Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)
Options
Comments
-
Either science answers questions or it doesn't. SO, how did life begin. The forming of amino acids is one thing. Getting them to form DNA in a suitable receptacle is quite another. Do you have an answer?
Nope, and I don't require one. I never made the claim that I have an answer for either the beginning of the Universe, or the origins of life. I can say the it is work in progress, with many important areas tackled. You're asking for a science lab to replicate 100's of millions of years of subtle changes - it simply isn't possible.Evolution is an incomplete theory and as in anything in science it is always up for question. Science never stops questioning because it never has all the answers. Within species evolution and development is one thing, the rise of genera is another and not fully explained.
It is perfectly explained. You simply don't understand the theory of Evolution by natural selection. If you did, you wouldn't make such an absurd assertion. Speciation through natural selection (and other forms of evolutionary selection) occurs, and it is a fact. It's not something that is up in the air.
If you're in doubt, I've documented a long and detailed thread on the evidence for Evolution in the atheist forum. But I highly doubt you're actually interested in the evidence, when you start off the discussion with an absurd term like 'evilution'.But to get to genetic mutation you have to explain how DNA came about in the first place. Amino acids, fine, DNA, no answer yet.
It doesn't have to. It has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution. Evolution explains the wide array of species that we have today, it does not explain nor does it try to explain the origins of life. That is a separate subject called abiogenesis.From organic compounds to living, moving, reproducing creatures - explain please?
Don't know, don't have to know. It has no bearing on the theory of evolution. Like I said, I'm not making the claim that I know for certain about the origins of life. Theists are the only ones making such claims. At least sciences in labs are working on experiments, even if it is not fully complete - while theists are citing fables from bronze age Palestinians.If science, acording to you, doesn't have to say how life began, then why study cosmology? Does science not have to explain why the big bang happend and what caused it?
It's not that it 'has' to say how life began. It doesn't have a complete theory to explain it. That doesn't mean that we can't look at how planets, stars and galaxies are formed and understand the process after the big bang event has occurred. To put it mildly - 500 years ago, we were told that the Earth was the centre of the Universe - the amount of knowledge we have in the field of Cosmology today is stupendously more superior.Tell me, when do you think science will have an answer to what caused the Big bang and why?
I don't know. I'm not the one making claims of infallibility, Christians are.So you don't agree with religious freedom then. Why is that not a surprise.
You can practice all the religion you want - but when you wish to discuss scientific subjects, you cannot cite a Deity as the creator of the universe without a shred of evidence to support it, and expect to be taken seriously.0 -
HamletOrHecuba wrote: »Its in Pope Pius the 12 th's encycial on the matter- I will dig it up in the morning dont feel like doing it now- if you dont believe in a special creation of and very much historical Adam from whom all human nature flows from than Baptism doesnt make much sense does it? Read the Oath Against Modernism and St Pius the 10 th's encycial on modernism. Roman Catholics are not free to mess around with how they interput the Bible.
I have no interest in science but there are good scientific critiques of what is after all a theory and not proven fact whatever we have been brought up to believe.
We are born into a fallen state, even after Baptism and Eucharist we struggle, we await the final redemption of our nature and the restoration of the cosmos that Adam took with him when he fell as St Paul so clearly states- are you saying that God is to blame for the state of the world and human nature as we find? Are you going to say that God is responsible for death?
Pius XII promulgated Humani Generis which acknowledged that evolution might accurately describe the biological origins of human life, but at the same time criticized those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution... explains the origin of all things". not what you are saying at all.
Obvious that you have no interist because their are no good critiques of evolution. You are mixed up in your understanding of what a sientific theory is. A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. It is not as we use the term a guess.
As a Christian I believe that Christ conquered death. We are the easter people and our song is alleluia.0 -
Nope, and I don't require one. I never made the claim that I have an answer for either the beginning of the Universe, or the origins of life. I can say the it is work in progress, with many important areas tackled. You're asking for a science lab to replicate 100's of millions of years of subtle changes - it simply isn't possible.
Still doesn't answer the question I want an answer to. How did life begin?It is perfectly explained. You simply don't understand the theory of Evolution by natural selection. If you did, you wouldn't make such an absurd assertion. Speciation through natural selection (and other forms of evolutionary selection) occurs, and it is a fact. It's not something that is up in the air.
