware that much of the Bible is NOT literally true. What an inner conflict that must produce!
4. Nor have I, though there is absolutely no basis for such a belief, in the Bible itself or elsewhere.
5. Indeed. I accept the fact of evolution and I firmly believe in a Divine Creator. So do hundreds of millions of other Christians and Jews. The problem lies with the small fringe who insist that Divine creation be taught as SCIENCE, although it meets NONE of the criteria of science.
2. I believe that Catholic theology accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory - smart thinking.
3. I think though that Christians of a more fundamentalist bent believe that the the theory of evolution contradicts the literal meaning of the Bible and therefore the Bible is to be preferred.
4. This usually ignites a firestorm of controversy so let me say that I have absolutely no problem with someone believing in the literal meaning of the Bible.
5. Where I do get cranky is where - as Ted has pointed out - the pseudo-science approach is invoked to attack the theory of evolution and science in general.
1. I don't either, Di, but I would say the theories of evolution, as there are various theories of exactly how evolution works, just as there are various theories of how gravity works. Like gravity, evolution itself is a fact, not a theory.
2. Of course, the Catholic Church has been in the forefront of science education for centuries.
3. True, and it is quite remarkable that many otherwise intelligent individuals feel obligated by their religious affiliation to affirm that everything in the Bible is literally true, when they are obviously aware that much of the Bible is NOT literally true. What an inner conflict that must produce!
4. Nor have I, though there is absolutely no basis for such a belief, in the Bible itself or elsewhere.
5. Indeed. I accept the fact of evolution and I firmly believe in a Divine Creator. So do hundreds of millions of other Christians and Jews. The problem lies with the small fringe who insist that Divine creation be taught as SCIENCE, although it meets NONE of the criteria of science.
Evolution or Creationism
Diuretic wrote: thinking to myself that the ideas we have now can easily be proven to be wrong later when further evidence doesn't fit current understanding.That's something of a misconception, and one of the reasons why the scientific community is so outraged when peer-reviewed publications turn out to have published invented results into the literature. Facts can on those occasions turn out to be wrong, which involves scientific ideas being wound back to remove the error. Other than that, though, scientific ideas - theories, if you like - are superceded eventually by more powerful ideas. The previous approach isn't wrong, it's just less useful. You can go back to approaches that nobody would dream of using any longer, like Phlogiston, and laugh at the lack of understanding involved, but to the extent that it was applied at the time it's still applicable. It was a means of discussing known phenomena in such a way as to predict untested areas of knowledge, and to allow experiments to be devised which would refine that understanding. The paradigm shift which removed it from the scientific vocabulary did so because the new language involved was so much more powerful, so much more capable of extending the area under test, so much more productive of fruitful experiment. It's too easy to say it was "wrong" in those circumstances. Maybe there was an equally powerful alternative approach to chemistry which would have retained those notions, who can tell?
Practitioners of the infant physics of electricity had to guess which way their hypothetical current was flowing, and plumped for using the words positive and negative in a totally arbitrary way. That's why electrons have this curious negative quality ascribed to them, in that they turned out to head in the other direction. That's an area where the ideas in use were so powerful that people just shrugged and accepted this idea that positive voltage was carried backward round circuits by negative quanta. Some lunatic notions died, some we just ignore and make mental adjustment for. If Oxygen had ended up as a negative in the same way, we'd still be using the word Phlogiston. I'm pleased we ditched it.
Practitioners of the infant physics of electricity had to guess which way their hypothetical current was flowing, and plumped for using the words positive and negative in a totally arbitrary way. That's why electrons have this curious negative quality ascribed to them, in that they turned out to head in the other direction. That's an area where the ideas in use were so powerful that people just shrugged and accepted this idea that positive voltage was carried backward round circuits by negative quanta. Some lunatic notions died, some we just ignore and make mental adjustment for. If Oxygen had ended up as a negative in the same way, we'd still be using the word Phlogiston. I'm pleased we ditched it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Evolution or Creationism
I believe the time factor alone ought to cause one to wonder about "popular" teachings.
It takes light from our Sun 8 minutes to reach Earth. For the light of some stars to be seen, that light had to travel over vast distances. Much more than 6,000 years.
Yet, I believe in creationism, although not the conventional theory. Not many subscribe to the "Gap" theory. That a huge gap in time exists between the events described in Gen. 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
Recorded "human" history is relative to 6,000 years.
There is absolutely no evidence of evolution. Every creature reproduces after itself. No missing links can be or have been found. As Darwin put it, "Natural Selection" merely describes the process by which species survive. They adapt to a changing environment or they perish. No inflamation of the brain to grasp that!
