What do you mean by discuss? Do you mean, do I want someone to teach me what they think I don't know? Or do you mean do I wish to have a two way discussion about the explanations scientists give?
You can decide if you wish to start a new thread.
Are you on this thread to discuss how the evidence presented is the OP satisfactorily supports the existence of a creator? Or are you interested only in presenting an argument for evolution?
I can meet you halfway, but I am not about to go on another one track ride.
The last discussion I had with someone where a teaching approach common on these forums, was employed, caused the cart to run off the track.
In other words, a discussion is two way. That means that one person doesn't take it upon themselves to ask questions, and avoid answering questions, or present arguments while ignoring counter arguments.
If your approach is different, that might work.
Already, though, it looks a bit like the common approach.
For example, instead of addressing the argument in the OP, which seems to me a strong argument, you have not made any effort to counter it, or show why it is not a good argument, if you think it isn't.
Rather you make a case for evolution being believable.
Okay, so you don't want to discuss the argument in the OP. I flexed because you touched on something I mentioned.
I responded by making
a few points, with a few questions. Perhaps you didn't acknowledge them because you wanted to discuss something else, but once again, you make a case for evolution being believable, by suggesting discussing how the evolutionary process satisfactorily explains stuff.
I don't know your intentions... You will have to tell me, but consider how it might look to me.
It looks to me, as though we started on a one track ride already.
I'm not looking to have things my way. I just believe in fair debate/discussion - two way.
I think on a debate forum, one should feel free to present information, which they think will be a good counter argument to a presented argument.
I also think one should feel free to create a thread with an argument that challenges another's post.
I see persons doing that, and I think that does well for debate forums.
So I am all for that.
When you present your argument say, for evolutionary explanation for what you believe is so believable.
I will ask questions, which I think it's fair my questions are addressed. Would you agree?
I'll let you know these questions in advanced, and why it's important they be considered.
:
How do scientists arrive at their explanations?
Much of the evidence is arrived at by assumptions, suppositions, interpretations, inferences,... is that not true?
Many of these are not universally accepted, but are declared as the best explanation, true?
What makes this evidence any different to what others have... is it because certain methods are applied?
If the methods applied makes it so good, why are there disagreements, and different theories proposed, and realizations that the suppositions were wrong?
It is not that the evidence suddenly spoke in a voice, and told the story. Is it?
There are more questions, but I'll save them.
Long and short of it, scientists observe things, and arrive at conclusion in the same way anyone else does.
There is no direct evidence. When there is no direct evidence, we have to use reasoning, logic, and make inference from the evidence we have.
Circumstantial evidence does not only tell one story.
Because persons declare their evidence to be the best explanation, does not mean they are right. Is that not so?
We have not directly seen a creator at work, but there is evidence that allows us to infer that life was created by an intelligent designer.
I have presented just some of that evidence in this thread with the intent that it would meet, and stand up to the best argument against it. There is a reason why it holds.
I hope my explanation was clear and understandable.
My previous experiences have been as I said before; persons just ignore my questions, and make silly excuses for doing so, or evade answering them by various methods.
If you are willing to address them, but don't want to do it in this thread, then by all means, feel free to go ahead and create a new thread - I will respond.
So if I assume that nothing brought forth something would you consider that magic?
Does anything move without a force having acted on it?
Things like inflation, natural selection... are nothing more than fairy godmothers or genies conjured up to poof away problems.
The Inflation Theory proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments. It was developed around 1980 to explain several puzzles with the standard Big Bangtheory, in which the universe expands relatively gradually throughout its history.
Observed? No, but they work to give the story a smooth transition, until another hiccup pops up... Then we invoke another genie, or fairy.
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore
We are made from stretched quantum fluctuations. At least that’s cosmologists’ currently most popular explanation.
Evidence for Cosmic Inflation Theory Bites the (Space) Dust
It is the announcement no one wanted to hear: The most exciting astronomical discovery of 2014 has vanished. Two groups of scientists announced today (Jan. 30) that a tantalizing signal — which some scientists claimed was "smoking gun" evidence of dramatic cosmic expansion just after the birth of the universe — was actually caused by something much more mundane: interstellar dust.
Then to claim that Christian are employing magic, because they are using observation, experimentation, reasoning and logic, outside of a lab, and lab coat, to me seems quite absurd.
What is the point regarding design?
Unfortunately I have to get back to you later on this, since I am straining my eyes to see what I am reading and writing. So I will return to this hopefully later.