If you're in doubt, I've documented a long and detailed thread on the evidence for Evolution in the atheist forum. But I highly doubt you're actually interested in the evidence, when you start off the discussion with an absurd term like 'evilution'.
Speciation is fine, I have no problem with it. Wasn't my major but I enjoyed it. However, I'm talking the rise of a new genus, which evolution does not explain adequately because its focus is species.It doesn't have to. It has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution. Evolution explains the wide array of species that we have today, it does not explain nor does it try to explain the origins of life. That is a separate subject called abiogenesis.
I know evolution does not explain how life began, it explains speciation.
What I want to know is how life began and abiogenesis does not explain that.
So if abiogenisis can only provide suppostion, conjecture, and unsubstantiated theory how did life begin?Don't know, don't have to know. It has no bearing on the theory of evolution. Like I said, I'm not making the claim that I know for certain about the origins of life. Theists are the only ones making such claims. At least sciences in labs are working on experiments, even if it is not fully complete - while theists are citing fables from bronze age Palestinians.
Really? Is that what people you call theists are doing?
I thought the atehists mantra was that science can and will provide all the answers?It's not that it 'has' to say how life began. It doesn't have a complete theory to explain it. That doesn't mean that we can't look at how planets, stars and galaxies are formed and understand the process after the big bang event has occurred. To put it mildly - 500 years ago, we were told that the Earth was the centre of the Universe - the amount of knowledge we have in the field of Cosmology today is stupendously more superior.
Still not answering the questions. Why did the big bang happen and how did life begin.I don't know. I'm not the one making claims of infallibility, Christians are.
Is that another way of saying you cannot answer the question?You can practice all the religion you want - but when you wish to discuss scientific subjects, you cannot cite a Deity as the creator of the universe without a shred of evidence to support it, and expect to be taken seriously.
Why not? The guy who proposed the big bang theory was taken very seriously.0 -
Pius XII promulgated Humani Generis which acknowledged that evolution might accurately describe the biological origins of human life, but at the same time criticized those who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution... explains the origin of all things". not what you are saying at all.
It insisted on the Adam and Eve being the sole fountain of human life, it did not acknowledge evolution, it fudged the issue and was ambigous. I have read the various evidences put forward that there is no current Pope; if what you say is true given that evolution overthrows the foundations of Christianity it would figure largely.0 -
Gravity is also a theory. 'Theory' in science doesn't mean what many Christians seem to think it means (i.e. something between a guess and an outright lieHamletOrHecuba wrote: »I have no interest in science but there are good scientific critiques of what is after all a theory and not proven fact whatever we have been brought up to believe.
). 0 -
Advertisement
-
As a Christian I believe that Christ conquered death. We are the easter people and our song is alleluia.
I have no interest in scientific critiques because science is something that Im not suited too and dont have the knowledge to make valid judgements in. The fact of Christianity, the fact that there have been holy Christians, is enough for me to know that evolution is lies.
You havent answered my question; did God create death?
Yes Christ conquered death but conquering your own creation is rather weird thing.0 -
:rolleyes: At what point is there a winner declared in this?0
-
can you take this over to the mega thread ffs...0
-
HamletOrHecuba wrote: »I have no interest in scientific critiques because science is something that Im not suited too and dont have the knowledge to make valid judgements in. The fact of Christianity, the fact that there have been holy Christians, is enough for me to know that evolution is lies.
You havent answered my question; did God create death?
Yes Christ conquered death but conquering your own creation is rather weird thing.
Wow, just wow! that bit in bold has to be the worst piece of argument ever.
Death? are you asking if God created death as in the natural end of this human life? If so yes. If you are referencing to a spiritual death that separates us from God, no, thats a consequence of mans fall. Not the same thing at all.
Do you believe that no one had the imagination to write Genesis as a metaphor for the angst that haunts the human condition? that we are the only ones who could conceive of a feeling of loss and ideas of authenticity and inauthenticity. Are you aware that the Talmud starts with "in a begining..." BTW KJV or Good News? Which bible do you read to get your version of popular nonscience.0 -
This is just silly. You don't "know it's lies", you believe - without evidence - that 'it is lies'. This is not rational.HamletOrHecuba wrote: »I have no interest in scientific critiques because science is something that Im not suited too and dont have the knowledge to make valid judgements in. The fact of Christianity, the fact that there have been holy Christians, is enough for me to know that evolution is lies.