Just because our knowledge of this universe (science) increases and we discover new things and how old things work does not negate that there is one omni genius who thought it all up.
You just fundamentally hate the idea of having a Father figure over you whom you ought to revere with fear and trembling. A deep spirit of rebellion pervades your very being, soon to be dealt with.
d:-5
It takes light from our Sun 8 minutes to reach Earth. For the light of some stars to be seen, that light had to travel over vast distances. Much more than 6,000 years.
Yet, I believe in creationism, although not the conventional theory. Not many subscribe to the "Gap" theory. That a huge gap in time exists between the events described in Gen. 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
Recorded "human" history is relative to 6,000 years.
There is absolutely no evidence of evolution. Every creature reproduces after itself. No missing links can be or have been found. As Darwin put it, "Natural Selection" merely describes the process by which species survive. They adapt to a changing environment or they perish. No inflamation of the brain to grasp that!
Just because our knowledge of this universe (science) increases and we discover new things and how old things work does not negate that there is one omni genius who thought it all up.
You just fundamentally hate the idea of having a Father figure over you whom you ought to revere with fear and trembling. A deep spirit of rebellion pervades your very being, soon to be dealt with.
d:-5
Evolution or Creationism
sixyearsleft:-6
I have seen that film 3 or 4 times and find it extremely fascinating. It is incredible what is being discovered by quantum physicists, absolutely incredible. I'm going to have to get it again and have another look. One can't absorb it all even in 4 viewings.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I have seen that film 3 or 4 times and find it extremely fascinating. It is incredible what is being discovered by quantum physicists, absolutely incredible. I'm going to have to get it again and have another look. One can't absorb it all even in 4 viewings.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Evolution or Creationism
Diuretic:-6
I can go along with your last post. Excellent. To say there are no transitional fossils as many do is to ignore the reality of the situation. Of course the total picture is not clear for many reasons, one of which is the fact that the early creatures were composed mostly of soft tissue which does not leave a fossil record. The record however has become clear enough that in science evolution is considered a fact. It would seem that there is a clear trail down through the millenia.
If one tries to tell many folks today that creationism is the reality and that the creation stories are anything other then myth they lose any chance to convince them of the value in having a Christian faith. If one's faith does not match up with reality then one has a problem.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I can go along with your last post. Excellent. To say there are no transitional fossils as many do is to ignore the reality of the situation. Of course the total picture is not clear for many reasons, one of which is the fact that the early creatures were composed mostly of soft tissue which does not leave a fossil record. The record however has become clear enough that in science evolution is considered a fact. It would seem that there is a clear trail down through the millenia.
If one tries to tell many folks today that creationism is the reality and that the creation stories are anything other then myth they lose any chance to convince them of the value in having a Christian faith. If one's faith does not match up with reality then one has a problem.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Evolution or Creationism
sixyearsleft:-6
It is indeed and excellent film that adds to the mysteries of life. I saw it first through the church. We had heard about it and decided that we should view it. Subsequently I've seen it another few times.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It is indeed and excellent film that adds to the mysteries of life. I saw it first through the church. We had heard about it and decided that we should view it. Subsequently I've seen it another few times.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Evolution or Creationism
downag wrote: 1. Recorded "human" history is relative to 6,000 years.
2. There is absolutely no evidence of evolution. Every creature reproduces after itself. No missing links can be or have been found.
3. As Darwin put it, "Natural Selection" merely describes the process by which species survive. They adapt to a changing environment or they perish. No inflamation of the brain to grasp that!
4. Just because our knowledge of this universe (science) increases and we discover new things and how old things work does not negate that there is one omni genius who thought it all up.
5. You just fundamentally hate the idea of having a Father figure over you whom you ought to revere with fear and trembling. A deep spirit of rebellion pervades your very being, soon to be dealt with. 1. If you mean self-referential history, i.e. man writing about himself in one form or another probalby closer to 10,000 years, perhaps a little more, but at least you're in the ballpark. Human history discerned by scientific means goes back more than a million years.
2. Well, down, let's get down to brass tacks here. Every reputable biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist and archaeologist in the world, which is to say, every one not shackled with a pre-ordained religious agenda, disagrees with you. You can't just say that all of them are wrong and you are right because of your outer-fringe religious beliefs and expect to have any credibility. The fact that fools dispute experts does not make the experts any less expert, it simply emphasizes the fools' foolishness.
The evolution of species is, as has been said here many times before, by myself and others, not simply A fact but THE central fact of modern biology. If the biology textbook has fifty chapters, including one on Darwin, evolution is there in the other forty-nine as well in one form or another. Remove evolution and you have to completely re-formulate biology, and who is going to do that? And according to what standards? Two contradictory accounts in Genesis, both loosely adapted/plagiarized from pagan sources?
