Yeah, but you can sure see it coming.
Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
You are conflating science and truth. Science is a useful tool that provides benefits to us through its use in the form of technology, but that doesn't make it truth and has nothing to do with what one chooses to do when one is sick.
Truth is a philosophical consideration, outside the realm of science at the insistence of virtually all the evos on this board. Science, being limited to the physical, material, observable world, cannot address truth, which is not physcial, material, or observable. *truth* and *science* are not synonymous.
Prove gravity. I don't see any gravity.
Nor do I see magnetic fields, nor radio waves, or the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.
I don't see the laws of thermodynamics. Prove that they exist.
I don't see a vacuum. Prove it exists.
I don't see atoms. Prove they exist.
Prove emotions and thoughts. I don't see them. Prove they exist.
What about will? Decision making? Consciousness? Love? Hate? Anger?
So we agree that there is evidence of a creator, or intelligent designer in nature.
I would agree that this alone would not indicate the designer to be God. I had this conversation with a friend of mine over Christmas. He is a molecular biologist in charge of a research dept at a medical school. He doesn't believe in God. He holds to evolution for the development of life even though he admits that science can't explain how inorganic matter becacame organic and then self replicating.
However, then you move to Scripture that was written over 1,500 years and the evidence is there from the miracles preformed and the fulfillment of prophesy. Is that such a big step once you recognize that there is a design in nature?
Jump out of a plane without a parachute at 10,000 feet and you see the effects of gravity.
Ben Stein produced a movie "Expelled" that did a nice job explaining the war against free thought by the evolutionists. Science has never been able to explain, let alone duplicate, how inorganic material became organic and then became self replicating.
The universe and world were created. They had a beginning.
If the steady state theory were true that might be argued, however the evidence does point towards some type of big bang event.
Reality is real even if it don't appear logical to humans..
God is very logical.. its just which God you comprehend..
There are many Gods.. including the real one..
If you have NO God then your God becomes yourself..
Getting rid of God is like ignoring yourself in a mirror..
Its like being blind.. the image is still there anyway..
Yeah, but you can sure see it coming.
I never said it did.
OTOH, evos/atheists argue that nature doesn't require a creator and yet have no proof to provide to back up their assertion
Just as believers have no proof that there is one. That's why it require faith. To accept the material world as it is doesn't require faith.
Because God is not the world
Is that a fact or just your opinion/belief? But since you seem to know, then tell me what is God?
Would you mind telling me what is truth?
It is hidden inside the dense rind surrounding the minds of the some.
Open the window, take an object, place it outside the windown, let it go.
It works for believers and nonbleievers.
I don't see the laws of thermodynamics. Prove that they exist
Fine. Drive 100 mph and then try to make a sharp turn and see what happens. YOu odn;t have to believe the world.
Or, better yet, stand in fornt of an oncoming train and pretend that you are a spirit and see if the train goes through you.
(actually don't do any of these...you could get hurt).
I don't see atoms. Prove they exist.
Electron microscopes have actually shown molecular structures.
All the things you mentuion DO something. Your "spirits" do nothing. Big difference.
No, there is evidence that we exist. A creator is inferred, but not necessarily proven.
He doesn't believe in God. He holds to evolution for the development of life even though he admits that science can't explain how inorganic matter became organic and then self replicating.
Inability to prove how these things came about does not prove God. nevertheless we have self-replcating organic molecules.
However, then you move to Scripture that was written over 1,500 years
That is not a universally accepted fact.
and the evidenceis there from the miracles preformed and the fulfillment of prophesy. Is that such a big step once you recognize that there is a design in nature?
That is accepted on belief. The Bible describes a lot of magical things, but this is not a magical world, wmfights.
Yes, the effects....
Thank you.
To the Intelligent Design crowd the movie was great. To the rest of the world it wasn't. Maybe you should read some of the critique as well.
The fact that science cannot explain something doesn't prove God. Claiming it does is fallacious reasoning.
If the steady state theory were true that might be argued, however the evidence does point towards some type of big bang event.
Steady state theory (now rejected) argued that matter forms form nothing spontaneously. Big Bang suggests there was a "starting point" to the moment of creation. but it doesn't show that it was the first time.
Is truth a thing? Can science measure it?
You seem to know what is truth, so please share.
What makes you, you? What makes your character? Your personality? What gives you preferences; likes and dislikes? Emotions? Reasoning ability?
Yes. Most of the things you mentioned are just our mathematical models to help us explain how they function and make predictions (i.e., ensure the plane doesn't fall out of the sky).
That makes your comparison seem strange in that it means that societies need a 'god' to explain natural phenomena.
No one is saying that it's *magic*. But there is reality that exists that science can't deal with.
Tell us about the laws of physics. Tell us about anything not directly observable with the senses and without physical form. There's plenty in science that is not material but rather deduced from the effects it has on other things.
You could call those magic as well. And at one time they were considered magic, until someone decided to move them out of that category for one reason or another.
There is a lot of this universe which can still not be explained. Science doesn't have all the answers because it can't have all the answers. But everything not able to be addressed by science cannot simply be blown off as *magic*.
Scientists are rather arbitrary in their labeling of *supernatural* or *magic* those things which science can't explain. If they can divorce it from religious belief, it becomes *natural* and gains respectability in their eyes. If they can't divorce it from religion, then they label it as magic or supernatural and disparage it.
Likewise, the fact that science can explain something doesn't disprove God nor does it eliminate the need for God nor is it the only possible explanation for the cause of an event. Claiming it does is fallacious reasoning and yet it's used by scientists constantly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.