Saying that you can't be bothered reading about it to come to an informed view is like me saying that every that is said in French is a lie, but I don't understand French and I can't be arsed to learn it because 'it doesn't suit me'.
Incidentally, the scientific system that discovered evolution is the same one that allows you do all the things that would appear like pure magic to biblical characters - use a phone, a computer, and every other product of science. Unless you don't believe in these either? :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Still doesn't answer the question I want an answer to. How did life begin?
I don't remember proclaiming to have an answer. I merely stated that it was a work in progress. Theists however are proclaiming to have the final answer - a Deity which lacks any evidence whatsoever.Speciation is fine, I have no problem with it. Wasn't my major but I enjoyed it. However, I'm talking the rise of a new genus, which evolution does not explain adequately because its focus is species.
Er, speciation over longer periods of time gives way to a new genus. Evolution explains it just fine. If you accept that speciation can occur, giving rise to a new species - then all you need to do is allocate that speciation more time, and you will see the rise of a new genus. The early members of the homo genus for example weren't too distant from the Australopithecus genus. All it takes is one species to deviate enough over time, to give rise to a new genus.I know evolution does not explain how life began, it explains speciation.
What I want to know is how life began and abiogenesis does not explain that.
So if abiogenisis can only provide suppostion, conjecture, and unsubstantiated theory how did life begin?
The goal of abiogenesis is to explain the origins of life. I have at no point stated that it has completed this task, or that it has a fully functional theory to date. But as stated, it has done some remarkable work - as mentioned with the Miller-Urey experiment, and continues to work on it.Really? Is that what people you call theists are doing?
It's not what I call anything - it is a fact. Christians claim that the bible is infallible, and claim certainty with a Deity as the architect of life and the universe. They do not have any evidence to support it.
Scientists on the other hand have cited evidence which explains how planets and stars are formed, and how life went from simple microbial life up to the modern complex array of animals we see today. There is enough evidence out there to demonstrate that there was no intelligent force in the creation of life, or the universe.I thought the atehists mantra was that science can and will provide all the answers?
You thought wrong.Still not answering the questions. Why did the big bang happen and how did life begin.
There is no why. There is only how. I do not know how life began, but based on ongoing experiments - I don't believe that it's impossible for life to arise without any input. I also believe that life is not confined to our planet, and is common across the Universe.
Now, are you going to ask me the same stupid questions again - or are you going to actually acknowledge the answers?0 -
Monty Burnz wrote: »This is just silly. You don't "know it's lies", you believe - without evidence - that 'it is lies'. This is not rational.
I didnt say without evidence. I said without scientific evidence.
I said that the evidence of the saints disproves.0 -
Death? are you asking if God created death as in the natural end of this human life? If so yes. If you are referencing to a spiritual death that separates us from God, no, thats a consequence of mans fall. Not the same thing at all.
2:23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.
2:24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.
The Book of Wisdom.0 -
HamletOrHecuba wrote: »I didnt say without evidence. I said without scientific evidence.
I said that the evidence of the saints disproves.
But you don't know the evidence because understanding it 'doesn't suit you'. You just admitted that. And it's frankly bizarre argument. Your argument is something like this:
1. Cats exist.
2. Therefore Jesus was a fake.
There's no link between the two things. It makes no sense. It is irrational.
Can you explain why science seems to work successfully and demonstrably in EVERY FIELD except evolution?0 -
Just a thought, ever notice how you always hear it referred to as 'the theory of evolution' no one uses the Theory of Electromagnetism or The Theory of Plate Tectonics or Theory of Gravity but evolution and relativity get treated as if they were wild supositions.0
-
genesis is no more a complete explanation for the worlds beginnings any more than the marketing advert for a car represents a complete and detailed explanation of how it works or how it can be built.
You might well of just said milk, flour , sugar and some magic dust and it would of been more plausible.