3. I don't think Darwin said that, but it is correctly stated within limits. If two of the same species adapt separately to seperate environments, then you will eventually have two or more species instead of the one you began with. It doesn't take a genius to understand that either.
4. It neither negates that nor proves it.
5. I don't know who you are addressing here. I don't hate that at all. God reveals Himself through His work, which includes the laws of nature. The blathering of the cranks and charlatans of 'creationism' reveals nothing but their own foolishness.
2. There is absolutely no evidence of evolution. Every creature reproduces after itself. No missing links can be or have been found.
3. As Darwin put it, "Natural Selection" merely describes the process by which species survive. They adapt to a changing environment or they perish. No inflamation of the brain to grasp that!
4. Just because our knowledge of this universe (science) increases and we discover new things and how old things work does not negate that there is one omni genius who thought it all up.
5. You just fundamentally hate the idea of having a Father figure over you whom you ought to revere with fear and trembling. A deep spirit of rebellion pervades your very being, soon to be dealt with. 1. If you mean self-referential history, i.e. man writing about himself in one form or another probalby closer to 10,000 years, perhaps a little more, but at least you're in the ballpark. Human history discerned by scientific means goes back more than a million years.
2. Well, down, let's get down to brass tacks here. Every reputable biologist, paleontologist, anthropologist and archaeologist in the world, which is to say, every one not shackled with a pre-ordained religious agenda, disagrees with you. You can't just say that all of them are wrong and you are right because of your outer-fringe religious beliefs and expect to have any credibility. The fact that fools dispute experts does not make the experts any less expert, it simply emphasizes the fools' foolishness.
The evolution of species is, as has been said here many times before, by myself and others, not simply A fact but THE central fact of modern biology. If the biology textbook has fifty chapters, including one on Darwin, evolution is there in the other forty-nine as well in one form or another. Remove evolution and you have to completely re-formulate biology, and who is going to do that? And according to what standards? Two contradictory accounts in Genesis, both loosely adapted/plagiarized from pagan sources?
3. I don't think Darwin said that, but it is correctly stated within limits. If two of the same species adapt separately to seperate environments, then you will eventually have two or more species instead of the one you began with. It doesn't take a genius to understand that either.
4. It neither negates that nor proves it.
5. I don't know who you are addressing here. I don't hate that at all. God reveals Himself through His work, which includes the laws of nature. The blathering of the cranks and charlatans of 'creationism' reveals nothing but their own foolishness.
Evolution or Creationism
Bronwen wrote: The blathering of the cranks and charlatans of 'creationism' reveals nothing but their own foolishness.Is this dead dog to go on cursing my lord the king? let me go over and take off his head.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Evolution or Creationism
OpenMind wrote: And neither will agree on periods and dates.
:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl
Evolution or Creationism
This is so funny can we all just get along:wah:
Hey out of all the planets stars and galaxies in the univese only this one so far has some kind of seemingly organized and intelligent life. There must be something that thought of it all. If life was so trivial, random and so easy to produce there would be far more earths floating around out there in outer space.
This Is common sense.. if it is really that simply as scientist claim why can't they reproduce it on other planets or even find another planet like earth anywhere else in the galaxy.
Hey out of all the planets stars and galaxies in the univese only this one so far has some kind of seemingly organized and intelligent life. There must be something that thought of it all. If life was so trivial, random and so easy to produce there would be far more earths floating around out there in outer space.
This Is common sense.. if it is really that simply as scientist claim why can't they reproduce it on other planets or even find another planet like earth anywhere else in the galaxy.
Evolution or Creationism
lux77 wrote: Hey out of all the planets stars and galaxies in the univese only this one so far has some kind of seemingly organized and intelligent life. There must be something that thought of it all.You could as easily turn that around, surely. If there were "something that thought of it all", why would it waste billions of other locations and just raise one miserable planet-worth toward salvation?
As for how much life is out there, how many years have you been looking for it? Do you really expect to find an answer that quickly?
As for how much life is out there, how many years have you been looking for it? Do you really expect to find an answer that quickly?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Evolution or Creationism
Originally posted by :SPOT
"If there were "something that thought of it all", why would it waste billions of other locations and just raise one miserable planet-worth toward salvation?"
Good point......... maybe humans were very important in the grand scheme of creation and universe.
"If there were "something that thought of it all", why would it waste billions of other locations and just raise one miserable planet-worth toward salvation?"
Good point......... maybe humans were very important in the grand scheme of creation and universe.
