That's the case with most religious folks. For example, the vast majority of people who agree with scientists on evolution (including human evolution) are theists.
Some are, some aren't. While all conclusions in science are tentative, it's extremely unlikely we'll be changing our conclusions on things like that the earth is a sphere, that it orbits the sun, etc.
Right. But so much does change.
This makes some of us po' folk not trust science 100%.
Do you have specific examples?
Yes!
When I was going to high school we were taught that the universe always existed.
Now we come to believe that there was a beginning.
This created a problem for macroevolution because the time necessary for big changes was cut down.
Well, you should probably take that up with the ID creationists themselves. They never bothered to do any actual scientific research into it. They even shut down their sham of a "research arm" years ago.
You really cannot do scientific research when it comes to God.
I don't know if there's a way that could be done.
But take the Big Bang theory, for instance.
With the help of Cern in Sw. we've been able to go back to almost the beginning of space and time.
We get stopped just before the bang.
Do you think we'll ever go any further back?
I don't think so. Why?
Because there was NO space or time before that.
I just wish science would take everything into consideration...
I'm just trying to gauge what specifically you're looking for.
No problem. Maybe we just should have derailed a few posts and taken care of this.
It won't go on forever - I'm not that type on any thread.
Humans evolved from non-human primates, who also had eyes, and their ancestors had eyes, as did their ancestors, and so on.
You're not going back far enough.
If you want some basic info on the evolution of eyes, try this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/
No. I read up on it.
I'm saying that it doesn't make sense that the eye EVOLVED.
It seems like something that had to just be put there...
God, or whatever, had to have put the eye in the person already in a functioning condition.
Oh, so you mean the origin of the first living things on earth. Basically, that's an unsolved mystery at the moment. That's why scientists continue to conduct research and lab experiments into it.
Yes, sorry, that's what I mean.
I'm really more interested in the beginning of life.
Not that we're going to get into that discussion.
I don't think so, given two things. First, when we look at the inner workings of the cell all we see is chemistry; there's no magic or supernatural things going on. So it stands to reason that the first cells came about via chemistry as well.
Right. Dr. James Tour is probably the leading Chemist (forget the type) in the world, or at least, one of the top.
He believes there's no possibility that chemicals could have combined to create life based solely on change.
Second, no matter where we look in the universe and no matter what we study, all we see are natural processes producing natural outcomes. We don't see gods creating or designing anything anywhere. So it's logical to conclude that the same holds true when it comes to the origin of life.
Hmmm. Will have to disagree. How can we know?
The Web telescope is give us information we had no way of knowing before.
There's still, possibly, creation still going on!
They say God is a creator.
First, "microevolution" is evolution. That's why it has the term "evolution" in it.
I believe in microevolution.
It's the macro that gives many a problem.
Second, the evolution of new species is macroevolution ("microevolution" being evolution within species),
which has been directly observed many times.
I don't see how.
What about the cambrian explosion?
You must know about that as a biologist.
There seems to be an explosion of new life without proof of macroevolution.
I suppose you're free to that view, but I've not seen any signs that ID creationism is even alive.
Well, it seems to me that Atheists are beginning to realize that the system of relative morality cannot work in society.
And if we need objective morality to survive - who makes the decision as to what is moral?
No God
No Morals
What do you think?