It was the very best 'story' of how something might logically of been put together by a god but imagined and written down by a man and far play to them they did a fair enough job. It does have some logical sense but falls down everywhere. Light and dark and then night and day make sense in a world where you DONT KNOW you are spinning around a planetary body but in the context of the bible they make no sense. You cant have night and day before you create the planets, but the writers didn't know this.
It annoys me to the core that christians use the bible as a scientific reference when it's writers never had that in mind its not even about that in the slightest, its a book about morals and the human spirit. IF there was a jesus he'd have his head in his hands weeping at all the creation museums that have sprung up in the U and christians devoting way too much time to a fruitless exercise.
I can understand why they do it to a degree. If science proves this element of the bible wrong then they could do it with other sections and they need to fight it.
Christians need to take all the best elements from the bible, use it in their lives and move forward without having to rely on the bible as an immovable and un-negotiable element that not one part can ever be bent or changed. The fact that so many christians devote so much time to the creation story shows just how weak and easily undermined it is.0 -
I don't remember proclaiming to have an answer. I merely stated that it was a work in progress. Theists however are proclaiming to have the final answer - a Deity which lacks any evidence whatsoever.
There are theists and there are theists. Do you have a problem with calling people Christians, Jews or whatever?
As for the evidence - seek and ye shall find. His Son walked the Earth and amonst other things founded His Church which proclaims the Truth.Er, speciation over longer periods of time gives way to a new genus. Evolution explains it just fine. If you accept that speciation can occur, giving rise to a new species - then all you need to do is allocate that speciation more time, and you will see the rise of a new genus. The early members of the homo genus for example weren't too distant from the Australopithecus genus. All it takes is one species to deviate enough over time, to give rise to a new genus.
So in other words it is speculation and I have to accept something for which there is not a shred of hard experimental evidence to support the supposition.The goal of abiogenesis is to explain the origins of life. I have at no point stated that it has completed this task, or that it has a fully functional theory to date. But as stated, it has done some remarkable work - as mentioned with the Miller-Urey experiment, and continues to work on it.
It might be the goal but there is no ball anywhere near a net yet. Anything more than one experiment that shows that simple molecules can form if someone puts certain chemicals in to the right conditions?
It's not what I call anything - it is a fact. Christians claim that the bible is infallible, and claim certainty with a Deity as the architect of life and the universe. They do not have any evidence to support it.
Architect would be a Freemasonry term. The Bible records that God created the Universe, the Earth and all life on it. There is not a shred of evidence to say otherwise.Scientists on the other hand have cited evidence which explains how planets and stars are formed, and how life went from simple microbial life up to the modern complex array of animals we see today. There is enough evidence out there to demonstrate that there was no intelligent force in the creation of life, or the universe.
So you said but science still does not say what caused the Big bang in the first place or how life started. Nor has it presented any evidence that can in any way demonstrate that there is no intelligent force involved in the creation of the universe of the creation of life for the simple reason that that is not the job of science.You thought wrong.
Well simply put there has to be an answer to every question. There are clearly questions that science can never answer. These are the same questions that atheists cannot answer either.
Both science and theology are pathways to God.
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism." Kelvin.There is no why. There is only how. I do not know how life began, but based on ongoing experiments - I don't believe that it's impossible for life to arise without any input. I also believe that life is not confined to our planet, and is common across the Universe.
For someone who supposedly takes the null position on belief that is some statement.
You have not one shred of evidence that there is life outside of this planet yet you believe that it exists, and that it is commonplace, while still having absolutely no explanation for how it is even remotely possible.
If you can believe in that why do you so willingly reject God?0 -
Just ignorance as to what a theory is in scientific terms. I suppose they think it means what you would call a 'hypothesis' in science.Just a thought, ever notice how you always hear it referred to as 'the theory of evolution' no one uses the Theory of Electromagnetism or The Theory of Plate Tectonics or Theory of Gravity but evolution and relativity get treated as if they were wild supositions.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Funnily enough, this evidence that you find compelling is certainly not convincing even to other theists who are equally convinced by the existence hundreds of totally different god/s.As for the evidence - seek and ye shall find. His Son walked the Earth and amonst other things founded His Church which proclaims the Truth.