Evolution or Creationism
lux77 wrote: Good point......... maybe humans were very important in the grand scheme of creation and universe.Then a well-intentioned Creator would surely have put them on many more planets and not just this one. Being on another planet doesn't mean you're non-human, if you have that sort of Creator Lord in mind and that's His will. If He really prefers humans to aliens, He can stick to the same human design wherever He creates. What a competent Creator can't do, surely, is waste a multitude of space and Create in just one back yard.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Evolution or Creationism
SPOT WROTE:
"Then a well-intentioned Creator would surely have put them on many more planets and not just this one. Being on another planet doesn't mean you're non-human, if you have that sort of Creator Lord in mind and that's His will. If He really prefers humans to aliens, He can stick to the same human design wherever He creates. What a competent Creator can't do, surely, is waste a multitude of space and Create in just one back yard."
Isn't that great that we are the only humans around........:-6
"Then a well-intentioned Creator would surely have put them on many more planets and not just this one. Being on another planet doesn't mean you're non-human, if you have that sort of Creator Lord in mind and that's His will. If He really prefers humans to aliens, He can stick to the same human design wherever He creates. What a competent Creator can't do, surely, is waste a multitude of space and Create in just one back yard."
Isn't that great that we are the only humans around........:-6
Evolution or Creationism
lux77 wrote: Isn't that great that we are the only humans around.....Well, to be quite frank, no, it's a shocking disappointment. But as we said earlier, "how many years have you been looking for it? Do you really expect to find an answer that quickly?" - I've no doubt that the entire universe is teeming with people.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Evolution or Creationism
Sure when you find let us know..................:-3
In the mean time.........
Wow isn't that great that we are still the only humans around. The creator must have thought highly of us.........................:-6
In the mean time.........
Wow isn't that great that we are still the only humans around. The creator must have thought highly of us.........................:-6
Evolution or Creationism
SPOT WROTE:
"I've no doubt that the entire universe is teeming with people.
Today 10:49 PM"
Sure when you find let us know..................:-3
In the mean time.........
Wow isn't that great that we are still the only humans around. The creator must have thought highly of us.........................:-6
"I've no doubt that the entire universe is teeming with people.
Today 10:49 PM"
Sure when you find let us know..................:-3
In the mean time.........
Wow isn't that great that we are still the only humans around. The creator must have thought highly of us.........................:-6
Evolution or Creationism
lux77 wrote: 1. Hey out of all the planets stars and galaxies in the univese only this one so far has some kind of seemingly organized and intelligent life.
2. There must be something that thought of it all. If life was so trivial, random and so easy to produce there would be far more earths floating around out there in outer space.
3. This Is common sense.. if it is really that simply as scientist claim why can't they reproduce it on other planets or even find another planet like earth anywhere else in the galaxy.1. So far? I'm not sure I follow you here. Have you visited them all? If you mean this is the only one that we know of, that is because we haven't been looking that long. Twenty or so years ago, we knew of no other star, anywhere in the universe, which we were sure had planets. Today we know of many. The space telescopes have given us knowledge we could not have had previously, and the discoveries of the next few years will probably be beyond our imagination.
2. Here I agree with you. The main reason I believe in God is that I am unable to conceive that all of existance, that the fact that ANYTHING at all exists, is without purpose. There are other reasons, but that is the main one. But from that premise, you make a quantum leap by implying that intelligent life exists only here. I don't see how that follows at all.
3. Why can't they reproduce it how? Once again I'm not sure I follow you. Why would scientists want to reproduce earthly life on other planets? If you mean why haven't they DISCOVERED it on other planets, I have little doubt that that will happen, probably within my liftime, and I'm 65 now.
Remember, though, for life AS WE KNOW it to develop, you gotta have liquid water, which exists only within a very narrow temperature range. So that reduces greatly the number of places in the universe where it could POSSIBLY develop. My guess, though, is that life WILL and DOES develop where it CAN, and that is part of God's plan. There may also be many other manifestations of life, not involving liquid water, of which we are so far unaware.
Finally, let me remind you that there are MANY people who claim that they are quite certain that life elsewhere not only exists, but that those beings visit earth on a regular basis and have had contacts with earth people. I don't personally believe this, but it is more credible than 'creationism' because, however unlikely, it is possible and 'creationism', that is, that everything was created a few thousand years ago as described in Genesis, is IMpossible.
2. There must be something that thought of it all. If life was so trivial, random and so easy to produce there would be far more earths floating around out there in outer space.