I'm conscious that this is the Christianity board but it's an inescapable fact that thousands of religions are equally convinced that they have the true answer, so your argument counts on every other religion being wrong - in addition to the science that you surely can't help notice works perfectly well in every sphere of research bar evolution (and geology, depending on what type of creationist you are - even within creationism there isn't agreement on the facts).0 -
Advertisement
-
HamletOrHecuba wrote: »I have no interest in scientific critiques because science is something that Im not suited too and dont have the knowledge to make valid judgements in. The fact of Christianity, the fact that there have been holy Christians, is enough for me to know that evolution is lies.:rolleyes: At what point is there a winner declared in this?
I think we can declare a winner now!
If not we can certainly declare a loserRush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.
0 -
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. Look at video below
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats ), 80% with cows 75% with mice , and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordatadescended from a common ancestor.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.0 -
Hi Cossax, as a Roman Catholic we would be pretty free to believe in evolution in a theistic sense, which insists on the special creation of the 'soul' by God whether mans body developed from previous biological forms is perfectly fine to believe, we would also believe that God created the universe out of nothing - concerning the time they took to develop is not important, but understanding that nothing exists without God is iykwim.
The Church doesn't have any specific teaching in relation to evolution in the 'scientific' sense, and neither should she imo, we live and learn - other than one is not free to understand it in the atheistic sense, which would exclude God.
Hope that helps.
In saying that, it is perfectly fine to understand Scripture as a Creationist may, and of course many Catholics do in fact understand it this way - the Church won't tell them they are wrong, just that it's not particularly an article of our faith. So in essence you may find many Catholics who may not be 'up' on evolution who perhaps understand Genesis more literally than others - either way, it's of no consequence to ones soul iykwim and the Church would in general say that Scripture reveals itself more fully with the passing of time.
I think the general consensus among Catholics would be to understand Scripture and Science as lending themselves to better understanding of the world around us - and many Catholics would have been taught evolution in school and have no problem balancing their Faith and Science - it's a non issue for most of us.0 -
Just a thought, ever notice how you always hear it referred to as 'the theory of evolution' no one uses the Theory of Electromagnetism or The Theory of Plate Tectonics or Theory of Gravity but evolution and relativity get treated as if they were wild supositions.
General relativity is the theory of gravitation. Scientists often refer to the theory of electromagnetism or the theory of plate tectonics. Quantum field theory is arguably the most rigorously tested and established theory in science. There's no issue with the title "theory of evolution" in the scientific community.0 -
There are theists and there are theists. Do you have a problem with calling people Christians, Jews or whatever?
I don't, it's irrelevant.As for the evidence - seek and ye shall find. His Son walked the Earth and amonst other things founded His Church which proclaims the Truth.
Proclaiming the truth, and actually being the truth are two completely different things. I've sought evidence, and I didn't find any to support the biblical account. Why? Because there is none.Architect would be a Freemasonry term. The Bible records that God created the Universe, the Earth and all life on it. There is not a shred of evidence to say otherwise.
Er, that's not how it works I'm afraid. If you make a supernatural claim, the onus is on you to back up the said claim with evidence. For example - if I claim that there is a flying spaghetti monster, the onus is on me to prove it. I simply couldn't go around and say "There isn't a shred of evidence to say otherwise". That's not how science or logic works. You could say the same thing about any potential unsubstantiated figure. Now - you can say that you feel that there is a God, and that's fine - but don't say that is a God and it is a fact, because it has no evidence to support such a claim.So you said but science still does not say what caused the Big bang in the first place or how life started. Nor has it presented any evidence that can in any way demonstrate that there is no intelligent force involved in the creation of the universe of the creation of life for the simple reason that that is not the job of science.
That's not it's goal. Once again, if you make a claim that something exists - you must prove it to be the case. Your entire argument is based on the routine 'God of the Gaps' argument. It's a logical fallacy. Put down your bible, and pick up a book on basic critical thinking. Then you might be able to actually have a reasoned debate with me, that isn't full of predictable nonsense.Both science and theology are pathways to God.
Which God? Zeus, Poseidon, Yaweh?You have not one shred of evidence that there is life outside of this planet yet you believe that it exists, and that it is commonplace, while still having absolutely no explanation for how it is even remotely possible.
I'm not making an absolute claim of life existing outside Earth. I am making a probability claim which can be substantiated based on the Drake equation. I don't believe that the Earth is unique. In the short space of time we have been searching for planets outside our solar system, we've already found a number that fall within the Goldilocks zone. Who knows, in due time - we may even find very primitive microbial life on other planets in the solar system.
Our galaxy has billions of stars, with billions of other planets.. Our Universe has billions of Galaxies. It is a perfectly reasoned stance to suggest that life isn't unique to this one lump of rock in our solar system. To do so would be arrogance of the highest order.0 -
I'm not making an absolute claim of life existing outside Earth. I am making a probability claim which can be substantiated based on the Drake equation. I don't believe that the Earth is unique. In the short space of time we have been searching for planets outside our solar system, we've already found a number that fall within the Goldilocks zone. Who knows, in due time - we may even find very primitive microbial life on other planets in the solar system.
Our galaxy has billions of stars, with billions of other planets.. Our Universe has billions of Galaxies. It is a perfectly reasoned stance to suggest that life isn't unique to this one lump of rock in our solar system. To do so would be arrogance of the highest order.I also believe that life is not confined to our planet, and is common across the Universe.
The point is you believe in it. Without a shred of evidence you believe in a spaghetti monster on a planet far far away in a dim distant galaxy.
Your position is not longer tenable.0 -
The point is you believe in it.
Once again - I am not making an absolute claim. I have a statistical equation which I base my beliefs on. That is greatly different than someone saying "God created the Universe, and it is a fact."Without a shred of evidence you believe in a spaghetti monster on a planet far far away in a dim distant galaxy.
Drop the strawman.Your position is not longer tenable.
My position is fine, and has remained consistent. Your inability to comprehend basic logic and follow the general flow of a conversation however, is suspect.0 -
My position is fine, and has remained consistent. Your inability to comprehend basic logic and follow the general flow of a conversation however, is suspect.
Of course it is. You are not prepared to believe in anything for which there is no evidence.I also believe that life is not confined to our planet, and is common across the Universe.
Present your evidence.0 -
Of course it is. You are not prepared to believe in anything for which there is no evidence.
But there is evidence. There is evidence that the conditions for life to exist are not limited to Earth. The Keplar mission continues to find planets within the Goldilocks zone. This means that Earth is not unique, and wasn't created for the benefit of man.
There is evidence for organic compounds arising from inorganic material. This demonstrates that something of purpose can arise from meaningless material, without any divine intervention.
So while I'm not asserting for fact that life exists outside of Earth, what I am stating is that the probability for it, in my view is high.
Now compare and contrast that with the Adam & Eve tale, and an Earth created in 6 days. It simply doesn't coincide with the evidence. We know humans weren't put on the earth, but evolved from more primitive members of the homo genus. We know Earth and the universe wasn't created in 6 days - but rather took billions of years.
So the only case you could ever put forth for a Deity is this - That a Deity set off the big bang, waited billions of years and then created very basic microbial life on earth and left it evolve over the next billion years without any input.
There is absolutely no argument whatsoever in favour of the biblical account of creation. It has no merit whatsoever.0 -
Advertisement
-
But there is evidence. There is evidence that the conditions for life to exist are not limited to Earth. The Keplar mission continues to find planets within the Goldilocks zone. This means that Earth is not unique, and wasn't created for the benefit of man.
Evidence of a planet in a goldlocks zone is not evidence of life, is it.There is evidence for organic compounds arising from inorganic material. This demonstrates that something of purpose can arise from meaningless material, without any divine intervention.
That is evidence that chemical reactions occur when you put certain chemicals together. Sticking an iron bar into a bucket of salty water is one thing but getting from a collections of atoms and molecules to a living organism is another.
So still no evidence of how this life you believe in on some planet ina goldilocks zone is going to arise.So while I'm not asserting for fact that life exists outside of Earth, what I am stating is that the probability for it, in my view is high.
No, what you asserted was that you believe there is life on other planets and that life in the universe is commonplace but you have no hard evidence. In fact you have nothing to back your belief up but your faith in an appeal to probability.0
Advertisement