3. This Is common sense.. if it is really that simply as scientist claim why can't they reproduce it on other planets or even find another planet like earth anywhere else in the galaxy.1. So far? I'm not sure I follow you here. Have you visited them all? If you mean this is the only one that we know of, that is because we haven't been looking that long. Twenty or so years ago, we knew of no other star, anywhere in the universe, which we were sure had planets. Today we know of many. The space telescopes have given us knowledge we could not have had previously, and the discoveries of the next few years will probably be beyond our imagination.
2. Here I agree with you. The main reason I believe in God is that I am unable to conceive that all of existance, that the fact that ANYTHING at all exists, is without purpose. There are other reasons, but that is the main one. But from that premise, you make a quantum leap by implying that intelligent life exists only here. I don't see how that follows at all.
3. Why can't they reproduce it how? Once again I'm not sure I follow you. Why would scientists want to reproduce earthly life on other planets? If you mean why haven't they DISCOVERED it on other planets, I have little doubt that that will happen, probably within my liftime, and I'm 65 now.
Remember, though, for life AS WE KNOW it to develop, you gotta have liquid water, which exists only within a very narrow temperature range. So that reduces greatly the number of places in the universe where it could POSSIBLY develop. My guess, though, is that life WILL and DOES develop where it CAN, and that is part of God's plan. There may also be many other manifestations of life, not involving liquid water, of which we are so far unaware.
Finally, let me remind you that there are MANY people who claim that they are quite certain that life elsewhere not only exists, but that those beings visit earth on a regular basis and have had contacts with earth people. I don't personally believe this, but it is more credible than 'creationism' because, however unlikely, it is possible and 'creationism', that is, that everything was created a few thousand years ago as described in Genesis, is IMpossible.
Evolution or Creationism
Bronwen wrote:
"Remember, though, for life AS WE KNOW it to develop, you gotta have liquid water, which exists only within a very narrow temperature range. So that reduces greatly the number of places in the universe where it could POSSIBLY develop. My guess, though, is that life WILL and DOES develop where it CAN, and that is part of God's plan. There may also be many other manifestations of life, not involving liquid water, of which we are so far unaware."
Isn't that amazing ......................still feels great to be human all these complex requirements for life...... Somebody very intelligent must have thought of it all....NO luck or chance here as science would have us believe..........
"Remember, though, for life AS WE KNOW it to develop, you gotta have liquid water, which exists only within a very narrow temperature range. So that reduces greatly the number of places in the universe where it could POSSIBLY develop. My guess, though, is that life WILL and DOES develop where it CAN, and that is part of God's plan. There may also be many other manifestations of life, not involving liquid water, of which we are so far unaware."
Isn't that amazing ......................still feels great to be human all these complex requirements for life...... Somebody very intelligent must have thought of it all....NO luck or chance here as science would have us believe..........
Evolution or Creationism
lux77 wrote: Isn't that amazing ......................still feels great to be human all these complex requirements for life...... Somebody very intelligent must have thought of it all....NO luck or chance here as science would have us believe..........;)I think you miss the point. You are a believer and so am I. I see things pretty much as you do, but you seem to want to go the additional step of putting up some sort of wall between religious belief and science, and in my opinion, that disparages both.
As I said a few days ago (can't remember if it was on this thread or another), there are atheist scientists just as there are atheist garbage collectors and atheist office workers. Science does not deny the existance of that which cannot be proven, but science looks at reality from a perspective apart from faith. To be science it has to be, among other things, provable and/or disprovable. There are, however, some instances in which the line between fact and faith is not completely clear.
That God became man as Jesus Christ, was born of a virgin, died and rose from the dead is neither provable nor disprovable. That must be accepted by faith.
The evolution of species and the antiquity of the universe are overwhelmingly provable. The nonsense of the so-called 'creationists', that both accounts in Genesis are factual, is clearly disprovable.
That a supreme being exists may or may not be provable. Until proven, it is an article of faith.
The objection to 'creationism' is not that it presupposes the existance of God but that it claims to be science, while meeting none of the criteria.
As I said a few days ago (can't remember if it was on this thread or another), there are atheist scientists just as there are atheist garbage collectors and atheist office workers. Science does not deny the existance of that which cannot be proven, but science looks at reality from a perspective apart from faith. To be science it has to be, among other things, provable and/or disprovable. There are, however, some instances in which the line between fact and faith is not completely clear.
That God became man as Jesus Christ, was born of a virgin, died and rose from the dead is neither provable nor disprovable. That must be accepted by faith.
The evolution of species and the antiquity of the universe are overwhelmingly provable. The nonsense of the so-called 'creationists', that both accounts in Genesis are factual, is clearly disprovable.
That a supreme being exists may or may not be provable. Until proven, it is an article of faith.
The objection to 'creationism' is not that it presupposes the existance of God but that it claims to be science, while meeting none of the criteria.